Years List‑class Mid‑importance

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

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

Well, considering that practically all the non-English articles are clones and have no local references, AND several of which (including the Udmurt one) do not seem to have noticed that he died, it seems he was not particularly notable. Exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • @DerbyCountyinNZ Exclude is right. Gar (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we'll add individuals notable enough for articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how things work on recent year articles - we have a much higher bar for inclusion here. If they're not internationally notable, they should be excluded. Jim Michael (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policy, guideline, project inclusion criteria please, or else it stays. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RY#Deaths. A person has to have international notability to be included. For years, we've excluded people who lack international notability even if they have enough articles. Jim Michael (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Exclude - I added the guy's death in 2017 in Russia. That should suffice, shouldn't it? Meanwhile, while being the 1st Head/President of Udmurtia was grand, Udmurtia is part of Volga Federal District. Also, "Udmurtia" is geographically small, and being the Head of Udmurtia is great... but not internationally significant. Therefore, the guy's death should be excluded, while his death should suffice there. Meanwhile, the "2017 in Russia" itself might need some improvements, while "2017" receives the more attention than its child articles. Also, 2017 in the US and 2017 in the UK are more edited and more viewed than any other "2017 in <country>". George Ho (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he should be excluded because he wasn't the leader or a country, just of a small part of one. If we included anyone who's been the leader or part of a country, we'd be swamped with them. They're not usually internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agreed. User should stop edit warring and come discuss Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is what your saying, then your saying that the Orlando shooting shouldn't be included on the 2016 page. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly logical assessment. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - and the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting isn't on 2016. Jim Michael (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I was expecting this discussion to eventuate, I started this discussion at WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's not how things work here - we don't include domestic events. Jim Michael (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of the bombing was truly international. I say include. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way was the effect international? Jim Michael (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victims from different countries, performer from different continent, reaction from around the globe (I love Manchester concert). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victims from different countries is commonplace when there are many victims in a city that has a high level of immigration and/or international tourism. A concert isn't internationally notable just because the performer is from another country/continent (if it were, these pages would be full of music events). There's a reaction from many countries after terror attacks - that's standard. Jim Michael (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was internationally notable, reported internationally, involved international performers and international victims. So yes, internationally notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about loads of music events - except for the victims, which you could say about many terror attacks. Jim Michael (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not, we're saying about this one only. So it should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - It seems like one of random murder-suicide bombings by some random radical Islamic guy.... Or maybe the guy might not have worked alone. How did the bomber obtain a bomb? Investigators are working on it. Of course, it would justify exclusion. The topic is the bombing, neither the singer nor the tour. Ariana Grande is a worldwide sensation and celebrity with worldwide hits, and "Dangerous Woman Tour" is a worldwide event involving the hit singer. While the tour alone should not be included, combine all three, and that could have justified inclusion. However, neither is adequate enough to justify inclusion.

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

Superseded by exclude oppose stand-alone vote at #2017 Manchester Arena bombing (RfC). --George Ho (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC); amended, 22:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant international notability is Grande stopping her tour. However, tours are stopped/suspended for various reasons (lack of ticket sales, injury/illness), so that's not an important world event. Jim Michael (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• In what way? Looks notable enough to me. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in what way do you mean "what way"? I'm supporting her inclusion here, but policy is that individuals must have 10+ non wikis in order to be considered notable for inclusion. She had nine prior to death, so that's why i'm suggesting perhaps an exception could be made for her to remain. But if it's determined she shouldn't, I'll abide by that decision. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Oh, sorry, thought you meant an exception to WP:RYD and that you wanted her excluded. (It still says that you just need nine, not more, so I'm not sure where 9+ comes from?) Nohomersryan (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, where's the 10+ coming from? WP:RY says "at least nine" not "more than nine". -- Irn (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9+ non-English Wikis (i.e. 10+ in total but excluding Simple English). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, right, that's my understanding, but the first comment in this section advocates making an exception to include someone with "nine non English" articles. That's just a mistake, then, right? In other words, this discussion is kind of backwards: even though Glenne Headly meets the minimum requirement, it's been proposed that she not be included. -- Irn (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, she had 9 + :en at the time of her passing, so according to guidelines, she could be included by default. I thought (below) that we were talking about someone with 9-language coverage overall. — Yerpo ^Eh? 04:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favor of inclusion. Being a second-tier actress with no major awards simply doesn't justify making exceptions, in my opinion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The 9+ non-English Wiki requirement is already becoming too low so I don't see that an exception is justified. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW, her non-English articles are clearly cloned from the English, consist of a very brief biography and a list of films/tv series and contain almost no local citations. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is she internationally notable? She's one of an increasingly large number of people who lack international notability, but has stub articles in several languages - some of which are insufficiently referenced and/or badly written/translated. We need additional guidelines for inclusion, such as having won major awards. Jim Michael (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Exclude - Per others. Despite high appearance, she won very little or no significant awards. Also, her roles were not significant and impactful. --George Ho (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Technically, he had 9 non-English articles before his death, but two of them were added a day before when such an outcome was imminent. I suggest exclusion, the event was tragic, but this person wasn't notable for any real achievement, so WP:NOTNEWS would apply. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the same lines. People who gain notability through circumstance rather than achievement are subject to exclusion per WP:RYD. Unless his death results in some tangible international reaction then he should be excluded. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Debartolo2717:/@Eggishorn: If you don't mind me asking, why exactly is this event so important to deserve a place in the yearly list? A number of cultural monuments was destroyed in this conflict, what makes this mosque so special (aside from the structural glitch)? — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't attempt to speak for Debartolo2717, but possibly because it was supposed to be IS's capital? I fulfilled the edit request because it was verifiable, there wasn't any general policy reason to not add it, and nothing on this page appears to forbid it. Other year articles include major cultural crimes, such as the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in the 2001 article. If a consensus develops her after discussion that it should not belong (perhaps per WP:NOTNEWS), I won't object. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as per WP:RY it "... must have a demonstrated, international significance". Although it has often been argued that "international significance" is undefined this is one of many cases where there appears to be no (or at least insufficient) international significance. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gnews search for "mosul mosque destruction" gets ~41,000 results in the last 24 hours, from most major US and UK outlets, as well as major RS from Israel, Hong Kong, Al-Arabiya and Al Jazeera, etc. with officials from the US, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Indonesia expressing condemnation of various sorts. That seemed like demonstrating international significance to me and so I didn't think RY was a barrier. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A common misconception: Merely being mentioned in numerous news outlets, and even the "expressing (of) condemnation" does not demonstrate "significance" as this happens for every disaster or similar; there is no actual international effect. This is a common area of dispute in Recent Year pages and has, despite the efforts of a few editors, has never been adequately resolved. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. There's no reason to include this one, but not the destruction of other buildings. Media reports and condemnation from public figures is standard - this isn't unusual. Jim Michael (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it was actually featured on the main page, I've restored it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the main page doesn't mean that it should be here. Jim Michael (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It simply reinforces the fact that the community found it notable, interesting and something that our readers would want to see. Of course, this project seems not interested in our readers' interests. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not the community, just the people who decide what's on the main page - which as you know has different inclusion criteria. We list internationally notable events & deaths - not what's most interesting or popular. Jim Michael (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the community, unlike this project where it's down to inside knowledge and hidden criteria. And no, you don't list internationally notable events, just events with articles at nine other Wikipedias. That is not the same thing, as you have been repeatedly told by numerous people. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since WP:OTHERSTUFF was invoked, the Buddhas of Bamiyan were a UNESCO World Heritage monument, so not really comparable, no. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And 2001 isn't a recent year - so the inclusion criteria are different. Jim Michael (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you two are arguing against each other!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're agreed in supporting the current criteria and opposing your attempts to add domestic events. Jim Michael (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the example of this "swamping" of destroyed buildings given was from 2001, not eligible, so precisely how many of these events have "swamped" RY? The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been far more buildings destroyed in the Middle East in the last few years, because of the Syrian Civil War. Jim Michael (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are all the articles that have been proposed for inclusion then? Where is this "swamp"? You keep mentioning "other buildings" but no-one is talking about them, we're talking about this one which has received three-continent coverage per the project criteria for inclusion. If the project inclusion criteria are now wrong, please address that first before maintaining that this (and others) are ineligible. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be most of the editors who would add such events have read and understood the guideline at WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why do you think readers of encyclopedia articles "read and understand" the guidelines at a project page? That's not how Wikipedia works, was designed to work or should ever work. Bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Jim Michael: @The Rambling Man:

Support

1. as nom. It's a major event in the war against ISIS.
2. as nom. It may be an important historical landmark.

Oppose

1. as nom. It's one of many news events in the war against ISIS.
2. as nom. It may not be an important historical landmark.

• Notable enough to be included in the ITN section of the main page of Wikipedia, I'd say this is pretty bloody obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITN has a much lower bar for inclusion than RY. I don't know why you're falsely asserting that being important enough for ITN means that it's important enough to be here. This is one of many similar destructions in the Middle East's wars and terror attacks - we'd be swamped with them if were to include all of them. Jim Michael (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that why the 2017 article is basically empty? You would not be swamped if you included all the ITN stories about destructions of prominent buildings in the Middle East. That assertion is absolutely false. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing like empty. Many important buildings are destroyed in wars - our articles would be dominated by these details if we included them. Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read what I wrote. You would not be swamped if you included all the ITN stories about destructions of prominent buildings in the Middle East. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'd have far too many. Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL lists many, and too many of them are put on ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them have been put on ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but it's too many. This one's on ITN now, but shouldn't be on here. Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's appropriate for main page inclusion, it's appropriate for inclusion here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you wrongly believe that? We have different inclusion criteria here. Note, for example, that we haven't included any of the attacks in London. Jim Michael (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you include Prodigy, a rapper whose article is so inadequate that it's been given short shrift at ITN? Is it that you include unreferenced junk here and exclude quality articles that have millions of hits? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed him due to a lack of international notability. Number of page views isn't part of the inclusion criteria here. Jim Michael (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So just an indiscriminate collection of poor articles which bear no resemblance to items that our readers would be interested in learning about? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not indiscriminate - they have to be of international notability, a criteria that isn't used at ITN. Domestic events are on articles such as 2017 in the United States and 2017 in the United Kingdom. ITN has article quality as its most important factor for inclusion, whereas here it's international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, that's why it gets so few page views, a bizarre mixture of criteria leading to a page which is full of barely interesting and pisspoor BLPs, but bereft of actual news stories or quality articles. I understand, I'm happy to leave you this, I may well suggest we completely overhaul the contents in the future because right now it's a bugger's muddle and doesn't serve our readership at all. Imagine wanting to know what's happened in 2017 to be confronted with ONE EVENT IN FEBRUARY GLOBALLY (!) yet the death of a Japanese manga artist and a stub about a Papua New Guinean politician feature in no fewer than 44 deaths. Do you really believe that's the right balance? Would Britannica have a single entry globally for all of Feb 2017 while having 44 "notable" deaths? Think again. And no, not at all, ITN does not have "article quality as its most important factor for inclusion", that's a completely false assertion. Quality is a requirement, consensus for suitability is the most important factor. Please don't make such false assertions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bizarre. Events have to be internationally notable. Deaths have to be of internationally notable people. Some death of people who lack international notability are added because they have many articles, making them seem internationally notable. Many of those are poorly-referenced stubs, sometimes created in order to have them included here. Heads of state and heads of government are automatically included, which is why Michael Ogio is there. Jiro Taniguchi won an award in France, which is probably justification for his inclusion. Jim Michael (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely bizarre, a subset of the list of deaths which is covered elsewhere (e.g. Deaths in 2017), but a sprinkling of so-called internationally notable events, excluding most of those the encyclopedia deemed notable enough for main page inclusion which would have millions of pageviews and would be of interest to our readers. This page should be getting a million hits a day. Instead, 5000? Something's wrong here. Still, you all seem well happy with the awful muddle you've created, so good luck to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're an internationally notable subset - what's bizarre about that? This wouldn't receive anything like a million pageviews, regardless of content. "So-called"? Which of the events on here aren't internationally notable? Jim Michael (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dead-end page. People won't be coming here for information, especially once they realise what's here. ONE GLOBAL EVENT in February 2017? Seriously. People's talk pages get more views than this amateur collection of oddities. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no oddities here - only internationally notable events and births and deaths of internationally notable people. There aren't many events which are internationally notable. It's not a dead end - there are links in the 2017 by topic box to many articles with focuses on particular countries or types of events. Jim Michael (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if you believe 44 deaths and a single global event to be reasonable, this conversation ends. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

What other reasonable way of interpreting it is there? Jim Michael (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael: There are myriad other reasonable ways of interpreting such a phrase. Significance is a highly subjective concept. What is significant to one person might not be significant to another. There is no definitional reason to limit significance to effects, and effects are by no means the only way to demonstrate significance. -- Irn (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's (objectively) summarize this event. "The (rebel) citizens of a country destroyed a historic monument in their own country. Again. Many other countries expressed their disapproval of the destruction. Again. As a consequence...nothing happened. Again." The destruction of the monument was so significant that it got its own Wikipedia page...oh, wait, no it didn't. But it did make the news. Like millions of other events throughout history. Resulting historical significance? So far, minimal. If at some point in the future the destruction of this mosque is deemed to have been a significant turning point in the war on ISIS then by all means include it. At present it is of no particular significance and therefore there is no justification for its inclusion (under long-standing consensus). As for the criteria for inclusion, yes they need to be clarified and/or updated. But that discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Recent years not here. And FWIW changing the criteria just to make a point and get something included because you failed to get consensus on a Recent Year talk page is not constructive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some serious ownership issues here. You all honestly believe that one "notable" event (Per your own criteria) took place across the entire globe in the whole of February? Seriously, that's why no-one uses this page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, that's enough. That is nowhere near close to an actual argument. I think it's time to drop the stick and let it go. Should you have more policy- or guideline-based arguments in the near future, you can always return. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Derby said, the destruction of the mosque doesn't have it's own article. It's one of many mosques and other buildings that have been destroyed in the Middle East in recent years.

