Jump to content

Talk:2017: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Rfc: charlottes ville RFC ~~~~
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1,013: Line 1,013:
*'''Oppose''' - No international impact even though it was reported in reliable sources outside the US. [[User:Meatsgains|Meatsgains]] ([[User talk:Meatsgains|talk]]) 01:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - No international impact even though it was reported in reliable sources outside the US. [[User:Meatsgains|Meatsgains]] ([[User talk:Meatsgains|talk]]) 01:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' because it's a domestic event. There's no reason to include this; we're excluding all the other vehicle-ramming attacks which have happened this year. [[User:Jim Michael|Jim Michael]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael|talk]]) 02:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' because it's a domestic event. There's no reason to include this; we're excluding all the other vehicle-ramming attacks which have happened this year. [[User:Jim Michael|Jim Michael]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael|talk]]) 02:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
*'"Support'" car ramming incident in UK has been included in wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Finsbury_Park_attack This incident has been main news story for several UK national media outlets including the conservative outlets Charlottesville - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40927089 [[User:Isthisuseful|Isthisuseful]] ([[User talk:Isthisuseful|talk]]) 06:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:24, 15 August 2017

WikiProject iconYears List‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Ready] Prodigy

(non-admin closure) Consensus to include. Arguments for inclusion were more plentiful and backed by sources.- MrX 13:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I see there has been some scuffling over his inclusion in this article. I would argue he is worth inclusion, since he was part of a successful musical act and met WP:RY at the time of his death, but since there have been like 3 removals and reinsertions of him I'm starting a thread here to gain consensus. Thanks Nohomersryan (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude - he didn't have significant international notability in his own right. Jim Michael (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Include just because he didn't have an article on "nine Wikipedias" at the time of his death, it doesn't mean he wasn't significantly internationally notable in his own right. A lot of good work has gone into the article since its nomination at ITNC so it would be foolhardy to exclude it on such arcane grounds. Plus he's featured on 14 Wikipedias!! And his death has been widely covered, e.g. Australasia, Europe, North America, South America, Asia, Africa etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Include - as of the final diff prior to his death, his article was on 13 other languages + Simple English, a clear WP:RYD pass.- OZOO 09:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Include as has been widely covered in sources (as shown by TRM), Being on another Wikipedia should have no bearing here and it's quite laughable that anyone would think otherwise - I don't mean to be disrespectful but most of the articles I've come across on foreign Wikipedias are all hopelessly shite (EN being the only project so far that actually cares about its articles) but regardless of all that the rapper was notable so therefore should be included. –Davey2010Talk 13:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this project seems to have deemed "nine appearances on non-English Wikipedia" to be the bar for "significant notability"... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to assume good faith when earlier this month you said that he shouldn't be listed on this article. I removed him, now you say that he should be included?! Jim Michael (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's utterly moronic in every sense of the word, Any clueless plank can create an article on for instance DE Wiki and it would never be deleted because the patrolling is next to none on most if not all projects so this "policy" or whatever you wanna call it is just stupid!. –Davey2010Talk 17:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you want Prodigy included?! Jim Michael (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in spite of the "nine Wikipedias" rule, which, as noted, is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you suggest that he shouldn't be included? Also, do you really think he's internationally notable as a soloist? Jim Michael (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because his article was junk, and that was before I realised this project doesn't care about article quality at all. And since when does "as a soloist" enter the criteria? Can you point me to that please? And please use "preview", you create so many edit conflicts that it's frustrating. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been the consensus for years. Jim Michael (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to that wording in the criteria please, particularly as we're looking to help our readers understand who and who is not eligible for inclusion in these articles? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not written in the criteria, but it's been established as consensus after discussions on talk pages of recent year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so yet another "hidden" rule that neither editors nor readers are aware of. Got it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The long-standing editors know. Yes, it should be clarified in the criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(a) it doesn't make it right and (b) how do the readers know? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The long-standing editors know." - No .... no we don't! - Contrary to popular belief we're not mind readers and nor are the readers of this project, Without sounding disrespectful it really does seem like you're making all this up as you go along ......, Point us to these various discussion ... if you cannot provide links then all of your posts should be ignored entirely. –Davey2010Talk 21:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean long-standing editors of RY articles. There are discussions in the talk archives. Jim Michael (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well those editors are somewhat irrelevant. You have new editors and new readers, none of whom are aware of all these hidden criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You well know that if you wish the inclusion criteria to be comprehensively described and available to all, you should not be pointing people to "discussions in the talk archives", that's simply not how it works. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Although I think he should be included, I can't say I see a consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and you shouldn't close a discussion you participated in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you care, re-open the discussion, otherwise it's more heat than light. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reopening, then, as clearly an improper closure. Still no consensus, even as to what is being discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, a clear consensus exists, just one person says no, on dubious grounds, while four say yes. Still, why make a decision when more heat can be generated, Arthur Rubin, standard admin behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, you've changed your mind on whether or not to include him, you prematurely closed as discussion in which you were involved and you're continuing your patronising sniping. That's against the rules and far from civil. My reasoning is that he doesn't have significant solo international notability - which is the consensus for including deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, remember what I said, he shouldn't have been included when his article was junk. It isn't now. And besides, the article more than meets this project's criteria. The discussion (with four people in favour of his inclusion against your singular opposition) was wasting time, and no, there's no "patronising sniping", there's just a real need for you to start answering questions properly, that's not "against the rules", and nothing to do with civility. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. where in the criteria does it mention "solo notability"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - I read the article Prodigy (rapper) and Prodigy discography. Honestly, this rapper (should have added quotation marks, but whatever) hasn't done much significance to be included in the "2017" page. The impact was... too regional in contrast to other past rappers like Tupac Shakur whose careers were significant internationally. Prodigy's death is already adequate in 2017 in the United States, so I don't know why else his death should be mentioned in the "2017" page. I don't see also why readers should be given an entry about the death of a rapper other than to encourage readers to become editors or to reflect what press outlets do to their own audiences. Wikipedia readers interested in what happened in the US this year can go to the other page. Those interested in searching for the whole year itself can be shown a sidebox and other entries. Meanwhile, no offense to African Americans, but there are already others like Chuck Berry and René Préval, both more significant than Prodgy. --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err...I don't think there is a limit on the amount of black people we can have on the list. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, sorry. I shouldn't have implied discrimination. I don't know which part to strike out, so I'll rephrase: Why including Prodigy (rapper) other than he's dead and to match the media outlets' coverage of his death? I don't see how impactful Prodigy was in his lifetime. Has he made any significant works? Also, we already have selected whoever is significant at this point. Why add more from other past months? Well, the whole year is incomplete because we've not past the future months of the year, so there will be more significant events and deaths of significant personalities this year. --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nohomersryan, may you or I add the RFC tag then? This needs more attention. George Ho (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go ahead with an RfC. Jim Michael (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added the RFC tag. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include (Summoned by bot) But lets get rid of that 9 Wikipedias rule, per the above. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - He was a notable rapper, as well as a member in a two-man notable rap group. The criteria of significance as a solo artist confuses me if that is a real rule. Also the number of Wikipedia articles created on other languages also confuses me. It's borderline circular reasoning for how notable he is. There are articles on other wiki's that wouldn't necessarily be notable here, and vice versa. From WP:OTHERLANGS: A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable. - that idea works both ways, the lack of an article elsewhere does not mean he is less notable, and therefore other language contents shouldn't be used as a guideline, at least not a blanket one. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Cholera in Yemen

This entry has been removed by Jim Michael. It's an internationally notable event cited by the United Nations. It passes the "three continents" test. It should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We even have a good article on it, 2016–17 Yemen cholera outbreak, which is currently featured from the main page and is getting tens of thousands of hits. It's hardly a Kim Kardashian wedding or selfie, but it's important and should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has to affect multiple countries for it to be an international event. The UN mention many domestic events. Media coverage doesn't mean it's internationally important. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. The criteria allow for it to be posted if it's reported in three continents. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: New events added must receive independent news reporting from three continents on the event. This is a minimum requirement for inclusion.. This one has such coverage. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disasters have to be of global or near-global significance - which this isn't. Jim Michael (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, this isn't a "disaster", this is an outbreak of a disease. And look at this! The Saudis have given loadsamoney to Yemen to help with the effort in defeating it. A truly international story! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a type of disaster. It's very common for other countries to give aid to a country that's suffering a major problem - whether it be natural, man-made or a combination. Jim Michael (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Are you saying the three continent rule is a waste of time? You've dismissed it at least twice now. What's its purpose if all you and the others here do is say it's not good enough for posting anything? You all bring out "other criteria" on top of it, some real, some from the dark depths of talk pages etc. This is international in significance and should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's on WP:RY, not the archives. 3CR is only one of the criteria, it's not enough on its own. Jim Michael (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that. You know that, why are you making criteria up? I already asked you that last night. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does - the 3CR is a subheading of the Events section. Jim Michael (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyering now? It says clearly it's the minimum inclusion criterion. And it's been met. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's one of the criteria. Saudi Arabia giving aid may be motivated by wanting to prevent it spreading there, but it's still not an international event. Disease outbreaks are common. Jim Michael (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the minimum criterion required for inclusion, so it passes, so it can be included. Nothing you've said works against it. You keep mentioning "common" things, yet if they're so common, why are tomes like The New York Times covering them? Why would our community vote in favour of seeing it on the main page? I'm beginning to get the feeling that there's a real ownership issue here which will need serious external work to alleviate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Show me the last disease outbreak which affected 200,000 people in a single country yet was funded by another country and an international organisation to help remedy it please. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is presently no claim of international notibility in 2017. If there is a country, nominally at war with Yemen, supplying aid, I'd support that as being internationally notable. Much less than that, probably not. Disasters of any sort bring international aid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you're aware that Saudi are at war with Yemen yet have offered millions of dollars of aid? I don't follow your logic at all, but then this page is full of that kind of thing right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So add that to the text. As I said, the "stable" text has no claim of international notibility or importance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you didn't know the whole story. Ok. Perhaps that's why this project is failing, too many kneejerk reversions and claims of failure to meet hidden criteria. Next time let's all look at the story in more detail, like those of us who work on ITN articles for instance, where we may stand a chance of grasping the bigger picture. P.S. you didn't use the word "stable" once, so who knows what you're talking about... And why should this blurb be any different? Other 2017 blurbs offer no insight as to why this project has deemed them acceptable, there's no reason to single this one out, just because you didn't grasp its significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Individual outbreaks (especially those in rural Africa) often don't receive much media coverage or have WP articles. Jim Michael (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the last disease outbreak which affected 200,000 people in a single country yet was funded by another country and an international organisation to help remedy it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many were infected in other outbreaks, but even a high death toll isn't part of the inclusion criteria. There have certainly been many outbreaks which have prompted aid from other countries and international organisations. Jim Michael (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So this is a significant, internationally noted incident which passes the minimum criteria easily, and even some of those mystery ones you keep pulling out of the archives. It should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this remotely in question? Two hundred thousand people infected. The WHO calls it the world's largest cholera outbreak. It's been reported on every continent with permanent settlement, as far as I am aware. Seriously, there's isn't even an argument for exclusion here. Vanamonde (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance through this talk page and at WT:RY will demonstrate the complete and utter confusion and disarray here. A handful of "regulars" run the place and others who aren't aware of the all the unwritten consensuses tucked away on various talkpages dating back a decade are just hung out to dry. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TRM: noted. Doesn't make this argument any less silly, though, does it. Jim Michael; if you think that by pointing out that epidemics in Africa are neglected, and by spending your efforts trying to minimize the coverage given to other epidemics, that you are somehow addressing systemic bias, disillusion yourself; you are not. Vanamonde (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Internationally noted isn't the same as internationally notable. An outbreak that's confined to one country is a domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Vanamonde93 said: It doesn't make TRM's argument any less silly. The proposed text doesn't indicate international notability. If Saudi Arabia really is at war with Yemen, and they are supplying aid, that might indicate international notability. (Come to think of it, the US supplied "humanitarian aid" to parts of Yugoslavia while NATO was essentially at war with it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As already noted, text of other items does not "indicate international notability", the links to the stories do that. This is internationally notable, as the UN identified the problem in Yemen and Saudi are supplying millions of dollars of aid despite being at war with them. If none of you can see that, or be bothered to do anything about it, it's up to you, but it truly shows the ownership issues with this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate which events do not indicate international notability in the text, and I'll see whether I would recommend rewrite or removal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That you are unaware of the international notability of this is irrelevant. Surprising, but irrelevant. I'm not interested at all in your recommendations, this should be community-driven, so either change the criteria to ensure that blurbs are so explicit that even someone with absolutely no knowledge can acknowledge the "nine Wikipedia notability criterion" or accept the fact that we don't all assume our readers are complete fools. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nine non-English WP articles requirement is for deaths, not events. Jim Michael (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh, so this one passes by a country mile and can be added. Thank goodness. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It matters not, it's there which is the most important thing. We should now spend our time on the principles of this project, not the specific items. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article still doesn't assert international notability. Aid from other countries and from international organisations is commonplace in response to various disasters. Jim Michael (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's there, and that's all that matters now, regardless of the whacky rules here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, all that's in the article is mention of international orgs - who routinely help when there's been a disease outbreak, earthquake, flood famine etc. (even if the disaster is limited to one country). Jim Michael (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you know that "all that's in the article" isn't relevant, that's why you allow the "nine Wikipedia rule" for deaths, because you assume that what's in other articles isn't complete, comprehensive, or even reliably sourced. I've even gone to the extent to edit the article to include this highly profile detail, something which your ongoing "denial" has embarrassed the entire project. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming or denying anything. Jim Michael (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So let's see what the RFCs bring, right now it's "RY regulars" v "Normal community" and the scores are tied! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I say we add the cholera in Yemen back into the 2017 page, hell, I'll do it myself Please let this be my username (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Events in May and June 2017

Which events that happened in May 2017 and June 2017 should be added in the "2017" page? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One Love Manchester benefit concert

