Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

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]

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]

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]

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]

I know there is another RFC still open but it does not seem to be going anywhere meaningful. I propose to replace the section "Inclusion and exclusion criteria" with the following:

• "Recent years pages are intended to provide an overview of events of international and lasting notability that occur during that year:
• In general, events meeting this criterion should recieve significant independent news reporting from at least three continents or should recieve coverage by multiple reliable sources as one of the most significant global events to have occured during that year. (For example in a year in review article in a major newspaper).
• Births or Deaths which recieve significant independent news reporting from three continents or recieve coverage by multiple reliable sources as one of the most important global events to have occured during that year are included in this criterion.
• Some categories of reccuring events often recieve significant international coverage but are still not usually of lasting notability. We have special additional rules to deal with these categories. If such events recieve coverage by multiple reliable sources as one of the most significant global events to have occured during that year this may be evidence that they are of unusual importance and should be included.

Then, we would retain the other sub-sections - with the exception of the three continent rule, births and deaths which would be subsumed above.

I think that this change would improve the balance of recent years articles. Dramatically reduce squabbling over dumb things and give a more balanced overall picture. There might be a lag with a few things until reliable sources start to round up a year but I think that is emmiently preferable to the current arbitrary standards which manage to be both too flexible (to allow random dead musicians and athletes who happen to be WP:BIAS beneficiaries) and too inflexible (not allowing election of Donald Trump on 2016 even though we can now clearly see it was one of the most significant events of the year.)