This - and other RY articles - link to many year articles that centre on particular countries, types of event etc. Jim Michael (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was applying a "common sense guideline". If this "project" or whatever it is, determines that one global event occurred in February 2017, then it renders these kind of pages useless. Particularly when we have 44 deaths within the same month featured on the page. Policy or guideline? This particular page doesn't seem to use either, it has a bizarre version of notability for inclusion, and a despairingly low pageview. That all speaks for itself. If you want to preserve this as-is, fine, but you need to understand that it's running itself to death and no interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we applied similar guidelines to ITN, year articles would be full of various domestic crimes in which few or no people are killed, awards, destructions of buildings, sports events etc. that most people aren't interested in. Also, it would be a pointless duplication. You've repeatedly mentioned February, but haven't suggested any world events which happened during that month which you think should be included. Jim Michael (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my job, you honestly think that the hundreds of nominations at ITN in February would garner just one "worldwide significant" event? Honestly? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

• 2017 Africa Cup of Nations
• 2017 Australian Open
• Malta Declaration (EU)
• 59th Annual Grammy Awards
• Ceres (dwarf planet)
• Cloudbleed
• 89th Academy Awards

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

I doubt that any of those are eligible. Very few sports events are important enough - they go on 2017 in sports. We don't usually include awards or space-related events. Jim Michael (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, reading the arcane and bizarre inclusion critieria (e.g. "nine or more" sources), as you claim to ignore global awards and space events, this renders these year pages even more useless than I'd thought. Plus the fact that it's unclear to a "reader" where to go to find such information, there's an over-crowded sidebox, but honestly it now looks like we should delete these cherry-picked events and just stick with a list of lists, i.e. 2017 links to 2017 in sport. 2017 in politics etc. Because the choice currently being made is bonkers and is leading to a nominal amount of pageviews which renders this bureaucratic oversight pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP articles in nine or more languages other than English (to show considerable international notability), not nine or more sources.

The box is needed to show the many articles about this year in different subjects, countries etc. Jim Michael (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, it's just how do our readers actually understand what is and what is not included in such prominent articles? The answer is: THEY DON'T AND THEY CAN'T SO THEY WON'T READ IT. Hence fewer page views on such prominent articles than some users' talk pages. Glad the one or two of you who "run this project" seem happy with what you've produced, but it is, frankly, shambolic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for year articles from 2002 onwards are detailed on WP:RY - although they could be clearer and improved. There are several regular editors here, not one or two. The inclusion criteria here are very different to those at ITN, where in many cases an event is only relevant to the country in which it occurred. Jim Michael (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've noted that three or four times. The point is that our readers, when heading for a 2017 page, wouldn't expect to see such pseudo-random collection of items with such arcane selection methods applied. It looks like an embarrassment to Wikipedia, but you have your own rules and your own group of a couple of editors maintaining it. Good luck, I hope one day you'll get more views than weak DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing random about them - they're the internationally, historically notable events of the year only. There are several of us, not a couple. If you have any specific ways of improving the project guidelines, detail them and they'll be considered. Jim Michael (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Totally correct assessment! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The inclusion criteria is bizarre to say the least, and making an assertion that only one event has taken place in February 2017 really is delusional. It's doing a real disservice to our readers. And I don't think anyone said "I hope it dies", from the pageviews, it already has. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:: if you have a better idea about criteria, please post it to Wikipedia talk:Recent years, otherwise stop wasting everybody's time with your useless rambling. Thank you. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Bin the odd guidelines being applied for which news items appear and simply use those which gained consensus for posting at ITN. After all they are a quality record of events that the community believes the reader would find interesting and useful. As for deaths, bin them altogether with this peculiar "nine languages" req, and point directly to Deaths in 2017. That way, this page would be actively useful for readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea would make this page redundant. Events on recent year articles are only internationally notable ones, not all the forgettable domestic ones on ITN. The deaths on here only those of internationally notable people. It's already well-known that the full list is at Deaths in 2017. Jim Michael (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, there's no single archive of a year's worth of stories run at ITN. By far the biggest problem the page has is that it does not describe its inclusion criteria anywhere for our readers, so, like me, they'd take one look at it and think "only one global event worth noting in February 2017? Seriously? This page is incomplete". And that would be a generous assessment. Similarly, the inclusion criteria for deaths makes this a silly page when it's some odd proportion of "Deaths in ....", better off either using the RDs from ITN, or simply posting the redirect. Cherry-picking based on odd criteria which our readers are unaware of is the last thing you should be doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the Juno spacecraft going into orbit around Jupiter (which is listed at 2016, and rightfully so) is of more importance than two discoveries that are of high importance to the SETI community then? However, I don't think the one event that is listed for February belongs there, but apparently each missile that North Korea test launches, and the subsequent tantrum that several other countries then methodically throw in response (including some countries that have a nuclear program themselves, and should thus not be yelling at other countries for attempting to do the same), is worthy of being included on the list. If anything, it should be the outright hypocrisy involved in the "international condemnation" that is on the list. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deaths chosen aren't odd - they're the deaths of internationally notable people only. The death criteria for ITN are merely that the living thing has an article that's reasonably well-written. Jim Michael (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the deaths are odd - this decision to use "nine" Wikipedias to prove "international notability" is bizarre to say the least, but you fail to address the key point, how does the reader know what the selection criteria are for this? Your current selection criteria means any old unreferenced stubs in any old un-read Wikipedia's count towards "international notability"? I understand to find quantifiable evidence that "international notability" is present may be a challenge, but this is not the way to solve it. So please, how does the reader know who is and who is not included? And in terms of stories, what and what is not included? A brief look at the page history will adequately demonstrate that not even seasoned editors understand the point of this page. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I disagree. ITN is full of trivia and distinctively Western-centric, both of which we're trying to avoid here. The criteria were developed on the basis of experience with older year pages which to some extent still contain useless crap like "First steel bridge in Alabama was built near Lonelyville". You may disagree with our method, but your method would not be a good alternative if we're trying to build an impartial encyclopedia. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you're failing to address one of the main issues: how does the reader know what is included here? Why should there be just one entry for February 2017? ITN "distinctively Western-centric"? E.g. today we have stories running on Pakistan, China, Ireland, Afghanistan, Saudi and an Angolan author. The RDs are East German, Australian, British, American. That seems like a good mix to me, and one that our readers would appreciate. The fact you're claiming to use the existence of articles on other Wikipedias to establish "international notability" of deaths is bizarre, and naturally suffers its own bias as many minority Wikipedias simply don't have the editorship. And no heed is paid to quality or sourcing. How very strange. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to prove because ITN doesn't have an archive and the selection of events is by chance not so obviously biased at the moment, but recent deaths are a good example - all are westerners. The reader can click on the talk page link and find the project page containing criteria, just as easy or easier than they can find the nominating section for ITN. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: since February bugs you so much, I think the Ceres news could be worthy of inclusion, the rest of your proposals are pure trivia. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Have you looked at the last dozen or so listed here, 90% westerners?! And ITN posted the Saudi, the Ivorian, the Vanuatuan.... And you must realise that most non en-wiki articles are based on en-wiki, so you're simply reinforcing any bias by basing your decisions on that odd "nine Wikipedias" criterion which our readers are completely oblivious to. And most of the non en-wiki articles are appalling/unreferenced. This is an unhelpful hotchpotch of poorly chosen articles using some secret methodology, some of which are simply inexcusably bad and should not be featured, and in no way represents what our readers would expect to find in a page entitled "2017". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You're missing the point of this encyclopedia. It's not "trivial" to report on the 2017 Africa Cup of Nations, that's something the readers want to see, 1/4 of a million hits in a few days in fact. Or the Academy Awards, 2 million hits over three or four days. So sorry, it's not "trivia", it's precisely what our readers are interested in and would expect to see in a page describing the major events of 2017. At the very least, this page, and similar ones, need to have a caveat at the top of each article explaining the inclusion criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our primary mission - to educate - does not always overlap with what's popular, and decreasingly so. By criterion of what's "interesting", we should start listing (western) celebrity weddings to satisfy readers. The article Pippa Middleton had almost half a million hits around 20 June this year. Do you really think that would make sense? — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, my suggestion is to provide a list of all the stories that the community decided were (a) notable enough for inclusion on the main page and (b) of sufficient quality for our readers to gain a decent understanding of the matter in hand. I'm not sure where you got the idea that that would include Pippa Middleton's wedding. The pageviews I've referred to above are for items that appeared on the main page through community consensus. Items that appear on this list are subject to a covert and complex set of criteria to which our readers appear to be left deliberately ignorant. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I checked the WP:5P and can safely say that "to educate" is by no means our "primary mission", it is not even mentioned there. WP:EDUCATE doesn't exist either. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include sports events that are limited to one continent. The nine non-English WP article requirement at death is only a guideline for inclusion in the Deaths section. We go against that if the person is internationally notable but has fewer articles (including heads of government/state) and if the person has enough articles but isn't internationally notable. The regular editors here do know, understand and largely agree with the inclusion criteria - the problem is that many non-regulars don't. You're right that we need to clearly tell the readers what the inclusion criteria are. A link to WP:RY should be on the article - where would be the best place to fit it in? Jim Michael (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what do you mean "limited to one continent"? Players at the Australian Open came from Europe, Asia, North America, South America. TheAcademy Award winners came from around the globe. Please elucidate. The "nine rule" is clearly absurd and detrimental to our readers' experience of this page. Why have such an odd mid-ground between RDs on ITN and the Deaths in.... pages? It's an unnecessary and arbitrary collection of no real interest to anyone other than those who run these kind of pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I'm not in favor of WP:RY becoming a mirror of WP:ITN. As I see it, that section's purpose is to attract visitors by showing them that Wikipedia also covers widely reported events/topics, in the hope that stimulates them to start contributing (in a similar way that WP:FA stimulates people to write high quality content). WP:RY, on the other hand, are collections of the most important events in the world that year - as is the consensus. You may succeed in changing the consensus eventually, but I kinda doubt it with this approach. By the way, try the Wikimedia mission statement if you're confused about the movement's mission. You might also want to refresh your knowledge about what an encyclopedia (referenced by the very first pillar) is. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no confusion, I was talking about the purpose of Wikipedia, not WMf's mission statement, the two are not the same, so hopefully that alleviates any confusion for you there. To your former point, this page is simply not serving our readers in any way. They can't see what is being down-selected for inclusion, they can't see why obvious events, global events like tennis Opens and continental football tournaments are not included, they can't see why there's a slightly different list of deaths (with global notability generally based on Wikipedias?!!!). That's the whole point. I came to this page as an experienced editor but a reader, and found it to be completely confusing and disappointing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS an encyclopaedia is where I go to find the information I'm looking for, not where I go to be "educated", that's school or university. The current approach here is to limit that ability to find what I want to know because of the arcane censoring. Hope that helps with your understanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you can go to Wikipedia to find the information you're looking for, but you won't find reference to everything on every page. There's selection in every step of creating an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not an exception. Like it or not, you're being educated about what's relevant as soon as you open one. As I said already, the guidelines are clearly and openly written, and the readers can see what is being down-selected for inclusion as well as in WP:ITN. It's just that the process is less organized because there's fewer people interested in WP:RY. People like you occasionally drop by and start shouting because they're "appalled" that their favorite actor or whatnot is not included, but their perspective is too narrow, so they just end up wasting everybody's time. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally correct. Again. This is getting to the point where a trip to ANI might be needed to put a stop to this pointless time-wasting disruption. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's being disrupted? This is a talkpage, we're talking about the content. If you consider that disruption, feel free to start an ANI, I look forward to contributing there and discussing, amongst other things, your contributions to this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems particularly difficult to get through to you I'l try and make it as clear as possible: This thread is about whether the Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul should be included in this article. The guidelines (agreed by consensus) at WP:RY state that it must be internationally notable. The consensus of this thread so far is that it is not. You have failed to come up with any reason why it should be included under the current guidelines. Whining on and on and on and on, about whether the guidelines are appropriate has no place here. As yu ohave been told more than once, if you want the guidelines changed discuss it at WP:RY, not here. One more off-topic post and we will go to ANI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this thread has somewhat evolved, as you can read. This is not "off-topic", if you prefer I can create a new sub-header. This discussion is perfectly cromulent. If you wish to discuss this at ANI, please feel free to do so, in fact I'd encourage it as it would result in far more eyes on this project's way of doing things. Claiming my discourse to be "pointless time-wasting disruption" would be a good place to start when looking into the behaviour in this thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Rambling Man it's you who's been spitting at this part of the project (and, by extension, the people involved) from the start. Don't act offended now. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your mistake. No one has answered the fundamental questions here, just acted defensively and with real ownership concerns. The Rambling Man (talk)||