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus.The discussing editors could take it to the talk-page of One Love Manchester and take steps to re-initiate the discussion.Winged Blades Godric 10:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the entry about "One Love Manchester" benefit concert (4 June) be included or excluded? If included, should the entry mention/duplicate the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing as part of the concert entry? --George Ho (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Shifted up to below the Manchester bombing proposal and above the great mosque destruction entry. George Ho (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Shifted to the top of the discussion for greater awareness. --George Ho (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC); modified, 00:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know the benefit concerts can be, Jim. As a stand alone entry, it's just a benefit concert. However, the mixture of the benefit concert and the bombing event can make the entry worth including for readers if you can give it a chance, right? --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, either both should be included together or both should be excluded - because the benefit concert happened in response to the attack. Jim Michael (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The attack was a major item in world news with international socio-political ramification; a benefit concert about it was not. Agree that if the concert is mentioned, it should be juxtaposed with the entry about the attack, since one follows directly from the other. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2017 Manchester Arena bombing (RfC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Concensus is to include the event.The event has indeed grabbed prominent global coverage and that is what distinguishes itself from near-similar incidents.Winged Blades Godric 10:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "2017 Manchester Arena bombing" (22 May) entry be included or excluded? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Should the entry be stood alone? If not, then please feel free to vote at #One Love Manchester benefit concert proposal. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Implies forcing bombing event to be mixed with concert one. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's disputing that, but this is 2017 - not 2017 in the United Kingdom. Jim Michael (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And no-one's disputing that is indeed an international event. Now, you've all had your "exclude" votes here and there, without anyone badgering you, I suggest you do the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's untrue - you can clearly see that some other people in this discussion and in the one above have agreed with me. Stop making false assertions. Jim Michael (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an international event, full stop. And it meets the current criteria for inclusion, so I fail to see how this is even being discussed. Is it that the "regulars" don't like it while the non-regulars don't see the sense in the current position? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's that the regulars are usually better at knowing, understanding and interpreting the guidelines and criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! And that's clearly not what the rest of the community believes this "project" should be doing! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly NOT an international event. I don't see how anyone could think it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming bogged down in a debate about what an "international event" is. If the definition is "an event in which people in multiple countries will be interested in hearing about in x years' time, then the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing and the Grenfell Tower fire both qualify by a wide margin.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Grenfell Tower fire is a domestic event. It could only become internationally notable if other countries change their laws as a result of it. Jim Michael (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Come off it, Jim, the Grenfell fire has received enormous international media coverage. By using this skewed definition of an "international event", very few events would ever qualify for inclusion here. Who cares about the destruction of a mosque in Iraq, it's just a building, etc etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely the problem with this project. Individuals making judgements on what is and what is not internationally or temporally notable. What has been described above is exactly what's happening (it's just a building in one country etc etc, it's just a bombing in one country etc etc, it's just one of the highest profile sports events of the year but it's set in one country......). Glad we have more eyes here, this is something that needs to be radically overhauled. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Various events in Kim Kardashian's life received enormous international media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This theme is both telling of your understanding of the notability of international events, and at the same time a disgusting slur about the comparison between a globally significant terrorist attack on children that will resonate for decades and some fourth-rate celebrity. You may find it difficult to tell the difference, our readers certainly don't, and your continual repetition of this strawman comparison is a disgrace. Do us all a favour and find something more appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Resonate for decades"? Aren't you the one who's been telling us that we must avoid WP:CRYSTAL and use relevant sources? This reasoning is getting more ridiculous by the hour. But let me help you: the news cycle has come and gone. — Yerpo Eh? 05:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still on the BBC homepage I'm afraid, but thanks for your input. Seems like you and the "regulars" aren't quite gauging the community's wishes any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The homepage also includes "Car plunges into Colorado Springs swimming pool!" etc. I don't think we'd want to go with that. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not on my homepage, but I guess you're looking at the dumbed down international variant. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Manchester attack is not on my version of the BBC homepage, either (as of now). Looks like yours is reacting to the unusual amount of interest on your part. In any case, you're generalizing your narrow perspective again, which is really not a constructive way to engage in this discussion. — Yerpo Eh? 10:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You probably have the same .com homepage that coffman has. So you'll see the same thing, the dumbed down advertising-included version. In any case, as you can see, the community disagrees with the project regulars, in pretty much every case here, so at least we've made progress there. And with luck we'll get the "guideline" redacted, and then we can focus on how to select events going forward which doesn't rely on the currently out-of-touch method. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the .co.uk, so kindly stop assuming facts about me, because you have no idea. And if luck has something to do with it, we'll get your horrible patronizing attitude out of the picture - one way or another - before any redacting happens. — Yerpo Eh? 11:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, we're all playing by the rules, and just because the regulars don't like it, and the community don't like the project in its current form, that doesn't mean veiled threats are required by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with your patronizing attitude and false generalizations, then we can talk about this project. — Yerpo Eh? 11:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the veiled threats. And some of us already are talking about this project, with or without your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. Certainly one of the most high-profile terrorist attacks of the year to date, with a great volume of coverage spanning the globe. The suggestion that this event is somehow not significant because it mainly impacted only one country is both incorrect (the consequences clearly were felt by populations around the world, and commented upon at length by their political leaders and news media, and led to one of the year's most highly publicized public events, as noted by TRM above) and also peculiar--terrorist attacks by their very nature almost always target a specific local, but even if the damage were incredibly isolated (let's say, killed only civilians from one nation), that does not per se mean the event failed to hit a given threshold of significance. Clearly, in an article like this, that determination ought to be made on the basis of the WP:WEIGHT this event commands amongst sources commented upon current affairs. By that policy-based measure, I think inclusion here is a borderline-WP:SNOW call. Snow let's rap 21:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include scope_creep (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I strongly support the inclusion of this event. However, if this is the only terrorist attack listed in the article, that reeks of systemic bias, considering that there have been many other significant terrorist attacks this year. -- Irn (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude, per above. Just one terrorist attack out of many. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more about location, impact, global involvement and reaction than just "one from many", that argument can be applied to every single news story ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude Oppose as stand-alone entry (was neutral), even as the latest proposer of this entry – The only prominent parts about this bombing event are Ariana Grande and her Dangerous Woman Tour, which alone do not justify the inclusion of this entry. Not all notable events are included merely because they are... notable under Wikipedia definition. To me, "international sensationalism" and "international coverage" do not equate to "international notability", "international significance" or "international prominence". In this case, the bombing event happened and was one of deaths/murders events. The media made the whole bombing coverage international to highlight Grande and her tour and reignite tensions between the Europeans and Muslim community. Also, neither possibilities of ISIS involvement nor the media release of confidential information leaked from the US intelligence service does not make the bombing event itself more worthy to include. The leaked info coverage was just to attract and highlight one of Donald Trump troubles. Mentioning "ISIS" was probably to further divide anti-Muslim and pro-Muslim sides. The "2015" page may include November 2015 Paris attacks, but that's just the "Other stuff exists" argument... or just an attempt to say... "consistency". The Manchester bombing pales in comparison to the Paris attacks. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC); amended, 22:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC); changed vote, 22:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
– Further note: I'm also not convinced that One Love Manchester benefit concert would make the bombing event worthy to include as stand-alone. The concert was attended by tens of thousands of people and multiple artists from mostly US and UK, but that's about the concert itself. Also, most of the victims were British; only two non-Britons were Poles/Polish. Readers can find the bombing event elsewhere by browsing through the Ariana Grande article. BTW, One Love Manchester can be proposed as a stand-alone entry to include. Anyone? --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC); amended, 22:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my mind. I'll propose this soon. --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick recap on this event:
    Suicide bomb in centre of one of Britain's largest cities.
    Target is children.
    Act is internationally recognised singer.
    Bomber is trained in Libya.
    US, UK and Libyan services working together on it.
    US leaks images and details of bombing globally.
    Victims are multinational.
    Global fundraiser held in Manchester a few weeks later (One Love Manchester, broadcast to more than 50 countries).
  • This is not just a terrorist attack in a war zone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus in 2015 we have the domestic event "November 13 – Multiple terrorist attacks claimed by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Paris, France, result in 130 fatalities.[67]" so we're either consistent with domestic events or we're not. Or there's an unwritten criterion about the number of deaths that are now required. The Paris attacks did not focus on children, nor did it have the resulting global fundraising efforts. So either both are okay, or neither, but certainly not just Paris. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, should this help, ISIS is an terrorist organization with multiple followers and groups/subgroups from around the world. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 20:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - Notable terrorist attack and without a doubt this should be included period. –Davey2010Talk 22:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. Terrorist attack that received substantial international coverage. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per every other "include" !vote here. — Gestrid (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, as one of the most globally significant human events of the year so far, from a socio-political waves perspective If worse comes to worst and we have to revise that assessment later in the year, then we'll do so. I sure hope not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, received global coverage.Blethering Scot 21:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Destruction of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A strong consensus that the destruction of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, Iraq (21 June) should be included, due to its historical significance and its symbolical importance has been reached. Additionally, there is a consensus to include it's capture as well, for the same reasons. --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the entry about destruction of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri in Mosul, Iraq (21 June) be included or excluded? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nor was it an especially important mosque. Jim Michael (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, stop now. We know your position, you don't need to argue ad infinitum in its favour, it won't help. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. It's an 850-year-old heritage site that is deeply connected with one of the most famous Muslim military leaders of all time. And even if it had been of relatively modern construction and relevance, there is the still the massive symbolic significance it has inured as the location from which ISIS declared its creation of a "caliphate", and the representative role it has taken on since--something that can be cited to literally hundreds of WP:reliable sources. But really, neither your nor my personal idiosyncratic views on the relevance of the monument itself matter here; the event of the monument's destruction is itself clearly a matter of substantial significance, as judged by breadth of coverage and the deep meaning being attached to it, at both the regional and international level. Snow let's rap 23:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WHO's estimate of Cholera outbreak in Yemen

(non-admin closure) Consensus is to include (WHO)'s estimate of infection cases involving 2016–17 Yemen cholera outbreak.- MrX 15:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should the entry about World Health Organization (WHO)'s estimate of infection cases involving 2016–17 Yemen cholera outbreak be included or excluded? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exclude, for now. If something internationally notable happens because of it, I would go for inclusion. It has been claimed that (1) Saudi Arabia is at war with Yemen, and (2) Saudi Arabia has supplied a significant amount of support. If _we_ could say that (meaning a single reliable source for both (1) and (2)), I might lean toward inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude this domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards include because of severity which makes it stand out on the international scale. The Saudi offer of aid should be understood in the context of the ongoing war and is probably cynical (as propaganda effort, knowing that Yemen could never accept), so this is IMO not really an expression of international importance. — Yerpo Eh? 05:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include as announced by the United Nations, and as already discussed, with Saudi (who are currently bombing Yemen daily) offering tens of millions of dollars of aid. Making predictions into these kinds of acts is not a role that should be undertaken by Wikipedians, we stick with reliable sources (on most other parts of the projects). Global coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: predictions is all we have until Yemen either accepts or rejects the offer. In any case, the offer is not an expression of any international significance unless something comes out of it. — Yerpo Eh? 17:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - and there's still nothing in the article about aid from Saudi. Jim Michael (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's there now, and since it's via WHO and UNICEF, your concerns are not really relevant. Now stop badgering those with whom you don't agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not badgering anyone - I'm replying in a civil matter. Jim Michael (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Say no more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus has been reached that 2017 cyber attacks on Ukraine should be included, as an event with international importance that affected multiple countries. --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the proposal for you, Yerpo. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend toward exclude on this one, at least at present time; the coverage has been skimpy outside regional press, even when compared against other cybersecurity news. It is a developing story though, so I'm reserving my ultimate call on it. Snow let's rap 21:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Copy, paste, and modify this subheader to suggest any other event)

Threaded discussion

  • Looks like the project "regulars" all vote inline with their collective beliefs that their project is currently precisely correct, while those of us who come at it cold and try to understand the arcane inclusion criteria have very different views. This RFC is going to prove to be a very useful case study when it comes to unravelling the currently nonsensical inclusion criteria when an RFC is placed against the project as a whole. What seems to me to be the primary and unforgivable flaw is that our readers have no idea what this super-selective list of events is, especially versus such a broad array of deaths, and with no quality of any of it considered at all. All responses from "regulars" amount to "well it's in the archives" or "well read the edit notice" or similar. Pity our audience. Regardless of the outcome of these individual items, we now have enough momentum to bring this project to the attention of the wider community, and for that I am very grateful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want to add fuel to fire, as I'm not sure a broad-ranging debate is necessary here (but maybe I am unaware of some previous major disputes in this area), but the relevant guidance is available at WP:Advice pages; by long-standing, consistent, and overwhelmingly broad community consensus (which has been further codified by ArbCom in multiple cases), WikiProjects are banned from creating idiosyncratic editing standards (not otherwise found in broader community policy) and then trying to enforce them on pages perceived to be within their purview. Doing so is considered WP:disruptive and contrary to several pillar policies. Editors for each individual article (whether they are aligned with a given WikiProject or not) must engage in the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS process using actual editorial policies and guidelines on a case-by-case basis, and cannot utilize arguments such as "well we [meaning the WikiProject editors or a group of editors on a similar article] decided it shall be done this way, so that governs here". If that is what is going on here (I see no particularly strong evidence of it, but this is my first involvement on a contemporary year article, that I can recall) then this is less a matter for getting greater community consensus (the community has already spoken on this principle, ad nauseum) and more a behavioural issue that needs to be addressed. Of course, there is nothing stopping the editors of the WikiProject from trying to enshrine their "sensible" approach in actual policy and/or style guidelines through the WP:PROPOSAL/policy adjustment processes, but they are not allowed to skip that vital community consensus process and go straight to "this is the way it is going to be, because this article is in our domain!" Snow let's rap 22:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's quite what's going on here. The relevant guideline is WP:RY. The problem stems from interpreting the guideline. There is a small handful of editors with a shared interpretation of the guidelines who also dedicate the most time and energy to these pages. As such, their interpretation has become the dominant one and the one that ultimately determines what is in these pages. Additionally, I think a lot of users, like The Rambling Man, come here and find themselves frustrated by this interpretation, fight against it, lose, and then, unlike TRM, leave feeling frustrated. TRM chose to continue fighting, and that's the only reason we're having this conversation right now. I think it might be useful to take this opportunity to discuss how we ought to interpret the guideline (in particular, what is meant by “international significance”). -- Irn (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much for the extra context and insight here, Irn. Taking a closer look at WP:RY, it certainly does seem to be filled with some rather unexpected and idiosyncratic restrictions which do not seem to comport very well with more general content policies regarding notability, neutrality, weight, and so forth. So I had a look at the talk page and found more or less the situation you describe: it seems these peculiar rules are coming from just a very small number of editors over a very small amount of time. As usual, I wish TRM could express his discontent with a less bombastic approach (I'd like to remind several people here that needlessly inflammatory language only gets heels dug in deeper), but from what I've seen, I do share his general impression (and yours) that something is deeply off the rails here.
In particular, if I am reading this discussion and this one correctly, it seems to me that the editors here did not follow the requirements of WP:PROPOSAL, but in fact promoted WP:RY from a WikiProject page (or some other informal set of recommendations) to a Wikipedia WP:guideline on their own initiative?? Let's be absolutely clear about something: if that is in fact what happened here, then WP:YR is not in reality a Wikipedia guideline in any remote sense and all indication within it that suggests it is a guideline needs to be removed immediately Guidelines are never adopted without full vetting through a good-faith exercise of the complete PROPOSAL process. If that was not done here, before the article was moved to main project space, then not only does the page not have any binding authority over any additions to any article, but the editor(s) who changed its wording and moved its location to suggest it was a guideline, without gaining the proper community consensus for such a move, need a WP:trouting at the very least; if they did this while knowing about the proposal process, then this was outright bad faith behaviour and should result in community attention at ANI (and probably a sanction), whereas if they did it simply because they were unaware that guidelines could only be promoted via PROPOSAL, then they are clearly not yet anywhere near competent enough to be working in the area of policy pages.
I hope I haven't misread the situation here. I made an effort to search for a relevant RfC in major project forums (as PROPOSAL requires) and found nothing, but perhaps I missed it. But the discussions linked above seem to indicate there never was a PROPOSAL process before these recommendations were erroneously "promoted" to guideline status. If that is the case, I repeat that the simple fact is that WP:YR is not a legitimate guideline under this project's policies and should be altered to make this fact clear until such time as that process has been followed. And anyone trying to enforce rules from a guideline which they snuck into main project space without proper procedure is acting in a manifestly WP:disruptive fashion and likely to come under community scrutiny; the community at large us unlikely to look favourably upon a group of editors flaunting the rules by which we create guidelines. Frankly, if this is in fact what happened, the editors in question (whoever the most proactive ones who moved the page may be) would be very well advised de-"promote" this article themselves (by removing any language in it that suggests it is a guideline) and then contemplate whether they can promote it for real via PROPOSAL. Failure to do so could be immensely problematic for sorting this all out and probably will not take those editors to a good place with regard to their status in the community. Snow let's rap 04:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, that's a really good call. Looking at the history, making it a guideline appears to have been one user's decision, which was executed without discussion, definitely not in line with the process spelled out at WP:PROPOSAL. I guess the next step is to change it from a guideline to an essay, and then start a conversation over at WT:RY about how to move forward? -- Irn (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yerpo, WP:VOTE has been downgraded from guideline to essay several years ago. Why still using it? George Ho (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's relevant. Wikilawyering doesn't change that. — Yerpo Eh? 06:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BADGER. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for being blunt, but if you always tend to confuse civil discussion with badgering like that, then perhaps you should think about whether Wikipedia is a right place for you... We need to establish consensus because there is no authority who will close this discussion and implement the result, and drive-by voters contribute nothing useful to this. On the contrary. — Yerpo Eh? 07:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excused. Repeatedly asking the same questions of the same voters can only be interpreted one way I'm afraid. You need to consider whether this is something you'd like to continue. And well done for accusing those who are voting here in good faith of being "drive-by voters" who "contribute nothing useful to this". You should read WP:AGF before you go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was, of course, referring to unexplained votes by people who were never involved in the topic at hand. Drive-by is a well-established euphemism for those and that they contribute nothing useful to the discussion is a fact - regardless of their intentions. So a cheap trick, invoking AGF here. — Yerpo Eh? 08:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your words, not mine. Now then, I'd suggest you leave others to work on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BADGER and WP:BULLY are excellent descriptions of 'your actions, TRM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from a rogue admin, I'll treat that with the respect it deserves..... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You were a rogue admin. You are apparently still a rogue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem proud. Remember what happens next. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this RfC is insufficiently advertised to suggest changes in WP:RY. Even if consensus is obtained to add these events, it only applies to these events. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Look at the last time the "guideline" was discussed. We already have a bucket-load more interaction here from sane-thinking individuals. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now editors who disagree with you are thinking insane? Pretty soon, your haughty attitude will accomplish something here, just not what you intend. — Yerpo Eh? 19:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows? What I do know is that this project's current approach is not what the community wants, and that's brilliant! No spitting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your patronising, arrogant sniping at several regular, productive editors is making it very difficult for people to assume good faith. Jim Michael (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs. And your personal attack is noted. I'm really glad this issue has been brought to the wider community, and with them we must agree, that's Wikipedia. Your personal opinion (patronising, sniping etc) is noted, but your collective bullying of me to ignore such shortcomings in this project is so much more cromulent. You, and your mates, need now to focus on the discussions that are relevant now. The discussions that wouldn't have been possible if I'd just accepted your bullying tactics, tag team tactics, continual minor and deliberately inaccurate responses. I'm so thrilled that we now have a proper group of editors who actively care about the community involved in this, and I trust you'll observe the process of revolutionising this project's approach in accordance with the outcomes! We're on step 2 now, at least having globally acknowledged that RY was a real ongoing problem. It clearly isn't a problem for most people to assume good faith with me since so many people are in agreement with me. Other than you and your cadre. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only personal attacks here are the ones from you. You're arrogantly talking down to the regulars in most of your comments to us. None of the regulars here agree with you. You're determined to reverse much of the work that's been done here - all because you disagreed with me saying that the 2017 Finsbury Park attack wasn't important enough to be on ITN. Everyone here - other than you - has a reasonable tone and communicates as equals. Jim Michael (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was pretty much my conclusion about how ALL this came about. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, a refusal to accept the status quo so ardently protected by a few project owners? The RfCs speak for themselves, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, please stop speaking for all of the editors. You don't. I've been on Wikipedia for over 4 years with over 17,000 edits; I am a regular. You don't speak for me. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 23:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean regulars on year articles, especially on recent year articles - not regular Wikipedians in general. Jim Michael (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The three or four people trying to bully me away from this analysis you mean? Not working, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I consider myself a regular on the recent year articles, and I agree with much of TRM's criticism of RY. -- Irn (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meaningless, so suit yourselves I am only here because I got RfC'd. I had to read a bit of the article just to make sense of it all. The rationale behind the article not only is arguable, it is incoherent. One person's international significance is another's "Huh??? Wot dat?" or even "Who cares?". Pages of obituary notices, mostly of has-beens and functional nonentities, and a few news items of international significance only in the eyes of a few editors. This is a waste of words and of space and will remain so until a rational basis for the conception of this type of article emerges. Merely handwaving about internationality won't cut it. I'll try to add a comment at the end, but I suspect it won't be worth reading. JonRichfield (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To respond to TRM's original post in this section: I came here without any detailed preconceived notions about the process or the criteria (I haven't touched one of these articles since some time around 2008 or 2009, I think, and even then it was the "in sport" variant. I think it is good for pages like this to get RfC input, because if a process is run too long by the same handful of people it can start serving the ends of its own little bureaucracy rather than the needs and expectations of the readership (or whatever the target audience is; this is true of any kind of project or process like this, e.g. development of a piece of software, operation of a charity, etc.). The editorship at large, and the slice of it called up by WP:FRS, isn't exactly the readership at large, but is a more accurate model of it than the regulars of the year articles, simply by virtue of being a more random selection.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for specifics