I am not a wiki policy wonk and I am sure there are some flaws in what i have put above, but we can correct small things later. I hope this would be a positive change that would fix a lot of the big issues we nearly all seem to acknowledge. AlasdairEdits (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose your proposal just gives more latitude to hidden rules and subversive "we don't do that" approaches, because something like "... significant independent news reporting ..." needs objective criteria to assess against. We need something concrete that can't be over-ruled by regulars who claim some kind of provenance, e.g. "the death is reported in at least two reliable sources in at least two continents". As for events, similar applies. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  PS, the other RFC is perfectly meaningful, it's enabling a much wider audience to comment on the current situation and therefore hopefully bringing more views to the next phase: the solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I think editors understand words like significant, independent and reliable - these are concepts that are enshrined within wikipedia that we have to deal with every day, they are not totally objective of course but they are also not at all arbitrary. This is my attempt at a solution. I am trying to strike a balance between now and "just an article of links to other X in RY articles" neither of which serve our readers. AlasdairEdits (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I know what you're trying to do, it fails, but it's good to make a effort. My approach was to gather together as many interested individuals as possible and then get a brainstorm on how to fix it all up. To each their own. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This resembles one of my suggestioms above. It would be constructive even if the other active RfC were constructive. (NOTE: I'm not saying the other RfC was not intended to be constructive, just that it could not be constructive.) I think "significant" coverage is good phrasing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ironic, isn't it, that the other RFC is getting so much discussion and support in favour of finding an alternative solution. It's done exactly what it intended to do, i.e. get many more eyes on the problem rather than just the regulars who keep stonewalling. This "one-size-fits-all" suggestion is well-intended, but not adequate. We need to work with the community to come up with more precisely and objectively defined criteria, not the current bizarre carnival of oddities that currently consitutes the essay for inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about deaths of (former) heads of state/government? Many of them aren't widely reported by the media. Jim Michael (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of individual of international and lasting significance like Nelson Mandela or Fidel Castro they are. minor heads of state of random small nations not so much. I don't propose to keep any special categories for inclusionAlasdairEdits (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where would you draw the line in regard to heads of state/government? Jim Michael (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't draw any line, to do so encourages systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would we decide which (former) heads of state should be included and which should not? The guide of including all of them made sense - a leader of a nation is by definition of significant international notability. To include some but not others will be deemed as bias towards some parts of the world and bias against others. Jim Michael (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include them all. ITNR has a good stab at this. Then there is no bias, simply reporting everyone. It's very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITN doesn't include all or nearly all of them. We have been including them all on RY articles for years - so we agree on the matter of including all (former) heads of state/government. Jim Michael (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only because ITN insists on a minimum quality threshold and no BLP violations, unlike this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting dead people under BLP rules is factually wrong. Excluding internationally notable people from Year articles - just because their articles don't meet a particular standard - would mean that some of the most notable people would be missing. That doesn't help anyone. Jim Michael (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may need to read WP:BLP Jim. You are factually wrong (again). And many individuals are missing from your cherry-picked list. That doesn't help anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my personal list - it was formed by following RY criteria which had been written by the regulars over a period of years.
I'm not aware of any internationally notable people who died this year who are missing from 2017. Jim Michael (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So redact your BLP violations, and of course you're not aware of any missing people because you have your own version of "internationally notable" which is not commensurate with the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What BLP vios? I'm not responsible for vios of any kind which were added by other people to articles which I've linked to - whether on RY articles or elsewhere. As far as I'm aware, all of the people who have significant international notability and died this year are currently in this article. Jim Michael (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statements you yourself have made. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally support. I think this proposal takes the best of the current policy while removing the worst of it. The key point is that the proposal frames international notability in terms of the coverage of the event as opposed to the event itself. An event can be "domestic" in nature while still being internationally notable, and I think that a number of those have gotten lost previously. I do still think it needs some fine-tuning. The biggest hole I see in the "three continent" rule is that it automatically creates a systemic bias because Australia is its own continent and is culturally similar to the US/Canada (North America) and the UK (Europe). I don't want to make a kind of rule where Australia doesn't "count," but I'm not sure how else to resolve the issue. agtx 15:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the three-continent rule wasn't enough by itself to demonstrate international notability. It was merely one of the requirements. Jim Michael (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, a requirement that the regulars on these pages invoked when it was something they wanted to have on the page and pooh-poohed when it wasn't. Consider such absurd discussions as this one on the Charlie Hebdo shooting and this one on the US same-sex marriage decision. Under the proposal above, both of these events would be listed in the article (as I think is proper, and as Charlie Hebdo eventually was). I agree that there is no need for a bright-line rule here, but I think that reference to coverage in reliable sources is way better than discussions about "international impact" without citation to any sources. agtx 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – This is a really good start. The biggest problem we currently have is determining what is and what is not "internationally significant". I don't think this proposal adequately addresses that problem, but it is better than our current system. I particularly like the addition regarding reliable sources assessing events as the most significant events of the year, although that does have the potential to create a system where the page is relatively bare for most of the year with a flurry of additions at the end of the year/beginning of the following year. I don't like the emphasis on the coverage of deaths; I think the emphasis should be on the person, not their death. Someone's death could go relatively unnoticed when their life was very significant. But I don't think the converse is true: if someone's death does receive the requisite coverage, then that does some indicative of significance. -- Irn (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - someone can have a long, successful career but their death still receives little attention. That's the case with most of the important scientists (because most people aren't interested in them) and with many sportspeople who retired many years before their deaths and vanished from the public eye. It can even be the case with entertainers - for example, Lauren Bacall's death received little media coverage. However, it's not true to say that a high-profile death proves (s)he had an internationally (or even nationally) important career. A death can receive a large amount of coverage due to there being legal action, campaigning etc. involved (such as Terri Schiavo and Charlie Gard) - or due having been the victim of a high-profile murder (such as Rachel Nickell). Jim Michael (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I agree with everything you wrote in that comment. I apologize for the apparent contradiction in my comment as a result of not expressing myself clearly. While I think the focus should be on the person's life, I also think that people whose deaths were notable internationally ought to be considered as well. (Neither Rachel Nickell, Terri Schiavo, nor Charlie Gard has their own article, so those aren't the best examples. I was thinking someone more along the lines of Berta Cáceres.) I expect you to still disagree with that, and I don't hope to convince you otherwise. I just wanted to make sure I was expressing myself clearly. -- Irn (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caceres was little-known outside her country during her lifetime. The circumstances of her death is the main thing that brought media coverage of her. This often happens with victims of murder who were of fairly low notability during their lifetimes, such as Sharon Tate and Rebecca Schaeffer. Jim Michael (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. If those deaths received the requisite coverage, then that would seem indicative of significance to me, but not to you. Like I said, I expect you to disagree with me, and I don't hope to convince you otherwise. -- Irn (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Couldn't we find one or more reliable, international sources which provide annual reviews including obituaries, where they have already identified notability, and use these sources as the determiner? Example: say the BBC, Guardian, New York Times, Reuters, and Sky have such articles, if individual X appears in 3 of those 5, they are deemed internationally notable? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes! That's what I've been mentioning for months now. Except perhaps a non-Western one or two would be useful to avoid bias and the problem is that we can't use them for the current year. But a good idea about the subsetting, if the requirement that the individual notice to appear in all of them proves to be too harsh. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; if we are seeking to define international notability it would be good to include a non-western source in the list of annual review publications. But essentially, if the source is international, then their selection by default would be international too. I think it's good to be inclusive but it's also worth remembering that this is the English Wikipedia, at to some extent it is to be expected to carry some bias towards the nationality of its audience and editors, according to what sources we can find, translate and understand. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the solution for the events. Sorry, but the key requirement is too vague - what is "lasting" notability and how do you prove it if editors disagree? For this reason, I think that this proposal is not a significant improvement over the existing system. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is far too woolly, and I'm more in favour of what has been discussed a few comments up with Yerpo - using annual review articles from reliable international sources to establish evidence of international notability; i.e. if the individual is notable enough to be included in 1/2/3/4/5 other annual review articles (from the BBC, Guardian, New York Times or whichever publications are decided to be internationally representative), then they are good enough to be included here. Simple, logical and nonsubjective. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do during the current year? agtx 13:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can use one of the other options, such as three-continent obituaries, then cleanup after the lists are published. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assume you mean news articles rather than obits (since we're talking about events). I think the "year in review" type pieces should be considered a preferred source for RY articles. That's a reliable source saying "here's the most important things that happened this year," which is exactly what we're looking for. I'm not convinced it should be a requirement, but it's a good indication that something should be on the page. agtx 21:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal by agtx: follow RS to compile the most influential events of each year. We could break it down by categories, using a couple sources for science, a couple others for politics, some more for entertainment, etc. — JFG ^talk 02:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was talking about obituaries for compiling the deaths section. As for events, we could use the same approach, of course, but I'm not sure yet what to do in the current year, because the three continent rule hasn't proven to be an effective filter. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to have anything for current year? Yerpo, earlier you were championing the inclusion of cherry-picked deaths in RY articles "because its what others do". Well, if others DON'T do current year annual reviews until the end of the year, why don't we follow suit? That leaves the current year either blank, or a set of links to all encyclopaedic-worthy deaths/events. We then correlate that list, 'cherry pick' according to criteria (ie. presence in alternative obit/annual review articles) and produce our own finished annual review article just as everyone else does. Without needing weird rules fraudulently promoted to guideline status by those currently lacking credibility. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do need a list of deaths on 2017, because many people view it each day. Many organisations have lists of notable people who've died this year so far. Jim Michael (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