No, yours. Jim Michael was patiently explaining the guidelines and the idea behind them, despite you getting increasingly hostile. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, look back. You have become hostile. I have provided what was asked of me, solutions to the problems here. You have ardently stuck to your position and considered no alternatives. You are misleading the reader and not telling him the truth. This isn't 2017 events, this is your highly constrained and limited version. Please be honest for the sake of our readers. And no, unlike disgusting football hooligans, I have not been "spitting at" anything. Your tone and language needs some serious work. At least I can have a civil discussion with Jim, unlike having to deal with your vitriol. Note, your attitude will not dissuade me. If necessary I will happily start a community-wide RFC on the purpose of this page, including discussions over the arcane (and hidden) inclusion criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sports event limited to one continent I was referring to is the 2017 Africa Cup of Nations. The deaths aren't a mid-ground of ITN and Deaths in 2017. For ITN, the decedent only need have a reasonably well-written article and for Deaths in 2017 they only need to have articles. For RY articles, they have to have considerable international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So is Australian Open included in January? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we include that one, we'd also have to include other three Grand Slams, and then a comparable number of events for every other major sport. Thus drowning this page in sports, despite the fact that there is a page 2017 in sports. That's why we limit eligibility to the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup as the truly global sports events. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would lead to a lot of arguments about which sports are international and important enough - and which events for each are important enough. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It's what our readers would want to see. You are both attempting to make this something it isn't. Even Encyclopedia Britannica would include results of major global sporting events in a yearly round up. You seem to think our readers would suddenly realise all the missing events appear somewhere in a linked page? How? You are completely missing the purpose of this project. If you took ITN as the lead, there'd be no arguments, they'd already have been had. This page should be a gazetteer, not a hotchpotch collection of events and deaths that somehow falls between the gaps from the main page and the Deaths in... articles. I think you all know that, but it's hard to let go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And why aren't the Academy Awards notable enough for inclusion? They feature individuals from all around the planet and could hardly be described as "trivial". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recent year articles have been run as an internationally-important-events-only project for years. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have a list of 2017 in ... articles like we do. The film awards are all linked on 2017 in film. Sports events are on 2017 in sports. If we had the same criteria as ITN, we'd be swamped with domestic events, including crimes, sports, awards etc. - all of which are much better located on their respective pages. Jim Michael (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You all believe that the world's most prominent film festival is not an "internationally-important-event"? You all believe you'd be "swamped"? ITN isn't swamped, and the product of ITNC is quality articles that the community (not some arbitrary test criteria) believe are interesting and useful to our readers. You need to work harder on telling the readers that this is, in fact, not 2017 events, but a tiny subset that you seem to believe are more important than any others, but all the rest, including those which are actually interesting to our readers, are located at other pages, like Deaths in ... or Sports in .... With so few entries, and with them all replicated elsewhere in "X in 2017", there's no real point in this page existing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a quick look, I think if you mirrored the ITN posted articles, you'd have around 10 to 15 articles per month which would make a really good and comprehensive 2017 almanac, unlike the current completely bereft version. That's not what I'd called "swamped", just what I'd call "really useful" to our readers, but I'm beginning to get the sense that this is less about the readers and more about the desires of a few editors with some curious version of what "helping our readers find what they want to read" and translating that into "helping us decide what our readers should be allowed to find". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what's on ITN aren't historically, internationally notable events. ITN is swamped, to such an extent that discussions are closed whilst ongoing - especially since they reduced the requirements for RD to merely having an article that's reasonably well written. Jim Michael (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not true, or else you would be nominating them at WP:AFD. I didn't say you had to list every nomination at ITN, just those which were posted at the main page. Please understand better. As for RD, they have notability per English Wikipedia's notability policy and have the benefit of being in good condition, unlike those selected here, some of which are utter junk. But it's clear now, this kind of page has flown under the radar for far too long, it needs exposing to the wider community and some of its arcane methodology needs wider debate rather than the handful of you who are so keen to keep it as-is. I'll formulate an RFC for Wikipedians to discuss, and you'll be able to contribute there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, because they don't have to be internationally notable to have articles or be posted at ITN. If we copied all of those which were posted at ITN to here, most of the events would not be important and international. The requirement you have at ITN that an article has to be well-written to be posted would mean that we would have to not include deaths of some heads of state or government. Jim Michael (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are already listed at "Deaths in ..." so you needn't worry. I would personally remove the subjective list of deaths from this page altogether and simply link to the Deaths in... page. Right now, the reader has no idea whatsoever why someone may be included or excluded from this list, which is a disservice to the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. your current "criteria" exlcudes heads of government anyway, see Habib Thiam for a recent example. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice he hasn't been excluded. I could explain, but as you won't listen, that will have to wait (my pub quiz takes precedence). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the criteria aren't stringently followed, good to know. (I didn't see that certain people get a free pass, regardless of their non-significantly-international-notability, is that included in the instructions somewhere?) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said previously, heads of state/government are always eligible (with the exception of interim leaders). Why do you think they don't have significant international notability? Jim Michael (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that written in the criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Talk archives. I've just added it to WP:RY. Jim Michael (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting somewhere! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This thread is now the subject of a discussion at ANI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not any longer. Already closed, no action. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've already started a discussion over how to inform the readers of the currently applied "criteria" used to decide what happens here. That's the first of a few discssuions which we should have about this project. In any case, the discussion here has moved on, hence the sub-heading. I'd like an answer to the question above, to whit I didn't see that certain people get a free pass, regardless of their non-significantly-international-notability, is that included in the instructions somewhere?

If you need an RFC to decide whether to include the mosque destruction (not into ITN as you have stated, but RY), then things are really wrong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was ITN, my bad. Well, Power~enwiki (sp?) started the discussion as an RfC, no? It was horribly made. I don't see how we shouldn't consider RfC? The original discussion seemed to go nowhere (and this was yesterday before ANI). Also, this discussion just goes on and on. Don't you agree it would be best to start from scratch. I don't know what should exactly be looked. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then if you feel so strongly, be my guest. However, since it passes the "three continent rule" (easily), having received plenty of international coverage, so it therefore can be included with no debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go over it first. What is the criteria to include news in RY? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RY. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source in North America, Europe and Asia that talk about the destruction of the mosque. How does not qualify in RY? Am I missing something? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at WP:RY, the three continent rule is the minimum requirement. The rule is in fact redundant as clearly almost anything, including complete trivia, can pass this rule. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not a particularly useful measure then? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to satisfy the regulars here who have issued concern over the page being swamped with destroyed buildings. I don't think the criteria themselves were used to justify that position. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria says otherwise. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes have to have international relevance, which this doesn't. Jim Michael (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This event has been reported internationally so it is internationally relevant. No brainer, add it in. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not good logic - loads of events in Kim Kardashian's life have been reported internationally. Jim Michael (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't add the "three continent rule" and then pile on subjective unwritten rules, that was the project here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's saying you did - they were added over the years through consensus. The 3 continent rule is only one of the criteria. It's insufficient on its own because the media in many countries report a lot of trivia. Jim Michael (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't say that, it says the three continent rule is the minimum. Not that it's "insufficient on its own". Please clarify that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was replying to TRM's assertion that it should be added because of the international media coverage. The media in many countries have reported many things about KK's life. Jim Michael (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My "assertion" is directly compliant with the current "criteria" so it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KK is not the cause of an ongoing crisis in the Middle East, committed terrorist attacks and caused the Syrian refugee crisis. ISIS is the cause. The mosque is apart of that. KK has nothing to do with this regardless what your intentions were. That argument was very weak. The destruction of the mosque should be included. It has international coverage and it's part of the civil war in the Middle Eastern countries. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 04:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The destruction of this mosque is one of many similar events in the Syrian Civil War. If we included them all, we'd be swamped with such events. Buildings are destroyed all the time during wars. Jim Michael (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you said that already, your concern has been noted, and nobody seems to agree with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that, but we are only here about one specific event. Please stop predicting the future. Can you come up with a reason that directs to a policy or a guideline as to why the mosque destruction should not be included? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not an international event. I'm not trying to predict anything. There have already been many. Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's internationally relevant per the first criterion of this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Exclude - he didn't have significant international notability in his own right. Jim Michael (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include just because he didn't have an article on "nine Wikipedias" at the time of his death, it doesn't mean he wasn't significantly internationally notable in his own right. A lot of good work has gone into the article since its nomination at ITNC so it would be foolhardy to exclude it on such arcane grounds. Plus he's featured on 14 Wikipedias!! And his death has been widely covered, e.g. Australasia, Europe, North America, South America, Asia, Africa etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include - as of the final diff prior to his death, his article was on 13 other languages + Simple English, a clear WP:RYD pass.- OZOO 09:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include as has been widely covered in sources (as shown by TRM), Being on another Wikipedia should have no bearing here and it's quite laughable that anyone would think otherwise - I don't mean to be disrespectful but most of the articles I've come across on foreign Wikipedias are all hopelessly shite (EN being the only project so far that actually cares about its articles) but regardless of all that the rapper was notable so therefore should be included. –Davey2010^Talk 13:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this project seems to have deemed "nine appearances on non-English Wikipedia" to be the bar for "significant notability"... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to assume good faith when earlier this month you said that he shouldn't be listed on this article. I removed him, now you say that he should be included?! Jim Michael (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's utterly moronic in every sense of the word, Any clueless plank can create an article on for instance DE Wiki and it would never be deleted because the patrolling is next to none on most if not all projects so this "policy" or whatever you wanna call it is just stupid!. –Davey2010^Talk 17:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you want Prodigy included?! Jim Michael (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in spite of the "nine Wikipedias" rule, which, as noted, is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you suggest that he shouldn't be included? Also, do you really think he's internationally notable as a soloist? Jim Michael (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because his article was junk, and that was before I realised this project doesn't care about article quality at all. And since when does "as a soloist" enter the criteria? Can you point me to that please? And please use "preview", you create so many edit conflicts that it's frustrating. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been the consensus for years. Jim Michael (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that wording in the criteria please, particularly as we're looking to help our readers understand who and who is not eligible for inclusion in these articles? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not written in the criteria, but it's been established as consensus after discussions on talk pages of recent year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so yet another "hidden" rule that neither editors nor readers are aware of. Got it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The long-standing editors know. Yes, it should be clarified in the criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it doesn't make it right and (b) how do the readers know? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The long-standing editors know." - No .... no we don't! - Contrary to popular belief we're not mind readers and nor are the readers of this project, Without sounding disrespectful it really does seem like you're making all this up as you go along ......, Point us to these various discussion ... if you cannot provide links then all of your posts should be ignored entirely. –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean long-standing editors of RY articles. There are discussions in the talk archives. Jim Michael (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well those editors are somewhat irrelevant. You have new editors and new readers, none of whom are aware of all these hidden criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You well know that if you wish the inclusion criteria to be comprehensively described and available to all, you should not be pointing people to "discussions in the talk archives", that's simply not how it works. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