K.e.coffman and Scope creep, may you please explain your reasons to favor the inclusions of whichever events you discussed? Others will appreciate your arguments/opinions about them. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another update: I added the #One Love Manchester benefit concert proposal hours ago. Please feel free to comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC) Moved comment to near-top of this subsection. George Ho (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Snow Rise. I checked this edit and found it was moved in 2009 by one user named Wrad. I checked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 7 and saw that a draft was mentioned. Not sure about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 8 as I don't see one discussion about the RY guideline. I searched for discussions about the guideline: Special:Search/"Recent Year" guideline "January 2009" prefix:Wikipedia:Village pump, Special:Search/"Recent Years" guidelines "January 2009" prefix:Wikipedia:Village pump. Not one back in 2009. --George Ho (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional searching, George. I'm surprised that this happened so long ago; if the page was erroneously promoted to guideline status with the required WP:PROPOSAL process, I would have expected it to have happened in the last year or so, given the fact that no outside editor has noticed it until now. However, it does not surprise me in the least that this seems to be what happened (whenever it was that it happened); there are just far to many bizarre and idiosyncratic rules about what constitutes an important annual story that do not jive with our general WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV views for this "guideline" to have been the product of approval by the community at large. However, if the page was published in 2009, it creates a complication; we could, reasonably, alter the page to clarify that its scope is that of an essay, and force its adherents to promote it through the proposal process, where it would probably need to lose many of it's less well-thought-out components and comport more closely with basic content guidelines. Since the page was never made a guideline through the legitimate process, there's really no policy-consistent objection to be made with this approach, but it strikes me as likely to lead to an edit war involving those who have grown attached to it and the "outsiders" they are determined to protect its standards from, regardless of how has the right of policy and community consensus here. Alternatively, editors working in this area who know the guideline is not a product of a properly vetted community consensus could just ignore it, knowing its illegitimacy. But here again, edit wars could result and the vast majority of editors who incidentally edit on the contemporary year articles and have their work reverted under reference to WP:RY would have no way of knowing that the guideline held no actual weight.
Probably at this point it is best to take the matter to WP:VPP, be clear about what has transpired, and see how the community at large thinks the matter should be addressed; I suspect that the community will opt for immediately de-classifying the page as a guideline and requiring it to pass the full PROPOSAL process. This would be ideal in that it would require broad discussion of each of the provisions of the page, some of which have sketch rational or none altogether. I do think there is a happy middle ground to be found here (as in most policy discussions), but I do think some of those who have been used to working within the framework of this faux guideline are going to have to get used to dropping some of the standards that have been employed for a while simply because "this is how we've decided to do it." Snow let's rap 06:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think it's important that this is quickly resolved, particularly with the backdrop of wider community participation on this very page demonstrating that the current criteria are not suitable. A wholesale revisit of the inclusion criteria and the status of the "guideline" is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. The RY guidelines as stand right now are just not enough and frankly, very unclear about what constitutes an international event. Jim has his definition and I have my own. It could be interpreted as many thing and essentially violates WP:NPOV. The guidelines should be restarted from scratch with proper community participation, proposals and consensus. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it was promoted to guideline in 2017, as I noted above. Whether that promotion was done according to Wikipedia guidelines is another matter. Before that, it was just generally, but not universally, accepted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we'll go back and re-work that in due course. It clearly should not be a Wikipedia guideline, nor should you subjectively allow certain editors to modify it and revert changes by others, abusing your position as an admin in the meantime. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Callmemirela: Frankly, I just don't see the logic behind an "international" requirement at all and can't fathom that it would have been kept in if this had gone through a proper proposal process. I can think of plenty of events which would be massively important to note as one of the major developments of a year, and yet which are mostly a regional phenomena. All this requirement would do (if it were part of a genuine guideline) would be to force editors to go through mental gymnastics to try to classify this or that event as touching upon the lives of other people in other nations (evidence of this can be seen immediately above). Meanwhile, other stories (which may be events of drastically lesser impact on the whole, in terms of both sourcing and just obvious pragmatic reality) get a free pass if they start out with an international character. There's nothing editorially or rationally sound in that approach; it's a fairly arbitrary standard that does not comport with our general policies on notability, weight, and neutrality (and as someone touched upon above, there are significant WP:systemic bias issues that can result as well). Of course, most (if not all) events that are likely to be proposed for inclusion in an article like this one are almost certain to have some sort of argument for how they might be considered international in character. But that does not mean the requirement itself helps us to better judge the relevancy of a topic, as such things are meant to be judged under Wikiepdia's editorial policies. On the whole, this standard (and several others that currently appear in WP:RY), constitute a good reminder of why we have the proposal process for new guidelines, such that the views of a small number of editors do not become normalized as a required approach without the rationale being thoroughly tested by the community. Snow let's rap 22:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the international requirement is that we have many articles by country, such as 2017 in the United Kingdom, 2017 in the United States etc. - for which domestic events are more appropriate. Jim Michael (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and it makes sense to a dump a certain number of events (indeed, the overwhelming majority) into those articles. But the name of this article is "2017", not "2017 in international affairs"; there's no reason, in principle, that a story cannot be mainly one which arises from a single country (by any reasonable measure of whether it was "mainly domestic" or "mainly international") and yet still be one of the most massive stories of the year and bear mentioning in an article summarizing that year's events. Consider, for example, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster; I presume that it is mentioned in the 2011 article, but if it could only be mentioned because a handful of foreign experts participated in the repair (or some other tangential detail to the main events) and would otherwise have to be excluded--that would be, in a word, idiotic.
The problem (well, part of the problem) is that this standard allows people to pick the international proxies they want for certain stories and then deny that international nexus is significant enough for other events (see again, systemic bias). When in fact, there is no principled reason for an international requirement at all. I have no problem with moving the vast majority of regional stories to their appropriate nation-year articles, truly. But there's no legitimate cause for excising events from main RY articles that were clearly major stories of the year in question, just because they happened to be geographically bounded inside one nation and most significant to that nation's people. It's arbitrary, cumbersome, and doesn't comport with our broader community polices. Snow let's rap 22:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could make a case for including the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in 2011 because it was the most costly disaster in the history of the world and because it caused sharp falls in stock markets across the world. Jim Michael (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point here: no editor should have to jump through convoluted hoops to prove to your satisfaction that a story has an international dimension, just because a small handful of editors decided for themselves that "only international stories can be major stories of the year" and then someone created the false impression that this is a site-wide guideline by creating a fake policy page without going through (absolutely required) WP:PROPOSAL process to vet whether this and the related recommendations are even a good idea. I've been clear to stipulate multiple times that I do think most entries on a recent year article will in fact pass that test (by more or less attenuated reasoning depending on how much that particular editor wants that particular item listed), but that does not address the more fundamental question of whether the requirement itself is logical, useful, advisable, or consistent with other policy in this area. Snow let's rap 01:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's claiming that the guidelines here apply across the site - they only apply to RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they don't apply to any article anywhere on the project (at least not with any more weight than an WP:essay); if that page was not vetted and approved by the community as a guideline through the WP:PROPOSAL process, it's not a guideline, and nothing in it is more than a recommendation. One user unilaterally changing the wording and location of an WP:advice page to suggest it is a guideline does not make it so. That's a flagrant violation of basic community consensus on how editorial guidelines are formed and promoted on this project. But in any event, what I meant in my above post is that you expect it to apply to all RY-related articles. Snow let's rap 03:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the way RY articles have been run for years. I didn't know that any formal process was required to make the guidelines official. Jim Michael (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough: I certainly take you at your word that the mistake you made which caused you to try to enforce these rules was a good-faith error. But an error it was, nevertheless, and you're probably going to have to get used to making your arguments on the RY talk pages without referencing to that guideline, given its illegitimacy. At least until you and other volunteers hammer out something new and get the community's stamp of approval through the PROPOSAL process. Snow let's rap 15:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, your text blocks are everything man. I hear ya. However, there should a limit as to what can be added to the RY articles. For example, the news or event occurred or interacted in two countries. Let's say a major event of spying between the UK and the US or the UK and France. However, if it is a major event such as the Manchester bombing or the Finsbury attack, it should receive plenty of coverage worldwide or at least within the continent. A shooting that left two dead from a domestic dispute is not notable for RY. Again, these are just a few examples. I agree that there is systemic bias because only a few events are chosen, vague description if it should be included, etc. The guidelines right now are simply not enough in so many ways. What is exactly an international event? It's all very vague and violates NPOV as well as systemic bias. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 23:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 2017 Finsbury Park attack is nowhere near notable enough for 2017 in Europe, let alone 2017.Jim Michael (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that there needs to be some kind of standard for deciding the primacy of events during a year. And its certainly by necessity going to be a complicated task, because (to a far greater extent than I would accept in most editorial areas) its hard to dodge at least a small degree of subjectivity here. But we do have general editorial policies that all subordinate guidelines need to work within (which several of the recommendation in that unvetted/faux "guideline" page fail to do). This ought to start based on WP:WEIGHT of the sources, though that can only be a starting point in this case because different areas of news (and different areas of the world) get varying degrees of coverage, when we're talking literally about the sum of all sources in a given year. But to just decide that an event cannot be classified as a "major event of the year" because it is not significantly international (as judged by our own editors according to their own whims) is closer to a kind of WP:Original research; it opens the door for own subjective assessment of the importance of events, when what we need is a principled guideline based on metrics that are efficient and least likely to be subjected to our personal biases. It will be complicated to work out the details, but our analysis has to start with the sources, not our own personal views. Snow let's rap 01:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't read the whole of the foregoing (SURRRRPRISE!!!) so I should apologise for that, but I find it hard to imagine that my omission is out of place in context. The whole rationale behind articles of this kind is at best flawed, and IMO too incoherent to be functional. Is it a news sheet? If so, apart from its worthlessness for anything of that kind, what is it doing in WP? Is it a digest for the anticipation, evaluation, or documentation of emerging history? Then by what standards of "internationality" do the obituaries get justified, and why should their listings in such an article be of general interest? Similarly for the events. What counts as international significance, and why should only international events count? Most events that eventually have international significance occur in single countries and often do not immediately affect other countries. What counts as an event? A march in the US is international? A political parasite in err... Gambia, was it? is forced out by external troops (which makes it international? How about the fact that someon spat across the border? That is an international incident too!) N. Korea launches yet another and yet yet another test missile into the sea? Each such missile is a separate international event? Leo Szilard crosses a street in Germany while conceiving a neutron chain reaction? A Serbian nonentity knocks off an Austrian stuffed shirt in Sarajevo? China spend years building islands in international waters? Is the idea to scoop the historians? How do the criteria for internationality advance that? Get real folks; how incoherent can you get? One test for how useful all this is, is the kind of argument that can arise about which items to include or exclude — and just look at the arguments here! Apart from anything else, where has anyone answered the question of who would want to look up an article of this kind and for what purpose? For the sake of the items mentioned in this one or other year-articles? "Oh gosh, let's look up 2001; wasn't that the year that woman drowned all 5 of her young children to save them from Satan? Or that a Vermont senator left the Republican party to caucus as an independent with Democrats?" Am I getting through? JonRichfield (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're kind of getting through I think. In answer to your question where has anyone answered the question of who would want to look up an article of this kind and for what purpose, I had suggeted we should simply use the articles that were agreed by the community at ITN (which has substantially larger participation than this project) as events here. That way we know they're of interest to our editors and most likely our readers, we know they're of reasonable quality, and you'd get around 12 to 20 or so events per month, which seems an appropriate level of "significant global events" for this kind of page (unlike the three months of 2017 which the project regulars have restricted to one event). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 2017 Women's March occurred in many countries; it was international and intercontinental. Jim Michael (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I miss the point of that comment. Who is arguing to the contrary? Are you suggesting that for an item to be international it has to take place in multiple nations? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, but it has to influence multiple nations (in a wider sense than a handful of individuals), and/or be exceptional on a global scale. — Yerpo Eh? 09:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. Completely subjective and hence why so few articles make it past your oversight group. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is this more subjective than a vote by a group of ITN regulars (who are predominantly Westerners, I assume)? — Yerpo Eh? 10:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said this had to influence multiple nations (in a wider sense than a handful of individuals) but that is complete POV. At least ITN runs a consensus-based discussion for each entry, and ensures quality so our educational values are maintained. Nothing of the sort happens at RY where such entries are guarded by the regulars whose input criteria appear to be seriously in doubt given the ongoing RfCs. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On ITN, many events which are important enough aren't posted. That's because they aren't nominated - or they are nominated, but aren't posted because the articles aren't of high enough quality or because the nominations aren't supported. Jim Michael (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, the community don't deem them important enough but you four do!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't POV - influence is gauged by what RS are saying about an event. And please stop misrepresenting the ongoing RfCs. Taken together, they demonstrate nothing of the sort you claim. — Yerpo Eh? 12:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't use RS's, you use subjective judgement. The RFCs have shown you all to be wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of WP:RY status

