Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

So, there really wasn't enough discussion at that RFC to say there was a consensus to have an edit notice for recent years articles, but I think it would be a good idea ot have one so we can at least say we tried to let people know about the existence of these guidelines. We could also use it as a talk page notice. Experience has suggested that it is best to keep these things simple and to the point or people don't bother reading them, so I would suggest something like this:

Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SILENCE I'm going to proceed with implementing this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and I also created Category:Recent years. There may have been some fancier way of doing this, but I just copy/pasted the code from above to manually create each notice. If there is a desire to have an actual template each individual notice wil have to be edited to include it, didn't seem like a big deal since there is literally only one new article added to this category a year. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Manchester bombing raises, yet again, the issue of whether such incidents are appropriate for inclusion in Recent Years. As with many others, this incident was perpetrated by the individual of a country against other people of that same country. It is therefore not an International incident and does not merit inclusion in Recent Years. From and objective viewpoint, there have been many other such incidents that have not received the same coverage merely because they have occurred in countries where such incidents are now relatively commonplace. To treat such incidents differently because of the country in which they occurred is subjective, not objective, and not an appropriate basis on which to decide inclusion/exclusion. Comments. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, terrible though this incident is, it is just one of many terrorist attacks worldwide already this year. There's no infdication this is some sort of watershed moment that is going to change the world. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also my earlier attempt at resolving this above! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - there's no justification to include this, but not the many terror attacks in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. Jim Michael (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of chat on Talk:2017 about the complete confusion that both readers and several editors have in getting to grips with the inclusion criteria here. What's become obvious is that this is really unhelpful, and that our readers should be informed, clearly at the top of each of the recent year pages, what criteria applies. After all, it is obvious to us all that more than one single notable event took place in each of February 2017, April 2017 and May 2017. While this is a significant problem, it is just the first hurdle needed to be negotiated; this curiously selected set of so-called "significantly notable international" events does not seem to serve the purpose of an encyclopedic "events of 2017" article. But that's for another day. Right now we must focus on informing our readers how items have been selected here. This is not unusual at all, especially when intricate inclusion rules are deployed, and will be helpful in guiding our readers to other articles which contain what they are looking for when land on these principally empty pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an edit notice at the top of each page when a reader edits. That readers take no notice of the notice(!) is their problem. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you misread, I wasn't talking about editors, I was talking about readers. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRM's suggestion is a good one. More communication is a good thing, responding that there is already bad communication is a bad reply. I clicked through various places looking for information you mention and only found it after a good hunt. It isn't on the talk page, it's not very visible on the edit page - how many WP:CENT notices do you spot when you look at your Watchlist? Why resist a perfectly sensible suggestion? (And TRM's reply is even better). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a notice at the top of all RY articles would be useful. Jim Michael (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who knows precisely what criteria are applied to each section, please formulate appropriate wording for each of the relevant sections, including exceptions and those items which are "usually" not included (as you told me, e.g. "We don't usually include awards or space-related events." even though that's not indoctrinated in the criteria, as far as I can tell....) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must have missed this bit

Events which usually do not merit inclusion (I've highlighted the pertinent part, excuse the formatting):

Annual championships such as the World Series, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, or NBA Championship Annual world or continental championships in any sport, such as European or African football tournaments

Any other annual contest, such as Eurovision Song Contest or American Idol

What is missing is that entirely predictable events (such as astronomical events) which otherwise lack anything which identifies them as more extraordinary than all the other similar events, are not notable. We also don't usually include spaceflights unless they are a global first. A formerly rare event which becomes increasingly common reduces notability accordingly. For simplicity (avoiding arguments as to when it completely stops being notable) it is best to stop at the first occurrence. Of course the next manned moon landing will be an exception. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point yet again. These are instructions for editors, not for readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course! We have to explain everything to the lowest common denominator reader! Actually, no we don't. A general summary at the top at the top would be sufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Who mentioned anything about a "lowest common demoninator reader"? All that's been said here is that because such odd inclusion criteria are applied, it's basically impossible for any reader to understand what should and what should not (currently) be included. A notice at the top of every page is essential. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this is only relevant to a single country, just because the UN announced it, it doesn't make it internationally relevant. So should it stay or be removed? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An international organisation has made a declaration about an armed international group, so it seems relevant enough. This discussion should be on Talk:2017. Jim Michael (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But sports events attended internationally, reported on internationally by global news organisations isn't relevant enough? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And isn't FARC's activity Colombia-centric? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have 2017 in sports especially for that.

Yes, but they operate to a lesser extent in several other countries.

Could someone please move this to Talk:2017?

Jim Michael (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which other countries? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're listed in FARC's infobox, next to Area of operations. Jim Michael (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. So remind me again why Cloudbleed isn't allowed? Or Ceres (dwarf planet) or Malta Declaration (EU)? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Security bugs aren't usually historically notable. Ceres wasn't discovered last year, it's merely that something about the planet has been. The Malta Declaration doesn't have an article on any other WP, which shows it's not that important. Jim Michael (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? You have one in the 2017 article already. Ceres was featured in WP:ITN recently. Malta declaration is important because it's been reported globally, and the "other WP" argument is looking weaker by the second. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're referring to the WannaCry ransomware attack. That wasn't a security bug - it was an organised attack. Jim Michael (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? Suddenly the criteria excludes security bugs that affect the world, but includes organised attacks that affect the world? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, according to this project guideline:

All articles within the scope of this guideline should be added to Category:Recent years and should have the same edit notice as other pages in the category.

I'm not seeing that happen at all. Is it real? Or should it be removed because it is simply ridiculous to add such a category to so many death articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It means the year articles from 2002 onwards, not every article within each of them. Jim Michael (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what it says. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is ambiguous and should be improved. Jim Michael (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the guideline is only 15 articles. If that is unclear from the rest of the page I would suggest that is where a change is needed. Perhaps this will help clarify the extremely limited scope of this guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a polite question before we get started properly on this, why is "nine other Wikipedias" considered the bar for notability for inclusion? Most Wikipedias, such as German, Italian, French etc that might report the same kind of things that are here have very few concerns over referencing, tone, notability etc. I don't believe we should be decision-making based on the content of other Wikipedias (which, as we know, are all unreliable sources anyway). This "significant notability" needs to be determined some other way. Thoughts (before I open this up to the rest of Wikipedia)? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that someone made that up out of thin air some time ago, and it has become entrenched. An RFC earlier this year on this project's rules produced no usable results regarding this particular rule, and so it was considered upheld as there was no consensus for an alternative metric. Seems to be a problem of inertia combined with the fairly low profile of this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's what I had feared. I think we'll try again shortly to revise entirely these criteria, some of which seem to be irrelevant, some of which seem to be incomplete, some of which seem to be unwritten (or tucked away in archives). Certainly "nine Wikipedias" is the most bizarre criterion I have seen in 12 years here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nine non-English articles plus English is a guide, not a hard-and-fast rule. We've made many exceptions to it. Jim Michael (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's completely ridiculous to judge international notability on Wikipedia entries. We need to re-work this completely. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a better guide? Jim Michael (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally recognised reliable sources per WP:RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean if it has international media coverage? Thousands of events each year (including many deaths of people of marginal notability) have that. Media coverage doesn't equal notability. Jim Michael (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the project's own criteria suggests the opposite. Plus it's much more reliable than Wikipedia coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's only part of the criteria, not enough in itself. It would result in pages being swamped with domestic events that were reported internationally. Jim Michael (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This "swamped" argument is often repeated but not relevant. What we're discussing here is what actual criteria should be applied. The current criteria, including this bizarre dependency on "Wikipedia coverage" (without any quality assessment) is clearly absurd. I keep hearing this "it's only part of the criteria, not enough on its own" but that's not what the criteria says. So, I suggest we remove this absurd criterion and stick with genuine reliable sources, not Wikipedia articles which, as we all know, are not reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I work in dozens of projects, this seems to be the only one which promotes articles without even a passing thought as to the quality of the articles its noting. Is that best for our readers? That our article on 2017 (say) contains target links to articles which are POV, unreferenced, non-verifiable, etc etc etc? I believe a quality criterion needs to be added to this project to ensure our readers are not disappointed by what they see. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean excluding some deaths of heads of state/government whose articles are of low quality. Jim Michael (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're content that this project has precisely zero quality threshold? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each article has to be good enough to qualify to have an article, otherwise they can be deleted for being unreferenced etc. Jim Michael (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstand, we don't delete articles for being unreferenced. This project effectively sanctions any article in any state, correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles certainly can and are deleted for being unreferenced, but those articles are very unlikely to qualify to be included in RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, articles are deleted by community consensus. This project effectively sanctions any article in any state, correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some unreferenced articles have been speedy deleted without a discussion.

Yes, that's always been the case - and that fact has been added to the criteria today.

Jim Michael (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I added the fact that quality is not a consideration to this project today. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I removed it per BRD. It's POV, and has no consensus to be added. Just because you don't like (or even understand, given that you haven't waited for the input of experienced members of this project) is no reason to demean the project. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all, and it's been confirmed here, no consideration is paid to quality, so editors and readers alike should be aware of that. Several of my earlier assertions were based on the false thought that this project would use quality articles, this needs clarification. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you didn't. I merely said that it was added. Article quality has never been part of the inclusion criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, and I've clarified that explicitly now. People should be aware that this project actively adds BLP violations, unverifiable material etc to its pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't add vios to RY articles. You're talking about vios on articles of people who died recently. Jim Michael (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The project links readers to articles which fail BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs

At least five of June's deaths (which still fall under WP:BLP of course) are maintenance tagged, yet acceptable by this project. Is that correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't exclude them on that basis. If an article were so bad that it were deleted, then it would be removed. Jim Michael (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you actively allow BLP violations which aren't subject to AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no BLP vios on RY articles. If they exist on the articles linked, it's the editors of those articles who need to improve them - just as it would be if they weren't listed here. Also, it's ridiculous for articles of dead people to be regarded as BLPs. Jim Michael (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key point here is that only the main articles for a year are under the scope of the recent years guideline. So, one could argue that poor quality articles should not be linked in RY artiles, but those articles themselves do not fall under the scope of RY. This is a fairly tiny project, really, only 15 articles are within it's scope. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but it's an important one, BLP vios should not be linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant project/guideline which says that we are not allowed to include people in the deaths section on that basis? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of articles on WP link to other WP articles which contain various vios. Jim Michael (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but these articles aim to collect items together, so people should be aware, when doing so, that quality (or lack of) is no barrier (at the moment), and that BLP violations are tolerated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, length has been a criterion in the past. If the Wikipedia article is a stub, or if the foreign Wikipedia articles were substubs, it was considered a reason for exclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? That it isn't now? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't copied from the talk page notes into WP:RY, so, technically, it isn't part of the guideline. It should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to step away now Rubin, you're not making much sense especially compared with the backdrop of your attempts to get me banned because (a) on one hand you seem to readily accept that the current "guidelines" are incomplete yet (b) you only allow regular editors to change them. This is poor behaviour and an ownership issue in the simplest sense, and an abuse of your position. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes at WP:RY