... and you shouldn't close a discussion you participated in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you care, re-open the discussion, otherwise it's more heat than light. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reopening, then, as clearly an improper closure. Still no consensus, even as to what is being discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, a clear consensus exists, just one person says no, on dubious grounds, while four say yes. Still, why make a decision when more heat can be generated, Arthur Rubin, standard admin behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, you've changed your mind on whether or not to include him, you prematurely closed as discussion in which you were involved and you're continuing your patronising sniping. That's against the rules and far from civil. My reasoning is that he doesn't have significant solo international notability - which is the consensus for including deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, remember what I said, he shouldn't have been included when his article was junk. It isn't now. And besides, the article more than meets this project's criteria. The discussion (with four people in favour of his inclusion against your singular opposition) was wasting time, and no, there's no "patronising sniping", there's just a real need for you to start answering questions properly, that's not "against the rules", and nothing to do with civility. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. where in the criteria does it mention "solo notability"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Exclude - I read the article Prodigy (rapper) and Prodigy discography. Honestly, this rapper (should have added quotation marks, but whatever) hasn't done much significance to be included in the "2017" page. The impact was... too regional in contrast to other past rappers like Tupac Shakur whose careers were significant internationally. Prodigy's death is already adequate in 2017 in the United States, so I don't know why else his death should be mentioned in the "2017" page. I don't see also why readers should be given an entry about the death of a rapper other than to encourage readers to become editors or to reflect what press outlets do to their own audiences. Wikipedia readers interested in what happened in the US this year can go to the other page. Those interested in searching for the whole year itself can be shown a sidebox and other entries. Meanwhile, no offense to African Americans, but there are already others like Chuck Berry and René Préval, both more significant than Prodgy. --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err...I don't think there is a limit on the amount of black people we can have on the list. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, sorry. I shouldn't have implied discrimination. I don't know which part to strike out, so I'll rephrase: Why including Prodigy (rapper) other than he's dead and to match the media outlets' coverage of his death? I don't see how impactful Prodigy was in his lifetime. Has he made any significant works? Also, we already have selected whoever is significant at this point. Why add more from other past months? Well, the whole year is incomplete because we've not past the future months of the year, so there will be more significant events and deaths of significant personalities this year. --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nohomersryan, may you or I add the RFC tag then? This needs more attention. George Ho (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead with an RfC. Jim Michael (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added the RFC tag. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Include (Summoned by bot) But lets get rid of that 9 Wikipedias rule, per the above. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

We even have a good article on it, 2016–17 Yemen cholera outbreak, which is currently featured from the main page and is getting tens of thousands of hits. It's hardly a Kim Kardashian wedding or selfie, but it's important and should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has to affect multiple countries for it to be an international event. The UN mention many domestic events. Media coverage doesn't mean it's internationally important. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. The criteria allow for it to be posted if it's reported in three continents. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: New events added must receive independent news reporting from three continents on the event. This is a minimum requirement for inclusion.. This one has such coverage. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disasters have to be of global or near-global significance - which this isn't. Jim Michael (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't a "disaster", this is an outbreak of a disease. And look at this! The Saudis have given loadsamoney to Yemen to help with the effort in defeating it. A truly international story! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a type of disaster. It's very common for other countries to give aid to a country that's suffering a major problem - whether it be natural, man-made or a combination. Jim Michael (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Are you saying the three continent rule is a waste of time? You've dismissed it at least twice now. What's its purpose if all you and the others here do is say it's not good enough for posting anything? You all bring out "other criteria" on top of it, some real, some from the dark depths of talk pages etc. This is international in significance and should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Include per clear international significance and notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's on WP:RY, not the archives. 3CR is only one of the criteria, it's not enough on its own. Jim Michael (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that. You know that, why are you making criteria up? I already asked you that last night. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does - the 3CR is a subheading of the Events section. Jim Michael (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyering now? It says clearly it's the minimum inclusion criterion. And it's been met. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, it's very unusual for a country at war with another country to provide funds for the other via the WHO. So this is a shoo-in for inclusion here, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's one of the criteria. Saudi Arabia giving aid may be motivated by wanting to prevent it spreading there, but it's still not an international event. Disease outbreaks are common. Jim Michael (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the minimum criterion required for inclusion, so it passes, so it can be included. Nothing you've said works against it. You keep mentioning "common" things, yet if they're so common, why are tomes like The New York Times covering them? Why would our community vote in favour of seeing it on the main page? I'm beginning to get the feeling that there's a real ownership issue here which will need serious external work to alleviate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Show me the last disease outbreak which affected 200,000 people in a single country yet was funded by another country and an international organisation to help remedy it please. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is presently no claim of international notibility in 2017. If there is a country, nominally at war with Yemen, supplying aid, I'd support that as being internationally notable. Much less than that, probably not. Disasters of any sort bring international aid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you're aware that Saudi are at war with Yemen yet have offered millions of dollars of aid? I don't follow your logic at all, but then this page is full of that kind of thing right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So add that to the text. As I said, the "stable" text has no claim of international notibility or importance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you didn't know the whole story. Ok. Perhaps that's why this project is failing, too many kneejerk reversions and claims of failure to meet hidden criteria. Next time let's all look at the story in more detail, like those of us who work on ITN articles for instance, where we may stand a chance of grasping the bigger picture. P.S. you didn't use the word "stable" once, so who knows what you're talking about... And why should this blurb be any different? Other 2017 blurbs offer no insight as to why this project has deemed them acceptable, there's no reason to single this one out, just because you didn't grasp its significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Individual outbreaks (especially those in rural Africa) often don't receive much media coverage or have WP articles. Jim Michael (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the last disease outbreak which affected 200,000 people in a single country yet was funded by another country and an international organisation to help remedy it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many were infected in other outbreaks, but even a high death toll isn't part of the inclusion criteria. There have certainly been many outbreaks which have prompted aid from other countries and international organisations. Jim Michael (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a significant, internationally noted incident which passes the minimum criteria easily, and even some of those mystery ones you keep pulling out of the archives. It should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

A quick glance through this talk page and at WT:RY will demonstrate the complete and utter confusion and disarray here. A handful of "regulars" run the place and others who aren't aware of the all the unwritten consensuses tucked away on various talkpages dating back a decade are just hung out to dry. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TRM: noted. Doesn't make this argument any less silly, though, does it. Jim Michael; if you think that by pointing out that epidemics in Africa are neglected, and by spending your efforts trying to minimize the coverage given to other epidemics, that you are somehow addressing systemic bias, disillusion yourself; you are not. Vanamonde (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally noted isn't the same as internationally notable. An outbreak that's confined to one country is a domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Vanamonde93 said: It doesn't make TRM's argument any less silly. The proposed text doesn't indicate international notability. If Saudi Arabia really is at war with Yemen, and they are supplying aid, that might indicate international notability. (Come to think of it, the US supplied "humanitarian aid" to parts of Yugoslavia while NATO was essentially at war with it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted, text of other items does not "indicate international notability", the links to the stories do that. This is internationally notable, as the UN identified the problem in Yemen and Saudi are supplying millions of dollars of aid despite being at war with them. If none of you can see that, or be bothered to do anything about it, it's up to you, but it truly shows the ownership issues with this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which events do not indicate international notability in the text, and I'll see whether I would recommend rewrite or removal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That you are unaware of the international notability of this is irrelevant. Surprising, but irrelevant. I'm not interested at all in your recommendations, this should be community-driven, so either change the criteria to ensure that blurbs are so explicit that even someone with absolutely no knowledge can acknowledge the "nine Wikipedia notability criterion" or accept the fact that we don't all assume our readers are complete fools. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nine non-English WP articles requirement is for deaths, not events. Jim Michael (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh, so this one passes by a country mile and can be added. Thank goodness. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It matters not, it's there which is the most important thing. We should now spend our time on the principles of this project, not the specific items. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article still doesn't assert international notability. Aid from other countries and from international organisations is commonplace in response to various disasters. Jim Michael (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's there, and that's all that matters now, regardless of the whacky rules here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, all that's in the article is mention of international orgs - who routinely help when there's been a disease outbreak, earthquake, flood famine etc. (even if the disaster is limited to one country). Jim Michael (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you know that "all that's in the article" isn't relevant, that's why you allow the "nine Wikipedia rule" for deaths, because you assume that what's in other articles isn't complete, comprehensive, or even reliably sourced. I've even gone to the extent to edit the article to include this highly profile detail, something which your ongoing "denial" has embarrassed the entire project. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming or denying anything. Jim Michael (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So let's see what the RFCs bring, right now it's "RY regulars" v "Normal community" and the scores are tied! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please indicate the precise text you want to add. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the request was to add a "photo" of Nyqvist, not some "text". Please, if you keep making such boilerplate responses, it's better to let someone else do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Edit requests have to include the precise edit to be requested. By text, I meant Wikitext. (As an aside, is there a method for WP:VE users to request Protected Edits.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't, that's pure bureaucracy. If you can't handle a request to add a simple photo with a simple caption then it's probably best to leave it to others to respond to such requests. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not read the instructions? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not use common sense? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done however, @CanadianWikilover: - this page is no longer protected. Please be sure to establish consensus for contested edits. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrong forum (should be WT:RY), but I think we should further restrict the listings of births and deaths, rather than relaxing the criteria for events. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do currently list a lot of actors who have little or no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why aren't you doing something about that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't - the article is fully protected and I'm not an admin. Jim Michael (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of guidelines should be in WP:RY. However, that is impossible while TRM is trying to redefine clearly written, existing terms, in WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly written" but not "clearly implemented". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They had been clearly implemented — until this week. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not, and it's great to see the community giving this place a shakeup, I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please propose the precise text, and an uninvolved admin will consider it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous, per the current inclusion criteria, this individual has died and is currently a shoo-in for inclusion. Please start doing this properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eligible for inclusion, as she had been the President of the European Parliament. Jim Michael (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jim Michael (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

One Love Manchester benefit concert

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

• Comment - Benefit concerts are quite common, as are concerts which feature performers from other countries. Jim Michael (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know the benefit concerts can be, Jim. As a stand alone entry, it's just a benefit concert. However, the mixture of the benefit concert and the bombing event can make the entry worth including for readers if you can give it a chance, right? --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If the Manchester bombing is included then this should be added next to it (as opposed to in another section). –Davey2010^Talk 22:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, either both should be included together or both should be excluded - because the benefit concert happened in response to the attack. Jim Michael (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly, Atleast to me it would seem silly to have the Manchester attack on there but make no mention of the concert... –Davey2010^Talk 22:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The attack was a major item in world news with international socio-political ramification; a benefit concert about it was not. Agree that if the concert is mentioned, it should be juxtaposed with the entry about the attack, since one follows directly from the other.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Manchester Arena bombing (RfC)