I'm not very active on Wikipedia anymore, but it's depressing to see that recent year articles are facing all of the same issues, carried on by the same editors. As for my view on the "guideline" that "we" created 8 years ago, have a look at the last four or so comments here: [1]. I would only add to that that I did not know until reading this page that there was any Wikipedia-wide process on creating guidelines. Our intent (or at least my intent at the time. Can't speak for others) was to create some kind of basic framework to guide discussion, not a hard, fast, binding policy. I don't even agree with most of the "rules" written on it. Was just trying to improve the atmosphere and civility on RY pages. Apparently that was naive, and "guideline" means something different on this site than I thought it did at the time. Nothing really got fixed. Smack me with a trout, if you like. I was trying to help with limited knowledge and resources. Hopefully a group can get together and create a real guideline. I washed my hands of this long ago and am not interested in participating. Wrad (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The "Recent years" guideline is downgraded by the creator Wrad into an "Essay" status. This is discussed at Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Not a guideline. --George Ho (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Skip that; the move was reverted back to "guideline" status. --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "creator" does not have a say in the matter once the 2017 RfC at VPP declared it to be a guideline. You need either to "appeal" that RfC or hold a new RfC to declare it an essay. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, bold moves are great in articles, but when it comes to the status of project pages, not so much. You need a consensus. It should never have been unilaterally marked as a guideline years ago, this is true, but the recent RFC ultimately upheld that decision because it had been treated as one for so long. Unilaterally demoting it was as poor of a decision as unilaterally promoting it way back when. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Respectfully Arthur and Beeblebrox, four of you voting in an RfC is not a legitimate replacement process for WP:PROPOSAL; there's a reason this community requires a high standard of vetting and approval for changing an WP:essay into a WP:guideline, and the fact that it took a while for other editors (that is, those who did not create and improperly promote these recommendations to fake "guideline" status) to catch on to what had transpired is not argument for just giving the page a clean pass as a "legitimate" guideline once it is discovered. Point in fact, the argument that pretty clearly inures from these facts is just the opposite; the amount of time the page has been falsely treated as the result of community consensus (with the editors who created it benefiting from its illegitimate status as a supposed guideline in content discussions and disputes) is something that needs to be addressed, not just shrugged off and accepted, because "woops, we didn't notice they had done this". I can fairly well guarantee that the community is not just going to accept a status quo situation in which one of our most basic and essential policies (the one by which we make policy no less) can be subverted and then, if the mistake isn't caught in time, a fake guideline just becomes a real one by default. Sorry guys, but that's a nonsense conclusion. And one which the community can hardly afford to tolerate, especially as it would incentivize those who want to stamp their idiosyncratic views on to guidelines (regardless of whether they comport with community consensus and our policies) to just go ahead and create a guideline in some niche area and try to fly under the radar for as long as possible.
No, look, I'm sorry, I assume each of your voted in a good faith manner in that RfC, whether you work on RY articles regularly or not, but the four of you can't make a guideline official by yourselves, through all of six complete sentences of community discussion! We don't do end-runs on WP:PROPOSAL on this project. That page is not a guideline and though I don't encourage anyone to edit war over the wording marking it as a guideline, no editor needs to treat it as anything more than an essay until it goes through a proper proposal process, is adjusted to meet community expectations, and then is validated by the community at large. Snow let's rap 08:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^^^^ THAT ^^^^ The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was... perfection. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 15:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, Snow Rise, since the bold and classy move from Wrad was undone, would you be prepared to formulate this formally? It'd be better coming from someone more neutral to the issue. My bet is that the regulars will vote in favour of it not being a guideline, as will Beeblebrox, and it will be complete and utter waste of time and energy, but at least it will be on record I suppose. Would you be able to do that for us? We need to start the process of redefining this project's behavioural guidelines, and this is a great place to start. Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM. I'm not sure if you are asking me to host A), a VPP discussion to confirm that the page should be purged of any reference to it being a guideline, or B) a workshop for discussion of the page's content, so that it can be re-formulated in a more policy-consistent fashion and then go through a proper WP:PROPOSAL process and become a guideline for real. In principle, I'd be happy to assist with either, if other editors think it would be useful. I should add the caveat that I am very busy this next couple of weeks, so the pace of the discussion (or at least of my involvement as a facilitator) could be on the slow side, so I may not be the ideal choice in that sense. Nevertheless, if I can be of assistance in this regard and I am seen as a good neutral choice, I will be happy to do what I can. Snow let's rap 21:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Rise I'm certainly looking for option A as I fail to see any widespread adoption of Wikipedia guidelines for Wikiproject inclusion criteria, especially when this specific project covers a mere 15 articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, thanks to Wrad for the further clarification of the procedural history here, and for attempting to rectify the matter. Snow let's rap 08:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing?

Jim Michael, Arthur, and Yerpo, I will conclude the Great Mosque destruction, Cholera outbreak, and June global cyberattacks as "clear consensus to include" while mentioning your oppositions if you allow me. Of course, you're welcome to change your positions on those events. If my closing those proposals is inappropriate, then I guess I can request closure at WP:ANRFC. Meanwhile, I'll leave the rest of the discussion open, including two other proposals. Thoughts? George Ho (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with those, even with the mosque, as per the new arguments about its symbolic meaning. I don't have time now to change my vote there, I'll get to that tomorrow. — Yerpo Eh? 20:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that the allowance of those in opposition to a clear consensus is required. I do not understand why permission needs to be sought from those in opposition to close an RfC. I do not understand why this closure technique is being used. Perhaps we should copy in Arbcom on this as it's clear that some edits have suddenly been made which are very close to IBAN territory, but in a game-playing manner... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I have now emailed Arbcom regarding this situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Permission from the opposition is not technically required for closure, but it is for a non-admin closure where the result is likely to be contested. Since <redacted>name</redacted> "poisoned" the discussion by introducing misstatements about Wikipedia policies and guidelines I think it would be better to wait for an uninvolved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs for these "misstatements" (which you previously referred to as "lies" which you then redacted with an edit summary of "redact true statement") please. Really, an admin should know better than to accuse an editor of outright lying. That's a genuine personal attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin please provide diffs to these "lies" so I can address them formally before we take action against your misuse of your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot copy diffs on this phone, but your the claim that WP:RY is not a guideline has been established to be false. (You have made other false statements, but those are about your actions, and would only be relevant in another venue.) If you had brought this issue up 4 months ago, your arguments might have had some weight, but the next argument would have been WP:TNT; there would be nothing in the year articles worth keeping. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs please. Of course, who knew this was a "guideline"? It's such a surprise that even the person responsible for it has tried to remedy it. You need diffs or else your accusations are simply personal attacks. This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with when or where items are brought up. I'm not really interested in your personal attacks, I'm also not that bothered because I deal with this kind of flagrant abuse all the time, but it does show a troubling pattern of abuse of your position. Right now, though, we need to focus on the fact that the community are shaping up in complete opposition to the regulars here, and we start on the road to recovery for the project by eliminating this odd status scenario. Then the criteria need to be addressed, but all in good time. Your TNT claim is bizarre, at best, a non sequitur though. We'll get to that. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We (will) need a neutral admin to close this RfC, because

  1. There are clearly Wikipedia-guideline-based arguments presented, on both sides.
  2. There are clearly non-Wikipedia-guideline-based arguments presented, including the claim that WP:RY is not an applicable guideline.

... and I am not neutral, so the admin will not be me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you're apparently an admin, I've asked you several times for diffs to back up your accusations, per ADMINACCT you need to start doing the right thing, although I see lately that you placed a one-week block on a new editor with whom you were involved and gave no proper warnings, so your current behavioural patterns here seem to fit that particular mould. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "new" editor was since indef blocked, without having made any more edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It matters not, you were absolutely wrong to place an involved block. It's fine, it's just another example of why your admin status needs community scrutiny, not to mention all these unfounded and unreferenced personal attacks all over the place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin still waiting..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have made Someone has made various absurd claims about WP:RY, including
  1. That it isn't a guideline that applies to 2017
  2. That the 3-continent rule is indication of international significance, while any rational person with a reasonable understanding of English, would realize it's a minimal requirement.
That seems sufficient. Only the first is an outright lie, and you seem to have redacted that somewhere along the line. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've had enough of your accusations. Provide the diff of me "outright lying" and provide he diff of me "redacing that somewhere along the line". You, especially as an admin, simply cannot get away with this kind of lazy editing. Secondly, your point where you clearly assert that I am not a "rational person with a reasonable understanding of English" is yet another personal attack. It is clearly stated at WP:RY that "New events added must receive independent news reporting from three continents on the event. This is a minimum requirement for inclusion.", not that it's a "minimal requirement". Once items pass this "minimum" requirement, they are eligible. As demonstrated by the RFCs, all of which are finding against your interpretation of how this page should be managed. Now, you either redact all the personal attacks and provide diffs as I have requested of you now six times, or we'll be at ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That claim I do stand by. It is not a plausible interpretation of WP:RY that the "three-continent" rule is adequate for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then the guideline needs to change as it clearly states that it's the minimum requirement for inclusion. It doesn't say it's not the minimum requirement for inclusion. It is entirely plausible to follow the semantics of the guideline. Now redact all personal attacks and all accusations of me lying. Or ask someone competent to get you the diffs I've asked you, an admin, for, seven times (or more). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General observation

Proper closure

Ok, we need proper closure of these RFCs as the result will drastically affect the manner in which this RY project conducts itself. We now have a very clear picture on at least three or four of the discussions, so there's little stopping us implementing those consensuses and then seeking associated changes to process here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need proper closure by an Admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - London terror attacks

Should the 2017 Westminster attack and June 2017 London Bridge attack articles be added to this article?. –Davey2010Talk 22:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

  • Well, I did not really want to say "first world problem" but it essentially got the wall-to-wall coverage because it happened in a Western capital. Around the same timeframe, there was an terror attack in Kabul but it barely got covered. So yeah, would "not exceptional" work? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

They weren't international, nor were they major by world standards. They received a lot of media coverage because of the saturation of journalists in London. Jim Michael (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are the global ramifications of these attacks, TRM? Jim Michael (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree - London is a major city and therefore would've been seen as a major attack and although journalists tend to cause some drama and "hype" things up this wasn't the case here, FWIW IMHO each and every one of those listed at List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 should be on that article too however that's another discussion for another day, IMHO this was a major attack and thus deserves to be listed. –Davey2010Talk 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting that all the attacks listed on the list of terror attacks should be on year articles? Why?
Terror attacks in major cities aren't rare. It's just that when they happen in Asia and Africa, they rarely receive huge media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, go chasing explanations from others, not just me. I know it's difficult when your project gets noticed and then exposed for its behavioural anomalies, but we are where we are and, once again, the community is finding against the will of the current project oversighters. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And again with the attacks on editors who are trying to make this a worthwhile project, rather than debating the subject at hand. There must be so much responsibility for one editor to be the elected representative of "the community". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm doesn't become you. The fact that TRM is being disruptive should be brought up in other venues. As for his proposed IBan, there is nothing he could say which wasn't, in part, a reply to something I said in the past 5 years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes TRM is being disruptive (and this has gone on for weeks now) but the last time I tried to bring this up at ANI it was dismissed. The repeated claims that by TRM that they are acting on behalf of the community need to be addressed, all I see is a disaffected editor trying to establish their own personal agenda for the recent years project, largely based on ideas so faulty that WPITN is undergoing an extensive discussion on replacing them if not wiping the project entirely. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI report you prematurely filed wasn't ANI-worthy. And please guys, this part of the RfC is to discuss if the attacks should be included or not. If you want to discuss TRM's behaviour, please do it elsewhere. It doesn't belong in this section or this talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 05:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, my second comment in this section was to Davey, not you.
You're making claims of international importance that aren't true. The only way in which the attacks in London last month will have affected other countries is that some of them may have temporarily increased their security measures in order to reduce the chances of copycat attacks.
Jim Michael (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's clear that the regulars don't like their decision-making being questioned but it appears that it's absolutely essential right now with the various RFCs all showing that the criteria as being applied are simply out of touch with the community. Questioning that is vital to the integrity of the project and Wikipedia as a whole. Trying to obfuscate the major problems here by claiming this to be "disruptive" simply will not work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has suggested a better guideline. Your suggestion to remove all the deaths wouldn't be an improvement. Jim Michael (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with my comment and nothing to do with this disucssion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metadiscussion on collapse

I agree that comments to The Rambling Man should be collapsed, as he has stated he has no intention to reply. Howevern Davey2010 "hatted" a request for clarification of his comment, which I consider consent to "hat" his comment. We can discuss where there should be a collapse, if at all, but I think this leaves a coherent status.

As I said on your talkpage the discussion had more or less derailed and I figured hatting was better instead of allowing the argument below to continue, If I'm honest I don't agree with my reply being hatted however if it stops all of the arguing then I'll settle with it regardless, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have uncollapsed it as it is a very good demonstration of the ownership of this project by a few individuals, including a number of assertions being made purely subjectively, e.g. Jim Michael's opening claim. [Citation needed]. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The uncollapse is yet another disruptive action by TRM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Firstly you're an involved admin, so you should be the last person to close this. Secondly, your claim was incorrect, I did not state anywhere that I had no intention to reply - please supply a diff to cover that precise claim. Thirdly, you claim this to be "another disruptive action", can you provide diffs for all the other "disruptive actions" please, or are you simply referring to the content disputes which you don't agree with, but the community most certainly do? Or is it the so-called "lies" that you continue to claim I'm making? Fourthly, please remember to sign your posts, and, finally for now, find someone competent to help you with diffs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment of Park Geun-hye

TRM insists that this domestic event has had major international effects - despite offering no evidence of that. Jim Michael (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start an objective discussion, at least try to use a neutral opening tone. And please don't refer to me as TRM, you haven't the right. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stating facts. Neither the article on the impeachment, nor the article on Park Geun-hye, state that the impeachment has had major international effects.
I don't need anyone's permission to abbreviate.
Jim Michael (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't refer to you as Jimmy Boy, so I don't see you feel you have earned the right of familiarity. Don't do it again. Others are entitled to do so, you are not. Now if you wish to start the discussion again, do it neutrally, or else leave it someone else who can write in objective terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be equivalent to people referring to me as Jim or JM - which many people on WP have done. I don't need to earn anything from you and you're not going to impose your own rules on me - I've been a productive editor for several years. You can't back up your claims that there were international effects, so you're nitpicking and turning this discussion into yet another example of your patronising sniping. We're all sick of you talking down to us - you're not superior to us and you don't have authority over us. Everyone on this talk page - except you - has been civil and talking reasonably and on a level. Jim Michael (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you about the international aspects of that news story. That you choose to ignore them because they haven't been expressed in terms you accept or othewise in unreliable sources, the facts are beyond debate. Your personal preferences are not how Wikpiedia works. And for what it's worth, we're all sick of the project regulars trying to own this project which, as demonstrated by the RFCs, goes completely against the wishes of the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You made claims which you didn't back up - and which aren't in the impeachment article or the politician's article. There would have to be major international effects - such as sanctions or military action - for it to be of international, historical importance. Jim Michael (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You just need to Google it. It has ramifications on relations with the US, North Korea and China. That's global. It was reported around the world. That's global. And no, it's not up to you to decide that "sanctions or military action" are now part of the criteria. The minimum criterion for inclusion has been met, you know that. Your interpretations of the (current) "guideline" is completely at odds with the community wishes, you can see that adequately demonstrated above. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the burden is on whoever wants to add it to demonstrate on the impeachment article that it had major international effects. As has been said many times, international coverage doesn't prove international, historical notability. Jim Michael (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your implementation of the current criteria has been proven numerous times to be precisely the opposite to what the community wants, simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More refined articles