I have added a note relating to the fact that no quality considerations are made by this project when considering the inclusion of items. That is evidential from the above discussions and from many of the items included in, say, the 2017 article. As most projects have some level of quality below which they will not consider inclusion, it seems important to me that this is directly brought to the attention of editors and readers alike. Of course, adding it at WP:RY will assist editors, but not readers who will find themselves directed to many articles (most of which are BLPs) with sourcing issues, tone issues etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this needed to be stated explicitly? Why does it need its own section? And why does it need to be in there twice? Frankly, inserting this into the project page seems POINTY. If it's not a criteria that we use for determining inclusion, then there's need to mention it. We also don't mention that the color of the person's eyes, their country of birth, and their favorite foods are similarly of no consideration. The point of the inclusion and exclusion criteria is that these are things that we do pay attention to, not the things we don't. -- Irn (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pointy at all. People should be aware that they add any junk article to the year article they like as long as it meets the current arcane rulings. BLP violations, unreferenced stubs, copyright infringements, all are welcome at RY, so editors should be made aware so it better facilitates their attempts to add items as long as they're sanctioned by the regulars. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost a textbook example of WP:POINT. You clearly disagree with it and are trying to bring it to people's attention. But the purpose of the page is not to bring something to people's attention but rather to delineate the criteria used for determining what content is added to RY articles. -- Irn (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, other "news" pages on Wikipedia are very much quality driven so it's important to note that this project has no regard for any of the articles to which it links. It's not pointy, its fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irn, there is no basis for your POINT accusation. Please withdraw it. 1.129.96.50 (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: this is not a "news" or "project" page, this is a content page that happens to be covered by a WikiProject, so a link from here doesn't mean endorsement of the target page any more than a link from anywhere else in the article space (in contrast with, say, WP:ITN). Therefore, explicitly mentioning the lack of criteria is really superfluous. If you wish to institute a policy which would ban linking to or mentioning badly written articles, you will need a far broader consensus. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to ban anything, it's just important to note that quality is of no concern. Plenty of other things aren't noted yet are routinely brought up by the regulars, so it's best to be explicit. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you have to admit, adding the note *twice* does look suspiciously like a WP:POINT. I also note that you were fighting hard against the explicit mention of WP:NFC not long ago, which is then really confusing if it's "best to be explicit" about things "routinely brought up by the regulars". Please don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to understand your position in some other way than "whatever the regulars think is wrong". — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I'm not the only one bored of your insinuations. Perhaps it's more like "whatever TRM thinks is wrong". Noting a project-specific approach (i.e. no quality control) and repeating a site-wide policy (e.g. WP:FU) are completely different things. You know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "know that". But I know many projects explicitly mention how WP:FU relates to the content under their auspice, while not mentioning the quality of articles they're linking to. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different things exist. Brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, this project used to follow common practice until you forced the change to the exact opposite. I also still struggle to understand why the note about quality has to appear twice in WP:RY. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the current discussion has been extensive and rapidly changing (I have not wasted my time reading the last few hours' additions to this talk page), and, due to time-zone issues, much of this happens during periods when I have not been able to respond in a timely manner I thought it best to try and summarise as much as possible in one hit. Given the length necessary for this, I have had to do it off-wiki as it obviously was going to take considerable time which I have precious little of to waste, but it is clearly necessary. With allowances for memory fade over the intervening 9+ years (I am happy to accept any factual corrections) these are my recollections of the development of this project.

WP:RY was instigated after my attempts to remove some obviously inappropriate entries in 2008. Anyone who thinks that the state of this article at this point constitutes an appropriate representation of the most important and encyclopaedically relevant entries for the year is probably never going to be on the “same page” as I and most other members of this project. A “quick” check of the editing history shows that Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) is the only member of the project from that time who is still active (mores the pity).

The guidelines were drawn up by editors other than myself, but, if memory serves, my only concern was with the likelihood that the requirement of non-English Wiki articles for the Deaths section would be problematic due post-death creations (the requirement was later amended to 9 non-English articles ‘’at the time of death’’). There are obviously issues with this as the basis for inclusion, but as no-one was able to come up with anything better, then or subsequently, it has remained the standard and has worked well. As always there are exceptions, for both inclusion and exclusion, and these have been resolved by consensus on the appropriate talk page. The point of this criterion is to have an ‘’’objective’’’ basis to avoid the otherwise endless talk page arguments which largely consist of “he’s exceptionally well-known where I come from vs “no-one where I come from has ever heard of him”. I, and others, have tried to come up with better criteria, but most people are more intent on a criterion which allows someone they want included (largely American sports/media personalities and to a lesser extent British) to pass rather than considering the wider implications. In reference to a matter brought up elsewhere, it has also been the long-standing consensus that state leaders are by default internationally notable and therefore exempt from the minimum articles criterion (except in the case of a tenure so short as to have no international notability whatsoever). I don’t believe that there has ever been a suggestion that any state leader be excluded, nor any argument that any should not be included.

At this point it seems appropriate to determine how “consensus” has been applied. WP:CONSENSUS states “Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines” An admin I encounter on other aspects of Wiki has summarized this as (something like) ”Not a mere vote, but policy-based arguments with the intention of maintaining ‘’the integrity of the article in an ongoing basis/project”. The latter part is crucial as consensus in this project, especially early on, has often been the result of a plethora of “me too” votes with the particular aim of getting an individual/event included while completely disregarding the purpose of the article. It is clearly stated on the project page that “Any of the standards set below can be overruled by a consensus to ignore those standards in a given case.” Most of the more persistent attempts to change this project have resulted from editors who have not been able to accepts that they failed to get consensus to make an exception to the criteria.

Which brings us to “the purpose of this article”. It has been my view, and also, I believe, that of other long-standing members of this project, that the purpose of this article is to present the most internationally and historically significant events, births and deaths of the year. The argument that “everyone who is notable enough to have a wiki article is notable enough for inclusion” is completely nonsensical. Not only would the article balloon to well beyond the recommended article size, including “everyone” would duplicate [[Category:<Recent Year>]] and [[Deaths in <Recent Year>]]. With regard to Events, the minimum standard at the start of this project was the “three-continent” rule. Clearly any event which failed this basic test could not be internationally notable. Unfortunately this has never been modified, although it has been long-standing consensus that merely “making the news” is insufficient. Making the news is (obviously) no criteria at all. Everything from internationally notable, local event, transient media “storm in a teacup” to absolute trivia makes the news. ‘’’This cannot be used as an objective criterion for inclusion’’’. The difficulty has always been the threshold, or rather, thresholdS, as the determination of “international” and “historic” notability clearly varies across the types of event. Disasters are the most obvious event and probably the most frequently argued events. Disasters which directly affect multiple countries, cyclones, earthquakes and international flights being the most obvious, are usually included without argument. There is also the argument that the number of deaths is irrelevant. So an earthquake resulting in 200,000 deaths solely within one country, the deaths being of that country only, receiving no physical assistance from any other country (just the usual condolences messages) would be excluded but an earthquake resulting in the deaths of citizens of multiple countries and receiving actual physical assistance from other countries would be included. As you might suspect from this example it is my feeling that the number of deaths ‘’’should’’’ be taken into account (allowing for that fact that different types of events should have different minima). This is something I have tried, unsuccessfully (obviously!), to establish on more than 1 occasion. Again I would like to emphasise that the point is to establish ‘’’objective’’’ criteria. It is far easier to point out to editors that something fails a specific criterion and then argue to make exception, than to argue that it is/is not “internationally notable”. As usual there are exceptions but even these have usually been at a manageable level, which I doubt would be the case if inclusion rested solely on media coverage. A bias which most members of this project have sought to avoid is the emphasis on Western, particularly American events. This results in attempts to include events such as an earthquake (I’m really NOT obsessed with earthquakes, it’s just that they’re scope is the easiest to compare!) which caused nothing more than mild panic on the eastern seaboard of the US whereas earthquakes causing hundred or even thousands of deaths in third world countries are ignored.