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

Update: Should the entry be stood alone? If not, then please feel free to vote at #One Love Manchester benefit concert proposal. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Implies forcing bombing event to be mixed with concert one. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've already weighed in, but Exclude. It's unfortunate, but it's not particularly important among terrorist acts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude this domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude, as per above. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include bombing at an international artist's concert in Manchester killing people of multiple nationalities, followed by a global fund-raiser and multiple reliable source coverage on at least five continents. Either we're playing by the criteria or we're not. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Inlcude per TRM. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 14:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Inlcude Despite being biased because of my article contributions, this is clearly one of the key events in Britain so far this year, along with the Grenfell Tower fire.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's disputing that, but this is 2017 - not 2017 in the United Kingdom. Jim Michael (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And no-one's disputing that is indeed an international event. Now, you've all had your "exclude" votes here and there, without anyone badgering you, I suggest you do the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's untrue - you can clearly see that some other people in this discussion and in the one above have agreed with me. Stop making false assertions. Jim Michael (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an international event, full stop. And it meets the current criteria for inclusion, so I fail to see how this is even being discussed. Is it that the "regulars" don't like it while the non-regulars don't see the sense in the current position? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's that the regulars are usually better at knowing, understanding and interpreting the guidelines and criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! And that's clearly not what the rest of the community believes this "project" should be doing! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly NOT an international event. I don't see how anyone could think it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming bogged down in a debate about what an "international event" is. If the definition is "an event in which people in multiple countries will be interested in hearing about in x years' time, then the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing and the Grenfell Tower fire both qualify by a wide margin.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Grenfell Tower fire is a domestic event. It could only become internationally notable if other countries change their laws as a result of it. Jim Michael (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come off it, Jim, the Grenfell fire has received enormous international media coverage. By using this skewed definition of an "international event", very few events would ever qualify for inclusion here. Who cares about the destruction of a mosque in Iraq, it's just a building, etc etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely the problem with this project. Individuals making judgements on what is and what is not internationally or temporally notable. What has been described above is exactly what's happening (it's just a building in one country etc etc, it's just a bombing in one country etc etc, it's just one of the highest profile sports events of the year but it's set in one country......). Glad we have more eyes here, this is something that needs to be radically overhauled. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Various events in Kim Kardashian's life received enormous international media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This theme is both telling of your understanding of the notability of international events, and at the same time a disgusting slur about the comparison between a globally significant terrorist attack on children that will resonate for decades and some fourth-rate celebrity. You may find it difficult to tell the difference, our readers certainly don't, and your continual repetition of this strawman comparison is a disgrace. Do us all a favour and find something more appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Resonate for decades"? Aren't you the one who's been telling us that we must avoid WP:CRYSTAL and use relevant sources? This reasoning is getting more ridiculous by the hour. But let me help you: the news cycle has come and gone. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still on the BBC homepage I'm afraid, but thanks for your input. Seems like you and the "regulars" aren't quite gauging the community's wishes any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The homepage also includes "Car plunges into Colorado Springs swimming pool!" etc. I don't think we'd want to go with that. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not on my homepage, but I guess you're looking at the dumbed down international variant. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Manchester attack is not on my version of the BBC homepage, either (as of now). Looks like yours is reacting to the unusual amount of interest on your part. In any case, you're generalizing your narrow perspective again, which is really not a constructive way to engage in this discussion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have the same .com homepage that coffman has. So you'll see the same thing, the dumbed down advertising-included version. In any case, as you can see, the community disagrees with the project regulars, in pretty much every case here, so at least we've made progress there. And with luck we'll get the "guideline" redacted, and then we can focus on how to select events going forward which doesn't rely on the currently out-of-touch method. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the .co.uk, so kindly stop assuming facts about me, because you have no idea. And if luck has something to do with it, we'll get your horrible patronizing attitude out of the picture - one way or another - before any redacting happens. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, we're all playing by the rules, and just because the regulars don't like it, and the community don't like the project in its current form, that doesn't mean veiled threats are required by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with your patronizing attitude and false generalizations, then we can talk about this project. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the veiled threats. And some of us already are talking about this project, with or without your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Include. Certainly one of the most high-profile terrorist attacks of the year to date, with a great volume of coverage spanning the globe. The suggestion that this event is somehow not significant because it mainly impacted only one country is both incorrect (the consequences clearly were felt by populations around the world, and commented upon at length by their political leaders and news media, and led to one of the year's most highly publicized public events, as noted by TRM above) and also peculiar--terrorist attacks by their very nature almost always target a specific local, but even if the damage were incredibly isolated (let's say, killed only civilians from one nation), that does not per se mean the event failed to hit a given threshold of significance. Clearly, in an article like this, that determination ought to be made on the basis of the WP:WEIGHT this event commands amongst sources commented upon current affairs. By that policy-based measure, I think inclusion here is a borderline-WP:SNOW call. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include scope_creep (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I strongly support the inclusion of this event. However, if this is the only terrorist attack listed in the article, that reeks of systemic bias, considering that there have been many other significant terrorist attacks this year. -- Irn (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good point, see for example: 2017 Lashkargah bombing and June 2017 Kabul attack. I've changed my vote to "exclude" then. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's the nature and context of this terror attack which sets it apart from the two you mentioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Exclude, per above. Just one terrorist attack out of many. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's more about location, impact, global involvement and reaction than just "one from many", that argument can be applied to every single news story ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Exclude Oppose as stand-alone entry (was neutral), even as the latest proposer of this entry – The only prominent parts about this bombing event are Ariana Grande and her Dangerous Woman Tour, which alone do not justify the inclusion of this entry. Not all notable events are included merely because they are... notable under Wikipedia definition. To me, "international sensationalism" and "international coverage" do not equate to "international notability", "international significance" or "international prominence". In this case, the bombing event happened and was one of deaths/murders events. The media made the whole bombing coverage international to highlight Grande and her tour and reignite tensions between the Europeans and Muslim community. Also, neither possibilities of ISIS involvement nor the media release of confidential information leaked from the US intelligence service does not make the bombing event itself more worthy to include. The leaked info coverage was just to attract and highlight one of Donald Trump troubles. Mentioning "ISIS" was probably to further divide anti-Muslim and pro-Muslim sides. The "2015" page may include November 2015 Paris attacks, but that's just the "Other stuff exists" argument... or just an attempt to say... "consistency". The Manchester bombing pales in comparison to the Paris attacks. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC); amended, 22:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC); changed vote, 22:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Further note: I'm also not convinced that One Love Manchester benefit concert would make the bombing event worthy to include as stand-alone. The concert was attended by tens of thousands of people and multiple artists from mostly US and UK, but that's about the concert itself. Also, most of the victims were British; only two non-Britons were Poles/Polish. Readers can find the bombing event elsewhere by browsing through the Ariana Grande article. BTW, One Love Manchester can be proposed as a stand-alone entry to include. Anyone? --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC); amended, 22:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my mind. I'll propose this soon. --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick recap on this event:

  Suicide bomb in centre of one of Britain's largest cities.

  Target is children.

  Act is internationally recognised singer.

  Bomber is trained in Libya.

  US, UK and Libyan services working together on it.

  US leaks images and details of bombing globally.

  Victims are multinational.

  Global fundraiser held in Manchester a few weeks later (One Love Manchester, broadcast to more than 50 countries).

• This is not just a terrorist attack in a war zone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Plus in 2015 we have the domestic event "November 13 – Multiple terrorist attacks claimed by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Paris, France, result in 130 fatalities.[67]" so we're either consistent with domestic events or we're not. Or there's an unwritten criterion about the number of deaths that are now required. The Paris attacks did not focus on children, nor did it have the resulting global fundraising efforts. So either both are okay, or neither, but certainly not just Paris. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, should this help, ISIS is an terrorist organization with multiple followers and groups/subgroups from around the world. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Include - Notable terrorist attack and without a doubt this should be included period. –Davey2010^Talk 22:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include. Terrorist attack that received substantial international coverage. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include per every other "include" !vote here. — Gestrid (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include, as one of the most globally significant human events of the year so far, from a socio-political waves perspective If worse comes to worst and we have to revise that assessment later in the year, then we'll do so. I sure hope not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Exclude. One of many historic mosques destroyed by ISIS. If something new comes of it, such as censure by the religious leaders of Iran, it might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude this domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude, nothing that would set this apart from other minor events in the ISIS rampage. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include but include its destruction and its capture — The overlap of historical notability of the mosque, symbolic notability (ISIS destroyed the place where they proclaimed their caliphate), and its role as a key event in the ongoing battle of Mosul suggests an unusual notability. US is involved per ISIS' accusation of their culpability. An explainer on the mosque's importance by the BBC suggests it's not quest "one of many historic mosques". Independent coverage comes from four continents (Europe, North America, north Africa, and west Asia).--Carwil (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include obviously per Carwil's notes, this complies satisfactorily with all the project's current criteria for inclusion (as a minimum) and has received global coverage as an international loss of architecture, covered widely on many continents in reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include per Carwill and TRM. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 14:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include. As noted, this is not just any mosque, and this information can be easily coupled with other coverage of ISIS-oriented events in this article, particularly its general reversal of fortunes/loss of territory and the increasingly volatile responses. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nor was it an especially important mosque. Jim Michael (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, stop now. We know your position, you don't need to argue ad infinitum in its favour, it won't help. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. It's an 850-year-old heritage site that is deeply connected with one of the most famous Muslim military leaders of all time. And even if it had been of relatively modern construction and relevance, there is the still the massive symbolic significance it has inured as the location from which ISIS declared its creation of a "caliphate", and the representative role it has taken on since--something that can be cited to literally hundreds of WP:reliable sources. But really, neither your nor my personal idiosyncratic views on the relevance of the monument itself matter here; the event of the monument's destruction is itself clearly a matter of substantial significance, as judged by breadth of coverage and the deep meaning being attached to it, at both the regional and international level. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Include. A combination of historical significance of the structure (850 yo) & symbolic significance as part of the war. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include It is a 12th century artifact, hanging around for more than 800 years, then those ur-men destroyed it. scope_creep (talk)
• Include Historic significance that will be worth noting in years to come.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include - Per Carwil, The Rambling Man, and Snow Rise. -- Irn (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include Carwil, Snow Rise and TRM - Notable attack which should be included. –Davey2010^Talk 22:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include reluctantly, especially as proposer – Multiple historical monuments have been destroyed during the Iraqi and Syrian Wars, which have led to millions or hundreds of thousands of deaths. Excluding the entry would be detrimental to readers, even when it seems like a mere monument. Whether it should be included in 2010s is a different issue. This proposal is about including the mosque destruction in "2017", so shall it be. --George Ho (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include Mosque is of historical significance, and excluding an act of violence simply because violence is common from ISIS is only contributing to systemic bias in these pages, as I have argued elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include per above half-dozen includes. Jusdafax 06:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include for historical significance (modulo Carwil's other relevance ideas), and for some WP:systemic bias reduction. This isn't Westpedia or Christendompedia, though it can look that way a bit too much.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHO's estimate of Cholera outbreak in Yemen

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

• Exclude, for now. If something internationally notable happens because of it, I would go for inclusion. It has been claimed that (1) Saudi Arabia is at war with Yemen, and (2) Saudi Arabia has supplied a significant amount of support. If _we_ could say that (meaning a single reliable source for both (1) and (2)), I might lean toward inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude this domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards include because of severity which makes it stand out on the international scale. The Saudi offer of aid should be understood in the context of the ongoing war and is probably cynical (as propaganda effort, knowing that Yemen could never accept), so this is IMO not really an expression of international importance. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include as announced by the United Nations, and as already discussed, with Saudi (who are currently bombing Yemen daily) offering tens of millions of dollars of aid. Making predictions into these kinds of acts is not a role that should be undertaken by Wikipedians, we stick with reliable sources (on most other parts of the projects). Global coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: predictions is all we have until Yemen either accepts or rejects the offer. In any case, the offer is not an expression of any international significance unless something comes out of it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - and there's still nothing in the article about aid from Saudi. Jim Michael (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's there now, and since it's via WHO and UNICEF, your concerns are not really relevant. Now stop badgering those with whom you don't agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not badgering anyone - I'm replying in a civil matter. Jim Michael (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Say no more. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Include. Coverage is significant even at this stage (and unsurprising, given the scale of the event and its context), and details of the ultimate fallout are likely to grow the story even further. (I do not consider this a WP:CRYSTAL call, insofar as I think the coverage is already significant enough for inclusion--I merely note that this story is only likely to continue to feed into others of global importance). Snow ^{let's rap} 21:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? This is not a WP:VOTE. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Major health crisis noted by WHO. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Include scope_creep (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? This is not a WP:VOTE. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A giant Cholera outbreak. scope_creep (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include - Per The Rambling Man and Snow Rise. -- Irn (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include — event is sudden and affects >100K people.--Carwil (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include per Snow Rise. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include per TRM & Snow Rise - Notable outbreak which should be included. –Davey2010^Talk 22:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include, especially as proposer – Still horrific and one of the results of the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). This proposal isn't about including the WHO's estimate in the 2010s or 21st century. It's about including the entry in the "2017" page. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include, per TRM and my comments on the thread above. A cholera outbreak affecting 200,000 people; why the heck are we even discussing this? Vanamonde (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: I don't think this is really formulated right. The fact that WHO came up with an estimate isn't really "a thing", encyclopedically speaking. The actual outbreak is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine

• 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine, perhaps? They are believed to have originated abroad and have hit international corporations too. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the proposal for you, Yerpo. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend toward exclude on this one, at least at present time; the coverage has been skimpy outside regional press, even when compared against other cybersecurity news. It is a developing story though, so I'm reserving my ultimate call on it. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Include. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? This is not a WP:VOTE. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Major cyberattack. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Include scope_creep (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? This is not a WP:VOTE. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may not be a vote, but it takes 2 minutes to read the article, and release how weird the whole event was. Firstly, it was the first in human history, that an event of this type happened. It took down the whole countries infrastructure initially I think for 7 hours, and then further events later. That included, banking, power company's, airports, commercial infrastructure. The whole country. It was fundamentally a cyber war. scope_creep (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include The cyberattacks occurred in multiple countries and four continents (five if you count Oceania as a continent). Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include per current criteria and per common sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include, especially as proposer – Computers, computers everywhere. One mishap can create havoc anywhere. *ends rhyming* Anyway, a global cybercrime definitely. --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean toward include as an event of international importance, which has already led to some changes in national Internet policies in different nations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include - serious effects in several countries. Jim Michael (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Include per everyone else and per recent developments given in the article. — Gestrid (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: I get what Arthur Rubin, et al., are saying, but the international effects are not really the result of one cyberattack, but of years of them. The necessity for policy changes has been building over a long time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Threaded discussion