I've been advised numerous times that certain events belong in more refined articles (such as 2017 in politics) rather than in the parent article of 2017. To that end I've moved those items which have a clearly more refined categorisation to those subarticles. I think we perhaps need just one or two more refined articles (e.g. 2017 in conflicts) to cover the remaining handful of events. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, but that's up to you I guess. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 05:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't agree with what? Do you think these events should all be shown in both places? Or is there a secret rule that determines what does and does not qualify for that treatment? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-add former events (i.e., Parl Guen-hyes impeachment, executive order 13769, cholera in Yemen, and the Paris agreement

Do this, or I will do it myself and block the page after that Please let this be my username (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the preceding section. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything

Hey, let's just delete everything and have a blank page. I'm sure that would please a lot of people around here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why not work on a sensible and clear set of criteria which establishes which items get sent to the sub-articles without a trace here, which articles stay here and don't get sent to the sub-articles, and which articles (special ones no doubt) which get the double treatment? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(redacted what might be considered a personal attack, but only refers to edits.) Good idea. Have any proposals? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are the current criteria? P.S. you wrote "(redacted what might be considered a personal attack, but only refers to edits.)" but you didn't redact anything, are you ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"International significant" (interpreted as having (potentially) lasting significance to multiple countries) was considered clear until last month. I'm not sure where to go.
What I deleted before posting was a more personalized version of the last statement, which was unnecessary.
How about, as a start, for events, it is considered one of the most significant events of the year by independent sources on three continents. It still needs refinement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you didn't post it, so you didn't need to redact it, or are you simply trying to make another point here? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Watling

@The Rambling Man: Why should WP:RY be ignored for Deborah Watling? RY specifically says non-English Wikipedias should be counted. There were only seven non-English Wikipedia articles at time of death. (Hebrew was created afterwards. In fact, so was Simple English.)—Laoris (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the global coverage, it's meaningless to apply such arbitrary rules, that's why we have IAR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What global coverage are you referring to? Global coverage of the death?—Laoris (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, coverage which means it would be of interest to our readers for an article about 2017 deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:IAR mean TRM should be banned from all articles subject to WP:RY. WP:IAR does not generally allow intentional violation of guidelines without consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does IAR mean that so-called admin Arthur Rubin should be desyopped for unfounded personal attacks. IAR does not generally allow admins to abuse their position and refuse to provide evidence when requested. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why did so-called admin Arthur Rubin remove Tommy Gemmell? What was the rationale behind that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only 7 other-language Wikipedias at death. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. (this is a small trap, by the way) And while you're at that, find those diffs of me lying and me redacting those lies. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
here. Because of the move of "other languages" from pointers in the Wikipedia article over to Wikidata, we have to trust Wikidata, even though we know it to be much less reliable even than Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even more reason to ditch the "9 Wikipedia" stupidity. See you at ANI tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who's had issues with edit warring before, this is so not worth squabbling over. There is a clear precedent set as not everyone is known on a global scale. Your position would be so much more understood if it wasn't being so aggressively shared. Discuss it better and perhaps they may agree with you. Rusted AutoParts 22:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really follow what you've said at all, but thanks for your contribution. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's difficult about what I said? Rusted AutoParts 22:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said something about "aggressively shared" which is ... whatever. We now have RFCs for these entries, add you comments there, I'm sure you have something positive to add. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aggressively shared. Meaning you`re edit warring and being needlessly rude and hostile toward Arthur and now seemingly myself. My edit summary comment was a reflection of the annoyance I felt seeing the edit warring. Realizing that wasn`t helpful in itself I figured I`d remind you (and in doing so myself) to remain civil. That`s all. Rusted AutoParts 22:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, totally unhelpful then. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your need to be so rude, but whatever. Rusted AutoParts 23:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just read your own comments and edit summaries, that's rude. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is rude about reminding you, a 12 year long editor on this site, to act civilly? I acknowledged my initial edit summary wasn't civil, but now you're seemingly going above and beyond to just be antagonistic needlessly towards people. It's make people not want to discuss with you and thus the issue gets no resolution. But you do you, I guess. Rusted AutoParts 23:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am being civil, you need to work on your comments and edit summaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, taking into account the standoffish attitude, the edit warring and deleting my comment. And I have alreasy acknowledged my edit summary, my only edit summary aside from telling you to not remove my comments, was uncivil. You keep using that as reason to ignore me, and I guess you can. But I'm telling you, the way you're going about this discussion is not civil IMO. Rusted AutoParts 15:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs are interesting although some are utterly irrelevant. But you set the tone. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the correct path in your mind is to take is just maintain that "tone"? Rusted AutoParts 17:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well someone has to stand up to the ownership of this project I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs

Deborah Watling

Should Deborah Watling be included in the deaths section? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. No per WP:RY. ~ Rob13Talk 23:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No, I see no good reason for overriding WP:RY in this case. Even mainstream coverage of her passing seems to be limited to a handful of Western countries and far from global. — Yerpo Eh? 07:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No, due to lack of international notability. The only reason that her death was reported in other countries is because Doctor Who has many viewers in those countries.Jim Michael (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh-huh. Which makes her of interest to our readers globally. This encyclopedia and its articles are about serving our readers, not some self-serving arcane rule-set which has been proven multiple times to be against the wishes of the community. In particular, your judgement and that of Yerpo and Rubin have been called into question numerous times with relation to what should and should not be included here, with the consensus weighing heavily against you and WP:RY many times. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And not at other times (including this one), so your assumption that we are wrong by default is really not justified. — Yerpo Eh? 18:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Two out of the three voters here are the same regulars who don't understand the community consensus. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter how you stretch it, your conclusion is still not justified. — Yerpo Eh? 19:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure it is, it is reported in three continents. That's the minimum for inclusion. What next? More Wikidata historical diffs? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the consensus in this RfC. — Yerpo Eh? 19:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we're getting a consensus (passively) to drop the minimum inclusion criterion too. This is excellent evidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're assuming too much again. — Yerpo Eh? 19:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's your issue. We are going to drop this crierion, 100%, it may take a month or two, but it will happen! Your evidence is priceless in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still only an RfC in which the community has rejected your proposal. — Yerpo Eh? 20:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is an RFC where two regulars from the project have rejected my proposal and the other has rejected it on soon-to-be-defunct criteria. 21:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    And the rest of the community is simply not interested enough to bother. Not your place to assume how would they vote. The result is clear. — Yerpo Eh? 13:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what you thought about the Manchester bombings, the mosque etc...!! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Inventing my thoughts now. How original. — Yerpo Eh? 12:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, no, you voted against the inclusion of those items. That's hardly an "invention". The community, interested in those items being included in this article, voted very strongly against your position. Both times. So far. And there's more to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Great example of cherry-picking. Ironically, on an RfC that went against your position. Not to mention I changed my position on one of those after relevant arguments were brought up (eventhough I forgot to modify my vote on the actual RfC). Something that your hostility can never do, nor can misrepresenting discussions. The sooner you realize this, the sooner we can start cooperating constructively. — Yerpo Eh? 15:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    on an RfC that went against your position? Which RFC has closed against my position? By the way, Wikipedia has no need for individuals repeatedly threatening others or claiming hostility. I'm just getting on with improving this project, step by step, and improving Wikipedia as whole. All I see is your continual badgering of anything I write on this particular talkpage, which is of zero benefit to our readers. In fact, in some cases, it's actively detrimental since you and the other regulars here are way out of touch with what the readers would expect from this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This RfC (i.e. Deborah Watling) will, soon. And if you don't see my contributions, or the examples which don't fit your narrative, that's your problem. I also note that you've had a number of civility issues elsewhere, and I've already listed examples of your hostile choice of words at RY discussions, so perhaps it's not only other people's fault all the time, no? — Yerpo Eh? 08:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand. This RFC has plenty to run, and once the inclusion criteria are adjusted, we'll simply re-visit this if indeed the votes from the regulars are the only ones cast. That is, after all, how this project has been run up until recently, and now more eyes are on the project, we'll see a gradual but evolutionary change in order to give our readers what they expect. I don't care what you aim to achieve on Wikipedia, my observation is simply that you have spent almost 100% of your time here in the last month badgering every edit I make to this or the RY pages. I prefer to improve articles and enhance our readers' experiences here. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if it doesn't go your way, just move the goalposts. And don't bother bringing up my edit history, it's irrelevant. Even if I didn't have almost as many contributions as you (and much more diverse) across the Wikimedia universe. — Yerpo Eh? 08:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about moving goalposts, it's about making this project represent best and most appropriate value for our readers, something which the regulars seem to fail to grasp on a regular basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and something that you've no good idea about how to achieve as well. — Yerpo Eh? 09:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Broken record and utter nonsense. I've noted at least four different ideas. Once we get through the "guideline" RFC, we'll next focus on the "RD vs nine Wikipedia" issue, and we can revisit those four (or more) ideas. In the meantime, I'll get back to improving Wikipedia for our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You did, but the gist of them is making RY a copy of ITN (either directly as archive or copying the process), which has been noted several times to be dysfunctional - by a group of senior editors and by some of the involved editors themselves, to note just two examples. I don't think that anyone but you can consider this a good idea. Nor is a good idea to tear down the current process first, then fish for ideas for rebuilding. — Yerpo Eh? 09:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you're wrong again. There are many different possible solutions which don't rely on this bizarre "9 Wikipedias" claim which is summarily ignored by some regulars as and when they choose in any case. There are no senior editors, as you know, so I'm not sure why you linked the Arbitration case, are you trying to make some kind of a point? The RD section of ITN is one of the more functional areas, thanks to a concerted effort (by me) to ensure we are more inclusive. But as I noted, that's just one idea. No-one mentioned anything about "tearing down the current process", we simply downgrade the guideline to an essay (did you actually even read what I'd written?) and then make an RFC to replace the nonsense sometimes-ignored nine Wikipedia inclusion rule with something which relies on RS or maybe which removes these deaths altogether. But we're jumping the gun. You seem intent on having the last word, so feel free to do so, but please try to avoid littering it with so many inaccurate statements as you did in your previous statement. Oh and the pointed inclusion of the arb case link? Very classy. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that as if you haven't had the last word in every thread so far. You could use a mirror sometimes, you know? As for the ArbCom case, I'm sure you know that they recognized, quote, "The "Did you know" and "In the news" sections of the main page have issues in the area of quality control, nomination, evaluation, and vetting of content." I'm also sure there are better solutions as piggy-backing on a similarly faulty process, but, sadly, noone has ever come up with one. — Yerpo Eh? 10:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep missing the point, basing on ITN standards (i.e. community consensus and quality) is just one suggestion. I've made plenty of others, but you seem utterly fixated. Please stop mis-representing my contributions here, it's now becoming too much. Perhaps I'll request that IBAN after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So present them succintly and let the community decide if any has merit, then we can build on that. That's not "jumping the gun", but the core issue here. Until then, I can only wish you good luck with (effectively) silencing me with an IBAN proposal. — Yerpo Eh? 10:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you're the one who keep mis-representing my views, I'm the one who has given you a schedule of what's going to happen around here. IBANs do not silence anything, they simply help in dispute resolution when one or more editors are not providing constructive edits to Wikipedia. That seems to be happening here every time I make a comment, so I need no luck, simply time to formulate the request. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, who keeps mis-representing whose opinions is not all that clear, if we're honest. What's clear is that an IBAN would indeed silence me, because it is you alone who has decided to change RY completely, initiating or having the last word in almost all discussions to this effect. So I can only hope that the reviewing admin/ArbCom will recognize that this is essentially a political move. — Yerpo Eh? 11:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all, it will simply improve Wikipedia for our readers and prevent further disruptive edits between the pair of us. No politics at all, as we've already seen, there's a huge community consensus working against the regulars, I have no need to "silence" anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No. Insufficient international notability at time of death to meet WP:RY. The point of Year articles is not to overwhelm the reader with information, but to provide a curated list of events that will still be notable/noteworthy in 5, 10, 20 years' time. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Gemmell

Should Tommy Gemmell be included in the deaths section? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. No. Didn't meet WP:RY at time of death. Rusted AutoParts 22:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you supply a diff for that please. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    First revision with the date of death already inserted. — Yerpo Eh? 12:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, nine entries. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Eight plus English. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. WP:IAR is a great tool, and having to determine which version of the Wikidata page applies at the point of death is now really abundantly stupidly onerous. See next section, time to ditch this odd criterion, once and for all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He scored a goal in an international match, which gives him some international notability. However, it was only in a qualifying match, not in the World Cup itself. The problem is that there are so many sportspeople who have international notability that RY articles are going to be swamped with them in future years if we include them all. Jim Michael (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think any sensible indivudal would argue that an international footballer who scored (but not in a World Cup Finals) is not internationally notable. Some players don't score goals at all (e.g. goalkeepers), so are you precluding everyone who plays in that position who doesn't meet your current "9 wikipedia" notability? His article received tens and tens of thousands of hits after his death, orders of magnitude more than others listed here who apparently do satisfy the regulars' super-notability criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No. Insufficient international notability at time of death to meet WP:RY. The point of Year articles is not to overwhelm the reader with information, but to provide a curated list of events that will still be notable/noteworthy in 5, 10, 20 years' time. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Nine Wikpiedias"