A similar problem exists regarding terrorist acts, and as these become increasingly prevalent this will only get worse. Even if a minimum death requirement were implemented this could soon become outdated. It was not so long ago that even deaths in the double-digits were rare enough (at least in the West) that there was little argument against their inclusion. I’m sure there was more I was going to include, but it’s been a long day and I have other stuff to do. One last thing: Any attempt, or rather, persistent attempts, to impose the standards of WP:In the news to this project are, IMNSHO, NOT constructive. They have clearly different purposes, which I would have thought was obvious but apparently not. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they do have "clearly different purposes", they both should be seeking to bring information our readers want to find about events that have taken place throughout the year, just these ones are about the year as a whole, ITN is about the last week. Same concept, different timescales. That's really simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A minimum death toll for terror attacks, accidents etc. wouldn't work. If it were applied worldwide, the large majority of events would be in parts of Asia and Africa where there are wars, insurgencies, poor health and safety standards etc. If you had different death minima for different parts of the world, that would be biased and West-centric. Jim Michael (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly do have different purposes. RY articles are for international events and deaths of internationally notable people. Jim Michael (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, RY articles are for an extremely limited number of international events, and for a bizarre inclusion criteria of so-called "internationally notable people". Wikipedia already has WP:N and Deaths in 2017 for the latter, a pseudo-subset based on dubious criteria is completely unhelpful. As for the events, well we'll work on that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not dubious - it's the best way so far. Jim Michael (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. That this project believes that 300 deaths per year versus 30 events per year to be a suitable ratio is clearly problematic. But don't fret, we'll get to this eventually, one step at a time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you show your ignorance of the aims of this project, I suspect deliberately. "this project believes that 300 deaths per year versus 30 events per year to be a suitable ratio". No it does not, and it never did. No upper or lower limit has even been proposed (AFAIR). The issue has always been quantity, not quality. That there are too few events and too many deaths means that the criteria for inclusion need to be redefined. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again you bring no helpful argument to this discussion. What you said is what I said: the ratio is problematic. I'm glad you agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of WP:ITN might be to report what news articles (say, in the past week) are notable, when added. (That might be why it's not archived – it would just make us look foolish, listing events which appeared notable, but turned out to have no signigicance the following week.) The purpose of the year articles is to report the (internationally) significant events which occur(ed) during the year, regardless of when significance is established. (For deaths, it is supposed to be deaths of a person significant during life.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your interpretation of the purpose of this page, it's abundantly clear, that's why there's only a single "internationally notable" event for three months of this year! The Rambling Man (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I keep being told that we mustn't include certain news items because it might "swamp" the page. Right now, the page is completely and utterly swamped with deaths. E.g. 2016 has 36 events, 3 births yet around 300 deaths. Is that what our readers expect to find at a year article, ten times more death notes than actual events? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few births because very few people are born internationally notable. The number of internationally notable people who are dying has increased a lot in recent years. There may be too many deaths, but you think that Prodigy is important enough, which is contributing to setting a low bar for international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I'm with the community consensus on this one, i.e. four people in favour against you. But then if it was up to me, there'd be no "deaths per nine Wikipedias" here, it would just be "deaths in 2017" which is much more informative than this page, and comprehensive, without any hidden criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have trouble counting, and with the definition of "the community". So far I see you and 1 other against all active members of this project. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the consensus for the guidelines has been built by regular editors over a period of years. That's a huge list of deaths, which the readers would have to look through individually to see who was internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a huge list of deaths, especially compared with the number of "notable" events. It's out of balance completely. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of setting the bar for deaths higher. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does seem necessary now. This seems an appropriate point to ping a few more editors who are currently, or were relatively recently, active in Recent Years. Elephantpink (talk · contribs), Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs), MilborneOne (talk · contribs), ProjectHorizons (talk · contribs), MelbourneStar (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs). Hmmm, not many! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also it appears that a vast number of those included here should actually be in the lower level categories (e.g. 2017 in music, 2017 in sport etc). The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They probably are already. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so listed at 2017, Deaths in 2017, 2017 in music .... all with slightly different criteria. How unhelpful to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think any reader of reasonable intelligence who wanted to find out which musicians died in a particular year would look for and be able to find the relevant Year in Music article, it's in the infobox at the top of the page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So they needn't be repeated in the 2017 article then. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that there's a fairly trivial number of events from the year in these articles and masses of deaths and I think the solution is to work at both ends - trim the number of deaths and add more events. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also in favor of setting a higher requirement for deaths, but I'm also curious as to how many foreign language articles an individual should attain before their death. – Elephantpink 12:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think we should include deaths and leave it to Deaths in 2017 to cover this area, the fact that some are internationally notable is a bit of an artificial concept so I would support not including them at all. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. I could possibly go with that. What if a Pope / President / King / Beatle died? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that (or the events around it) a noteworthy event rather than just the death of an individual and could be treated as such on the year page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only a tiny proportion of internationally notable deaths are major events (political and religious leaders, royalty, an occasional celebrity), so you'd be excluding the vast majority of them. Jim Michael (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MilborneOne, these deaths are covered at Deaths in 2017 or if really notable, at a page such as 2017 in film. They should not appear in all three locations so as a minimum they should go into the subpages if possible for consistency with the way the articles are treated. And we simply must not use foreign Wikipedias as a guide to "international notability", foreign Wikipedias are just a guide to how many editors contribute to those Wikipedias. We should just opt for reliable sources, of which Wikipedia is not one. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources don't usually say what is or isn't internationally notable. Merely being reported in many countries doesn't mean that an event is internationally notable, because many trivial events are reported by the mainstream media in many countries. Jim Michael (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia coverage is worse than that. It depends on people writing foreign-language articles with no editorial oversight and with no reliable sources. Why would you imagine that nine of those supersedes reliable international coverage? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nine non-English WP articles plus English is a guideline for including deaths, not events. International coverage doesn't equal international notability - if it did, we'd have to include Pippa Middleton's wedding and many events in Kim Kardashian's life. Jim Michael (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, the "nine non-english WP articles" thing is absurd, regardless of how it's applied, as described above. Utterly absurd. And no, we wouldn't, just as the rest of WIkipedia doesn't do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I work on numerous projects that usually impose some kind of minimal quality threshold, I was surprised to discover that this project has absolutely no minimum threshold whatsoever (not withstanding relying on other Wikipedias (which are not RS) to demonstrate so-called "significant international notability"). In all cases, in all such projects, there's a statement to contributors to enable them to understand the minimum level of quality expected of all items included within the scope of the project. I have assessed this and attempted to add a suitable paragraph to the project guidelines, but have been reverted a couple of times, most recently by involved admin Arthur Rubin. We need to establish a sentence or two for the guidelines that enables our contributors to understand what quality of items is suitable. Right now, I started assessed it as The quality of included articles does not need to be considered at all. because that appears to be the case from both recent experiences, and talk page archives. There has been practically zero discussion about the quality of items linked herein. And it's very important that this is noted to our editors (and, until we can demonstrate to our readers what this project applies as its inclusion criteria, our readers), so the continual edit warring, reverting etc can be somewhat alleviated. So, I propose that a section be added to the "===Inclusion and exclusion criteria===" section which establishes that the quality of linked articles is of precisely zero concern to this project. If anyone is prepared to argue against that, please provide some substantive evidence that those which are linked herein have been assessed for some minimal quality level. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please point me to the evidence that this project's style guide has been accepted globally as a Wikipedia guideline? I'd like to see how this was achieved and when, because I imagine things have changed here substantially since it was accredited as a guideline, not just a project guide. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently one editor can simply change the guideline without consensus, while I can't. Involved admin Arthur Rubin, presumably you'll be reverting that change too? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it only became a Guideline earlier this year. Check the edit history for the precise date and location of the RfC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, give me the precise link here please. I didn't find anything which amounted to an RFC that accredited this project's terms and conditions as a Wikipedia guideline. It should be very simple to link to it, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on my smartphone, so I cannot search easily. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that's part of the whole POINT. If you can't point to the moment this tiny project's style guide became a whole Wikipedia guideline, something's really wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RY inclusion criteria have developed over the years. You've suddenly taken a huge interest in it, having previously showed no interest. Jim Michael (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 133#Scope of recent years guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the part of that where it said it was a Wikipedia guideline and not simply a project guideline? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I found it: "After some discussion between about five users on the talk page, it was moved into project space and marked as an editing guideline one week later." and then reinforced by three or four editors at that RFC. Wow. This all needs to change! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, Arthur Rubin, are you just reverting my edits to the guideline, or all edits? Please be specific. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You showed no interest before and you haven't suggested better inclusion criteria. No-one's reverting all your edits - many of them have been reverted because you're going against the guidelines and in some cases prior consensus. Jim Michael (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Rubin is selectively reverting me. And please Jim, use preview, you continually tweak your posts causing endless conflict, stop it. And so what if there was little interest in this odd set of guidelines before recently? There certainly is now! You will soon be seeing some serious changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can come up with better inclusion criteria than international media coverage or the current criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll only use preview if I can come up with "better inclusion criteria than international media coverage or the current criteria."? And actually, I already did come up with better, and that was to use reliable sources not Wikpiedias (which are _not_ reliable sources). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant we'll only see these serious changes to the inclusion criteria if you (or someone else) comes up with better inclusion criteria. RS don't usually state whether or not an event is internationally notable. Simply being reported in different countries doesn't prove that, because loads of stories are reported in many countries. Jim Michael (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The great news is that the community is dead set against your current approach, so that's one thing! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Mad: This question had it's own section at the RFC earlier this year. As I recall, I found that in fact the initial decision was made unilaterally by just one user some years ago, so I brought it up in the discussion. I've already shared this diff, which would appear to be the one you're looking for as it is the exact moment when a consensus was declared. As you can see participation at the RFC was rather light even though it was well advertised at CENT and so forth and was open much longer than 30 days, so I don't know where you could go next if you want to change thigs, but I don't think your current, rather acerbic approach is doing you any favors. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's okay, the RFC on various items is already more than enough traction to give this project a complete audit, and to ensure it gets more than the handful of comments than the last debacle. Your opinion on my approach is noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the concerted efforts by a single editor to overturn consensus and at the same time change the aims and content of this project it is pertinent to point out that this project comes under the greater scope of WP:YEARS ([[Category:Recent Years]] coming under [[Category:Years]]). The essential difference being that are, or at least were (see Consideration 2 below) frequently being edited at the time the entries occurred, with little or no account being taken of the international or historical notability of those entries. It was agreed, by consensus, that stricter criteria (three in fact being no criteria defined for [[WP:Years]!, a continuing issue!) needed to be applied to such years, the result being this guideline/project.

Substantially changing the content of Recent Years, such as removing the Deaths section, to the point where the average reader will notice, and presumably query, such changes does not seem constructive. Therefore any such changes would have to be made to ALL years. Good luck with that! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the main point. How do our readers know what's included at this odd project? We'll be addressing the fact that consensus has clearly changed in due course, but claiming this to be suitable for our current readers is way off the mark. And as for what we do with "ALL years (good luck with that!)", not relevant right now. We focus on what is happening here and now, and then assess how that works prior to 2002. As we all agree, right now the readers of this encyclopedia have not one clue how the people in the deaths section are selected, nor why some of them feature in half a dozen places while other events are consigned to a sub-page "because there's a sub-page for it". We have a long way to go, but at least we're now on step 1, and that's accepting we have a problem here. Step 2 (the RFCs ongoing at Talk:2017) is demonstrating that a problem shared is a problem that more people understand and are willing to help out with. This project has clearly stagnated with regulars believing they're doing the right thing, but sadly that's no longer the case. We're going for the long game here, and plenty of RFCs to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you are doing is bullying, or, at best, redefining terms with an established technical meaning in Wikipedia, rather than attempting a reasoned argument. I suggest you correct your user page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that, four of you and one of me? I'm standing up to your tactics, and thankfully the RfCs are demonstrating that it's a worthwhile endeavour. Now until you have something positive to contribute to the RfCs or suggestions or actions on the "guideline" (e.g. Reverting your lopsided actions, as an admin you should know better...) better let others discuss this as their input is proiving invaluable. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've written as many words as all four (or is it five) of us together. Whether the words have any meaning is a separate issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the RfCs are proving that beyond any doubt whatsoever. They aren't dealing the abuse of your position, that's a separate issue we'll come to. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This point has been raised before but no consensus was reached. Given the discussions above, and noting in particular that immediately preceding, this is something which now needs some urgency. The project's aim at its inception was to put in place criteria which would reduce the effect of editors adding content as it happened without regard for its international and historic notability. Obviously as time passes this is no longer happening and content is being added as it would for any historic year. So at what point does the Recent Year become a Year? At the end of that year? 5 years? 10 years? In any case the year would move from the scope of WP:Recent Years to that of WP:YEARS, which as noted above means that the criteria for its content would change. Under the current criteria for this project the change would be fairly significant, under the changes suggested on this page, even more so. So, how to deal with this so that the average reader is not perplexed, not mention retaining whatever consistency there is (currently less than ideal) between recent years and all other years? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All years from 2002 onwards should be under RY. If we removed older years from the scope of RY, it would give people free rein to add loads of domestic events to them - as there are on year articles prior to 2002. Jim Michael (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YEARS could be amended to not only establish criteria for years formerly under the scope of WP:RY but also all other years, there being practically no criteria for them in any case, an issue which has been long overdue for a remedy. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll pick this up in the forthcoming RFC, but it would still be interesting to hear what the regulars think. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely curious as to how you think you are going to get better participation. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just take a look at those RFCs, already getting plenty of contributions and plenty which point to the fact that the current approach is wrong. Early days but a very good start! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me, which RFCs are you referring to? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Talk:2017. They're about to shake up the way items are included since the community are vastly against the status quo as applied by the "project regulars". There have been more comments there than when this oddity was enshrined in actual Wikipedia guidelines...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose clarifying "international notability" for events by adding "one of the most internationally significant events of the year" (for past years) and "expected to be one of the most internationally significant events of the year" for the present year. I thought it was the obvious meaning, but it appears I was mistaken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose too subjective as the RfCs are adequately demonstrating. What one man thinks is significant, another thinks is purely domestic. This would not help. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Less subjective than any of the other credible alternatives so far presented, but there does appear to be some problem with it. I don't see how it is more subjective than the present guideline.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again, you need a crystal ball to determine if something is going to be significant. That's not what we're here to do, this is an encyclopedia, we work using reliable sources, not guesswork. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Nonsense. I would consider reliable sources stating the event to be internationally significant as a minimal requirement, but all Featured Lists have editor discretion in determining what is to be added, usually as to whether the entry should be considered significant. "We" use reliable sources, but we are not required to include everything they say. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying it likely that we should strive toward Featured List status; I'm just saying the TRM's stated goals are not met in any of them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "but all Featured Lists have editor discretion in determining what is to be added" completely incorrect. Most lists in fact have a clearly defined and usually purely objective scope which defines their content, there is rarely "editor discretion", so please don't make things up. Attempting to determine if something is going to be significant is crystal balling, and you should know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose adding to "at the time of the person's death"

"or, when death is imminent"