• Looks like the project "regulars" all vote inline with their collective beliefs that their project is currently precisely correct, while those of us who come at it cold and try to understand the arcane inclusion criteria have very different views. This RFC is going to prove to be a very useful case study when it comes to unravelling the currently nonsensical inclusion criteria when an RFC is placed against the project as a whole. What seems to me to be the primary and unforgivable flaw is that our readers have no idea what this super-selective list of events is, especially versus such a broad array of deaths, and with no quality of any of it considered at all. All responses from "regulars" amount to "well it's in the archives" or "well read the edit notice" or similar. Pity our audience. Regardless of the outcome of these individual items, we now have enough momentum to bring this project to the attention of the wider community, and for that I am very grateful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't want to add fuel to fire, as I'm not sure a broad-ranging debate is necessary here (but maybe I am unaware of some previous major disputes in this area), but the relevant guidance is available at WP:Advice pages; by long-standing, consistent, and overwhelmingly broad community consensus (which has been further codified by ArbCom in multiple cases), WikiProjects are banned from creating idiosyncratic editing standards (not otherwise found in broader community policy) and then trying to enforce them on pages perceived to be within their purview. Doing so is considered WP:disruptive and contrary to several pillar policies. Editors for each individual article (whether they are aligned with a given WikiProject or not) must engage in the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS process using actual editorial policies and guidelines on a case-by-case basis, and cannot utilize arguments such as "well we [meaning the WikiProject editors or a group of editors on a similar article] decided it shall be done this way, so that governs here". If that is what is going on here (I see no particularly strong evidence of it, but this is my first involvement on a contemporary year article, that I can recall) then this is less a matter for getting greater community consensus (the community has already spoken on this principle, ad nauseum) and more a behavioural issue that needs to be addressed. Of course, there is nothing stopping the editors of the WikiProject from trying to enshrine their "sensible" approach in actual policy and/or style guidelines through the WP:PROPOSAL/policy adjustment processes, but they are not allowed to skip that vital community consensus process and go straight to "this is the way it is going to be, because this article is in our domain!" Snow ^{let's rap} 22:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's quite what's going on here. The relevant guideline is WP:RY. The problem stems from interpreting the guideline. There is a small handful of editors with a shared interpretation of the guidelines who also dedicate the most time and energy to these pages. As such, their interpretation has become the dominant one and the one that ultimately determines what is in these pages. Additionally, I think a lot of users, like The Rambling Man, come here and find themselves frustrated by this interpretation, fight against it, lose, and then, unlike TRM, leave feeling frustrated. TRM chose to continue fighting, and that's the only reason we're having this conversation right now. I think it might be useful to take this opportunity to discuss how we ought to interpret the guideline (in particular, what is meant by “international significance”). -- Irn (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much for the extra context and insight here, Irn. Taking a closer look at WP:RY, it certainly does seem to be filled with some rather unexpected and idiosyncratic restrictions which do not seem to comport very well with more general content policies regarding notability, neutrality, weight, and so forth. So I had a look at the talk page and found more or less the situation you describe: it seems these peculiar rules are coming from just a very small number of editors over a very small amount of time. As usual, I wish TRM could express his discontent with a less bombastic approach (I'd like to remind several people here that needlessly inflammatory language only gets heels dug in deeper), but from what I've seen, I do share his general impression (and yours) that something is deeply off the rails here.

In particular, if I am reading this discussion and this one correctly, it seems to me that the editors here did not follow the requirements of WP:PROPOSAL, but in fact promoted WP:RY from a WikiProject page (or some other informal set of recommendations) to a Wikipedia WP:guideline on their own initiative?? Let's be absolutely clear about something: if that is in fact what happened here, then WP:YR is not in reality a Wikipedia guideline in any remote sense and all indication within it that suggests it is a guideline needs to be removed immediately Guidelines are never adopted without full vetting through a good-faith exercise of the complete PROPOSAL process. If that was not done here, before the article was moved to main project space, then not only does the page not have any binding authority over any additions to any article, but the editor(s) who changed its wording and moved its location to suggest it was a guideline, without gaining the proper community consensus for such a move, need a WP:trouting at the very least; if they did this while knowing about the proposal process, then this was outright bad faith behaviour and should result in community attention at ANI (and probably a sanction), whereas if they did it simply because they were unaware that guidelines could only be promoted via PROPOSAL, then they are clearly not yet anywhere near competent enough to be working in the area of policy pages.

I hope I haven't misread the situation here. I made an effort to search for a relevant RfC in major project forums (as PROPOSAL requires) and found nothing, but perhaps I missed it. But the discussions linked above seem to indicate there never was a PROPOSAL process before these recommendations were erroneously "promoted" to guideline status. If that is the case, I repeat that the simple fact is that WP:YR is not a legitimate guideline under this project's policies and should be altered to make this fact clear until such time as that process has been followed. And anyone trying to enforce rules from a guideline which they snuck into main project space without proper procedure is acting in a manifestly WP:disruptive fashion and likely to come under community scrutiny; the community at large us unlikely to look favourably upon a group of editors flaunting the rules by which we create guidelines. Frankly, if this is in fact what happened, the editors in question (whoever the most proactive ones who moved the page may be) would be very well advised de-"promote" this article themselves (by removing any language in it that suggests it is a guideline) and then contemplate whether they can promote it for real via PROPOSAL. Failure to do so could be immensely problematic for sorting this all out and probably will not take those editors to a good place with regard to their status in the community. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that's a really good call. Looking at the history, making it a guideline appears to have been one user's decision, which was executed without discussion, definitely not in line with the process spelled out at WP:PROPOSAL. I guess the next step is to change it from a guideline to an essay, and then start a conversation over at WT:RY about how to move forward? -- Irn (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• All four events currently listed appear to be major events of international significance. Unless we are limited in space, I suggest including all four. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Because it's relevant. Wikilawyering doesn't change that. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BADGER. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for being blunt, but if you always tend to confuse civil discussion with badgering like that, then perhaps you should think about whether Wikipedia is a right place for you... We need to establish consensus because there is no authority who will close this discussion and implement the result, and drive-by voters contribute nothing useful to this. On the contrary. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excused. Repeatedly asking the same questions of the same voters can only be interpreted one way I'm afraid. You need to consider whether this is something you'd like to continue. And well done for accusing those who are voting here in good faith of being "drive-by voters" who "contribute nothing useful to this". You should read WP:AGF before you go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was, of course, referring to unexplained votes by people who were never involved in the topic at hand. Drive-by is a well-established euphemism for those and that they contribute nothing useful to the discussion is a fact - regardless of their intentions. So a cheap trick, invoking AGF here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your words, not mine. Now then, I'd suggest you leave others to work on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BADGER and WP:BULLY are excellent descriptions of 'your actions, TRM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a rogue admin, I'll treat that with the respect it deserves..... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were a rogue admin. You are apparently still a rogue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem proud. Remember what happens next. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not at all. Look at the last time the "guideline" was discussed. We already have a bucket-load more interaction here from sane-thinking individuals. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now editors who disagree with you are thinking insane? Pretty soon, your haughty attitude will accomplish something here, just not what you intend. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? What I do know is that this project's current approach is not what the community wants, and that's brilliant! No spitting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your patronising, arrogant sniping at several regular, productive editors is making it very difficult for people to assume good faith. Jim Michael (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs. And your personal attack is noted. I'm really glad this issue has been brought to the wider community, and with them we must agree, that's Wikipedia. Your personal opinion (patronising, sniping etc) is noted, but your collective bullying of me to ignore such shortcomings in this project is so much more cromulent. You, and your mates, need now to focus on the discussions that are relevant now. The discussions that wouldn't have been possible if I'd just accepted your bullying tactics, tag team tactics, continual minor and deliberately inaccurate responses. I'm so thrilled that we now have a proper group of editors who actively care about the community involved in this, and I trust you'll observe the process of revolutionising this project's approach in accordance with the outcomes! We're on step 2 now, at least having globally acknowledged that RY was a real ongoing problem. It clearly isn't a problem for most people to assume good faith with me since so many people are in agreement with me. Other than you and your cadre. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only personal attacks here are the ones from you. You're arrogantly talking down to the regulars in most of your comments to us. None of the regulars here agree with you. You're determined to reverse much of the work that's been done here - all because you disagreed with me saying that the 2017 Finsbury Park attack wasn't important enough to be on ITN. Everyone here - other than you - has a reasonable tone and communicates as equals. Jim Michael (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was pretty much my conclusion about how ALL this came about. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, a refusal to accept the status quo so ardently protected by a few project owners? The RfCs speak for themselves, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, please stop speaking for all of the editors. You don't. I've been on Wikipedia for over 4 years with over 17,000 edits; I am a regular. You don't speak for me. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 23:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean regulars on year articles, especially on recent year articles - not regular Wikipedians in general. Jim Michael (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three or four people trying to bully me away from this analysis you mean? Not working, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself a regular on the recent year articles, and I agree with much of TRM's criticism of RY. -- Irn (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Meaningless, so suit yourselves I am only here because I got RfC'd. I had to read a bit of the article just to make sense of it all. The rationale behind the article not only is arguable, it is incoherent. One person's international significance is another's "Huh??? Wot dat?" or even "Who cares?". Pages of obituary notices, mostly of has-beens and functional nonentities, and a few news items of international significance only in the eyes of a few editors. This is a waste of words and of space and will remain so until a rational basis for the conception of this type of article emerges. Merely handwaving about internationality won't cut it. I'll try to add a comment at the end, but I suspect it won't be worth reading. JonRichfield (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• To respond to TRM's original post in this section: I came here without any detailed preconceived notions about the process or the criteria (I haven't touched one of these articles since some time around 2008 or 2009, I think, and even then it was the "in sport" variant. I think it is good for pages like this to get RfC input, because if a process is run too long by the same handful of people it can start serving the ends of its own little bureaucracy rather than the needs and expectations of the readership (or whatever the target audience is; this is true of any kind of project or process like this, e.g. development of a piece of software, operation of a charity, etc.). The editorship at large, and the slice of it called up by WP:FRS, isn't exactly the readership at large, but is a more accurate model of it than the regulars of the year articles, simply by virtue of being a more random selection.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for specifics

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

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

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

Thanks for the additional searching, George. I'm surprised that this happened so long ago; if the page was erroneously promoted to guideline status with the required WP:PROPOSAL process, I would have expected it to have happened in the last year or so, given the fact that no outside editor has noticed it until now. However, it does not surprise me in the least that this seems to be what happened (whenever it was that it happened); there are just far to many bizarre and idiosyncratic rules about what constitutes an important annual story that do not jive with our general WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV views for this "guideline" to have been the product of approval by the community at large. However, if the page was published in 2009, it creates a complication; we could, reasonably, alter the page to clarify that its scope is that of an essay, and force its adherents to promote it through the proposal process, where it would probably need to lose many of it's less well-thought-out components and comport more closely with basic content guidelines. Since the page was never made a guideline through the legitimate process, there's really no policy-consistent objection to be made with this approach, but it strikes me as likely to lead to an edit war involving those who have grown attached to it and the "outsiders" they are determined to protect its standards from, regardless of how has the right of policy and community consensus here. Alternatively, editors working in this area who know the guideline is not a product of a properly vetted community consensus could just ignore it, knowing its illegitimacy. But here again, edit wars could result and the vast majority of editors who incidentally edit on the contemporary year articles and have their work reverted under reference to WP:RY would have no way of knowing that the guideline held no actual weight.