many people view it each day - Links please. Many organisations have lists of notable people who've died this year so far. - Links please. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael: - Jim: many people view it each day - Links please. Many organisations have lists of notable people who've died this year so far. - Links please. You've been editing so you are aware of my request. If you don't have the evidence to back up your claims, no problem - simply strike them from the record. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:Pageview statistics, where you can search whichever timeframe you like, which will show you that this article receives thousands of views per day. Examples of RS which have published lists of deaths so far this year include the Daily Express People who died in 2017 and CNN People we've lost in 2017. Jim Michael (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's great news, if we can find Reliable Sources such as these which cherry-pick in real time rather than end of year, the objection to the Annual Review/obit Reliable Source method in terms of making Current Year articles untenable, is completely overturned, wouldn't you agree? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is which sources to use. Even if we exclude tabloid sources, they will still be entertainer-centric, Americentric etc. Jim Michael (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on man, work with me here. For one, you can't just dismiss every RS as entertainer-centric. For two, this is Wikipedia. We aren't trying to outdo every other information source out there. If its good enough for Time magazine, or Forbes, or Reuters, or The Guardian, or the BBC, or Al Jazera, or Sky, or the New York Times etc etc. For three, a list slightly biased though its aggregation of a set of proffesional, international media group obits/annual reviews, is far far far far far superior to what you are fighting so desperately to uphold - a list biased by you and a weird, proves-nothing, principle breaching 9Wiki rule. You want to stick with something because its the best option available? Then let go of the 9wiki, cos best it certainly isn't. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several of the above reasons. This page is not a guideline, so it shouldn't be trying to make "rules" any longer anyway. There's a germ of truth in the proposal, and a compressed version of it would probably be useful as broad advice. Take the tactic used by subject-specific notability guidelines, and address this a probability matter: "An addition to a year article is more likely to be accepted by consensus, if it has one or more of the following going for it: [bullet list here]".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, time to take some initiative and start working towards an actual solution. I put together an overview of the options that have been mentioned in the past few months or earlier, in my sandbox. You're all welcome to add content, either new options or clarifications to existing ones (I reserve the right to reject non-constructive edits in my user space, or edit them myself). The idea is to polish the overview for a week or two, then make an RfC where we present the options to the community to decide. Thanks for participating. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thanks Yerpo. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether years like 2002, 2003, etc should be considered to be "recent years" any more. The "2002 to present" rule has been in place since 2012, and there's no process by which this 2002 start point will be changed in the future. I would suggest that a new policy should be that WP:RY applies from [ten years ago] to [the current year]. So, as the current year is 2017, WP:RY would apply to the years between 2007 and 2017, inclusive. Next year, in 2018, WP:RY will apply from the years between 2008 and 2018 inclusive. And so on. What do you think? Good idea or bad idea? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. The reason for 2002 to be the year it that the stricter criteria start is that it was the first full year of Wikipedia's existence. Also, if the start year of RY were moved forwards, those years no longer in its scope would be flooded with domestic and insufficiently significant events. Jim Michael (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think it matters that much. WP:RY is just an essay, so it's ok if it's a little bit fuzzy what years it applies to. Regardless of what the essay says, a discussion of what's important to include in 2002 will necessarily be different than 2016 because of the types of sources that will be available. We should not based any content decisions on on when Wikipedia started (completely irrelevant) or the hypothetical possiblity that the articles will be flooded (FUD). agtx 19:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want to do this? That is, what is there to be gained by making this change? As Jim alluded to, RY was created in response to a need: because of the nature of the Internet and the nature of Wikipedia, articles covering years after the creation of Wikipedia need to be treated differently than those for years prior. You're correct that 2002 isn't so "recent" anymore, but if that's really a problem, the solution shouldn't be to change the scope of RY but rather to rename RY to better describe its scope. -- irn (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be renamed, but I can't think of a better name. Years 2002 onwards? Years 2002 - present? Jim Michael (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks for the responses all. So, WP:RY isn't really about recent years at all, but it's actually about years in the internet era when there's more available information. In which case, I would suggest renaming "Recent years" to "21st century years". It's the most concise name. (That name would also include the year 2001, though; I don't know whether that would be an issue). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 07:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were flooded before WP:RY was implemented, and some are becoming flooded again.

As for 2002, it was selected, in part, because of the 9-Wikipedia rule. Before that, (in 2007-2009), the coverage start changed between 10 years back, 1990, and 2000. With no 9-Wikipedia rule, there's no reason not to go back to 2001. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the "recent years" name but extend its scope to the last 20 years. This would mitigate the "fear of flooding" with less-relevant events if we only go 10 years back. After a generation (20 years), news become history, and significance is much easier to assess. — JFG ^talk 03:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this raises an important point, why should we have so-called "recent years" at all? Just because Wikipedia came into existence 15 years ago, why should that mark the beginning of some new "recent years" epoch? The world very much doesn't revolve around Wikipedia, far from it, so there seems like a reasonable argument to get rid of "Recent years" altogether and just stick with WP:YEARS. After all, in 2037 time, who would actually consider 2003 to be a "recent year"? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, RY was created in response to a need: because of the nature of the Internet and the nature of Wikipedia, articles covering years after the creation of Wikipedia need to be treated differently than those for years prior. -- irn (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that misses points on two counts. Firstly recent years aren't recent if they're decades ago. Secondly, there is no reason to treat 2002 as some kind of watershed year. We have tons of reliable sources that could be used and applied to decades and decades of year articles. This is an artificial construct which does not serve our readers at all. What makes you think articles about things that happened aftern2002 "need to be treated differently"? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the foundation of Wikipedia has no bearing on whether we should consider a year "recent". To me, the "recentism" of a year is a slow continuum between "news" and "history", hence my proposal to include the last 20 years, after which everything is history. The Rambling Man, would you support that range? — JFG ^talk 20:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this has fundamentally highlighted that we don't actually need a concept of "Recent years" because it's meaningless to our readers, and certainly muddies the water when it comes to applying different inclusion criteria to recent and non-recent years. Why should our readers be subjected to that absurdity? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Recent years" criteria may not be needed if there were criteria for inclusion in year articles in WP:YEARS. The criteria could become more strict as years go forward, representing the fact that more information is available about more recent years than less recent years, and 150K lists are generally unreadable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is being missed. Why would our readers expect there to be some mysterious cut-off point beyond which different inclusion criteria apply? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The idiot that I am, could someone explain to me in plain English why years 2002+ need to be treated differently? I'm missing something here. I get that's when Wikipedia was born but what actual difference does that make again? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because 2002 was the first year article that was compiled at the time, rather than retrospectively. Jim Michael (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reason at all 62.255, the claim that the "birth of Wikipedia" should somehow define an epoch-marking moment in history is patently absurd and an insult to our readers. They couldn't and shouldn't care less when Wikipedia's first "year" article was created, that's pure navel-gazing at its worst, and perpetuated by this odd "mini-project". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 20 years seems like a good range, as JFG suggested.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for establishing international notability was fraudulently promoted to a guideline rather cynically by a group of editors who wanted to protect their ownership of the article. Overwhelming consensus has resulted in this hooky guideline being downgraded to an essay and that it should never have been anything more.