Reasoning: If the person's death has been expected for a long time, he/she may have death fans. The intent is that the person have significance when alive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose someone's about to die and we just got a way of detecting it. Nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This comment no sense makes. I was actually thinking of Terri Schiavo, where her death might be an internationally notable event, but her death clearly doesn't belong on the "deaths" section. This year's example of the North Korean prisoner is the current example; it was known that he required medical treatment he was not receiving; the trigger event for timing should have been his capture, rather than his death. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You sunk your own battleship. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  After careful consideration, I see no actual content. Could you explain? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You are proposing a prediction machine. Your example was about something that might be notable. Things that might be notable don't have a place in an encyclopedia, I thought that was obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, no need to complicate the guideline. Such cases are covered by "Persons whose notability is due to circumstance rather than actual achievement do not meet the basic requirement for inclusion" and can be excluded by consensus. There's only a handful of cases each year, at any rate. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh dear. Oppose. 1.129.96.224 (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose removing deaths from these Year articles and leave it to the 19XX and 20XX deaths articles which do a better job. If the death becomes an event like a big international funeral and such like then that comes under the event criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support, leave it to the main Deaths page unless (to use an ITN analogy) it's blurb-worthy. These year pages are far too death-biased, it should be the opposite, more events, fewer deaths. Plus eliminates this bizarre nine-Wikipedia rule. Great idea, probably needs its own heading... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you show a complete inability to stick top the topic at hand. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly, everything I said there was on point, but thanks for your input! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. Clearly would be jarring to remove the section on recent years and not all years, and not sufficiently advertised for a consensus here to apply to all years. It would make more sense to eliminate WP:ITN which is clearly unencyclopedic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all, that's why we have the "Deaths in ..." articles. There doesn't need to be a bizarrely constructed subset in each year article when the comprehensive set is available in a dedicated page. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I Didnt restrict the proposal to recent years, if it is removed then it should be for all years, as is clear "recent years" is a bit of an artificial man made barrier. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. As per Arthur Rubin. Not fussed about ITN as it is completely irrelevant to Year and Recent Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's an analogy, but thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  TRM seems to have made the claim that the "deaths" sections, as presently written, are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Although I do not agree, that's not a good reason for deletion. I could easily make a reasoned argument that WP:ITN has no place in an encyclopedia. I'm not going to do it, because, in spite of WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Incorrect. I said we already have it covered in the Deaths in 2017 etc articles. We don't need a bizarrely selected subset here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. Long tradition of such lists in yearly reviews, not just in Wikipedia. Removing them just because somebody thinks the selection criterion is odd would be ridiculous. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all. A link to "Deaths in ...." which actually is already there, is perfectly sufficient, fit for purpose, and actually comprehensive, unlike those currently listed at RY which are cherry-picked by fewer than half a dozen individuals against a bizarre unreliable set of criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought you were opposed to badgering, but it looks like different standards apply to your actions. But since you brought it up, "Deaths in ..." is so large that it overwhelms the reader. Not practical at all, if one is not interested in obscure Bangladeshi actors. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the responses here are to correct factually incorrect assertions. I'm not sure why you have something against Bangladeshi actors, a huge number of English speakers (e.g. Bangladeshis) would be interested in that sort of thing. Maybe the project is all about promoting systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's bad enough that ITN are now including deaths of people whom the large majority of people haven't heard of. We need a list of deaths of internationally notable people here. Jim Michael (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "large majority of people haven't heard of" in your personal opinion. Keep reinforcing that systemic bias! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If you mean a bias in favour of Europeans and North Americans, ITN has that. The RD there now are an American and 3 Europeans. Jim Michael (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I mean the bias against Bangladeshis and other minorities that this project strongly advocates. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Which policy or guideline advocates that? Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Just read above, where your strongly opposing colleague stated "Not practical at all, if one is not interested in obscure Bangladeshi actors." Clearly the project is setting out to ensure that minorities aren't catered for, in fact the opposite, that minorities, yet still English speakers, are directly ignored. Not to mention your own bias against people you've never heard of. Nice one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  He was just giving an example. Most of the RD on ITN weren't well-known or very notable people - since having high notability was removed from the inclusion criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you both gave your games away I'm afraid. Good news is that we're going to revise the whole "guideline" so we can address it in due course. We're done here for now, let's see if anyone else has any thoughts on this systemically biased, cherry-picked, non-reliably sourced (or determined) selection. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"We" are are we? And who would this "we" be? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What game are you saying that I gave away? All I'm trying to do is keep domestic events out of international-only RY articles. What bias is there in the current rules & guidelines? Jim Michael (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You and your colleagues are trying to keep items of (your perception of) minority interest away from this, the English language Wikipedia's articles. As you and Yerpo clearly stated above, you both believe that articles on lesser known Bangladeshi actors or "people you've never heard of" shouldn't be here. Your implementation, written or otherwise, promotes systemic bias and discrimination. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Rambling Man, you are picking my words out of context in order to advance some personal agenda. I was referring to such obscure Bangladeshi actors that not even Bengali wiki editors have bothered to write articles about. I could have said the same about obscure American actors - and have. The fact that we were also accused of anti-American bias before is a clear indicator that we're being objective. What is your approach to making it unbiased? All you keep saying is "we'll get there in due course", but so far it's only been bluffing, tearing down, and insulting. Zero building. So go ahead, propose an alternative guideline so the community can finally choose. You've wasted enough of everybody's time. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all. You are cherry-picking based on personal preference, which is a great shame for a large number of our English language speaking community, based on "I haven't heard of him" or "obscure actor". I haven't wasted any time, in fact, it's quite the opposite. You and your colleagues have fought so hard to defend your current approach yet the community have clearly demonstrated to you that it's wrong. No bluffing, yes tearing down because the project has built such defensive walls around its peculiar approaches that's it's been absolutely necessary, insulting not at all (unlike your claims of me "spitting" at others, frankly disgusting but I'm not surprised), building, plenty of that, including supporting various different inclusion approaches. We're not going near the "guideline" yet until these RFCs are closed, but rest assured we're at least on step one, admitting there's a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The only inclusion approach you proposed is copying the ITN - for which there was no support. After that, nothing but hot air. Insulting, plenty of that too (if indirectly in most cases). So if the "community" can't think of anything better, then the status quo is better than nothing.

  As to your accusation, I'm not cherry-picking anything, I work with others to select the most important people for featuring in the yearly review. Those include Chinese linguists, French conductors, British economists, American actresses, Russian diplomats, Saint Lucian poets, Indian cardinals etc. etc. By what measure do you call me biased? Your prejudice against me? — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, I have also advocated removing the bizarre "nine-Wikipedia rule", (or your "select the most important people" to exclude cetain nationalities or others that "people haven't heard of") I have also demonstrated (with support) that the cherry-picked, systemically biased deaths don't belong here. This has all concluded with a huge amount of support that the project is currently way off-course. I understand that you and the other three regulars don't like that, but that's just tough I'm afraid. As for all your insinuations, personal attacks, veiled threats, accusations etc, they do not belong here. Attempting to derail the crux of the discussion, i.e. that the inclusion criteria for both deaths and events are out of step with community expectations, is a waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, what sytemic bias? And if it exists (for which I admit there is a possibility, we're only humans after all), how much worse it is than the one at ITN you proposed as an alternative? Present an analysis or stop making unfounded accusations. Also, you keep talking about what "the community expects", but all we see now is what you don't like, supported by a handful of !votes. I'm not insinuating anything, but I have precious little to work with. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually what we see now is an overwhelming support of precisely the opposite to the regulars. This project's "guideline" status was supported by fewer individuals than have currently contributed to the various RfCs that clearly demonstrate how out of touch the project regulars are. The regulars have admitted to excluding minority individuals and claiming to know who people have or have not heard of. ITN at the least enables the community to decide what is and what is not important, not an elite handful of regulars who routinely remove events as "doesn't seem significant". Plus, and you seemed to think "education" was important, at least ITN items meet a minimum quality threshold. Linking readers to articles which are sub-standard is hardly "educational". We're going to fix this project, one step at a time. The RfCs form a very strong basis for going forward with completely re-organising the project, which we can all agree is a good thing. In the meantime, keep the threats and personal attacks to yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  ... and again with your misrepresenting my statements and "we're getting to that". Not to mention misrepresenting RfCs - just look at the Manchester Arena bombing, do you really call 5 opinions against and 7 in favour "clear"? And it was your flagship case, that's why you probably badgered the non-regular who has dared to speak against inclusion. Plus me as a regular supporting the inclusion of the Yemen cholera outbreak. Etc. etc. This is getting more pathetic by the hour. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Then take your insinuations, personal attacks and veiled threats and do something else. I'm improving Wikipedia for our readers. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant rubbish! You're a legend in your own mind! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello. I'm not sure how that's a helpful contribution in any sense. Bye! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And, predictably, you avoided my message again. Is that your idea of improving a collaborative project? At some point, you will have to get from your high horse and consider opinions of all involved editors. I, for one, will not be bullied away by you. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really follow you, I'm improving Wikipedia while all you seem to be doing is chatting away here. It's not helping make a difference to our readers. What is clear is that your bullying threats, personal attacks and slurs will not stop me from ensuring the community get what they deserve here, and that's obviously very different from what you and your three colleagues are serving them right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I mentioned the fact that most of the RD on ITN are of people whom most people haven't heard of, which is true. Those people are disproportionately North Americans and Europeans, so there's a bias there. There's no notability requirement on ITN (other than the person having an article). Jim Michael (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the notability of those individuals is enshrined in policy, WP:N. And how can you prove the people on ITN are indivudals "most people haven't heard of, which is true"? And how can you prove the list of RDs at RY articles doesn't contain individuals "most people haven't heard of"? You can't, you're speculating. RY has systemic bias against the inclusion of minorities. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I hinted at that, too, but it's really difficult to compare because ITN's archives are not functioning. Another problem with this approach is that they are fewer people interested in WP:RY than content featured on the main page, and so the process is not comparable. Taking away the bar and letting the community vote for each case separately will thus produce the same baseline result (assuming the regulars don't go away), but with added bias towards American entertainers - those are usually the ones for whom we get demands for inclusion by the average "outside" editor. How exactly is that better? — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Another problem, requiring a voting procedure for a normal content page (i.e. not the protected main page template) goes against the basic principles of how Wikipedia functions in practice (WP:BOLD is out of the picture) - much more so than the current approach. So again, even worse than the status quo. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the plan is simple:

  RY events are those selected by the community at ITN, ensuring a consensus for inclusion and a minimum quality threshold. That way there are not two different systems selecting stories that would be of interest to our readers (which is one of the core principles of ITN, and not RY it seems).

  RY deaths are covered by "Deaths in..." articles. That way the artificial "nine Wikipedias" criterion can be extinguished and systemic bias is overcome because all notable people are covered there.