It now appears that the only way an editor can actually check this is using historical Wikidata diffs, which have been called into doubt for their veractiy. I believe this is a retrograde step, technically onerous and unnecessarily complicates Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, even in this project. As such I suggest we drop the "nine Wikpiedia" criterion and replace it with a consensus-based voting system to include individuals whom the community agree should be part of a year's review of births and deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the rule is not perfect and is getting more and more difficult to justify with the passing years, but I disagree with the alternative proposed. Even at ITN with its significantly larger group of involved editors, the result is quite Western-centric and random. We could instead look at other online reference sites that could be regarded RS, and mimic their selection. Perhaps a cross-section of several or something like that. — Yerpo Eh? 18:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then suggest an alternative because using diffs on Wikidata is simply not appropriate, the nine Wikipedias thing never was appropriate. It is simply a statement of acceptance of systemic bias, popular Wikpidias win, it is most definitely not a measure of global notability which I believe seems to be the excuse given for persisting with it. That should be reliable third party sources from around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read my comment past the first sentence? — Yerpo Eh? 19:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I phrased it rather more succinctly, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call your reply succinct, no. But never mind. I proposed an alternative, do you think it's worthy of consideration or not? — Yerpo Eh? 19:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's already there, the criterion which speaks of news on three continents. That's sufficient. Although perhaps this project, as attached to arcane rules as it seems to be, would prefer a precise listing of publications in which a death is announced before it is declared sufficient for inclusion in recent year articles, e.g. The Times, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald etc. Get to three of those and you're in! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The three continent criterion is insufficient (that's why it's the minimum at which we can even start talking about eligibility), and would lead to even more people included if used alone. With "online reference sites", I meant notable deaths compilations in various RS such as the BBC. — Yerpo Eh? 19:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, minimum. And then after that you regulars "decide" on behalf of the community. Which is not appropriate any longer, now we've caught you out. Time to open it up. We need RS like mainstream news sources across the globe. But it's clear we don't agree, so we'll wait for the dust to settle on the current RFCs, on the ANI report and on other bits and pieces, and we'll move forward with a much more straightforward approach which the community can assess and which the reader will benefit from. Right now we have nothing of the sort. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we need additional opinions about whose proposal is better, so let's leave it for now. But please stop referring to yourself in plural, that really doesn't give your opinions any additional validity. Not to mention consistently ignoring the main message of my comments which is mildly insulting. — Yerpo Eh? 20:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a break. This continual resorting to "insulting" is insulting itself. The community, once given a chance, has voted overwhemingly against the thoughts of the three or four regulars who appear to edit this project most regularly. It's great that it's been given more exposure to prevent it from becoming something which is entirely out of touch of community norms. If you continue to claim such insults, we'll need to stop interacting permenantly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not nearly as overwhelmingly as you try to paint it, nor has it given you the mandate to speak on its behalf in every sub-thread. And you still ignored my proposal which is not the way to lead a constructive discussion. — Yerpo Eh? 20:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overwhelming consensus it most cases! And yes, your suggestion, like mine, has some merit, but it needs more than you and me to decide the date of this project's guideline. So once we have input from not the regular three, we might stand a chance of seeing what the community and what the readers expect from such pages, don't you agree?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much, no, as I demonstrated before. The thing is, as you probably noticed, that the larger community will react if you open an RfC on a trending topic (for example a minor celebrity who has passed away or a terrorist attack in a Western city), but they are not so interested in the long-term development of RY pages. Of course I agree that such a change needs a wider consensus, but if noone else but you and the regulars chip in, what do you think we should do? Go against the regulars because it's "obvious" that we are wrong by default? — Yerpo Eh? 05:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well sadly yes, it looks like the regulars are out of touch with the community, doesn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion, and no, it doesn't give you the mandate to implement all your ideas. The regulars are the community too. — Yerpo Eh? 06:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, its fact. Denying it won't change it I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Return when you have a real argument. — Yerpo Eh? 05:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snippy. But pointless. Several "real arguments" have been put forward, even from some of the regulars. The section below and the various RFCs adequately demonstrate the community's total dissatisfaction with this project's output. The sooner change is embraced, the better for Wikipedia and, more importantly, the better for our readers! Return when you're happy to be part of the solution! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I still haven't seen any solution that the community would embrace. Only criticizing and promises - none of which is a real alternative. — Yerpo Eh? 13:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you have. Reliable sources around the globe do the trick, not vote-counting unreliable, unsourced foreign-language Wikpiedias. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't do the trick. Or would you feature everybody whose death has been mentioned by RS? You fail to see the forest for the trees. Gain consensus to change the current practice with your explicit proposal, then you can say to have accomplished something. Until then, this has been nothing more than over a month of wasted time and energy. — Yerpo Eh? 19:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do, and that's how the rest of Wikipedia works. But right now you're attempting to defend a page which has one global event per month but dozens of globally significant deaths? It's all the wrong way round. People will be visiting this page to see the events of the year, but now there's one event per month and a selection of deaths which isn't quite the totality but is based on some unreliable and unsourced foreign language Wikipedia presence. Instead of global reliable sources. Madness. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you keep repeating and repeating. But we still haven't seen a better strategy for selecting each. — Yerpo Eh? 04:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, selections should be based on coverage in multiple reliable sources across the globe, not some arbitrary number of poorly referenced articles in Wikipedias across the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Can we please focus on solutions and stop repeating what you think is wrong with the current approach? You made your point already, long ago. But there are too many deaths covered in multiple reliable sources across the globe. So how would you select them? You said by voting for each one that somebody proposes, but I don't see anyone supporting that idea. — Yerpo Eh? 06:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, there aren't "too many deaths", see Deaths in 2017, that page seems to cope just fine. Oh...! And as for anyone supporting anything, no-one else is getting a word in edgeways as the regulars continually bat them away with disdain. Once all these RfCs have concluded, we'll stand a better chance of getting more involvement, and I'll open an RFC to get the nine Wikpiedia's rule dismissed, and another RFC to get the "guideline" status revoked. One step at a time! In the meantime, it's clear this discussion is proving fruitless, so feel free to continue on your own, I've got better things to do right now, like improve articles, write featured lists, review OTD articles and DYK hooks etc. Cheers for now! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More promises and haughtiness... Bravo. — Yerpo Eh? 07:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More statements of fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does a consensus-based voting system mean a discussion or vote is had for every individual where there is a question of inclusion?—Laoris (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless proper subjective criteria are agreed to, then yes. Right now, we have a so-called "minimum inclusion" criterion, but it's superseded by the project regulars who get to determine what is and what is not important. The nine Wikipedia rule is demonstrably absurd, so that will need to go in any eventuality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serving the readers

Currently it's abundantly clear that this "nine Wikipedia rule" is not serving our readers well. For instance, we can apparently include Giulio Angioni who mustered a whole 2,500 hits on the four days after his demise, yet above we see that the regulars reject Tommy Gemmell (71,000 hits in 4 days) and Deborah Watling (50,000 hits in 4 days). We've just had Jérôme Golmard added (who meets the current criterion because many Wikipedias have active tennis editors!), who currently averages 12 hits per day, so one can simply imagine how much interest our readers have in his death. Individuals whose apparent "global notability via nine-or-more Wikipedias" yet fail to secure more page views in four days than a poor DYK would muster in 12 hours should be subsequently removed, and more attention should be paid to listing the individuals our readers would expect to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In how many more ways are you going to tell us that the current approach of selecting content isn't ok in your opinion, before finally coming up with a viable alternative? — Yerpo Eh? 12:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As many as necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to become a Filibuster. Rusted AutoParts 14:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it's another aspect that needs to be examined, why are we adding nobody French tennis players and nobody Italian writers to this list yet excluding international footballers and actresses? Our readers seem to be far more interested in the latter than eht former. And the analogy doesn't really work in any case, if anything it's more like death by a thousand cuts. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: You told us as many ways as necessary a month ago - unless you plan to just keep criticizing until others figure out a solution that will satisfy you. In which case I can tell you right now that this conflict will end badly, probably for all involved parties and likely for the project as well. So I appeal to your good faith to start contributing constructively. Is that too much? — Yerpo Eh? 15:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've already threatened me, I'm frankly not interested in that because you're not in a position to do that, I'm asking important questions, providing alternative views, statistics, I'm thinking of our readers, and all you appear to be doing is criticising me, certainly going by your contribution history. Please allow others to participate, we all know your thoughts on whatever I say well enough by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could've just answered "yes", it would amount to the same. — Yerpo Eh? 16:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Golmard due to lack of international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which, of course, is nonsense. He meets the requirements for inclusion, yet your personal interpretation of international notability means that you feel empowered to remove his listing. Where is that enshrined in the current criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense - it's common sense. The 9 WP articles plus English is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule. We make exceptions where is it clear whether or not the decedent has significant international notability. With tennis players, that's grand slam titles. You pointed out that he lacks international notability, so I removed him. You've reinstated him, so you're contradicting yourself. Jim Michael (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm applying the guideline consistently. On the other hand you are applying your own personal guidelines. We have an international footballer who drew tens of thousands of hits upon his death which you (and the regulars here) have wholesale rejected because he didn't meet the nine Wikipedia rule. Yet you yourself now reject a tennis player who does meet the minimum inclusion criteria by applying your own personal view of international notability on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You said " With tennis players, that's grand slam titles" - where is that written down please? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting the guideline in order to make it seem ridiculous. You can see from the page history and archives of RY articles that we've made exceptions to the guideline on many occasions. The specifics of what constitutes international notability are written down, but perhaps they should be - if we can agree on them. The grand slams are the biggest tennis tournaments of the year, so it makes sense to measure notability by them and whether or not the player was ever world number one. I doubt that anyone (other than perhaps the editor who added him) would genuinely support Golmard's inclusion here. You only reinstated him to make the guideline look absurd. I'm not certain regarding Gemmell - if I had to vote yes or no to his inclusion then I'd vote yes solely because of the international goal he scored. Jim Michael (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're making up guidelines as you go along. And no, the inclusion of the French tennis player meets the guideline, and if that's absurd, so be it, you've made your bed. And you want international goals? So no goalkeepers then. What baffling nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of entries

It is simply ludicrous that so few entries are allowed on this page. When you look back at earlier decades, all of the years have plentiful entries. Let's take a random example: 1962. It's really interesting to read through and follow the progress of history. But now, in recent years, and particularly 2017, we are literally seeing one entry a month, or perhaps two at most. How does this make any sense? I see a load of perfectly acceptable and relevant entries I posted a while back for 2017 have now virtually all been either deleted or moved to sub-sections. The admins here have become so absurdly strict in their requirements, it seems you're only allowed to post something that is 100% globally significant. While I agree that some entries aren't important enough for inclusion, the pendulum has clearly swung too far, we need to restore some balance and flexibility and let more entries be posted here. Some people here seem fanatical about deleting everything, and they see Wikipedia's rules as some Holy Bible of commandments that must never be broken even slightly. Why is it okay for older years to have plenty of entries, but 2017 is so incredibly sparse? Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Years from 2002 onwards have to meet WP:RY inclusion criteria, whereas years before then don't. The sub-articles, such as 2017 in science and 2017 in the United States aren't subject to RY criteria either. Jim Michael (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A very good demonstration of just one of the issues with WP:RY. It's piggy-in-the-middle and providing nothing particularly logic or useful to our readers except a cut down version of "Deaths in..." articles and a pointless "globally significant events as selected by three or four individuals" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This. I came across this fall out after finding the 2017 page and wondering what the heck it was. Just seemed to be a few randomly selected moments throughout the year (making me wonder why other major events seemed to be ignored), followed by another random and incomplete list of deaths. I guess I understand that, with 2017 sub categories (sport, politics, United Kingdom etc) there is a desire to avoid just duplicating everything or making 2017 just a big bloated combo of everything that happened everywhere. But it was confusing trying to understand what the criteria for inclusion was. This talk page, the arguments on WP:RY and the 'guideline' or whatever it is/isn't, just confused me further.
Outsider looking in, its like 3-4 guys just decide what they want and when a rule or guideline should or shouldn't apply. Even more bonkers is that the guidelines or rules are so silly. Arguing over the semantics of what is or isn't of international importance? What a waste of time. And if you can't include say, a sports event because it's covered in the sports sub for that year, why do isn't the same logic applied to deaths? Just don't include deaths either. In fact, why not make the Year article just a selection of links to the subs? Or, if for whatever reason Wikipedia needs to have an 'annual review' of Planet Earth for each year, get your categories together, then pick say, 5 of the most significant events for each category and stick up a link to their wikipedia article, maybe a brief summary of each if you have to write something. Pick the 5 by vote, or come up with a sound way of rating international significance. Because the current idea of an event not being international because its "domestic" is dump. A event has to take place somewhere "domestic"! How/if/why/what it's impact was internationally is just a headfuck argument nobody is ever going to win without nonsubjective criteria. Can't be bothered with that? Then just kill the year articles and perhaps the regulars could just write their own annual review and host it on their talk page or something. They can make up whatever weird/exclusive/spontaneous criteria they like then! Meh, my 2 cents. And yeah, I know. I'm nobody. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Landau instead of Shepard

Landau is the more notable individual. Landau is an Oscar winning actor. In comparison Shepard isn't as notable. Using other wiki sites as an example, Landau's count is almost double of Shepards. In regards to the public domain part, the particular image of Landau is also a PD picture. Rusted AutoParts 04:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard is of more interest to our readers than Landau, by approximately a factor of 2. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know more Landau than Shepard, but why not Jeanne Moreau for more females? We need more females. The only thing I fear is an IP adding a double or triple template like this. Gar (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Shepard is of more interest to our readers than Landau, by approximately a factor of 2." What? What metric are you using to measure that?
In regards to Moreau being used too I propose why not Landau AND Moreau? I swapped out Don Rickles picture so that the entertainers count would be slightly reduced. Rusted AutoParts 13:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Page views of day or two after death. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's how you measure someone's overall notability? That's not how that works.... Rusted AutoParts 14:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did I mention notability? Or did I mention "interest to our readers"? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate. "That's now how that works". Rusted AutoParts 15:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you didn't answer the question. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did. You think the picture selection should be based off "Page views of day or two after death". So in two years time Shepard should still remain because he got more Page views after his death? So if say Elizabeth II passed and we had limited space for pictures, would you swap her with say Nathan Fillion because he got more pages views? Rusted AutoParts 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did they both die the same year? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its clearly a hypothetical. My point remains is that picking pictures based off page views is silly and counter productive in my mind. Rusted AutoParts 18:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was an odd choice. Pageviews are indicative of our readers interest in certain subject matter. Why would we deny them the things in which they are most interested? Instead there's a edit-war approach with individuals claiming "A is more notable than B", which is, of course, pure nonsense. Our readers want to find things they're interested in. We're not serving our readers well to give them things in which they will have little or no interest, I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're basing that though on the aftermath of their death though. Which is not a good metric to base anything off of. During and in the years after their deaths, Landau has and will be generally more notable than Shepard. Rusted AutoParts 19:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In your own point of view. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care who I find notable, but all matters is that we're happy with who we choose. Fair enough? Gar (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. It's also your point of view that Shepard is the more notable one. Perhaps it would be best if I sought out an alternate choice. It's foolish how much investment we seem to be putting into what is essentially just decoration. Rusted AutoParts 04:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced two males for two females, so looks like we're good for now. Gar (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue Rickles should be swapped back in place of Moran though. Moran's only claim to fame was Happy Days while Rickles has decades worth of acting and comedy that outweighs anything Moran did. Rusted AutoParts 05:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Gar (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jérôme Golmard

This tennis player was never in the top 20 players in the world and the furthest he reached in grand slams was the third round. Therefore he is nowhere near internationally notable enough to be included here - he's appropriately on 2017 in France. Jim Michael (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then start an RFC to determine whether he meets the current inclusion criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to format an RfC.
I'm saying that he should be an exception to the 9+ English guideline - if he did have that many articles when he died.
Jim Michael (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He had more than nine so he's more than qualified for inclusion. Per the current guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good example of my point above (under Lack of Entries) - with such stupid inclusion criteria, whatever the result is, it's going to be stupid. (1) 3 blokes arbitrarily decide by themselves he isn't important enough and don't include him. Stupid. (2) People argue the case using the current dump inclusion criteria, and some player few people have heard of outside France gets included for featuring on 9 other Wikipedia sites (what?? why is this a criteria, serously?) Stupid. Or (3) The bloke isn't included despite meeting the damn criteria. Stupid. Regardless of which side you are on, surely everyone can agree a system which guarantees all outcomes are unsatisfactory, is a system which needs to driven to the woods and left to die. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've excluded people from the Deaths section before due to a lack of international notability, despite them having enough articles to include them. Jim Michael (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You pointing out that under bunk criteria an unsatisfactory outcome has occurred in the past, doesn't make this pending outcome any more satisfactory, or the criteria any less bunk, mate. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you get to decide this, do you Jim? Because your previous track record seems to indicate that your edits are not inline with community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the track record matters. What happens going forward does. I mean, Jim could just go on adding the same words over and over to this wall of dull contrary text or he could do something useful, I guess. Like I dunno, let go and work with TRM to sort out some better inclusion criteria, that isn’t so banal and woolly that even he arbitrarily ignore it when it suits. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was a long-standing consensus regarding the guidelines until the last few weeks. The community decides - there's no leader of Year articles. There has been no reasonable alternative guideline suggested. Jim Michael (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there has, for a start we use WP:RS, not "9 Wikpiedias". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that in most cases they don't clearly state whether or not a person is internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, reliable sources don't state whether or not a person is internationally notable, so we can't use them to decide which people are internationally notable enough to include in the Deaths section. Jim Michael (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point, if their deaths are reported in reliable sources internationally then that makes them internationally notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. That person may merely have a significant number of fans in several countries rather than actual international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand how Wikipedia and notability works so I have nothing more to say to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand very well; I've been a frequent editor for years. Jim Michael (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be irrelevant, I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that in most cases they don't clearly state whether or not a person is internationally notable.