Following this, the criteria itself was scrutinised and the community was asked whether international notability could be established by the weird 9 Wikipedia rule. By overwhelming consensus, the RFC resulted in finding that:

international notability ≠ existence of nine or more non-English Wikipedia articles.

So in effect, this essay has lost all credibility and can no longer be wielded in these articles. Arthur Rubin, champion of the essay, even agrees in the sense that consensus can override it - in which case we are just voting on inclusions anyway, and there is no need to even refer to this disgraced rule. We are just deciding by consensus, the rule is obsolete.

There are three key ways forward:

• 1. Include deaths by consensus (as we are currently doing, in the absence of any enforceable criteria)
• 2. Include deaths that are included in other Annual Review Reliable Sources (let Reliable Sources cherry-pick deaths for us)
• 3. Include a link to all deaths that year (avoid the pitfall of cherry-picking deaths entirely)

Option 2 feels the strongest to me. It's the easiest to enforce, requires little admin, is fair, avoids POV/bias and sidesteps the difficulty in coming up with a way to establish international notability on our own.

The main objection seems to be that the current year article would not be populated ad-hoc, and would be held until the Annual Review reliable sources published their articles at the year end. This to me just sounds like OWNERSHIP issues again rather than an objection for the sake of Wikipedia - I don't see why this is a problem.

Firstly, if it's good enough for Reliable Sources to publish their year review at year end, why isn't it good enough for us? Secondly, if we really had to give Jim and Arthur something to do (though we don't OWE them a hobby), we could simply provide a link to Deaths In 20XX, until the time is upon us to produce our final, narrowed down selection of deaths that, according to RS, are significant enough to be honoured in an annual summary.

This could also work for events in exactly the same way. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The community was not asked "whether international notability could be established by the weird 9 Wikipedia rule". The RFC only established that "international notability ≠ existence of nine or more non-English Wikipedia articles". No one ever made the opposite claim, namely that “international notability = existence of nine or more non-English Wikipedia articles”. As Arthur Rubin explained: "The criterion is "international notability". The 9-Wikipedia criterion was intended as an objective proxy for the subjective term "international notability"". The 9-Wikipedia criterion is a tool. If we want to debate the usefulness of that tool or see if we can come up with a better tool or process, let's do that. But to point to the RFC as proof that “there is no need to even refer to this disgraced rule.” is simply mistaken. -- irn (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be Arthur Rubin's understanding of the "9 wiki" rule, but I don't see evidence which supports that as being the actual intent. From what I can tell, this essay was started in January of 2009 by the apparently-departed editor Wrad. This first draft contained both the 9 wiki rule and the three-continent rule and had no explanaiton of how those rules were chosen. Actually, Wrad started with a 10 wiki rule but neither at that time nor when it was reduced to nine did anyone say "this is an objective proxy". At most, it seems that, as soon as Wrad started it, it was used because the only alternative suggested was a 25-person quota. The RFC did establish that the 9 wiki rule is problematic and no longer as widely accepted. The IP editor is right to suggest that we need to establish a rule that has better support. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easy to find specific diffs, but it seemed obvious to me at the time that the criteria was international notability, with a modification for deaths that the person's life was notable during xer lifetime, and later modified per discussion at WT:RY and at WT:YEARS that, for deaths, xe must be notable for something xe did, not for something that happened to xer. I'm not sure it would be constructive to look for diffs, as this criteria would require an objective proxy, which would be difficult to find.

I agree we need to establish an objective set of criteria, but the RfC was written badly, and there is little agreement as to the meaning of the close. Certainly, WP:RY is the only set of criteria which ever had even a limited agreement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The intention doesn't matter. You can just mentally strike that part out of my comment so that it reads "The criterion is "international notability". The 9-Wikipedia criterion is an objective proxy for the subjective term "international notability"", and the point still stands. -- irn (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Irn:My goodness, that's pedantic. There is literally nothing different between what you and I said the RFC established. Out trots the usual "oooh, I agree we should discuss a way forward!" followed by a digressive bawl defending the 9 Wiki rule without actually saying anything of value. You and Arthur need to let it go. Everyone thinks its ubershit. It was utterly annihilated in two (soundly and clearly written) RFC's which saw it downgraded and then completely dismissed as a useful method of assessment. Why are we still talking about it? And Christ Arthur is now actually going to argue that 'there is no consensus as to what the consensus means'? Oh dear. Move on guys, it's just sounding sour and a little embarrassing now. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think I’m splitting hairs, but as far as I can tell, no one thinks the 9-wiki rule adequately defines international notability; some people, however, support it as the best option at the moment (that is, it works as a proxy in lieu of a better solution). By asking only if "Is the definition of "international notability" the existence of nine or more non-English Wikpedia articles about a subject at the time of death?", the RFC missed the mark completely because that's not the issue.