  Essentially, these recent year "articles" become comprehensive archives of ITN stories (which our readers are interested in) and link out to deaths. Much, much easier to maintain, consistent criteria for helping our readers understand, win win win win win. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Finally your viewpoint is stated clearly. And it's completely wrong. WP:RY has absolutely no connection to ITN, and nor should it. The sooner you can comprehend this FACT, the sooner this project can move and and get something worthwhile done instead wasting endless days on the current drivel. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's not going to happen, the sooner you comprehend that fact, the easier things will be for you. We're in this for the long haul now. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other things to do around here, improve articles, nominate FACs etc. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that ITN is biased in itself (and more than RY), and inconsistent in selection of events, exactly the two features that should be avoided in an overview like this. As for deaths, we can continue the discussion after you have addressed my concerns about "Deaths in...". — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no need to have two separate sets of critieria for newsworthy events throughout the year. Selection of events is community-driven and ensures quality items are selected which would interest our readers. Deaths is simple, don't have a weird subset based on some non-reliable Wikpiedia coverage. Deaths in .... covers that already, there are no concerns at all with that, otherwise the "Deaths in..." articles wouldn't exist in their current form. Cherry-picking to enforce systemic bias against minorities is very concerning. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, there is a need, because the two projects have different goals, and the one you like better is biased and inconsistent. Secondly, cherry-picking to enforce systemic bias against minorities would indeed be concerning if it was there, but, fortunately, it only exists in your head (unless proven by something more tangible than my awkward example). — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought you said the encyclopedia was here to educate? To do so we need to provide information our readers are looking for. The ITN solution is less biased as it works on the English language Wikpiedia's community consensus, not some odd selection criteria which is then oversighted by four individuals guardians. The systemic bias reinforced by your odd nine-Wikipedia criterion ensures that minorities are not featured here. That's why just linking to the main Deaths article is far more appropriate and neutral. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Your plan would lead to the most popular events being included, rather than the most internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "internationally notable" according to your oversight group... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Rambling Man: what data is your accusation of systemic bias based on (aside from your interpretation of the guideline and of my awkward example, neither of which is relevant)? And which "minorities" are you talking about? — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It's simple enough, do a delta between the Deaths in 2017 page and the 2017 page. You'll find the prejudiced minorities that you're so keen to keep out of these pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Now I should look up facts to back your lazy argument? You're joking, right? — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  More attacks. I suppose that's what happens when you run of out constructive commentary. It's simple enough, if you can't be bothered, let's just wait for when we overhaul the project, starting with removing the bogus "guideline" status, and then on to transforming the inclusion criteria so it's not just in the hands of four guardians who implement what they want. Cheers for now, it's clear you can't discuss this in a civil ("lazy", "spitting" &c) or mature ("lol!") manner so I think it best if we just agree to disagree at this point and let others have their say. Then the big RfCs! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I overlooked this one. I see you've found another excuse to avoid backing your false accusations. Perhaps you don't realize, but this attitude is far more insulting than anything I've said, and impossible to base constructive commentary on. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've indented your comment correctly. I don't know what you mean by "false accusations" but as I've said, I don't converse with people who resort to personal attacks, and especially those who are actively seeking to enforce systemic bias. We'll leave it to the community to decide how best to proceed, but given those RFCs are showing strongly against the status quo, it should be an interesting time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  And I've asked you to prove this systemic bias against "minorities" (because I deny it), but you avoided it. However, just repeating the same false accusation won't make it true. It will only make people question your motives here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's just fine, as you can see, we have plenty more eyes on this project and the approach of the four regulars who have been oversighting the project has now been cast into serious doubt, along with its inclusion criteria's status as a bona fide Wikipedia guideline. We're wasting time here, it's clear from the example you gave that you don't want to include people you consider to be minorities, regardless of what the community are interested in reading about. I suggest we both go and do something else while we wait for the RfCs to close and then we can really tackle the meat of the problems here. I certainly intend to go and make some mainspace edits, that's going to actually improve things for our readers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Rambling Man: More eyes are always good, but making false accusations and then avoiding the answer isn't. And now I've had enough. So prove that I've been enforcing systemic bias or take back that comment, or I'm going to take you to ANI for personal attacks and violating AGF. There, an unveiled threat. Full disclosure: with "obscure bangladeshi actors" I was referring to Nazmul Huda Bachchu who was just at that time featured on the Deaths in 2017 and is so insignificant for his side roles in a handful of films that not even Bengali editors have bothered to create an article about him. A similar example is Ed Crawford (American football) featured now. That they are too insignificant for any comprehensive review is a fact proven also by their exclusion from ITN. Will you deny this? A clear and to-the-point answer, please. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  You've already mentioned your bias against "obscure Bangladeshis". Now against "insignifcant" American footballers. These aren't PAs, they're statements of fact. The constant defence of the existing approach for this project, claiming that just because an article doesn't exist on the "Bengali Wikipedia" that clearly demonstrates "insigificance". Members of the project oversight team are dead set on removing people "nobody's ever heard of" which is an astonishingly POV perspective. This is Wikipedia, we use reliable sources not opinions of a handful of editors, nor the existence of articles on other Wikipedias, etc. These indivduals you keep claiming are "insignificant" (which is completely unnecessary) all pass Wikipedia's notability policy and are, as such, encyclopedically notable to those people reading the English language Wikipedia. That the project regulars fight so hard against that is amazing, and that all the effort that goes into stripping the page of notable events yet including a strange subset of Deaths in 2017 (while excluding a certain subset because they may or may not appear in 2017 in sports etc) is truly wasteful and has resulted in a mess, a page which no reader has any idea what is included and why. Full disclosure: you lost all good faith when you accused me of "spitting". Where I come from, that's a despicable thing to say. (P.S. that's not how "pings" work by the way, retrospectively adding the template doesn't generate a ping). The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry if you found it insulting, but it was a response to the series of emotionally loaded phrases you used when describing the state of WP:RY ("pretty bloody obvious", "bizarre", "junk", "awful muddle", "bonkers", "shambolic", "an embarrassment", "delusional", "silly", to name just a selection). Do you really find it surprising that I was feeling thoroughly spit upon? Now, to the point: prove my bias against minorities with my edits or take back that comment. It's a serious accusation and I will not let you leave it hanging in the air like that. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I would never "spit" on anyone or anything, that's a foul and disgusting personal attack, unlike all the quotes you have listed above which relate to the application of this project, its guidelines and its subjective approaches. Personal attack means it has to be personal. You have accepted and reiterated that you object to "insignificant" individuals being listed, your example was against an individual from a country whose Wikipedia you berated. However, since you and I cannot agree what this actually means, I 100% take back any and all comments relating to any bias you may or may not have against minorities. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reply to Yerpo against the comment "Removing them just because somebody thinks the selection criterion is odd would be ridiculous" my reasoning for proposing the removal had nothing to with any selection criteria being odd, the main driver was it seems to duplicate or be a small subset of Deaths in 20XX, any reader interested in recent deaths would go to the Deaths article as this list clearly misses a lot of people. The Deaths in article uses a fairly standard notability criteria that is having a wikipedia article. The death section almost overwhelms the article and apart from being "traditional" I have not seen why deaths are one of the more important things that happen in the year to the extent that some major events like the commonwealth games are excluded but the death of a minor political figure in downtown, USA is listed. Perhaps this is all to do with balance the pages give the impression nothing much happens in the world apart from the deaths of some minor policians and footballers that just happen to have multiple wikipedia articles. Removing the deaths would perhaps start to address this huge inbalance. I would include funerals and such like of important figures as many like Kings and Presidents become large global events, but these should be treated as events. MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comment that you refer to was actually referring to The Rambling Man's statements, not the original rationale. Imbalance can be addressed by less drastic changes, such as raising the bar for inclusion. I would like to know which entry do you mean by "a minor political figure in downtown, USA", though. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The deaths in Deaths in 2017 which are not here are of people who lack international notability. As with people in other fields, sportspeople have to be internationally notable to be included. Sports events which aren't worldwide aren't included. Jim Michael (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, you believe they have to meet this project's "essay" on criteria which you believe amounts to "international notability". However, Wikipedia already has a notability policy which is irrefutable in nature, neutral and all-encompassing. Your keenness to keep hold of the old way of doing things is symptomatic of someone keen to promote a systemic bias in this, the English language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which of this year's deaths of internationally notable people are missing from this article? Which deaths are included which aren't internationally notable? Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which "international notability" criteria are you applying? The "nine Wikipedia" one? Please, this is becoming circular. All those mentioned at "Deaths in 2017" are notable per WP:N. That means they're notable enough for inclusion in English language Wikipedia. Which makes them notable to English language speakers. Around the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The number of WP articles is a guide not a hard-and-fast rule. The deaths here are of people who have international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the deaths here are people who meet the "nine Wikipedia" rule which is bogus because Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor does featuring in nine of them (!) confer "international notability". That would be conferred by reliable sources. Hence our reason for the WP:N policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've made quite a lot of exceptions to that guideline. Jim Michael (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take your dripfeed responses Jim, so I'm out of talking this over with you. I'm happy to leave it to the community to decide, it looks like those participating in the RfCs have completely contrary views to you and your cadre of regulars. So we'll see. Once those close and set healthy precedents for completely revising the project criteria, and once we re-establish the fact that the project is in fact not governed by a Wikipedia "guideline" but an essay (despite the best efforts of some to assert the opposite), we'll have a redesigned, much more appropriate project that actually serves our community and readers, rather than this current project incarnation which serves the four regulars and no-one else. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this page did not go through the proper process to become an official guideline. As the person who added the guideline tag erroneously, I have now removed it and replaced it with an essay tag until the page goes through the proper process. Wrad ([8[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 20:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, may you accept the bold downgrade to "essay" status for now until the consensus agrees to promote it to "guideline"? Jim, Yerpo, and DerbyCountyinNZ, may you do the same as well? --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wrad: Your unilateral actions have in both cases been incorrect. You should never have just decided on your own about either thing, especially since this was reviewed at an RFC just a few months ago. Bold editing is great in article space, but usually a poor idea in project space. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the consensus that decided that decided this was an official, WP guideline, and I might agree with you. There never was one. I should know, I was there. The fact is that it is not a guideline. Guidelines are created through a very specific process, which you are now knowingly violating (something I never did, acting in ignorance.) I'm frankly got tired of trying to help with recent year articles years ago and left long ago. Tried to help bring some sanity to the process then and got nothing but edit warring nastiness on one side and self-righteous judgment of my efforts (much like your own) on the other. I'm done for good now. Goodbye. Wrad (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Wrad, I think you did the right thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wrad for your openness and honest edits here. I for one applaud your approach which is common sense. No doubt it will be bureaucratically reverted, but nevertheless, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there you go. As I was writing that, the bogus status quo has been restored. How helpful. No wonder you gave the whole thing up, this kind of nonsense would drive most people away. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, we had an RFC just a few months ago. Participation was light, but when it was closed it was with the decision that the original marking as a guideline, while admittedly improper at the time, be upheld. This isn't about what one or two people think, if you want to demote something from a guideline to an essay you must at least attempt a broad community discussion first. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the appropriate course of action. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean downgrading to "essay" or status quo, DerbyCountyinNZ? George Ho (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo. The RFC was closed with approval of guideline status. Downgrading to essay requires consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bravo all, another Wikipedian lost. I suggest the discussion is now re-started, especially as we have more eyes on the project than the previous guardians, so we can get a more community-based result. 04:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Had I known about the RfC, I would have participated, especially seeing that people actually opposed the addition of the Manchester attack because it apparently wasn't an international incident. In my opinion, it most definitely was. It (and the resulting benefit concert) received international coverage, and there were likely people from outside the UK at that concert. (Actually, the benefit concert that followed the attack may have received more coverage, as it was broadcasted in 39 countries' on several radio stations, including the UK, plus YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. But, obviously, we can't separate the two.) — Gestrid (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Historical note: Here is the RFC from earlier this year. Snuge purveyor (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forwards with this

Right, we need to formulate an RFC in which the community can participate where the official Wikipedia "guideline status" of this project's inclusion criteria is discussed. That, no doubt, will expand and digress into the actual quality of the criteria, so I'm interested to know if we should have the downgrade discussion first, absolutely and 100% exclusive to any discussion over the current content of the criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be foolish not to have a standard. It would be foolish to have a standard similar to WP:ITN, but even that would be better than nothing. You can bring a downgrade RfC, but it should be clear to all that a guideline is needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, without a guideline, we would need a discussion on each entry added to a "recent year" article, even if it were approved as an entry in WP:ITN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the point entirely. There needs to be guides for inclusion, but not a Wikipedia guideline which you yourself see fit to selectively uphold and selectively defend. Even massive projects like WP:ITN do not claim to have their criteria enshrined in a Wikipedia guideline, and that's featured on the main page. This project is responsible for the content of fifteen (15) articles, the Wikipedia guideline slapped on it is entirely inappropriate, it seems clear from almost all commentators that we need to revise that and apply some common sense. Then we address the content. So, "it would be foolish not to have a standard", yes, but no-one's actually stating that's what we should do. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to a lot more than 15 articles. It's all year articles from 2002 ownards. That's the most recent 15 past years, the current year and all the future years. Jim Michael (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So currently, how many articles is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many future years we have, but it's relevant to them as well. They contain future events. Jim Michael (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here: see Category:Recent years. Just those are governed by the "project". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a clear consensus that it does apply to future years, but it's just common sense that it should. (See comments in the next section.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is, however, a clear and binding Wikipedia guideline that ensures that it only applies from 2002 to present, per the precise wordings, regardless of individual claims of "common sense". If we applied "common sense" then most of RY would be revised, so let's not go down that route quite yet! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested we use "common sense". "Common sense" requires that article guidelines do not automatically become more restrictive with the passage of time. (It also requires that WP:ITN guidelines not be used, but I see no need to deal with that until someone produces a specific proposal.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, look, we don't need two threads discussing the same topic. Call an RFC to modify this Wikipedia guideline to change the explicit and precise wording. You need community consensus to do that. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the overall Year articles are supposed to be a highlight reel of all the domestic subs. The regulars have in good faith enforced the erroneous criterion “International Notability” to help justify what events/people get special attention from the wider pool, which can be established as applicable to ALL countries, and therefore deserves the ‘upgrading’ from domestic subs. I get it. But as even the regulars admit, International Notability is almost impossible to source and can be ultimately subjective to personal opinion. So rather than persevere with the argument over how to measure this value, or all the disagreements over which events/people meet this ill-defined criteria – why not just change the criteria?

