User:Yerpo/sandbox2

How to select entries for the "Deaths" section in recent years pages? A list of options that have been floated around for the past few months.

Keep the current method of requiring 9 interwikis at the time of death

Pros:

quick and dirty

Cons:

technically violates a number of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:RS
usefulness has degraded over the years, not the least because many Wikipedias are using bots to mass-create stubs, so interwikis don't reflect true international notability anymore

Included just for comparison. See Wikipedia talk:Recent years#RFC: International notability for inclusion in the deaths section of RY articles.

Comment For one, Wikipedia, in any language, is not a Reliable Source. For two, non-English Wikipedia's have standards far more relaxed than ours, meaning articles can be created in these spaces without any supervision, quality control or moderation. It would be entirely feasible for me to create a single article and post it multiple times on other wikis, without scrutiny or assessment. For three, the number of wikis is completely arbitrary. For four, this method was written and endorsed by an editor/admin whose credibility has been demonstrated as lacking, who fraudulently promoted the method to guideline status for cynical reasons. For five, as we have seen over recent times, this method comes into direct conflict with common sense, often denying entry of the obvious. For six, it's only support comes from a small pocket of individuals who are only interested in retaining it because they can dig into its confusing, woolly jargon to deny with false authority, any individuals or events they personally find distaste with or have a vendetta against, usually because of some pompous crusade against modern, populist notability. This option has been dismissed by RFC and should rightly be ignored. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment. The above comment is a clear violation of WP:NPA, and, although the mentioned RfC can be read (with difficulty) as asserting the 9-Wikipedia rule is not a long-term solution, it cannot rationally be read as asserting the rule should be removed until an alternative is in place. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment the above comment claims the RfC can be read "with difficulty", so perhaps we need to spell it out. It fundamentally and clearly sets out that the community as a whole believe that the 9-wiki solution is invalid. That is as plain as day, it couldn't be any easier to read. It can rationally be interpreted that we need a need rule and that any consensus to include items against the old "guideline" (now essay) is perfectly justifiably included. Using unreliable sources to include information in Wikipedia is patently absurd and as such we should work actively to distance everyone from this "approach". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Make a cross-section of entries in lists of notable deaths in various RSs

Pros:

using several reliable sources (examples: NYT, BBC, Britannica) would make the list as little biased as possible

Cons:

can't use the method for the current year until after it has passed, or individuals that gain prominence even later
effort would be needed to identify RSs which reliably produce such lists every year, and agree on the ones to include

Comment As those most resistant to change were championing the inclusion of cherry-picked deaths on the basis that it fell in line with common practice regarding annual reviews outside of Wikipedia, then the idea of stalling publication until the year is complete, like others do, should not be met with objection. Current year can simply not exist or it can be a collection of links ascribing all events and deaths, which are upon release of sourced annual reviews, compiled accordingly. I also don't see 'effort' being a con.

Comment. The "con" concerns are legitimate, but not serious. Seems (at least a framework toward) the best approach. However, including all events is not part of a feasible solution. Including some events under specific rules might be feasible, if there were editors interested in reaching consensus. We all agree there are editors who do not appear interested in reaching consensus, although we do not agree who they are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment the above contains a veiled personal attack, thus noted, from a soon-to-be-desysopped editor. Including deaths per global RS is a reasonable approach, the three-continent rule is by far and away a better rule than the patently absurd 9-wiki rule. At least it uses reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Nominate each entry separately and have it voted upon

Pros:

the most direct way to have the collection reflect consensus

Cons:

content pages in Wikipedia aren't normally built this way, violates WP:BOLD
a hefty administrative burden
small community of active editors around RY pages would mean that the few regular editors would tend to dominate decisions
would cause over-representation of Western entertainers (the only ones that usually attract attention of the wider community)

Comment As the 'regulars' on these articles spam every vote with the same argument that has been addressed so many times before, as if part of some weird Wikipedia Groundhog day, this option should only be considered if we could also seriously look into restricting disruptive editors from contributing, unless they have something new and of value to say. Phrases like "this is a local event" or "does not appear in 8 wikis" are just a stuborn #IDHT waste of time and serve only to rile. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment per above, has been the only wiki-vehicle available to ensure some level of community satisfaction is guaranteed. We may need to drop to this until a better method than the patently absurd "9 wiki" selection method is improved upon. As such I would vote for this as an interim fix, followed by the "noted across 3 continents in reliable sources" approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Use coverage of death on three different continents

Pros:

relatively straightforward

Cons:

too many people would merit inclusion in the current age of agency news, which would make the list very long and hard to navigate
Western entertainers would be even more overrepresented

Comment This could perceivably be used in conjunction with the reliably sourced annual reviews/obituraries method, to formulate a working list prior to review at the end of the year. Personally though, saving the admin of working set that will likely change and just linking all deaths/events without the laborious and problematic task of cherry-picking, is obviously more productive and satisfactory. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment yes, a good alternative, certainly better than using unreliable sources such as Wikipedia to determine notability. "hard to navigate" is a red herring. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Discard the section entirely, and link to "Deaths in 20XX" instead