You think I'm being pedantic, but the difference between our interpretations of the RFC has really important consequences: my interpretation renders it essentially meaningless and yours would throw out the 9-wiki rule entirely, replacing it with nothing. Neither you nor I can speak for how every single !vote in that RFC interpreted the question – whether they would agree with you and Eggishorn or with me and Arthur. That right there is the problem. -- irn (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. You have to try pretty hard to interpret the RFC in any other way than a complete dismissal of the current selection criteria. It doesn't matter if it's "better than nothing". It's not good enough. It's not good at all. People think its awful. And that's a meaningful result (for those willing to accept meaning). And you are being disingenuous by making out the fall back is nothing. The fall back, as it is currently, is debate. You mistakenly think the wishy-washy, non-binding, deregulated and now disgraced essay still has a role to play in selection. It quite clearly doesn't. Even Arthur Rubin has said so in the last discussion where he admitted in absence of any consensus otherwise, a person would not be included according to the essay. Which means if a few people wanted the person included regardless of what the disfavoured essay says, they would be included. So with little confidence in the essay, this renders it completely redundant. So rather than continue this futile argument over a dead essay, or pretending an RFC result that was not in your favour is for some reason "meaningless" (uh huh), lets spend our time productively discussing a new essay that can guide future discussion on individual inclusion. Because as it stands, the current essay is NOT guiding anything. I just don't understand why you, Arthur and Jim want to spend all your time looping the same argument - let go, mate. It's nothing personal, its just a stupid essay. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any rational person can interpret the RfC as meaning anything other than what it says — the 9-Wikipedia rule is not the definition of international importance. Many (but not all) comments indicate the 9-Wikipedia rule is absurd, or should not be used (but not necessarily both). There are few comments on the rest of WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Arthur, the RFC has drawn a line through your awful rule, which shouldn't have been a rule and now isn't one. Talk about something else, this is a waste of time. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this is just an essay now, we should not bother trying to come up with a "process" of "rules" that cannot be enforced. Rewrite the entire page as generalized advices, and suggestions about what will increase/decrease likelihood of an event entry meeting with consensus at a year article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following some debate over the scope of the "Recent years" mini-project, it's become apparent that there seems no real clear reason, especially from our reader's perspective, why we have WP:YEARS and WP:RY. The arbitrary decision to select 2002 as the crossover point also appears to relate to the invention of Wikipedia. But why would our readers be interested in that? Why do year articles from 2002 onwards need to be treated any differently to year articles from 2001 back? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the foundation of Wikipedia has no bearing on whether we should consider a year "recent". To me, the "recentism" of a year is a slow continuum between "news" and "history", hence my proposal to include the last 20 years, after which everything is history. See above at #Should the year range for WP:RY (2002–2017) be changed?. — JFG ^talk 20:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a formal RFC on this below. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a trend by which editors add a hidden comment to recent years articles when they believe that an event or a death shouldn't be on this list, like this and this. This happens without any discussion on the talk page. In the case of the second comment re the Las Vegas shooting, the consensus on the talk page (after a real discussion) was to include the event. I'm not opposed to hidden comments where there's been a discussion that's come to a consensus, but simply putting it there because one editor thinks an event/death shouldn't be on the page violates WP:HIDDEN and prevents the discussion from happening in the first place. I'm going to start removing such comments on sight, unless there's actual consensus on the talk page to keep the event/death off the page. agtx 14:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, but an invisible comment that something should not be added unless consensus is obtained seems appropriate. There being no standard for inclusion, WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN suggests that disputed material, or even material with disputed significance, be excluded until there is consensus for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden notes that claim some kind of authority on what should and what should not be included should be discouraged. Authority on what to include comes from consensus, not individual opinion, even if apparently backed by some hidden consensus or an essay. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My God, this whole thing just gets worse and worse. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that violates WP:HIDDEN. That guideline says "When it is a mere local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus." If the recent RFCs have made anything clear, it's that WP:RY is exactly the definition of mere local consensus. Citing WP:BRD also doesn't make sense because it literally ignores the first step by telling people not to make the bold edit. If something is being re-added frequently enough that there's a need for a hidden comment telling people not to do it, what that really shows is that there's a need for a discussion. Not having one is unacceptable. agtx 18:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove hidden comments per agtx's rationale. Then we'll see what editors try to add, and we can debate appropriately without being strictly bound to the WP:RY straightjacket. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove only in cases where not backed up by a talk page discussion or an article history of multiple editors reverting the addition of something trivial; leave alone otherwise. It's routine to add HTML comments to articles about what to add or not add based on history at the article, whether subject to a separate discussion or just a rev-talk history of editorial consensus among the stewards of a page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RY "sub-project" (of WP:YEARS) mandates a unique set of inclusion criteria for years 2002 onwards. These criteria are not applied to years prior to 2002. Do we need to apply different inclusion criteria to year articles? Does our readership understand the reason for such differences in articles between 2001 and 2002? Or should our readers expect consistent formats across all year articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there an actual problem to address? I get the feeling that we don't bother with stricter inclusion criteria on older year articles due to reduced tendency to add trivia to them. I'm not sure why 2002 in particular was picked. Is it just a 15-year boundary that migrates as time goes on, or set permanently at 2002? (Never mind; discussions above answer this.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC), rev'd. 05:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I support the notion in a thread above to set the mark at 20 years (approx. 1 generation), which as JFG says is generally time enough for something to have transitioned from news to history and thus for its lasting importance to be more certain. However, this page is not a guideline, so anything it says should be framed as general advice, about the kind of list addition that is likely or not likely to be accepted. We can't actually impose any rule here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, as noted, why should our readers inherently understand that articles from 2001 backward have different inclusion criteria from 2002 onward? How does this approach help our readers? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Discussion above indicates this date was chosen based on when WP started, and has a connection to the apparently now-rejected "seven Wikipedias rule" (which would no longer actually be a rule even if it hadn't been rejected, since this is no longer a guideline). The 2002 date is based on a string of assumptions that don't hold. It makes more sense to set this at 20 years or so, and have the boundary auto-update. Some might prefer 10 years. Regardless, this can be done with simple parser functions right in the page itself, so it auto-updates on its own. If the ultimate question is "should there be any difference between the 2017 and 1980 articles", I would say yes, for reasons JFG already outlined in two threads above, and which boil down the difference between well-analyzed history versus reactionarily-covered news. The closer in time to an event that seemingly secondary-source material about the event is, the more primary-source in nature that material really is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure you're answering the question, why should a reader expect to see a difference between 2001 and 2002 articles? And when this "recent" window expires on an article, as the inclusion criteria no longer applies, we would expect to see a load of edits... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the ambiguity appears to be rooted in an underlying assumption that has not been demonstrated. The original author and some other prominent editors appear to have believed that a RY guideline, and its admittedly arbitrary time cut-offs, are necessary to prevent the mass additions of spurious and frivolous entries into the 2002+ articles. This "assumes facts not in evidence," to use the legal phrase. The hypothesis that this essay guideline essay reduced the number of entries that had to be reverted after 2010 should be testable. I haven't seen that evidence brought forward in recent discussions here, or in the original discussions surrounding the creation of this piece. In the absence of evidence of those problems, having any time cut-off seems needlessly arbitrary. The lede could just as easily say: "Recent year articles are among the most heavily edited..." and be done with it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"most edited" is actually factually inaccurate... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would "...among the most-viewed..." be accurate? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, then there's no reason for the sentence to exist at all. There may not even be a reason for the essay to exist if there's no evidence of large-scale disruption and if the pages are not among the most edited or most viewed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No. We do not need a differentiation. It's an attempted 'fix' for a problem that doesn't exist, and just convolutes our records and confuses our readers. Bin it. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No. We should use the same inclusion criteria for all years, regardless of recency. Events/births/deaths of international importance as supported by reliable sources should be included. WP:YEARS is an appropriate place to centralize that effort, not this essay. The arguments I've seen to the contrary largely involve concerns about the growth of Wikipedia and of the internet, but I fail to see how that problem is unique to a handful of year pages. All this recent years business has gotten us is WP:OWN behavior and poor guidelines. agtx 05:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we would need a guideline for what is eligible for inclusion in any year article, whether it be in the distant past, the recent past, the present or the future. Jim Michael (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we already had such guidelines for the entire project. What's so special about any year article, recent, ancient, or otherwise? That said, such standards are already in place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have guidelines for what should or should not be in Year articles, but we need them. Jim Michael (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"...but we need them," um, why? Please provide some concrete evidence that year articles, especially recent ones, have created an actual (as opposed to perceived) problem to support this necessity. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is that, prior to the implementation of the RY guideline, the articles in question were flooded with insufficiently notable events and deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's extremely unconvincing to me. The attempts to curate these pages have largely failed. The recent years articles are not particularly useful right now. agtx 02:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - The growth of Wikipedia and the internet are relevant because we now have far more information compiled across Wikipedia with each passing year. I think everyone is aware of WP:RECENTISM, but I don't think everyone quite sees how that affects these articles. To try to break it down, for the year 1517, we can easily list every single person we have an article for who died in that year in the 1517 article itself. For 2017, we simply can't – the article would just get too long. The same applies to events. Consequently, we need to have a different standard for the events, births, and deaths of 2017 than we do for 1517. 2002 is an arbitrarily chosen year where this line has been drawn. If we look at the amount of information available and the number of biographical articles and articles on events, it makes sense to go with somewhere near 2001 or 2002 because that coincides with the birth of Wikipedia and the explosion of the internet, because as things happen, they are added to the encyclopedia. -- irn (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflictThis argument still pre-supposes that there is a problem with these articles being made "too long" and does not show any evidence of such a problem. To pick some examples at a random set of ten-year intervals, 1978 is 87,993bytes and has been viewed 7,954 times in the last 30 days, 1988 is 97,555bytes and has been viewed 12,943 times in the last 30 days, 1998 is 65,047bytes and has been viewed 15,152 times in the last 30 days while 2008 is 42,027bytes and has been viewed 13,267 times in the last 30 days. That sample, at least, shows that post-2002 articles are shorter and there is no relationship between length of the page and whether readers are likely to use the page. There is no evidence that the essay provides any necessary selectivity. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand your point. You ask for proof that the pages have gotten too long, but RY has effectively prevented that, so it's impossible to prove. 2008 is shorter because of RY. The problem with page length isn't about how many visits a particular article may receive, but rather about readability and technical issues like load times. I readily concede that 2002 is arbitrary. Perhaps a better date would be 1990 (the invention of the World Wide Web) or 1950 (roughly the onset of the digital revolution) or even something like 1920 (to cover the lifespans of most people affected by the changes noted in my previous comment). (Regarding post-2002 articles being shorter than other year articles, I see that as a problem with the implementation/interpretation of RY and reason to change either the way it's written or interpreted, but I don't think that's reason to discard RY entirely.) -- irn (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2008 is (was?, may be?, should have been?) covered by the essay but is a year that pre-dates the creation of the essay. If the hypothesis that this essay is necessary to prevent issues for readers is true, it should either show evidence of such a length so as to cause those problems you mention or show evidence that large post-2010 deletions were necessary and justified by the essay to remove such problems. As shown above, the length is obviously not a problem in comparison to other year articles not covered by the policy and the edit history of the page does not show any such large efforts were undertaken to bring it in line with the essay. In other words, this sample at least does not support the hypothesis that is basal to the need for this essay and I have seen no-one providing any positive evidence for the hypothesis. In the absence of such evidence, we should consider the hypothesis unproven and the essay not needed.