You COULD make it very easy and say something like “Year articles are a highlight reel of the most popular events/people” and then the criteria could be page hits. The top 5 events for each month, or top 10 people of that year would make it into the article. The criteria would then be simple, rational and enforceable. You wouldn’t need lengthy discussion and there would be little room for argument. Most of all, it would be a reasonable and understandable justification for inclusion and, more importantly, exclusion. Would it make it a bit of a western-leaning reel? I dunno, maybe. But if the reel is referencing its own mother Wikipedia that would be justified, and the numeric non-subjective determiner would rule out discrimination. I dunno, surely anything is better than what is in place currently. The articles are a confusing, seemingly random and incomplete selection of people and events, and the arguments over the criteria and who/what to include are as unhelpful and pointless as the articles. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly won't be going by popularity. That would result in being swamped with trivial stories and reality TV and blogging/vlogging personalities that the media love to sensationalise. The death of someone who's famous for being famous receives far more media coverage than the death of an important scientist. Jim Michael (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own the project Jim, we do, so if we decide popularity is the way ahead, that'll be what we use, whether you like it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And turn it into something that resembles a tabloid article rather than an encyclopedia article? Jim Michael (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what the community decides our readers want, that's absolutely fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You want the content to merely be more popular at the expense of it being less encyclopedic? Jim Michael (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The community by large has already decided against that. There are numerous essays, cleanup templates etc. for dealing with articles containing such worthless junk. The current WP:RY guideline has also been devised to help deal with cruft, which is, unfortunately, still littering other year pages and serving nobody. So considering such ideas again would be a pure waste of time, the only real question is how to devise the bar for inclusion of important, relevant entries. If we only serve what the readers expect, they don't need us. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see, won't we. This thread has passed its "best by" date, no progress will be made here while two of the incumbent regulars argue with the one person making active changes around here. We'll see what the community at large thinks in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael Well, you don't get to decide that mate - but I get your point and was only using hits as an example of nonsubjective evidence. But even with this, as with say, media coverage in RS, why do you think that famous scientists (who I agree, should be more 'notable' than Kim Kardashian - but that's POV) would slip through the loop? Why can't Kim and Tim Berners-Lee both be permitted per the guidelines? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Famous scientists, such as Tim Berners-Lee and Stephen Hawking will receive a lot of media coverage when they die and would be included under any criteria. However, the large majority of important scientists aren't high-profile, and most of their deaths aren't front-page news - even if they're Nobel Prize-winners. All the television personalities in the Kardashian-Jenner family have much higher media profiles. If any of the Kardashians or Jenners die whilst still in the public eye, the media coverage will be many times more than for most of the important scientists. Look at how many important scientists die each year, and notice that most people won't even have heard of most of them - let alone be aware that they have died. This is one of the reasons why we can't set inclusion criteria based on page views, amount of media coverage etc. Jim Michael (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, once again Jim you kinda dodged my question. Why can't Kim and <insert scientist here> BOTH be permitted per the guidelines? Surely it can be yardsticked so that neither less hit obscure 'notables' and media hit magnets are excluded? Or why not provide guidelines specific to the event or individual's field? Separate simple guideline for the sciences, arts and celebrity? That way you don't run the risk you fear that one person would be excluded by the conditions set for the other? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People like her shouldn't be included because they don't have any real achievements or important work.

If we go by popularity, page views, amount of media coverage etc. - we would exclude some Nobel-prize winners - yet we'd have included Jade Goody in 2009 and Ryan Dunn in 2011.

Guidelines for each field would be useful, but would be complicated. The guideline for sports alone would be long: tennis players could qualify if they've won a grand slam, an Olympic gold medal or been world number 1. What would you do for sports that most of the world doesn't play, such as rugby or cricket?

Jim Michael (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would include sportspeople who have achieved top honours in their sport, or actively participated in a major competition, as per WP:Notability. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actively participated in a major competition includes tens of thousands of sportspeople. The Deaths section would be swamped with about a hundred sportspeople every year under those criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER covers this nicely. It's better to include an eclectic mix of notable sportspeople from around the world and around different sports, even minority ones, than to actively reinforce systemic bias to just leave it to footballers, tennis players and American footballers, wouldn't you agree? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the Deaths section would be dominated by sportspeople. You've said that there are too many people in the Deaths section, but your suggestion would increase the number significantly. The more important sportspeople in the more global sports will tend to have articles in more languages. Jim Michael (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are year articles from 2018 onwards subject to WP:RY? If they're not, then they will likely have many domestic events added to them, which will have to be removed when the year in question starts. Jim Michael (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a crystal ball? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the project guideline, which is a Wikipedia guideline, "All articles within the scope of this guideline (main articles on years from 2002 to present only) should be added to Category:Recent years and should have the same edit notice as other pages in the category.". So unless you change the guideline, the answer is no. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that the guideline be changed to include future years. Not doing so would mean that many scheduled events will be added, but will have to be removed on 1 January of each year. Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you asked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my first comment in this section, I meant scheduled domestic events, such as conferences and sports. Jim Michael (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first comment in this section is "no". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is "yes", per WP:IAR, possibly with additional restrictions. It is absurd for articles to become subject to additional restrictions, solely as a matter of time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea for it to be stated explicitly in the guideline, but a rational person would conclude it does apply. (The discussion was derailed by the suggestion that most future year articles should just be deleted.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Wikipedia guideline is absolutely and 100% explicitly clear, it says "... from 2002 to present only ...". There's no possible room for IAR here, so either change the guideline via RFC (per the admin here) or live with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, we delete all predicted and scheduled events in yyyy on January 1, yyyy, and require consensus for each addition unless specifically named in a guideline. That's a "common sense" alternative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, the problem here is that you have a project governed by a Wikipedia guideline which has been recently ratified by the community at an RFC which explicitly defines its scope as "... from 2002 to present only ...". As Rubin has said, you can't just go and change the guideline with consensus to do so, and as is being proven by the current RFCs on items for inclusion in the 2017 article, the regulars here are very much out of touch with the community. So, at the very least, an RFC would need to be run to determine and agree upon any scope changes. I look forward to seeing the proposal and participating in the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential attack vector could be "All articles within the scope of this guideline (main articles on years from 2002 onwards) should be added to Category:Recent years or Category:Future years and should have the same edit notice as other pages in the category." Agathoclea (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All future years? That definitely needs an RFC. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I am just suggesting some content to said RFC as a starting point. Agathoclea (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since TRM doesn't agree that this was established as a guideline in an RfC, even though it clearly was, I see no reason to propose another RfC which he wouldn't agree with, unless he is willing to provide criteria, consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which he would accept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about me, it's about the community. But in any case, no RFC = no guideline change. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is about your interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines about guidelines. I know what I think would be sufficient notification of an RfC to amend the scope of the guideline, but the one mentioned above which established this as a guideline far exceeds it, and you do not accept it. Fine. We need to reach consensus as to what an RfC needs in order to be valid before one is proposed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this is not an exercise in semantics, just community consensus, and since this is a Wikipedia guideline (at the moment), increasing the scope of the project by an order of magnitude without full community input would be highly irregular. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, since you don't agree that the RfC that made this a guideline is valid, I would like to know what you think would be necessary for a valid RfC. I would then decide whether I would attempt an RfC which would meet your conditions, or whether to attempt to reach consensus over your objections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said the guideline is the guideline because the RfC happened. We need another RfC to downgrade it back to "not guideline" because that status is highly inappropriate, mainly backed up by a complete lack of community input. The whole point is to intially determine whether or not this should remain a Wikipedia guideline (doubtful) and then whether or the current criteria are what the community want (highly doubtful). It's very simple as far as I can tell. In the meantime, if you wish to run your RFC on "future years", you are obviously more than welcome to do so. I can't imagine it being very successful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be simpler to propose a revision so that the community could decide whether your idea is preferred to status quo? That would reduce administrative burden for everyone, and provide the same final answer. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my proposal. This is Rubin's idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd need to tag all future year talk pages to point to the discussion (which I can do when at home); so I want to get the proposal as concrete as possible before making it. However, as only TRM objects to applying it to future years, I'll continue acting as if it's a generally accepted project guideline for all future years, and remove trivia, the latest date a national election could occur, and sports events which do not meet the guidelines. The only difference is that I will tag unimportant events, rather than deleting them a second time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are abusing your position as both an admin and an editor and should know much better. The Wikipedia guideline which was recently upheld via RFC is not in any way open for debate. The Recent Years project covers years from 2002 to present and no mention of future years. The whole insidious way this is being conducted (i.e. "only TRM objects") is the very reason a community-wide RFC needs to be presented. If Rubin starts to take project ownership of articles outside of the current precisely worded guideline, we'll be seeing the actions reviewed at ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The project I was talking about is WP:YEARS, not WP:RY. Even before Wrad mistakenly tagged WP:RY as a guideline, it was generally accepted as a WP:YEARS guideline. This is not a formal consensus, but there are several editors who think it a good idea; in the absence of a consensus against applying it to future year articles, it's likely to be applied, even if I choose not to. WP:BRD also suggests that additions to future year articles, if reverted, should not be reinstated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to establish guidelines for what should be and not be included in years before 2002. Many year articles contain local/domestic events of little international importance. Jim Michael (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original question was should future years be covered by this (RY) project. The answer is no. If people want that, get a community consensus to change the Wikipedia guideline. All other assertions are irrelevant to this threaded discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we have consensus for that - seeing as you're the only person who has said that future years shouldn't be subject to the same inclusion criteria as RY. Jim Michael (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Your closed group has agreed to it, that's why it needs to be taken to an RFC because, as you can see, the RFCs that are currently running adequately demonstrate that the decision-makers in the project are way out of step with the community. I will revert any changes made and happily address this issue of any formal Wikipedia guidelines at ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please note, the only other editor to comment here who isn't one of the project oversighters also agreed that this change should be subject to an RFC. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a closed group - other editors are welcome to contribute here. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, they have been on other properly advertised RFCs and look, they all go against the four oversighters here. Think about it Jim. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have consensus as to a project guideline for all years, 2002 or later. It is, however, insufficiently advertised to be considered a Wikipedia guideline for years after the current year (now 2017). Because of TRM's insistence that all the guideline promotion rules be followed, I'm not going to propose an RfC until I've got all the details "correct", as I do not want to start additional RfCs to correct my proposal errors. I'll also need to tag all the talk pages for 2018 through 2100, at least as far as our year articles go. I can only do that when I get home, as I cannot use AWB on my smartphone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin, you have a guideline which explicitly states that recent years applies up to the present, nothing more. Any attempts to subversively broaden this project scope will result in ANI, so be my guest, as it appears you are not really up to the admin task any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must realise the absurdity of applying different criteria to future year articles than to the present year and recent years. It would mean having to remove loads of scheduled events from each year's article on 1 January of that year. Jim Michael (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must realise the absurdity of applying criteria to hundreds of pages, criteria which are completely out of step with what the community wants from these articles. Just look at the RFCs, the project oversight regulars are utterly isolated in their beliefs. Applying that to articles outside the clearly and precisely defined scope of RY is the very definition of absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we wait with this question until the current conflict over core principles of RY is resolved. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, ever heard of re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - whatever change there may or may not be to the RY criteria, establishing whether or not it includes future years needs to be decided. It's an issue to be established separately. It's not like the Titanic - that's you assuming that the RY criteria will be scrapped. Jim Michael (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit break

• Yes, since 2018 will eventually become a "recent" year, it would make sense to have it be covered by the same editing principles. Whether, it's a "guideline" / "best practice" / "the way we have been doing this" seems to be a separate discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to all the other future years. I don't see any reason for them not to be subject to the RY guideline. Jim Michael (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's conceivable that a fair use rationale could apply to an image on this page. It's obvious it couldn't apply to an image of a person.