Pros:

the easiest solution

Cons:

lists of notable deaths are a traditional feature of yearly reviews, it's what readers expect to see here
discontinuity with other year pages which do not fall under WP:RY and would keep the section
"Deaths in 20XX" lists are hard to navigate, with hundreds of entries

Comment Our understanding of what readers expect is pure speculation and cannot be considered a con. Discontinuity, i.e. the reluctance to return to older articles to bring them in line with progressive solutions and the speculation that this would be in anyway negative to our readers (continuity issues with documentation spanning many years exist happily elsewhere) should not be considered a con. And the fact that 'Deaths in 20XX' articles are hard to navigate is also speculation. They clearly include names, careers and dates. People are at liberty to use find/search and the list is clearly broken down by month. The notion it is 'hard to navigate' stems from bias which boils down to POV "those I think significant are buried in the people I don't". One man's "nobody" is another man's hero. The overwhelming pro to this option, and the trump to any perceived con, is that the list is unbiased, impartial and all-inclusive without any reliance on inherently problematic cherry-picking processes. It would certainly be a strong contender for a current year hybrid solution along with RS Annual Review articles. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments the purist approach, and a good one. What readers "expect" is certainly not what we're giving them, as it appears to be entirely down to a group of three or four individuals who routinely remove individuals who are notable to a sizeable proportion of the English language readership we have. This would avoid the relentless arguments over who is and who is not "internationally notable" whatever that means, and would result in a fully comprehensive list. Just link to it. They are not "hard to navigate", that's a red herring, what's hard about a "scroll bar"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Top [x] most notable deaths per month

There's a number of different ways this could be implemented, but the basic idea would be to limit each month to a certain number (or range) of deaths to be listed and then figure out from there.

Comment Working to a fixed number is problematic. I could get behind this solution if the number was flexible, i.e. in the event that 5 global megastar musicians die, we wouldn't be excluding one or more because of some arbitrarily decided cap. You could work this in a hybrid solution with the 'Deaths In 20XX' link solution - i.e. take a vote at the end of the year to condense the list into the finished Year article. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment no way. This still relies on a definition of "notable" which is the crux of the problem. And it also depends on when the snapshot of "notable" was taken. Prominence evolves over time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Using WikiProjects' importance level determinations

I know a number of WikiProjects (like WikiProject Chicago) already have a pretty thorough process for determining the importance of an article to that topic. We could somehow piggy-back off these processes. I don't know how, exactly, but I think this is what pt.wiki does (see pt:1994#Falecimentos). I don't know how many different WikiProjects have such processes or what topics they cover or don't, but maybe we could come up with a list of certain WikiProjects that have a thorough process for that determination and automatically include any Top or High level importance people from those, and if they have a wide enough coverage, we could just take others on a case-by-case basis or use something else altogether in combination with this.

Comment Never. Wikiprojects are unreliable in maintaining their articles' importance, anyone can change the notability, avoid at all costs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Develop our own requirements

We could hash out a thorough list of what makes a politician/athlete/entertainer/academic/activist/author/etc. sufficiently notable. This could be some combination of more vague criteria (“top-rated world-class players and managers”) and very specific criteria (any politician who was a (non-interim) head of state or any director who won the Palme d'Or twice).

Comment. Doesn't seem feasible. Involves building an entirely new set of "notability" guidelines. Possibly could be used to include interim events, but there are enough editors opposed to arbitrary criteria that consensus is unlikely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment just stick with Wikipedia policy. People who are notable are covered by WP:N. Some wise guy decided this set of articles needed to include "super notable" people. That was always going to be an issue, particularly when measuring such "super notability" against something as patently absurd as the "9-wiki" rule. Policy trumps essay, point at the list of deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Process

Instead of starting with different proposals, it might be worthwhile to start with a fuller conversation about what we want the end product to look like (ideally, which deaths should be included and which ones shouldn't?) and then work backwards from that to come up with a way to achieve that.

Comment. Might be feasible if enough editors were interested in the process. As I noted above, we all agree that there are editors who appear not to be interested in a solution. We just don't agree as to who they are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment this is a good start, but yes, all the locals have gone into hiding once the real meat of discussion comes out, meanwhile this debate is being had in a sandbox, not at the project page, and the notification for it is easily overlooked. We should be involving the community as a whole, e.g. those who continually voted against the regulars time after time, to include items that they believed the readers would expect to see, not those items the regulars deemed appropriate for inclusion. Once again we're in a walled garden. It's raised a bigger issue, actually, that of the very raison d'etre of "recent years". What's the actual point of this trivial subset? I would be tempted to suggest the RY "mini project" gets binned entirely and WP:YEARS is modified to include a more inclusive and reader-friendly set of criteria, instead of these RY articles which are really not being run for the sake of the average passing reader who wanted to see the significant events of a given year, just because one or two people have deemed them "local events". As for individuals not interested in a solution, that would include de-sysopped Arthur Rubin who continually edits despite being subject to an Arbcom case in which he has not participated, despite it being of his own making, and the same individual who continues to make personal attacks in the same manner which got him de-sysopped. If he is permanently excluded from the project, it won't be a big surprise. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)