tl;dr version: We don't have any reason to believe that such readability issues exist or that the essay solves any concrete problem. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the condition of the 2008 article is what led to the creation of RY. By the end of June 2008, the 2008 article was already over 90,000 bytes. With six more months to go in the year, it was already in "probably should be divided" territory and clearly on a path to exceeding "almost certainly should be divided" territory, and the efforts that went into trimming it back are ultimately what led to the creation of RY (see the section above #Historical education: One editor's history of this project). -- irn (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being the first to provide some version of the evidence I've been stating has been lacking throughout these multiple discussions, @Irn:. I obviously didn't go back far enough in the edit history. That said, I don't agree that the page history shows good evidence that the article was getting too long and would have created difficulties even if allowed to grow unchecked. There are literally 10,000 pages that are currently longer than 2008 at it greatest extent. Even on my 5-year-old Android phone, I have zero problems loading or reading Raymond Burr (119,842bytes). It didn't even choke on 1944 Birthday Honours (500,083 bytes). Admittedly, List of members of the Lok Sabha 1952-2017 at 1,113,541bytes does crash my phone's app, but that's an order of magnitude bigger than any post-2002 year article I looked at. Unless or until recent year articles start breaking the >500,000byte level, I still don't see that there's an issue justifying the essay. If we look at all the years articles between 2002 (the earliest covered by the policy) and 2009 (the latest covered for a year before the essay was created), none reached anything like that at their greatest extents:

Year article	Greatest extent (bytes)	Peaked in year
2002	52.238	2006
2003	56,349	2007
2004	67,614	2007
2005	75,328	2008
2006	112,995	2009
2007	122,508	2007
2008	108,851	2012
2009	78,038	2016