Where on the "9 Wikipedias" does it state that a person is internationally notable?62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been established through consensus in discussions that internationally notable people should be included in the Deaths section and that people who lack internationally notability should not. Jim Michael (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please copy the relevant paragraph(s) of the guideline here which state that please. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I asked though, Jim. You say RS should not used to determine international notability over the "9 Wikipedias" rule, because they don't clearly state international notability. Where on the "9 Wikipedias" does it clearly state international notability? It's a simple enough question, I'm only trying to help and understand. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not stated on the RY guideline, but it should be. It's been agreed on as a result of discussions that are on the talk pages (and their archives) of various RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how a guideline works. So you're implementing something that isn't in the guideline. Please stop doing that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm supporting a consensus that's existed for years and which has been confirmed many times. Jim Michael (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a consensus that's existed for years and confirmed many times, it would have been included in the guideline. Now please, stop making up criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jim, I still don't see an answer to my question. Please help me understand where the "9 wikipedias" sources clearly state that a person is internationally notable, avoiding the flaw you put forward as a reason to dismiss RS. I'm just trying to help. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, sources don't state that a person is internationally notable, so it wouldn't work as a guideline. The 9+ English WP articles is a guide - no-one claims it's foolproof. Jim Michael (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a single reliable source would have described Margaret Thatcher as "internationally notable" or do you think that her death being noted in RS across the globe demonstrated her international notability? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Her having been Prime Minister gave her international notability, not the media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, sources don't state that a person is internationally notable, so it wouldn't work as a guideline. The 9+ English WP articles is a guide - no-one claims it's foolproof.

Right, no I understand that Jim. But you were outright dismissing RS as a measure for international notability because they don't clearly state that a person IS internationally notable You've just admitted the "9 Wikipedia" rule doesn't do this either, so why is this even applicable? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Jim, what 62.255 just said. What are you actually looking to see, a statement like "Jerome Golmard, an internationally notable tennis player, has died.... "?! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite my point - RS won't say stuff like that but the "9 Wikipedia" rule won't either. So why is Jim using it as a stick to hit RS with? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yeah. So RS coverage doesn't apply. But somehow having nine unreferenced stubs does confer international notability? But only sometimes? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. I prefer being called by my surname, 118.6. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The number of articles a person has gives an indication of international notability, but it's not proof.
Golmard clearly didn't have significant internationally notability - he was never in the top 20 and never got further than the third round in a grand slam. He has many articles because WP has a lot of tennis fans on it.
Jim Michael (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok cool, you are using the number of Wikipedia articles to loosely define how internationally notable someone is. And as this is not foolproof, you allow it to be overridden in cases in which you spot a discrepancy between the number of Wikipedia articles and your opinion of how notable they really are. Why do you want to continue using this ‘system’ so badly? Wouldn’t you like a better system that isn’t full of holes and doesn’t rely on POV? And don't say because its been in place for years! 62.255.118.6 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discrepancy and the exceptions to the rule are decided by the community, which has been led by the regulars. There are only four of us now, but there have been more. I didn't suggest the 9+ English guideline, but I support it in the absence of a better alternative. Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't even follow the 9+ rule, you (personally) decide when it does and does not apply. Don't you see that's simply wrong? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a guideline formed by consensus which we make exceptions to by consensus. Jim Michael (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first bit, I'll give you, just, as it was incorrectly promoted to guideline and then sanctioned by an RFC in which only a handful of regulars participated. The second bit is complete nonsense, you and other "regulars" summarily make exceptions without any discussion whatsoever, just as you did here with this French tennis player. You didn't gain a consensus to remove him, you just did. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't done incorrectly - it was done through the proper channels. There isn't a minimum number of people needed to form a consensus. You can see discussions on archives of talk pages of recent years about whether or not various people should be added to the Deaths section. That process often starts with WP:BRD. Jim Michael (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even the person who "promoted" it accepts it was incorrect. Anyway, as you'll soon see, this will be resolved and then we can focus on fixing the criteria for deaths inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Should Golmard be included? He was never in the top 20 and didn't get further than the third round in any grand slam. Jim Michael (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"International Notability"

Hi. This term keeps being thrown about, especially by Jim Michael and I guess I am struggling, like everybody else, to understand what exactly is going on here - (1) What is "International Notability"? and (2) Why do people/events require "international Notability" to feature on Years? I hope you can shed some light on this, Jim. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A central requirement for inclusion in recent year articles (2002 onwards) is that the person or event must be internationally notable. Important domestic events should be on sub-articles, such as 2017 in the United States, 2017 in politics - not on this article. This has been agreed through consensus and has been how things have been done here for years. Jim Michael (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly thats a rather big appeal to tradition fallacy there, Jim. "How its always been" is not a justification for continuing to do something. Do you disagree with the abolishment of slavery, for example? Secondly, it's my understanding from reading this page and WP:RY that the way the guidelines/rules were founded was not exactly bona fide. You determining content using a crooked guideline, that shouldn't even be a guideline, just because it's been there "for years" doesn't seem very helpful to the project. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And international notability can be gauged by the appearance of individuals in reliable sources around the globe, it does not need for any one particular editor to decide upon themselves and implement their own POV, non-RS-based, international notability criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been agreed on by the regulars - you're making it sound like I wrote the guideline.
As I've said before, many people's deaths are reported by the mainstream media in several countries without them having been internationally notable.
Jim Michael (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, no-one said you wrote the guidelines, you just happen to be someone who selectively implements them. International notability can be gauged by the appearance of individuals in reliable sources around the globe, it does not need for any one particular editor to decide upon themselves and implement their own POV, non-RS-based, international notability criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep repeating yourself about it being agreed upon by the regulars, Jim? why does that matter if we've identified that the criteria is flawed? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I need to say that international media coverage does not prove international notability? If any of the television personalities in the Kardashian-Jenner family were to die tomorrow, there would be a huge amount of media coverage of it in many countries. He or she still wouldn't be internationally notable. The only one of them who's actually internationally notable is Caitlyn Jenner, due to her Olympic achievements when she was Bruce. Jim Michael (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that we wouldn't be posting Kim Kardashian here if she died?! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt many people would add her - but she shouldn't be included because she isn't internationally notable and hasn't done any important work. She's just famous for being famous. Jim Michael (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, she definitely would be included, 100%. Your opinions on the matter would not have any effect that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. where is " hasn't done any important work" in the guideline? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis would she be included? In what way is she internationally notable? Having cameras follow her about and being idolised by people who wish they were like her so that they could be rich and famous without any achievements or work doesn't constitute international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but what does constitute international notability, then? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Her death would be covered across the globe by reliable sources. NPOV RS to V her N. None of this personalised application of duff hidden criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't make her internationally notable. The media report stories about her just because she has many fans. Jim Michael (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's where you're wrong then Jim. We've hit a brick wall and the community disagree with your version of "international notability". Most of the community will stick with reliable sources. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't make her internationally notable.

Aaargh!! What DOES? Please Jim, help me out here! 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know the difference between an internationally notable person and a reality TV personality? Jim Michael (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I phrased the question wrong - I'm not talking about anyone specific. I'm asking you to help me out and tell me:what does make somebody internationally notable? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kardashian's death would make it into Britannica. But this is a great point. We actually have now arrived at the ultimate conclusion - people who are listed here should be debated and included by community consensus, not an arbitrary rule (which is often ignored by the regulars). So when I launch the next RFC, that's something I'll consider. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But without a guideline, we'd have to discuss every entry and suggested entry. Jim Michael (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. How do you think every other list on Wikipedia works? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try again. Jim - What makes someone internationally notable? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Real international achievements. Examples are: heads of state/government, sportspeople who have won major titles competing for their country, musicians who have played at major venues in many countries or who have sold large numbers of records in several countries, actors who have starred in films that have been successful in many countries, inventors whose products are widely used in many countries. Jim Michael (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then a discussion needs to be held for each entry to ensure they meet your requirements, because your requirements are purely subjective. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have to admit Jim, he has a point. You have to imagine criteria as a form of automation. The measures you have listed up there formulate a discussion. I suppose I return to this question: Why are we trying to determine "international Notablity?" 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RY articles are for internationally notable events, births and deaths. There are a lot of sub-articles, such as 2017 in the United States and 2017 in science which don't have such a requirement. Jim Michael (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're just repeating yourself and not answering the questions Jim. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've given examples of what gives a person international notability. There can be - and sometimes are - discussions regarding marginal cases. Jim Michael (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you've done is given some abstract concepts that you yourself believe constitutes international notability, these are all personal opinions and have no place here without consensus for each item. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not true - there have been discussions about it over the years on talk pages of RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which aren't in the guideline, right. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only exception that's stated in the guideline is that heads of state or government are automatically eligible regardless of how many articles they have. It should be stated that other people who have significant international notability are eligible likewise - and that people who lack significant international notability should be excluded even if they have enough articles. This has been established through consensus after talkpage discussions. Jim Michael (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And back to the same original problem, just two or three of you deciding what you personally believe "significant international notability" (suddenly "significant"!) instead of leaving it to reliable sources. We're going round in circles, so let's see what the next RFC brings. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've said significant on many occasions, because there are many thousands of people who have slight international notability, such as having competed in an international competition. As I've said, being reported internationally doesn't prove international notability - and news reports often don't say whether or not someone is genuinely internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I just said, you're not answering the question and this is going in circles. Best to leave it here and wait for the RFC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Vanamonde93, please add citations to events that you add, to match all the other cited events. Softlavender (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do that yourself, it doesn't take an admin to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting the editor who added the material. Softlavender (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now I've linked the cholera outbreak article, there's no need for inline references, per the RY guideline, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the uncited items that Vanamonde93 added need citing. Wikilinking elements of the event is not linking the event itself. The destruction of the mosque is not linked (nor does it have a separate article), the WHO announcement/estimation is not linked (nor does it have a separate article). So both of those need citations. Softlavender (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the destruction of the mosque is covered in the mosque article, and as I already said, now the outbreak article is linked, that's no problem either. If you see it as something different then you are welcome to fix it to your satisfaction otherwise this just seems frivolous. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Wikipedia:Recent years#Format: "If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article but is deemed sufficient for inclusion, it must be externally sourced in the year article, especially if it refers to living people." -- Softlavender (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The events are cited in the articles linked already. Asking for more is frivolous. Solve it yourself if it's such a a big deal by copying and pasting the citations from the linked articles. Fuss about nothing, why not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat: "If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article ... it must be externally sourced in the year article ...." (bolding mine) That's quite unambiguous, and does not refer to or make any exceptions for events that are "cited in the articles linked already". I'm not fussing; it's you who entered into a conversation I am having with Vanamonde93, who logged off for the day before she saw my post. She will added the needed citations to her additions when she comes back on-wiki. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat, add the citations yourself. This isn't a user talk page, it's a project talk page, so it's not a private conversation you're having. What you're asking for is simply frivilous. But if you insist, you should do it yourself. It would probably take you two or three seconds. Honestly, what a waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on, are you the same person that gave an editor a warning for adding {{talkpage}} to a newly created article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat yet a third time: "If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article ... it must be externally sourced in the year article ... (bolding mine). Citing, accuracy, verifiability, and guidelines are anything but "simply frivolous". Softlavender (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I recognised the name. If you're really actually that concerned, you'd do something about it yourself. You seem to be just making a fuss (and creaing KB of talkpage, ironically) when a couple of positive edits would fix the issue. How odd, and what a frivilous waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'm not making a fuss, and I'm not concerned; as I stated above I know Vanamonde93 is offline and will return and add citations. Every post I've made here since my OP has simply been responding to your repeated posts (which includes your post on my talk page [2]) and explaining the guideline to you. Softlavender (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, all fixed, in sub-one minute. You could have done the same but chose to create all this. The Rambling Man (talk)
    No, the uncited additions that Vanamonde93 posted are not cited, which is what this thread is about. I didn't "create all this"; you've been the one perpetuating this thread addressed to Vanamonde93. Softlavender (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it all fixed per WP:RY requirements (even though you could have done it in under a minue)? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, to repeat, the uncited additions that Vanamonde93 posted are not cited, which is what this thread is about. Softlavender (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, per WP:RY the hooks now meet the requirements as the events themselves are linked. Right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the uncited events that Vanamonde93 posted. To repeat yet a fourth time: "If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article ... it must be externally sourced in the year article ... (bolding mine). Softlavender (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Which outstanding events aren't linked directly to their own article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The two uncited claims in June that Vanamonde93 posted. Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cholera outbreak is linked to a target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The event is the World Health Organization estimating 200,000 cholera cases in Yemen on 25 June 2017, not the 2016–17 Yemen cholera outbreak. Softlavender (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, now you're taking the piss. Okay, forget this, you can do this yourself. That's the article about the event. You're wikilawyering and being frivilous with my time. I'll go back to adding {{talkpage}} to new articles instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not taking the piss. For the fifth time: "If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article ... it must be externally sourced in the year article ... (bolding mine). Citing, accuracy, and verifiability are anything but "frivolous". I'm not going to add the citations, Vanamonde93 will, as I requested in my OP, when she comes back online; she is capable of citing her own additions. Softlavender (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeat away. You're frivilously wasting precious time, time that you could have used to fix the issue. But that's just not what you do is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm replying to your posts in this thread request to Vanamonde93. If you don't desire or require a response, then you need not post. Softlavender (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanamonde was just closing out RfCs, you could have solved the problem hours ago but you prefer this way of doing things. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    She posted uncited events. I requested that she cite them, and she will when she sees my ping and the request. Softlavender (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's all fixed, I think it took about 51 seconds to do it, but phew!. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Softlavender: as TRM pointed out, the requirements of verifiability are satisfied by the linked event being sourced in the main article. In articles I have been involved in, this is fairly common practice: for instance, lists of people who were born or who died on a certain day only rarely contain references. That said, there is no harm in adding the citations, and I was planning to do so when I came back online and had more time: TRM has now taken care of this, so I do not think there is more for us to discuss. Thanks, TRM. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. The 51 seconds of fixing was certainly less frivilous than the wall of text here. Onwards! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanamonde93, the events per se are not linked in the two entries you added. Please read Wikipedia:Recent years#Format: "If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article ... it must be externally sourced in the year article". There is no Wikipedia article on the destruction of that specific mosque, and there is no Wikipedia article on the World Health Organization's 25 June 2017 estimation of 200,000 cholera cases in Yemen. The former entry now has a citation, but the latter still needs one. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please, if you're really that concerned, you need to fix it yourself. This is a completely frivilous waste of time when you can "fix" it in seconds. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned the purposes of verifiability have been satisfied, and I cannot be bothered to split hairs in the wording of an obscure guideline. Vanamonde (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarion Capucci