Probably at this point it is best to take the matter to WP:VPP, be clear about what has transpired, and see how the community at large thinks the matter should be addressed; I suspect that the community will opt for immediately de-classifying the page as a guideline and requiring it to pass the full PROPOSAL process. This would be ideal in that it would require broad discussion of each of the provisions of the page, some of which have sketch rational or none altogether. I do think there is a happy middle ground to be found here (as in most policy discussions), but I do think some of those who have been used to working within the framework of this faux guideline are going to have to get used to dropping some of the standards that have been employed for a while simply because "this is how we've decided to do it." Snow ^{let's rap} 06:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think it's important that this is quickly resolved, particularly with the backdrop of wider community participation on this very page demonstrating that the current criteria are not suitable. A wholesale revisit of the inclusion criteria and the status of the "guideline" is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. The RY guidelines as stand right now are just not enough and frankly, very unclear about what constitutes an international event. Jim has his definition and I have my own. It could be interpreted as many thing and essentially violates WP:NPOV. The guidelines should be restarted from scratch with proper community participation, proposals and consensus. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it was promoted to guideline in 2017, as I noted above. Whether that promotion was done according to Wikipedia guidelines is another matter. Before that, it was just generally, but not universally, accepted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we'll go back and re-work that in due course. It clearly should not be a Wikipedia guideline, nor should you subjectively allow certain editors to modify it and revert changes by others, abusing your position as an admin in the meantime. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmemirela: Frankly, I just don't see the logic behind an "international" requirement at all and can't fathom that it would have been kept in if this had gone through a proper proposal process. I can think of plenty of events which would be massively important to note as one of the major developments of a year, and yet which are mostly a regional phenomena. All this requirement would do (if it were part of a genuine guideline) would be to force editors to go through mental gymnastics to try to classify this or that event as touching upon the lives of other people in other nations (evidence of this can be seen immediately above). Meanwhile, other stories (which may be events of drastically lesser impact on the whole, in terms of both sourcing and just obvious pragmatic reality) get a free pass if they start out with an international character. There's nothing editorially or rationally sound in that approach; it's a fairly arbitrary standard that does not comport with our general policies on notability, weight, and neutrality (and as someone touched upon above, there are significant WP:systemic bias issues that can result as well). Of course, most (if not all) events that are likely to be proposed for inclusion in an article like this one are almost certain to have some sort of argument for how they might be considered international in character. But that does not mean the requirement itself helps us to better judge the relevancy of a topic, as such things are meant to be judged under Wikiepdia's editorial policies. On the whole, this standard (and several others that currently appear in WP:RY), constitute a good reminder of why we have the proposal process for new guidelines, such that the views of a small number of editors do not become normalized as a required approach without the rationale being thoroughly tested by the community. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the international requirement is that we have many articles by country, such as 2017 in the United Kingdom, 2017 in the United States etc. - for which domestic events are more appropriate. Jim Michael (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and it makes sense to a dump a certain number of events (indeed, the overwhelming majority) into those articles. But the name of this article is "2017", not "2017 in international affairs"; there's no reason, in principle, that a story cannot be mainly one which arises from a single country (by any reasonable measure of whether it was "mainly domestic" or "mainly international") and yet still be one of the most massive stories of the year and bear mentioning in an article summarizing that year's events. Consider, for example, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster; I presume that it is mentioned in the 2011 article, but if it could only be mentioned because a handful of foreign experts participated in the repair (or some other tangential detail to the main events) and would otherwise have to be excluded--that would be, in a word, idiotic.

The problem (well, part of the problem) is that this standard allows people to pick the international proxies they want for certain stories and then deny that international nexus is significant enough for other events (see again, systemic bias). When in fact, there is no principled reason for an international requirement at all. I have no problem with moving the vast majority of regional stories to their appropriate nation-year articles, truly. But there's no legitimate cause for excising events from main RY articles that were clearly major stories of the year in question, just because they happened to be geographically bounded inside one nation and most significant to that nation's people. It's arbitrary, cumbersome, and doesn't comport with our broader community polices. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a case for including the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in 2011 because it was the most costly disaster in the history of the world and because it caused sharp falls in stock markets across the world. Jim Michael (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point here: no editor should have to jump through convoluted hoops to prove to your satisfaction that a story has an international dimension, just because a small handful of editors decided for themselves that "only international stories can be major stories of the year" and then someone created the false impression that this is a site-wide guideline by creating a fake policy page without going through (absolutely required) WP:PROPOSAL process to vet whether this and the related recommendations are even a good idea. I've been clear to stipulate multiple times that I do think most entries on a recent year article will in fact pass that test (by more or less attenuated reasoning depending on how much that particular editor wants that particular item listed), but that does not address the more fundamental question of whether the requirement itself is logical, useful, advisable, or consistent with other policy in this area. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's claiming that the guidelines here apply across the site - they only apply to RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they don't apply to any article anywhere on the project (at least not with any more weight than an WP:essay); if that page was not vetted and approved by the community as a guideline through the WP:PROPOSAL process, it's not a guideline, and nothing in it is more than a recommendation. One user unilaterally changing the wording and location of an WP:advice page to suggest it is a guideline does not make it so. That's a flagrant violation of basic community consensus on how editorial guidelines are formed and promoted on this project. But in any event, what I meant in my above post is that you expect it to apply to all RY-related articles. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the way RY articles have been run for years. I didn't know that any formal process was required to make the guidelines official. Jim Michael (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: I certainly take you at your word that the mistake you made which caused you to try to enforce these rules was a good-faith error. But an error it was, nevertheless, and you're probably going to have to get used to making your arguments on the RY talk pages without referencing to that guideline, given its illegitimacy. At least until you and other volunteers hammer out something new and get the community's stamp of approval through the PROPOSAL process. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, your text blocks are everything man. I hear ya. However, there should a limit as to what can be added to the RY articles. For example, the news or event occurred or interacted in two countries. Let's say a major event of spying between the UK and the US or the UK and France. However, if it is a major event such as the Manchester bombing or the Finsbury attack, it should receive plenty of coverage worldwide or at least within the continent. A shooting that left two dead from a domestic dispute is not notable for RY. Again, these are just a few examples. I agree that there is systemic bias because only a few events are chosen, vague description if it should be included, etc. The guidelines right now are simply not enough in so many ways. What is exactly an international event? It's all very vague and violates NPOV as well as systemic bias. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 23:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 Finsbury Park attack is nowhere near notable enough for 2017 in Europe, let alone 2017.Jim Michael (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that there needs to be some kind of standard for deciding the primacy of events during a year. And its certainly by necessity going to be a complicated task, because (to a far greater extent than I would accept in most editorial areas) its hard to dodge at least a small degree of subjectivity here. But we do have general editorial policies that all subordinate guidelines need to work within (which several of the recommendation in that unvetted/faux "guideline" page fail to do). This ought to start based on WP:WEIGHT of the sources, though that can only be a starting point in this case because different areas of news (and different areas of the world) get varying degrees of coverage, when we're talking literally about the sum of all sources in a given year. But to just decide that an event cannot be classified as a "major event of the year" because it is not significantly international (as judged by our own editors according to their own whims) is closer to a kind of WP:Original research; it opens the door for own subjective assessment of the importance of events, when what we need is a principled guideline based on metrics that are efficient and least likely to be subjected to our personal biases. It will be complicated to work out the details, but our analysis has to start with the sources, not our own personal views. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

You're kind of getting through I think. In answer to your question where has anyone answered the question of who would want to look up an article of this kind and for what purpose, I had suggeted we should simply use the articles that were agreed by the community at ITN (which has substantially larger participation than this project) as events here. That way we know they're of interest to our editors and most likely our readers, we know they're of reasonable quality, and you'd get around 12 to 20 or so events per month, which seems an appropriate level of "significant global events" for this kind of page (unlike the three months of 2017 which the project regulars have restricted to one event). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 Women's March occurred in many countries; it was international and intercontinental. Jim Michael (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I miss the point of that comment. Who is arguing to the contrary? Are you suggesting that for an item to be international it has to take place in multiple nations? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but it has to influence multiple nations (in a wider sense than a handful of individuals), and/or be exceptional on a global scale. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Completely subjective and hence why so few articles make it past your oversight group. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this more subjective than a vote by a group of ITN regulars (who are predominantly Westerners, I assume)? — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said this had to influence multiple nations (in a wider sense than a handful of individuals) but that is complete POV. At least ITN runs a consensus-based discussion for each entry, and ensures quality so our educational values are maintained. Nothing of the sort happens at RY where such entries are guarded by the regulars whose input criteria appear to be seriously in doubt given the ongoing RfCs. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On ITN, many events which are important enough aren't posted. That's because they aren't nominated - or they are nominated, but aren't posted because the articles aren't of high enough quality or because the nominations aren't supported. Jim Michael (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, the community don't deem them important enough but you four do!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't POV - influence is gauged by what RS are saying about an event. And please stop misrepresenting the ongoing RfCs. Taken together, they demonstrate nothing of the sort you claim. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't use RS's, you use subjective judgement. The RFCs have shown you all to be wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of WP:RY status

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

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

– Skip that; the move was reverted back to "guideline" status. --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "creator" does not have a say in the matter once the 2017 RfC at VPP declared it to be a guideline. You need either to "appeal" that RfC or hold a new RfC to declare it an essay. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, bold moves are great in articles, but when it comes to the status of project pages, not so much. You need a consensus. It should never have been unilaterally marked as a guideline years ago, this is true, but the recent RFC ultimately upheld that decision because it had been treated as one for so long. Unilaterally demoting it was as poor of a decision as unilaterally promoting it way back when. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully Arthur and Beeblebrox, four of you voting in an RfC is not a legitimate replacement process for WP:PROPOSAL; there's a reason this community requires a high standard of vetting and approval for changing an WP:essay into a WP:guideline, and the fact that it took a while for other editors (that is, those who did not create and improperly promote these recommendations to fake "guideline" status) to catch on to what had transpired is not argument for just giving the page a clean pass as a "legitimate" guideline once it is discovered. Point in fact, the argument that pretty clearly inures from these facts is just the opposite; the amount of time the page has been falsely treated as the result of community consensus (with the editors who created it benefiting from its illegitimate status as a supposed guideline in content discussions and disputes) is something that needs to be addressed, not just shrugged off and accepted, because "woops, we didn't notice they had done this". I can fairly well guarantee that the community is not just going to accept a status quo situation in which one of our most basic and essential policies (the one by which we make policy no less) can be subverted and then, if the mistake isn't caught in time, a fake guideline just becomes a real one by default. Sorry guys, but that's a nonsense conclusion. And one which the community can hardly afford to tolerate, especially as it would incentivize those who want to stamp their idiosyncratic views on to guidelines (regardless of whether they comport with community consensus and our policies) to just go ahead and create a guideline in some niche area and try to fly under the radar for as long as possible.

No, look, I'm sorry, I assume each of your voted in a good faith manner in that RfC, whether you work on RY articles regularly or not, but the four of you can't make a guideline official by yourselves, through all of six complete sentences of community discussion! We don't do end-runs on WP:PROPOSAL on this project. That page is not a guideline and though I don't encourage anyone to edit war over the wording marking it as a guideline, no editor needs to treat it as anything more than an essay until it goes through a proper proposal process, is adjusted to meet community expectations, and then is validated by the community at large. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^ THAT ^^^^ The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was... perfection. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, Snow Rise, since the bold and classy move from Wrad was undone, would you be prepared to formulate this formally? It'd be better coming from someone more neutral to the issue. My bet is that the regulars will vote in favour of it not being a guideline, as will Beeblebrox, and it will be complete and utter waste of time and energy, but at least it will be on record I suppose. Would you be able to do that for us? We need to start the process of redefining this project's behavioural guidelines, and this is a great place to start. Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRM. I'm not sure if you are asking me to host A), a VPP discussion to confirm that the page should be purged of any reference to it being a guideline, or B) a workshop for discussion of the page's content, so that it can be re-formulated in a more policy-consistent fashion and then go through a proper WP:PROPOSAL process and become a guideline for real. In principle, I'd be happy to assist with either, if other editors think it would be useful. I should add the caveat that I am very busy this next couple of weeks, so the pace of the discussion (or at least of my involvement as a facilitator) could be on the slow side, so I may not be the ideal choice in that sense. Nevertheless, if I can be of assistance in this regard and I am seen as a good neutral choice, I will be happy to do what I can. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Rise I'm certainly looking for option A as I fail to see any widespread adoption of Wikipedia guidelines for Wikiproject inclusion criteria, especially when this specific project covers a mere 15 articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, thanks to Wrad for the further clarification of the procedural history here, and for attempting to rectify the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing?