The more I look for concrete evidence and statistics supporting the hypothesis that this essay is necessary (rather than anecdotes or armchair theorizing), the less I find supporting it and the more I find support for countervailing arguments. Most of them had gotten smaller even before the earliest efforts at a policy on exclusivity of year articles. The other two of those articles got bigger after this essay was created and one reached its greatest length when it had gotten elevated to guideline status. These are exactly the opposite effects we'd expect if the hypothesis was true. That suggests that not only is this essay not creating smaller articles but also that it isn't having even the selectivity effects that its proponents envisioned. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, just some minor nit-picking: Xtools doesn't track article size perfectly. I think it just gives the size at the end of the year. So, for example, the largest that 2007 ever got was actually 128,324 bytes on August 18, 2008. Ultimately, I don't know how much of a difference that makes, and I don't feel like going through and checking all of them; I think your general point still stands.

Your argument that the recommendations of WP:AS should be ignored is an interesting one, and I hadn't thought about that. I had just kind of assumed that the people who created WP:AS created those recommendations for good reason, but that is merely an assumption.

However, accepting that the general recommendations of WP:AS are still valid, your greater argument (that you don't see the need) strikes me as flawed. There was a problem (as seen in 2008); RY was created to address that problem. The fact that there has been no problem since then is as much proof that this has been working as it is that there's no need for it.

You can also compare the growth of year articles over time. Whereas most non-RY but still relatively recent year articles have grown over time as little by little people add births, deaths, and events (especially those from the late 80s into the 90s), RY articles have generally held pretty stable, which I see as evidence that RY is working. -- irn (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No this "birth of the internet" or "Birth of Wikipedia" is a red herring, and a really unhelpful one, especially to our readers who are not aware (nor should they be) of the arcane machinations of project selection criteria. Books and encyclopedias were printed before, during and after the internet boom, and no-one is talking about listing everyone who died in any year in the year article, that's already covered elsewhere. The delineation is completely fake and totally unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RY guideline was created to counter the flood of insufficiently notable events and deaths which were being added to recent year articles. In the absence of restriction on entries, the more recent a Year article is, the longer it tends to be. Media coverage has increased massively during the last few decades. Jim Michael (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adequately and evidentially disproven above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No per The Rambling Man. Double sharp (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that, during the 2010s, year articles covering the 80s and 90s have been greatly expanded - whilst RY articles haven't - is proof that the RY guideline is necessary and was effective. If anything, it should cover more years. Jim Michael (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like...... all years!!!!!!! Checkmate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No The fact that, even at their largest extents, no year article of any recency shows up anywhere on LongPages proves that the repeated argument that the guideline is "necessary" is either personal preference of a tiny handful of editors or outdated information. The project is more than capable of handling year article pages of unrestrained length. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Year articles which have been most expanded are those which are the most recent not to be covered by RY. If the RY guideline hadn't been implemented, the years covered by RY would be the longest of all the Year articles. Very long articles full of events and deaths that aren't internationally notable would dilute the value of the articles and would reduce the number of people reading the sub-articles such as 2017 in science and 2017 in the United States. Jim Michael (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prove your assertion, and even if you could, that's a problem because.... ? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, so-called "very long articles full of ... deaths which aren't inernationally notable" such as Deaths in 2017 receive an average of 105,000 views per day, while the curated and heavily managed 2017 gets around 5,500. Why are you working so hard to ensure our readers avoid these cherry-picked pages and head straight for the comprehensive versions? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is suggesting that Deaths in 2017 and similar articles be deleted or reduced in length. They're so long that they're divided by month. The deaths list for the current year is always one of the most frequently viewed pages because it's where readers who are looking for information about people who died recently. All those deaths can't be and shouldn't be on the relevant year article.

You appear to be implying that RY articles would be read more often if they were longer. That's almost certainly true, but it would also almost certainly significantly reduce the number of people who would read the subarticles, such as 2017 in music and 2017 in the United Kingdom. Many people go directly to either one of the subarticles, or to the articles of the people or events which they want to read. I disagree with your assertion that lengthening RY articles is in the interests of our readers. Jim Michael (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your continued assertions of what should be testable facts without any evidence to back it up. How do we know that longer year articles would "...almost certainly significantly reduce..." readership of any articles? Did we test that previously? Are there readership trends that can be linked to? Is it anecdotal memory or personal supposition? Where is the evidence to support these conclusions? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's tiring to combat the continual reiteration of the "Kim Kardashian" argument or the "unpopular around a watercooler" claims. These are absolutely not what our readers believe, and absolutely not what our community believes. One could conjure up 100 arguments in an attempt to claim some kind of RY boundary exists, but the simple fact of the matter is that it really doesn't. Apply a common approach to all year articles. Some will have more than others. A good comparison is taking a look at the content in The Boat Races 2016 and The Boat Race 1963 for example. Both are comprehensive, for the available material, and that's what our readers expect. They don't suddenly expect a cut-off point at which some items are mysteriously (to them, because they don't and shouldn't need to read the essay at RY) aren't allowed. That's not serving our readers well at all. And honestly, this is 2017, all this talk of "long pages" relating to >100KB, give me strength, I have a <1MB/s connection at home and I can cope with just about every page Wikipedia throws at me. It only actually gets a little worse when rendering pages with tons of transcluded templates, and articles such as 2017 don't have that all. So, time to get with the present people. TL;dr: we may need some criteria, but they should apply to all year articles and we shouldn't be scared of large articles!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think a really important point is being missed here. Irn and Jim - why are we working so hard to create weird, inexplicably cherry-picked annual summaries of incomplete information, based on POV and suffering problems with bias and arguments regarding criteria, when the supposedly more bloated and horrible articles of complete information receive 20 times the daily hits? Sounds like people aren't liking your annual summaries. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, as I noted above, the RY articles seem to get a readership about equivalent to a weak DYK while the main "Deaths in..." articles receive nearly as much interest as the Main Page. So in any language, that would seem to imply that readers prefer the comprehensive list to the cherry-picked list, by about 20 to 1. Ironically, we have some of the regulars here "maintaining" articles like 2010s which (despite it being three years from completion) is already at >370KB. What a terrible mishmash of ideas, doctrine, implementation and enforcement. Pity our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the big post: This is actually what brought me to this ol’ mess to begin with. I was in the office discussing the spate of deaths to have occurred in the last year and ventured onto Wikipedia for a ballpark figure – I went in via the year and noticed several deaths were missing.