And I think it necessary to remind editors that only (at least, US) public domain images should appear in these articles. I propose that a specific statement be added that it be part of this guideline that pnly public domain images be used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need, the same fair use policy applies across all of Wikipedia, it doesn't need to be re-specified for these 16 articles. And pictures on this microcosm of pages are not limited to pictures of individuals, they can be events too, so something that was truly illustrative of 2017 may conceivably have a fair use rationale which allows its use here. Trying to create a muddled version of the fair use policy here is a waste of time, confusing and completely unnecessary. Now please respond to my requests for diffs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see very little harm in the guideline prohibiting non-public-domain images, and some benefit, in that reviewers could refer to this guideline, rather than arguing about which of the ten factors migh hold. In the unlikely event that there is ever an iconic image which illustrates the year, we could revisit the issue, or just override this guideline, subject to Wikipedia's fair use guidelines (which can also be overriden) and Wikimedia's fair use guidelines (which cannot be overriden). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is harm. The site has a policy governing fair use images. It applies everywhere. If you want to link it from this RY guideline, don't try to re-write it into a version of the policy that's actually badly phrased and unnecessarily obfuscated. Let the policy do the talking. We shouldn't have different versions, different interpretations, different imlementations of Wikipedia policy across the project, one fact one place, and the policy is the place for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no potential harm in specifying images under copyright are not allowed in these articles. Perhaps someone else has an opinion? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in repeating (and probably confusing) the policy which applies site-wide, just to make it less meaningful for these 16 articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As interwiki articles are now managed by Wikidata, and as Rubin has opined, it's not that reliable, we probably need to express to our editors, many of whom go absolutely nowhere near Wikidata, how to check entries meet the current criterion. A quick check of the edit history of 2017 for instance demonstrates that many, many good faith editors are either unaware of the "minimum inclusion criterion" or simply aren't technically competent enough to check it (or don't even understand that added complexity of having to check the history of Wikidata articles versus time/date of birth/death, for the (confirmed?) existence of an article on nine or more Wikipedias). Would one of the regulars here please write a concise "how-to" guide so that our various editors who are continually shunned by having their inclusions reverted stand a chance of understanding why, rather than the continually unhelpful "doesn't meet WP:RY" edit summary with which most of them are confronted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Navigate to the biography of the person in question.
2. Click on the "Wikidata item" link in the left column (under Tools).
3. Click on "View history" in the Wikidata item that opens.
4. On the history page, find the last revision before the date the person has passed away and click on its timestamp.
5. Count the number of links to Wikipedias displayed there, on the bottom of the page - if it's nine or more (excluding English and Simple English Wikipedias), the person meets the "9 interwikis" criterion.

I suppose an automated tool could also be created to do this and return a YES or NO. I realize this sounds slightly complicated, but it is only necessary in borderline cases. In the vast majority of cases, the removed entries had a lower number of interwikis even at the time of removal - there, the check is simplified to:

1. Navigate to the biography of the person in question.
2. Count the number of interwikis displayed in the left column. If it's nine or more (excluding Simple English Wikipedia), the person meets the "9 interwikis" criterion.

— Yerpo ^Eh? 19:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, and how straightforward! This needs to be added to the guideline to instruct our editors and readers as to how this current assessment criteria can be verified. As it's currently a "guideline" and as one of the regulars (an admin, no less) suggested that substantial changes needed communtiy consensus, should we start another RFC to seek to adopt these vital instructions into the guideline? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIC, this is not a change, so there's no need to waste time like that. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, who said it was a change? What I'm saying is that I was reverted by an admin for clarifying the existing criteria into the existing "guideline", it was "not a change", but since that admin was very clear we can't change the Wikipedia "guideline" without community consensus, RFC is the only way to go, because, as we know, all we get here in this microcosm is the three/four regulars and not much else. An RFC at least exposes the situation to the community at large. And actually, it may be a good idea to do that, as a starter for understanding if the community actually believe in the "9 wikipedia rule". I'll finish my dinner and take another look!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me whether we should we start another RFC, then? — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking the community, this thread is supposed to be an open declaration of discssion, but as usual, the regulars have overwhelmed discussion with their posts. It's okay, no need to reply, the RFC will post in the next couple of weeks. There's an order to this, and we're bang on schedule with the RFCs on inclusion going all against the current thinking, with the RFC on the guideline status going according to predicition, many people not actually grasping the point, but mostly in favour of dismissing it. Next is the 9 Wikipedias nonsense, then this odd and incestuous "we've always done it this way and it may not be in the guideline but you can find it somewhere in a talkpage archive" silliness. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you've begun to understand the problem of !voting that I brought up earlier. At least we're getting somewhere. Too bad that you continue to misrepresent RfCs which have proven that neither your "community wish detector" nor your "current thinking detector" are terribly accurate. So no need to keep maintaining the impression that you're in total control of the process, nor speaking in the name of the unanimous community - both of these ideas have been shot down a while ago. As usual, you may have the last word, just please stop trying to intimidate me and other regulars with promises what will happen "in the next couple of weeks" or "after I finish dinner". It won't work. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It won't work"? It is working. And it will continue to work. By all means carry on badgering me at every opportunity, I'll just continue to improve articles, and ensure our readers get what they deserve from this project which currently doesn't serve them well at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't waste any more time with this thread, just to put the misleading as usual, the regulars have overwhelmed discussion with their posts in perspective: The Rambling Man has, in just a little over one month, added more text to Talk:2017 than all the "regulars" combined and has become the second most verbose contributor to Wikipedia talk:Recent years, where some of the others had started contributing to these discussions years ago. So it's not us who is overwhelming everybody, it's just that someone simply has to stand up to this one-man-army onslaught with highly dubious end benefit. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merely indicative of the problems here, and reflects the tag-team ownership nature this project by the "regulars". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think fair use images should be used here in recent year articles? Because I just thought about it because for example someone adds an image of someone, who is deceased and the image is fair use. Does it say or does it get removed? Gar (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They get removed from any article for which a fair use justification does not exist. That's site-wide policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's pretty obvious if you think about. For example, Liu Xiaobo's image can only be here if's under a free license like Flickr or someone's own photograph of him. Like I didn't know about Liu until after he died. And at times, I don't mean to be rude, but this was a good idea or else IPs would add fair use articles and violate the non-free content criteria. Don't you think? Gar (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to every article on Wikipedia, not just the sixteen governed by the RY project. Editors add fair use images all the time to numerous articles, mostly because they don't realise they're doing it. We just fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You got that darn right! Gar (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth, the two images you correctly removed were from an article whose inclusion criteria are not governed by WP:RY, i.e. 1974 is included within the scope of RY. That page is lame, missing scores of citations, most of the events are completely unreferenced, it's a bit of a joke really. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but the IP 124.106.251.20 kept making disruptive edits and not only that he added double image templates, but triple image templates too. At least I was aware on what I was doing. Gar (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the fair use rationale cannot apply to year lists, more specifically, they don't contribute much to the readers' understanding of the article topic. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's incorrect. If an image was deemed to be of significance to a specific year then it could conceivably have a fair use rationale for it. In any case, the NFCC policy is clear, and works site-wide, no additional information needs to be given here at the RY project which "governs" only 16 articles of the 5+ million to which the fair use policy applies. There needs to be no further discussion here, it's already well covered. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine what image could possibly be of significance to a specific year when we only list assorted events. But nevermind, we're splitting hairs. At any rate, only you know who you're arguing with, here, because nobody really proposed adding the NFC policy. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not exactly: it's very clear what this thread was doing, in response to a thread about three or four sections above. Someone there suggested I propose that a specific statement be added that it be part of this guideline that only [sic] public domain images be used. which in itself demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of image licensing on Wikpiedia, so I'd suggestion that these issues are better left to the policy entirely. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. But what images under Creative Commons License like their own photograph or a photograph from Flickr like Alan Light's photographs? Like Roger Moore's image that's in the 2017 article is under CC-BY-SA 3.0 by British photographer Allan Warren? Gar (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images under free licenses (such as CC-BY-SA) are of course ok for inclusion as far as copyright is concerned. If a Flickr image is uploaded to Commons, it normaly means that it is freely licensed, so these are ok for inclusion too. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to explore clarifying "head of state", as a well-meaning editor has been adding Presidents of Switzerland to recent year articles, which our article notes is not a "head of state", while both the President of France and the Prime minister of France are heads of state. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heads of state or government, as it presently reads, is not even close to a well-defined set:

• Is it supposed to encompass only sovereign states? By what definition of sovereignty? (That's a colossal can of worms in itself, and isn't presently addressed at all.)
• What about heads of government in federated states, autonomous territories, or any of a number of other sometimes-complex arrangements?
• Are only heads of state or government who die in office supposed to be included, or does it include anyone who held such in a post in a non-interim capacity at any point?
• What about former heads of state or government for polities that no longer exist?
• What about those whose legitimacy in such a position was/is in dispute?

If a criterion like this is to be useful, it should, at the very least, cover a more clearly-defined set of polities. (Incidentally, the Prime minister of France is not a head of state; he or she is only a head of government. The topic is a confusing one!) Layzner (Talk) 03:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The criterion as a whole seems flawed - as you say carving out an exception to general principals based on an ambiguous standard is not a good idea. And more generally the criterion does not seem justifiable given the very strict limits we place on inclusion elsewhere, with respect to Taneti Mamau or Peter M. Christian I don't think they are actually internationally notable people who should be included in a recent years article if they die. AlasdairEdits (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't realized that my suggestion that country leaders be considered "of international importance", for the purpose of reporting deaths, in this guideline/essay would be so problematic. I was just attempting to codify local consensus which seemed to be established on this talk page. I still think discussion is worthwhile, as no constructive suggestion has been made as how to reduce the size of the article to manageable proportions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep the rule and deal with disputed cases when they arise. People who are no longer in power when they die - including those whose countries no longer exist at the time they die - should certainly be included, for example former leaders of Yugoslavia. Jim Michael (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is "remove cherry picked deaths from the article and just simply link to the 'Deaths In article'", not constructive? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because we should have a shorter list on RY articles of internationally notable deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Who benefits? This isn't a paper encyclopaedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People who want to see who was internationally important, instead of trawling through the whole list of the year's deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, [citation needed]. You have not one shred of evidence that our readers approve of this arcane selection process, do you? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a shred of evidence that they don't like the current inclusion criteria. Readers who aren't editors aren't writing their views. Regular editors are needed. Jim Michael (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking, right? Outside the regular three or four project owners, no-one thinks this project's inclusion criteria are correct, either for events or for deaths. Just look at this talk page, just look at the various RFCs, it's as claer as day that your attempted imposition of your version of your interpretation of what is "internationally notable" does not match either our editors' or our readers' expectations. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim, the criteria for a suggestion being "constructive" is not your approval of it. I think this is a sad reflection of the wider issues at play, here. But returning to the point of "worthy" notables, it's simply a case of either (a) being able to find a measure of worthiness that is fair or (b) not measuring it and including all notables. So it really is in your interests to work with people to find a way forward and contribute to suggestions, rather than just rebuffing everything. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting out a new section #Inclusion criteria / motives of editors given the shift in thread's subject matter — JFG ^talk 09:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the intent is that events, births and deaths, are to be of international (or world-wide) importance or significance. This is a subjective test, so we need proxies which may indicate importance.