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

I agree with those, even with the mosque, as per the new arguments about its symbolic meaning. I don't have time now to change my vote there, I'll get to that tomorrow. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the allowance of those in opposition to a clear consensus is required. I do not understand why permission needs to be sought from those in opposition to close an RfC. I do not understand why this closure technique is being used. Perhaps we should copy in Arbcom on this as it's clear that some edits have suddenly been made which are very close to IBAN territory, but in a game-playing manner... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I have now emailed Arbcom regarding this situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Permission from the opposition is not technically required for closure, but it is for a non-admin closure where the result is likely to be contested. Since <redacted>name</redacted> "poisoned" the discussion by introducing misstatements about Wikipedia policies and guidelines I think it would be better to wait for an uninvolved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs for these "misstatements" (which you previously referred to as "lies" which you then redacted with an edit summary of "redact true statement") please. Really, an admin should know better than to accuse an editor of outright lying. That's a genuine personal attack. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin please provide diffs to these "lies" so I can address them formally before we take action against your misuse of your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot copy diffs on this phone, but your the claim that WP:RY is not a guideline has been established to be false. (You have made other false statements, but those are about your actions, and would only be relevant in another venue.) If you had brought this issue up 4 months ago, your arguments might have had some weight, but the next argument would have been WP:TNT; there would be nothing in the year articles worth keeping. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs please. Of course, who knew this was a "guideline"? It's such a surprise that even the person responsible for it has tried to remedy it. You need diffs or else your accusations are simply personal attacks. This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with when or where items are brought up. I'm not really interested in your personal attacks, I'm also not that bothered because I deal with this kind of flagrant abuse all the time, but it does show a troubling pattern of abuse of your position. Right now, though, we need to focus on the fact that the community are shaping up in complete opposition to the regulars here, and we start on the road to recovery for the project by eliminating this odd status scenario. Then the criteria need to be addressed, but all in good time. Your TNT claim is bizarre, at best, a non sequitur though. We'll get to that. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Come on, you're apparently an admin, I've asked you several times for diffs to back up your accusations, per ADMINACCT you need to start doing the right thing, although I see lately that you placed a one-week block on a new editor with whom you were involved and gave no proper warnings, so your current behavioural patterns here seem to fit that particular mould. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin still waiting..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have made Someone has made various absurd claims about WP:RY, including

1. That it isn't a guideline that applies to 2017
2. That the 3-continent rule is indication of international significance, while any rational person with a reasonable understanding of English, would realize it's a minimal requirement.

That seems sufficient. Only the first is an outright lie, and you seem to have redacted that somewhere along the line. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've had enough of your accusations. Provide the diff of me "outright lying" and provide he diff of me "redacing that somewhere along the line". You, especially as an admin, simply cannot get away with this kind of lazy editing. Secondly, your point where you clearly assert that I am not a "rational person with a reasonable understanding of English" is yet another personal attack. It is clearly stated at WP:RY that "New events added must receive independent news reporting from three continents on the event. This is a minimum requirement for inclusion.", not that it's a "minimal requirement". Once items pass this "minimum" requirement, they are eligible. As demonstrated by the RFCs, all of which are finding against your interpretation of how this page should be managed. Now, you either redact all the personal attacks and provide diffs as I have requested of you now six times, or we'll be at ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General observation

• Add all - as of this posting - summoned by bot. It is very hard to vote for everything individually using a mobile phone. Everything that has been posted above up to this point I have read about and so is notable. I wonder would it not be simpler to allow autoconfirmed users to add what they would like, and then debate the notability if there's anything questionable? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the problem has been (as evidenced by the voting) that a small number of project regulars have and enforce their own views on how to implement the criteria, hence why these individual items have been singled out for discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Without a guideline, RY articles would be full of domestic and local events. Jim Michael (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Who is saying there should be no guideline? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems to be what Tim is suggesting. Jim Michael (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Better than currently. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, because without a guideline we'd be having discussions every day on this talk page. Jim Michael (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems that it's needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Allowing autoconfirmed users only would seem to reduce a lot of problems from non-notable items being added. I went back to the beginning of the month and everything that was reverted, with the exception of one Garchomp2017 edit, was added by an IP editor or a user with less than ten edits under their belt. Bigger picture though, I'm new to this article and hadn't read WP:RY yet - I just saw it referenced in the comments. My vote to include all the items above was based on the fact that I thought they were notable - not whether something was domestic in scope or not. I was surprised to read that there's a specific comment asking not to add Trump's inauguration, as it's a domestic event, yet March includes the impeachment of South Korean President Park Geun-hye. The former represented the date Trump came to power, and so had more of a world impact than the latter. Also, I see now in the hidden comments that the argument for excluding the Manchester bombing is that it's a local event. When a local event gets worldwide press coverage, and is representative of a larger global problem, doesn't that change the notability scope? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the oversight of this project is clearly out of step with the community, as evidenced by the ongoing RfCs which are strongly against the opinions of the three or four individuals who monitor this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed that impeachment. Jim Michael (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  How helpful to the readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It is, as it was a domestic event which didn't have any impact on any other countries. It belongs on 2017 in South Korea. Jim Michael (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you know it didn't have any impact? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no indication of it in her article. Jim Michael (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If there were significant international effects, they would have been added to Park Geun-hye and Impeachment of Park Geun-hye. Jim Michael (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not necessarily. Plus your judgement seems to be contrary to the community, do you think you should be making such decisions any longer? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The burden of proof of international notability is on the person who wants to add it. I've removed it in response to Tim pointing out that it shouldn't be on this article. There is a long-standing consensus that domestic events are excluded from RY articles. I've been in line with the community for years. The several newcomers to this article - most of whom probably won't stay around - haven't come up with a better guideline. Jim Michael (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Each of those RfCs have shown your opinion to be in direct contradiction to the community. The impeachment has resulted in Moon's election, and changes in relationships with the US, Japan, China and, most notably, North Korea. That information is available in reliable sources, just because it's not in Wikipedia articles, it doesn't mean it isn't significant. Articles are seldom finished. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The changes are no more significant than with the changes of leader of many countries - and we don't normally include changes of national leader. Jim Michael (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The changes are internationally significant, particularly in regard to North Korea, which is why they're reported in international reliable sources such as CNN, The Guardian and The New York Times. The judgements of the incumbent oversighters has been seriously called into question. See the RFCs for three or four recent examples. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could I ask why the London terror attacks aren't on here?, They were both notable so shouldn't they be included ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can open up another RfC. Per the discussion above, there is confusion as to what consists an international event. As Snow Rise indicated, the criteria to mention an event never went through a proper proposal process, which adds even more confusion. I think we're at that they should be changed and go through the formal proposal process. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. It's evident that we need to redefine the criteria for inclusion here. After all, this is for our readers, not our editors, and they would almost certainly expect the London terror attacks to be in a round-up of the global events of 2017, given the global coverage those attacks received. It appears the only way to ensure (currently) that the items can be included is to run another RFC in the same way as those above, and seek community consensus for the addition, otherwise you will find any addition removed by the three or four project regulars who would object to this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there does seem to be some confusion, Okie dokie thanks both I'll fire another one up, Thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 2017 Westminster attack and June 2017 London Bridge attack articles be added to this article?. –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Support - I'm extremely surprised this wasn't added or included in the above RFC but anyway both are notable events and both IMHO deserve to be on the page, –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obviously the kind of thing you'd expect our readers to be looking for in a round-up of major events around the world in 2017. Both events had global coverage, and global ramifications. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Global ramifications? Which ones were that? — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Go after one of the other supporters Yerpo. I don't need your hassle any longer. This is your last warning. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I am genuinely interested in what "global ramifications" you're talking about. The articles don't mention any (politicians' words don't count, of course), but if there were, I'd reconsider my opposition. No need for empty threats. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Far from an empty threat, I will seek an IBan between you and your bullying oversight group, and me. Go hassle someone else who disagrees with you all in one of the many RFCs that demonstrates your group is out of touch with community norms. In the meantime leav me alone, and maybe improve Wikipedia for our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take that as an admission that the "global ramifications" claim is too thin to discuss. But an IBan would be a clever way to exclude opposition from this hostile takeover attempt, I give you that. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, take it that I will seek an iban if you continue to pick out and badger just my responses. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support major news coverage from around the world, victims were not just British, attackers of the Westminster attack were born in the Middle Eastern and/ or had dual citizenship, and plenty of international response. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Major incidents. I am additionally surprised that things like the 2017 St. Petersburg Metro bombing are not here. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Exclude these domestic events. Jim Michael (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude - exceptional in no way but for happening in a developed Western country. More than a dozen attacks by the Islamic state with comparable number of casualties occured just in June 2017, including these two and not others would be pure ywestern-centrism. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude. Not exceptional. Even if the "international notability/ significance/ importance" criterion of WP:RY is rejected, not in the top 10 in significance in 2017 in terrorism (or whatever it's called). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

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

I absolutely disagree - London is a major city and therefore would've been seen as a major attack and although journalists tend to cause some drama and "hype" things up this wasn't the case here, FWIW IMHO each and every one of those listed at List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 should be on that article too however that's another discussion for another day, IMHO this was a major attack and thus deserves to be listed. –Davey2010^Talk 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting that all the attacks listed on the list of terror attacks should be on year articles? Why?

Terror attacks in major cities aren't rare. It's just that when they happen in Asia and Africa, they rarely receive huge media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, go chasing explanations from others, not just me. I know it's difficult when your project gets noticed and then exposed for its behavioural anomalies, but we are where we are and, once again, the community is finding against the will of the current project oversighters. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And again with the attacks on editors who are trying to make this a worthwhile project, rather than debating the subject at hand. There must be so much responsibility for one editor to be the elected representative of "the community". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm doesn't become you. The fact that TRM is being disruptive should be brought up in other venues. As for his proposed IBan, there is nothing he could say which wasn't, in part, a reply to something I said in the past 5 years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes TRM is being disruptive (and this has gone on for weeks now) but the last time I tried to bring this up at ANI it was dismissed. The repeated claims that by TRM that they are acting on behalf of the community need to be addressed, all I see is a disaffected editor trying to establish their own personal agenda for the recent years project, largely based on ideas so faulty that WPITN is undergoing an extensive discussion on replacing them if not wiping the project entirely. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI report you prematurely filed wasn't ANI-worthy. And please guys, this part of the RfC is to discuss if the attacks should be included or not. If you want to discuss TRM's behaviour, please do it elsewhere. It doesn't belong in this section or this talk page. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 05:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, my second comment in this section was to Davey, not you.

You're making claims of international importance that aren't true. The only way in which the attacks in London last month will have affected other countries is that some of them may have temporarily increased their security measures in order to reduce the chances of copycat attacks.

Jim Michael (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No-one has suggested a better guideline. Your suggestion to remove all the deaths wouldn't be an improvement. Jim Michael (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with my comment and nothing to do with this disucssion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metadiscussion on collapse

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

As I said on your talkpage the discussion had more or less derailed and I figured hatting was better instead of allowing the argument below to continue, If I'm honest I don't agree with my reply being hatted however if it stops all of the arguing then I'll settle with it regardless, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have uncollapsed it as it is a very good demonstration of the ownership of this project by a few individuals, including a number of assertions being made purely subjectively, e.g. Jim Michael's opening claim. [Citation needed]. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you wish to start an objective discussion, at least try to use a neutral opening tone. And please don't refer to me as TRM, you haven't the right. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating facts. Neither the article on the impeachment, nor the article on Park Geun-hye, state that the impeachment has had major international effects.

I don't need anyone's permission to abbreviate.

Jim Michael (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't refer to you as Jimmy Boy, so I don't see you feel you have earned the right of familiarity. Don't do it again. Others are entitled to do so, you are not. Now if you wish to start the discussion again, do it neutrally, or else leave it someone else who can write in objective terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be equivalent to people referring to me as Jim or JM - which many people on WP have done. I don't need to earn anything from you and you're not going to impose your own rules on me - I've been a productive editor for several years. You can't back up your claims that there were international effects, so you're nitpicking and turning this discussion into yet another example of your patronising sniping. We're all sick of you talking down to us - you're not superior to us and you don't have authority over us. Everyone on this talk page - except you - has been civil and talking reasonably and on a level. Jim Michael (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you about the international aspects of that news story. That you choose to ignore them because they haven't been expressed in terms you accept or othewise in unreliable sources, the facts are beyond debate. Your personal preferences are not how Wikpiedia works. And for what it's worth, we're all sick of the project regulars trying to own this project which, as demonstrated by the RFCs, goes completely against the wishes of the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made claims which you didn't back up - and which aren't in the impeachment article or the politician's article. There would have to be major international effects - such as sanctions or military action - for it to be of international, historical importance. Jim Michael (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to Google it. It has ramifications on relations with the US, North Korea and China. That's global. It was reported around the world. That's global. And no, it's not up to you to decide that "sanctions or military action" are now part of the criteria. The minimum criterion for inclusion has been met, you know that. Your interpretations of the (current) "guideline" is completely at odds with the community wishes, you can see that adequately demonstrated above. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the burden is on whoever wants to add it to demonstrate on the impeachment article that it had major international effects. As has been said many times, international coverage doesn't prove international, historical notability. Jim Michael (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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