Should Hilarion Capucci be included in this article? Regardless of the apparent failure to meet WP:RY at the time of death, his article indicates significant "international notability", as evidenced by the substantial rise in numbers of interwiki articles about him. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, as RY still applies despite your misgivings and desire to alter the criteria. At time of death Capucci didn't meet the criteria, thus cannot be submitted. Rusted AutoParts 18:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's rubbish. People who do meet the current criteria are being excluded by the regulars for one personal reason or another, so there's no reason at all not to take a step back and admit that an individual is notable enough for inclusion a few months after the event. Your tag-team behaviour has been noted, and I recommend you stop it immediately. Did you even read the article or my opening post? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not rubbish. It's the protocol that's needed to be followed and I shall do so unless stated otherwise. And there wasn't any tag team effort to undo your edit. I saw a potential edit war about to occur and I elected to nip it in the bud. This hostile and uncivil approach is way uncalled for. Rusted AutoParts 18:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts I agree. I follow guidelines and I understand them. Sometimes I get annoyed at times, but that's life. I don't know why The Rambling Man had to revert my edit. I made a clear statement and he reverted it. Gar (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was neither hostile nor uncivil, your over tag-teaming is under scrutiny now. Both of you (!), please read the opening statement. That this individual didn't have articles on 9 Wikipedias at the time of his death is beside the point. He is internationally notable, from his work across the globe. Please stop just reverting to the "9 Wikipedias" rule, which other regulars are actually ignoring and intentionally removing individuals who meet that criterion. Get your house in order. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
....That is the rule that is in place until it's decided it shan't be used. Quite frankly it's easy to assume you are being hostile as when I reverted your edit based off it looking like edit warring the first thing you do is accuse me of "tag teaming" as if this was a concentrated effort to revert you. And on that note can I ask you provide evidence of times me and @Garchomp2017: "tag teamed"? I wasn't aware we were in cahoots. Rusted AutoParts 19:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tag team evidence is compiled, not to worry. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By all means share it with us. Expose my conspiracy. Rusted AutoParts 19:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It will be used at the appropriate point, probably when discussing how much ownership there is over the WP:RY project; it's helpful to demonstrate how a number of you act (perhaps even passively, but still knowlingly) in a tag-team manner. We'll see how the next few RFCs pan out. I'll let you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to please share your evidence. You're accusing me of something and I wish to set the record straight. Rusted AutoParts 19:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, the issue with regulars here tag-team editing is a big one, and just because it doesn't necessarily involve off-wiki collusion, it's still subtantive evidence that this project is rotten to the core and needs a huge investment of outside influence to bring it back into the community. Any such evidence will be presented at the future RFC concerning the governance and ownership of the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recommend letting the RfC play out, !voting and submitting rationale(s) rather than making comments about editors or about what other stuff exists or doesn't exist. Every single person that each editor wants included is not going to be included, because people by nature will often disagree with each other about specifics (and some editors are inclusionists while others are more deletionistic). For that reason it's best to remember that even if someone ends up not in the article, we've also got Deaths in January 2017 (and subsequent months) and Category:2017 deaths. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Those articles should be the only articles really, not this hotpotch of subjectively selected individuals, chosen by two or three editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The deaths listed in the year articles serve a useful purpose. They give a curated overview that is readable and not overwhelming. There is a logical reason to have a limited number of death entries per month (look at past years); to have a much greater number would become overwhelming to the reader. No crowd-curated list of deaths is going to be either perfect or agreeable to everyone; the same applies to any Wikipedia article or endeavor. If you feel this particular person should be included, you are welcome to !vote in this RfC, which is viewable to a wide assortment of people. These neutral outside forms of dispute resoluton are how we handle content disputes on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would believe you if (a) the articles themselves are curated (they're not, many are junk), (b) there's a logical set of inclusion criteria that isn't implemented subjectively by three or four individuals, and (c) I'm not sure why this is even of any point beyond the Deaths in 2017 article which lists all notable individuals that have died this year. I'm fully aware of this RFC (are you joking?!!) so thanks for your input, but it's safe to say that none of it really hits the important points. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't see the point, then why bother editing it at all? Edit other things. The year articles – including deaths – aren't going to go away; they are a standard encyclopedic feature. These articles are curated, or else no one would ever revert or change anything. You may not like which editors are curating them at any given moment, or how or why, but that doesn't change the fact. If you want more editors on board to curate them, then you would need to round up more editors somehow, but like many WikiProjects and articles there aren't a massive number eyes left on them (although this article has 90 or so active watchers). Creating an RfC as you have done brings in more eyes, but it's also standard practice to actually !vote on something you feel strongly about rather than to simply complain that things aren't going your way and other people are wrong or are doing things wrong. Softlavender (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're a little behind the curve on this one I think, but it matters not. There's a series of RFCs going through RY to radically change it from the regular ownership haunt its become to something relevant to our readers. Your definition of "curated" is certainly different from mine, this project "curates" by rejecting anything the regulars don't like (check the page history of any recent year you fancy), and that's ownership, not curation. If the regulars want the "best" for the readers, they wouldn't do that, and they would listen to the community. Just look at the various RFCs above about inclusion of certain news items. The regulars rejected pretty much all of them, yet the community overwhelmingly accepted them. The project is undergoing a huge overhaul, and that's a good thing. So it's not about "simply complaining", some of us are actively working to improve the place. I suppose if you haven't read around the project pages, you wouldn't be aware of that, and that's actually part of the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of the current discussions at WT:RY. You clearly disagree with the way this and other RY articles have been curated, but as I mentioned before, having a quite limited number of entries has typically worked better for the reader in most editors' eyes; hence, an effort to provide some form of inclusion limitations. Softlavender (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, what evidence do you have that the current inclusion criteria "typically worked better in most editors' eyes"? Are you talking about the decision making from three or four project regulars who work in packs against anyone who dares question their methodology?The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The argument about the interwiki number increase falls squarely under WP:NOTNEWS. — Yerpo Eh? 19:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all, but that's a really interesting slant on why you may think this nine-Wikipedia thing is good. People can be found to be internationally notable post-mortem, without a doubt, so why you and the other regulars are all bandwagoning, I know not, but hey, plus ca change. The Rambling Man 19:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: don't WP:BADGER. — Yerpo Eh? 19:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, IBAN! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. No evidence of international notability sufficient to override WP:RY, which is still in effect in this article. If there is some, point to evidence that he had international notability before death. WP:BRD suggests exclusion unless consensus gor inclusion is found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it interesting that, through all the bickering, no one has said exactly why he doesn't qualify under WP:Recent years. I looked at that very complicated policy and I wonder how that ever got written. Notable, yes, he was notable. I generally don't pay attention to anyone involved in these modern religions, gimme that oldtime religion, but even I have heard of him. And it's a shame he died. What about this 9 Wiki rule? I looked at WikiData and it seems to say he's on 15 Wikipedias. Is someone trying to say that because a Wiki speaks English, it doesn't count? The entries before and after him have the same number of entries in WD in the same languages. Why is this article so contentious? I looked at the history and I'm amazed there's an article left! There are almost as many deletions as there are entries!
Back on point, I don't know how to cast my !vote. No one is stating a reason for exclusion except to point at WP:RY. Cite chapter and verse for those of us who don't make recent year articles our life.  — Myk Streja (beep) 06:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a perfect summary of some of the issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what am I missing here? I've read WP:RYD. I've looked at the WikiData. Why do so many think he doesn't belong? He was no Mother Teresa, but he still passed WP:GNG. He seems to pass inclusion. What is the issue?  — Myk Streja (beep) 21:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to follow the arcane instructions above somewhere on how to determine if an individual had 9 non-English Wikipedia entries at the point of death, the only way to do that is by finding the point in time of death at Wikidata. It's that simple, and that logical, and that helpful to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can be naive sometimes, but that is no reason to lead me down the primrose path. The use of the word "arcane" should have tipped me off, but I was assuming good faith. A more helpful and less sarcastic answer would have been nice, but I seemed to have stepped into the midst of a power play of some sort. Never mind, I have other things that need doing. The WP:FRS will have to do without me on this topic.  — Myk Streja (beep) 02:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Rambling Man, you have requested comments, so far comments have been made in opposition and you are badgering the various arguments. You have made your point(/s) about this clear. Please let the RfC play out to the full fortnight. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse

August 21 – The 2017 total solar eclipse traverses the continental United States.

Total solar eclipses are only ever total over a certain part of the earth but are and have been listed in year articles: [3]. I suggest we reinstate this, which was just deleted. This one is particularly significant as it will be easily seen by all of the U.S. (rather than being total in the middle of an ocean, etc.) Softlavender (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has "never-to-be-viewed" almost a half a million times in the past 30 days. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Sbmeirow, I meant the item should be in the 2017 in the United States lower level article, which has received a magnificent average of 209 views per day! A shade more than my own talk page! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I bought the August issue of Canada's top astronomy magazine as a souvenir (cause the USA one sucks now from the print version of network decay) It seems like almost half the content is eclipse. Canadians are definitely going to USA to see totality and they have to go at least ~200 miles in. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It means hundreds of millions of people can simply drive there on high quality motorways instead of practically taking a safari just to get there like with many TS eclipses. More North Americans have a car than in Europe cause petrol is only ~€0.60/liter €0.53/liter. This will cause massive viewership. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, massive "local" viewership. This isn't significant to the rest of the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it may have the most viewers ever. Curious: would you have opposed the 1999 UK/Europe eclipse? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most viewed because of the size of the US. No, I wouldn't have opposed an event that was truly international, i.e. that eclipse was viewed by 350 million people across two continents. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So then, some total eclipses are notable because they cross arbitrary boundaries drawn in the sand, while others, crossing a huge expanse of land whose boundaries are far apart on the sand, are not notable. We must be sure to notify the sun and moon that they must stay in the lines, or rather outside of the lines. This is an extraterrestrial event that is not governed by any one nation.  — Myk Streja (beep) 07:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's only not international because Europeans reached a dominant tech level instead of Native Americans. (And all those little ice-cube dividers like Alps/Adriatic/Carpathians and post-Roman fragmentation makes for a lot of countries). That's an accident of history. If Native Americans had wild horses, wheat, and other good stuff like goat then maybe it wouldn't have been colonized and the eclipse would be international (Native American countries). It wasn't guaranteed that the thin strip of land you fought 240 years ago would ever monopolize the eclipse anyway. If post-1754 history was a little different the first third of the eclipse could easily be in a Test-cricket playing Commonwealth country, the second third could be in part of France, at most the last third would be in the US, and maybe even a little piece could be in Mexico. As you might know, USA only got its central 103 Waleses of land cause Napoleon sold it to fund the wars (thank you Britain!). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Approve Most viewed and most photographed eclipse in history with significant first of their kind scientific observations planned. Its location is irrelevant here.RadioFan (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is it more important than the many domestic events which have people travelling from other countries to see? Hundreds of thousands of people travel from outside Germany go to Munich's Oktoberfest each autumn - that doesn't make it an international event. Jim Michael (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, it does.  — Myk Streja (beep) 07:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UN approves fresh sanctions on North Korea

As a little experiment, I've added this entry for 5th August. I fully expect it to be deleted by the usual crowd of deletion-obsessed people. Let's see how long it stays up. Now, we can see that it's notable, and internationally (if not globally) important, since it relates to the escalating nuclear weapons program of a politically volatile country. It clearly deserves an entry here. And yet, I suspect it will be deleted, for the usual spurious reasons (e.g. "Oooh, North Korea, that's a local event"). Let's see, shall we...? ;-) Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exclude domestic event, lacking in significant international notability, and no way there's nine Wikipedia coverage of it and it's all based in social media or related to the high concentration of journalists in a particular city at a particular time or it's something to do with something we've covered before that isn't in the "guideline" but has definitely, at least once, been covered in a talkpage chat sometime in 2013, and in any case, we've always done it this way so why would would do it any differently, I mean this project was fine until more than three people contributed to it, and that's why this should definitely be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you two guys trying to make a WP:POINT here? Of course a significant increase of severity of UN sanctions against a country meet all criteria for inclusion, which is why the entry hasn't been removed. Surprise, surprise, but the system can actually work! — Yerpo Eh? 19:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP had an element of mischief about it, as did my response, which pretty much covers most of the responses the regulars give here to something they collectively disagree with. This has nothing to do with the "sytem actually working" because it doesn't, as is demonstrated day on day right now, and that will be addressed in one of the forthcoming RFCs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just noted that you're again trying to convince people that the system doesn't work in a case where it did. Which proves that the issue is, in reality, not completely black & white. — Yerpo Eh? 19:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Convince"? No, just a reminder. As you'll see, we'll RFC this (along with the 9 Wikipedia rule) in due course. Then you can coninue the defence of the current "guideline". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yisrael Kristal

Despite having over 10+ articles before death, I think he should be here but at the same time, not. Because he was the oldest living man at the time and not to forget, Zhou Youguang, who died seven months ago was a supercentenarian too, but he's in here because he was the father of Pinyin. I think he should be removed or stay. Like the recent years says, "Persons whose notability is due to circumstance rather than actual achievement (e.g. oldest person in the world or last surviving person of [x]) do not meet the basic requirement for inclusion." And I know well that he is also the oldest living Holocaust survivor too. Thoughts? Gar (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the discussion where I came across that information if you wish to ask the editors involved in that to link you to the exact consensus. Rusted AutoParts 21:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts I read the discussion and do you think Kristal should be excluded because of being the world's oldest man? Gar (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was never included in the guideline so while it might be interesting, it's nothing more than that. Because RY is a guideline and because this individual passes the minimum criteria, that's all that's needed to include thus individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DerbyCountyinNZ: @Irn:. Rusted AutoParts 22:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthur Rubin: @Yerpo:. Gar (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although TRM is not convinced by facts or argument, the exclusion here IS in the guideline, and the fact should be noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DerbyCountyinNZ That's what I said, but I understand. Anyone else other than Rusted AutoParts and The Rambling Man? Gar (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@172.58.108.36 What does he have to do with basketball? Nothing. Kristal was the oldest living man and a Holocaust survivor. Has nothing to do with basketball. Gar (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
172.58.108.36 - Think you got the wrong article bud?, This article is nothing to do with basketball :) –Davey2010Talk 03:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010 Agree. I know what he was up to. Don't you? Gar (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AGF goes a long way, You should read it sometime. –Davey2010Talk 20:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see what this knucklehead did? He blanked an administrator's user page! AGF only goes so far.  — Myk Streja (beep) 02:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include He was not only the oldest Holocaust survivor, but the world's oldest man for a time. People may not agree with this but surviving the Holocaust is an achievement beyond the pale. The odds were against survival for any persons sent to the concentration camps as a Jew, a Slav, a Gypsy and so on. He lost his first wife, but overcame his traumatic experiences, remarried, and successfully went back into his profession, and had another child.
Looking at the number of references, this story is well documented in sources and it seems as a topic Yisrael Kristal satisfies GNG. Also, WP:RY#Consensus says "Any of the standards set below can be overruled by a consensus to ignore those standards in a given case." - which refers to WP:IAR, a Wikipedia policy. That is part of the WP:RY guideline after all. And GNG is always applicable across Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - notability due to circumstance. I'm happy for him that he survived holocaust and managed to reestablish a normal life, but there were literally millions of people like that, so this is nothing particularly notable in itself. — Yerpo Eh? 05:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yerpo – Agree. Other people survived the Holocaust. Gar (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael – Agree. Read my comment above. And not only that, there's other people older than Kristal despite the fact they'll never be here for the same reason. And plus, other people survived the holocaust too. Gar (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment he was notable per RY because he was both the oldest man alive and the last survivor of the Holocaust. Two claims, i.e. notable enough for RY. Honestly, are those voting exclude really thinking about our readers here or simply badly applying a corrupt guideline for the sake of it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't the last survivor of the Holocaust - there are still many survivors who are alive. He was the oldest survivor. Neither of his longevity records are enough on their own or together to qualify him for inclusion in the Deaths section. Oldest people, survivors etc. are explicitly excluded, this rule having been established through consensus after several discussions over the years. Jim Michael (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not for long! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to exclude people whose notability is based purely on being lucky to have unusually long lives, sometimes combined with having survived a particular event. Jim Michael (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. We're here to serve our readers, not our arcane rules concocted by a handful of users. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lotfi A. Zadeh

Just a heads-up, this Iranian mathematician has been reported dead by only Iran's state outlet Press TV but this hasn't been confirmed by any other media in the rest of the world (including the USA where he lives) or publicly by anyone who knew or worked with him. Until you see his name on BBC, CNN etc., please respect WP:BLP and leave him off for now. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlottesville

I have added the Charlottesville kerfuffle to this list because news outlets in Europe and Oceania are posting stories about it, meaning it passes the three-continent rule. I have included a brief version of what appears at 2017 in the United States, and also a source from an Australian news outlet. pbp 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in RY that says it must be removed. RY says things that are listed must 1) be notable, and 2) have coverage on three continents. This has both, so I see no reason why it should not be on here. I should also note the removing party did so one minute after engaging the adding party (me) in a separate manner, which leads me to wonder whether his edit was based on personal animosity toward me rather than actually concern about appropriateness. pbp 20:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware of that. It's a domestic event. So it belongs in the 2017 in US article. Sure, go forum shopping now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in RY that excludes domestic events. I believe that this is an event that, while domestic, is sufficiently newsworthy to warrant inclusion here. pbp 20:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what others have to say then, shall we? Or start an RFC as I had to in order to include the (actually significant) bombing at the Manchester Arena. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You had to RfC MANCHESTER? That seems more bureaucratic than it needed to be. pbp 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(moved my comment to RfC)

Well there you go, welcome to the RY world of three/four regulars running the place according to their preferences. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

Should the August 12 events in Charlottesville be mentioned on this page? pbp 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017&oldid=795591029"