At present, for events, the only proxy is that the event be reported on three continents, although it can be overridden (in either direction) by consensus at the talk page of the year in question. Other possible proxies would be

1. There is in-depth coverage on three continents.
2. There is in-depth coverage in n languages (where n is subject to discussion)

A Wikipedia-hit-based proxy would be problematic, as the event need not have a Wikipedia article of its own.

Also, annual (or more frequent) sports and entertainment events restricted to a single continent are excluded. Examples for both inclusion and exclusion are in the guideline. There seems to be consensus that anniversaries of notable events are not included unless the celebration or commemoration is separately notable.

For births and deaths, the intent is that the person's life be internationally notable or significant. The current proxy is that the person must have an en.Wikipedia article, and have 9-non-English language Wikipedia articles. For deaths, the Wikipedia articles must exist before death. I agree that this proxy is absurd, but no one has yet suggested a workable proxy which selects births and deaths on objective criteria, and would bring the year articles somewhere near the maximum recommended article size. For deaths, heads of state and heads of government are exempted from the 9-Wikipedia rule, but may still be excluded if they didn't actually do anything. Again, exclusion or inclusion can be changed by consensus at the year's talk page. For births, it is suggested that the only people notable at birth would be heirs to a kingdom, but it's not specified in the guideline.

Other possible proxies include:

1. A Wikipedia-hit based count; for deaths, the count must be taken before the death for this to make sense. I would suggest the count be taken before reliable sources report the death is imminent. Even if desired, it has both false positives (people are looking for someone with a similar name, and this article is the best hit) and false negatives (people cannot spell the name sufficiently closely to locate our article). This has false positives and negatives based on Wikipedia users; in a sense, it's less reliable than Wikipedia, itself.
2. Other hit-based counts, such as Google. This the additional advantage of being a reliable source, but disadvantage that near-misses are more complicated to analyze.
3. The person has in-depth articles (again, on 3 continents or in multiple languages) before death.

or the sections could just be eliminated in favor of Deaths in yyyy and Births in yyyy' articles. This option requires coordination with non-recent WP:YEARS project guidelines, as eliminating the deaths only in recent years would be jarring.

Have I missed any options? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basing it on page views or other measures of popularity is a bad idea because it would put people who are 'famous for being famous' above important scientists, inventors, academics etc. Jim Michael (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serves our readers much better than the current approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The process of examining deaths that pass WP:NOTABILTY in an effort to promote a select few as extra notable (for who? And why?) seems (1) highly subjective, (2) deeply contentious and (3) utterly uninformative. If there isn't any way to determine whether a person is 'super notable', don't do it. Just link to the deaths article and stop duplicating selective information via ambiguous criteria. If you guys really HAVE to include your favourite deaths, why not keep it simple? From the pot of deaths that month, get people to vote for a top 3. If anyone is upset that Person X has been missed off, point them in the direction of the vote. And if you don't find that satisfying, just go with RS and be done with it. The only argument against that seems to be RS don't stipulate that a person IS notable, within the source. But I don't see 9 Wikipedia's stipulating that either, and that's apparently fine - so what gives? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it RY articles a tabloidish popularity contest. For example, it would mean including Jade Goody in 2009, but excluding 5-time Olympic gold medalist Yukio Endo and former Moroccan PM Abdellatif Filali who both died during the same month. That would be just because Goody inexplicably had loads of fans despite having done no productive work, whereas the Olympic champion and former head of state would be excluded because the vast majority of people have never heard of them. You can't reasonably claim that a reality TV contestant should be valued more by an encylopedia than an Olympic champion or a head of state. Jim Michael (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we wouldn't consider tabloid coverage as RS. You need to stop second-guessing what our readers want and expect to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim - well, this is the problem with trying to cherry pick extra notability from a pot of notable people. If 50 reliable sources from around the globe report on Jade Goody, that would make her internationally notable. You may not like the reasons why she is internationally notable (neither do I) but this isn't Jimpedia. PS. Do Yukio Endo and Abdellatif Filali pass the 9 Wikipedia rule? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many reliable sources - including the BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph - reported Goody's death. I don't know how much the media in other countries did.

I don't know how many articles Endo and Filali had at the time they died. However, Endo would clearly qualify for inclusion because of his Olympic medal haul and Filali passes automatically due to him having been head of government. Their deaths weren't prominently covered outside their own countries because important people such as them aren't valued as much by the public as fame whores are.

Jim Michael (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the world is what it is Jim. Your criteria is "International Notability". Not "Worthy International Notability." You just can't use your own bias to establish worthiness. What you can do is (1) justify WHY the criteria needs to be "Worthy International Notability" (honestly, what is the reason for an article about a year, excluding deaths of famous people who didn't necessarily achieve an accolade? What specifically about a Year article makes this even relevant? Honest question!) and then (2) include a second criteria beyond that of notability, that establishes worthiness i.e. sports honours, awards etc. What would be the problem with that?62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I must agree that statements like "no productive work" suggest standards based on arbitrary personal metrics rather than a supportably policy-based set of criteria. Inevitably, this advances systemic bias of one form or another; if there are too many notable deaths to fit in the main article, I feel that fairly clearly means we oughtn't have a list of deaths in the main article. Layzner (Talk) 21:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As I stipulated in a section above, if the process of identifying 'special' cases among standard notable people is problematic, the obvious solution is to stop doing it. Jim and Arthur seem incredibly protective of the inclusion of cherry-picked deaths, and yet have shot down suggestions on how this would work and made zero suggestions of there own. Do they really want the only/best idea to be removing deaths entirely from RY? I find this whole thing quite odd. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. Everyone with this encyclopedia's definition of notability who dies in any given year is listed in the "Deaths in 20.." article. There seems no benefit in artificially cherry-picking a super-notable set based on flawed or personal criteria. Even some of the regulars have admitted that the nine-Wikipedia rule does not stand up to scrutiny. Bin the deaths from here and simply link to the complete, objective, comprehensive article containing all deaths instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is broad agreement (except Jim) that the current criterion for deaths is both arbitrary and more importantly does not do a good job of serving readers. At the same time, I don't know if just a link to an article about all deaths is the right approach. Those articles are absolutely huge and very hard to navigate. What would be the impact of switching to "in-depth coverage on three continents" (i.e detailed obituary's) similar to events. At the least I would have thought that would get rid of the Viktor Tsaryov's and Heinrich Schiff's clogging up articles at the moment. AlasdairEdits (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never advocated the 9 + English rule and I didn't help to establish it. I merely follow it, with exceptions, because it's the current guideline. The problem with switching to listing those deaths which receive the most international coverage is that it would exclude important scientists whom the vast majority of people haven't heard of and whom most of the mainstream media aren't interested in. It would also mean including people who are famous for being famous - because much of the media cover such people extensively due to millions of people being interested in them. Jim Michael (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Jim, change the record mate. It doesn't matter who YOU think is worthy or not worthy of inclusion. And the 'guideline' isn't a guideline and will be changed. You need to provide an alternative non-subjective inclusion criteria or subscribe to real guidelines and principles of editing Wikipedia. If the vast majority of people haven't heard of someone, or their name isn't receiving any real recognition anywhere, they can't be particularly notable, can they? Reliable sources do not merely concern themselves with reality TV stars, there are plenty in the established media who cover scientists, discoveries, politicians, artists and engineers. You may even be surprised that most mainstream newspapers actually have dedicated sections to those fields. Stop assuming reliable source = OK magazine. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem with switching to listing those deaths which receive the most international coverage is that it would exclude important scientists whom the vast majority of people haven't heard of...." While this might be a problem to you, I don't think it is a problem for Wikipedia. We want to serve our readers not some arbitrary standard of importance AlasdairEdits (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be a problem for any encyclopedia to base inclusion on amount of media coverage. Articles such as this one should list important people who die during the year. Ryan Dunn's death in June 2011 received far more media coverage than that of Frederick Chiluba during the same month. You can't reasonably claim that Dunn is more deserving of being listed in 2011#Deaths than Chiluba. Jim Michael (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a problem for you personally but probably not for our readers for whom this project exists. And we keep reiterating, reliable sources, Jim, reliable sources, upon which the rest of the Wikipedia is based. This mini-project should be no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that we "can't reasonably claim that Dunn is more deserving...than Chiluba" is elitism and personal selectivity at its worse. We as editors are not, and never should put ourselves in the position of being, arbiters of who is or is not "deserving" of coverage. If the more sources covered Dunn's death than Chiluba, then by definition Dunn's death had a greater impact. Why that should be is a completely separate question and one that should be covered in sociology journals rather than in these types of articles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, there are a couple of individuals here who seem to believe that the Recent Years articles do not and should not comply with the common sense and regular notablity policy applied across all of the rest of Wikipedia, which is odd considering this project curates 16 articles out of a total of nearly 6 million. Time to start getting with the programme RY regulars, if any of you are still here beside Jim. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We should certainly define criteria, but those should be guided by general pillars of Wikipedia. RS coverage of "year in review", which pops up every last week of every year, would be a good start. To ensure balanced coverage of various subjects, thankfully, the world offers us a cornucopia of specialized RS focusing on every field of potential encyclopedic interest: sports, politics, science, environment, entertainment and whatnot. Compile the "top 10" events in each category and call it a day. — JFG ^talk 00:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I can't wait to get rid of the International Year of the Potato! — JFG ^talk 00:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do other encyclopedias (or books of the year, or almanacs) have? I recall the Britannica book of the year did have a list of notable deaths, selected from the people who died during the year. A Britannica DVD did have the capability of listing all who died during a year, but it's more analogous to Category:2017 deaths than to Deaths in 2017. Anyone know what other encyclopedias have? There is no way we could determine what our readers expect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other times have editorial oversight, they don't publish inclusion criteria. We should use reliable sources, per our policies, as opposed to what we do right now, which is frankly the opposite. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you should be asking is HOW and WHY they select those people from the pool of all that died that year. I guarantee you the answers won't be "are they mentioned on 9 different Wikipedias?" and "because I want them to be." I expect their inclusion criteria was properly established, rather than slyly snuck past everybody in a hooky vote. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So propose some criteria. I've suggested some for people (in-depth coverage on multiple continents or in multiple languages), but I have no rational criterion for events other than "international significance", and no objective proxy for that criterion. It's hard to imagine a less objective criterion than "consensus for inclusion" without there being a criterion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see an implied proposal above: that the event is included in some reliable source as one of the most significant events of the year. (This means that we could not list events until the end of the year, though. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That proposal would open the way to improve 16/17th's of the articles (and avoid some of the total insanity like the election of Donald Trump archives) so it seems a good start. RY's could be done based on that and the Current Year based on a subset of the current criterion until we can come up for something less insane for that as well. AlasdairEdits (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There'd be a similar problem with a quota-based criteria, such as one person from each field per month in the Deaths section. If no-one with much notability from a particular field died during a particular month, we'd have to include someone who has little notability. If Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger were to die during the same month, we'd have to exclude one of them simply because we'd only be able to include one musician per month. Jim Michael (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Paul is dead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just link to the Deaths in 20xx article, after all the people included there meet policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]