There was no explanation as to why they were not included, no explanation that the year article was a cherry picked summary, how this cherry picking was undertaken, by who and why. It just appeared like an article inexplicably missing information.

I then came across the ‘deaths in’ article and found a comprehensive list. It occurred to me that I would never use the Year article from that point forward, because it would be missing information and perhaps I wouldn’t know what was missing or why - the article would basically be erroneous and redundant.

Realising this would be true of all year articles, I thought I’d see what was going on ‘under the hood’. At first I thought a better criteria for inclusion should be established which helped make it clear to readers (like me) what the situation was. I must say I’ve been pretty shocked by the behaviour of Arthur Rubin, an admin, and a handful of others, most notably Jim Michael, who have been so difficult and averse to change. The regulars here have taken things personally, shown incredible ownership issues, even resorting to lying to discredit another editor, talk page harassment, warnings and general roadblocking to keep the status quo, which considering the mess, seemed utterly irrational and in no way putting the readers and the project first.

That aside, and having learnt more about the Recent Years differential, I find the whole thing to be an even bigger, convoluted and confusing mess – especially when looking through the eyes of a reader.

We don’t need Recent Years. Nobody outside of Wikipedia understands. It’s only defence seems to be to ensure Year articles don’t become comprehensive accounts of what happened that year. Read that back and tell me you don’t instantly recoil and think WHAT? And WHY? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It should be showing comprehensive and complete information. It’s not Heat magazine, providing tasty snippets of favourite deaths and events. We don’t have the means to justify cherry-picking – we aren’t a source that is supposed to operate under a bias, or for a target audience. We are supposed to be an impartial, factual record. We shouldn’t be writing articles with the mentality of “Hey! We are Wikipedia and these are the deaths and events we think are most important!” So Year articles very much should be what the core ‘owners’ are fighting against – a comprehensive record of events and deaths that year.

Or they shouldn’t exist at all and we should stop duplicating information in an unclear, misleading manner that readers have zero clue about. As how would anyone know that the list of deaths they found in 2017 (or any year) was missing important information? If it was Arthur and Jim’s article, in 2017 major earthquakes and shootings would not have happened and famous people like Bruce Forsyth, Sean Hughes and the co-founder of an international seminal rock band would not have died. Is this really what we want to be showcasing?

In my mind, scrap Recent Years entirely. Year articles can provide links to the more comprehensive lists at country-based year articles, and the complete ‘Deaths in’ articles. There is zero need to duplicate information, especially incomplete information, with no explanation to the reader and no clear rationale for doing so. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hughes and Scott Putesky aren't among the most important people to have died this year - they're not even among the most important in their respective countries.

Information being duplicated is inevitable. Articles such as 2017 in music, 2017 in film and 2017 in science will include some of the info that's on 2017 in the United States, 2017 in the United Kingdom etc. Jim Michael (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be much easier for our readers, and much more comprehensive, to point at Deaths in 2017. Burying each notable death or omitting it entirely because of a personal preference or arcane selection criterion should be discouraged, the pageviews clearly make a case for the comprehensive WP:GNG list, rather than this rather opaquely selected group of "super notable" individuals. Page length is not an issue by the way, this is 2017 now, not 2002 when most of us dreamed of free dial-up accounts at Compuserve. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michaels: So why duplicate it further unnecessarily in a clandestine, confusing and incomplete manner? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of each year, many mainstream media sources produce lists of people who died during the year; some produce lists much earlier of those who've died during the year so far. Those lists don't usually include people of marginal notability - they're shorter lists of the more important people. We should do likewise - and we do. No-one's claiming that RY articles would be so long that they would take a long time to load or would crash. We're providing a concise review of the events & deaths of each year. Jim Michael (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what's being provided at all, as evidenced by page views. If readers genuinely felt they were getting something positive from these RY articles, they'd received more than an average DYK's worth of hits per day. The current approach may serve the needs and wishes of the established users here, but that is in direct contradiction of all the evidence suggesting that the current approach does not serve the general community of editors well, nor, most importantly, our readers. Take an example. 2005 received an average of 440 page views per day over the past month. Thats only twice as many page views as my own talk page. No-one is interested in these RY articles, they contain (to our readers) a bizarrely selected set of events and a group of "super notable" deaths, the criteria for which is completely undetermined. Little wonder no-one outside the users here are really interested in such articles. Concise (in this situation) is the enemy of the reader. This is not a paper encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael: Mainstream media sources have a target demographic they shape their content for. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic database of information. We shouldn't be cultivating POV lists, especially when doing so is highly contentious and barely worth doing in terms of readership. Encyclopaedias should strive to provide complete information. Not half the information with no explanation or warning that what we are presenting is missing so much. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No - There should be the same format and consistency throughout, The whole "before 2002 this applies and after 2002 this applies" makes no sense, Apply one consistent format or whatever throughout all years. –Davey2010^Talk 15:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need to establish a set of inclusion criteria for all year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Jim, By all means start another RFC to establish a criteria (I'm only saying you because you're the most knowledgable with all this), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not true. The "non-RY" articles, i.e. everything from 2001 backwards, have had no inclusion criteria applied whatsoever. Why do we have literally hundreds of articles about year events without any criteria and yet around 16 with criteria, most of which have been deemed patently unsuitable? We could just rely on our community to decide what is in and what is out, that's a perfectly Wikipedian manner of inclusion, and presumably how every single article from 2001 backwards has operated for some time now. We have GNG and community consensus, that's all we need! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They should all have criteria, but writing and establishing them has been neglected. Older years haven't had as much added to them, so the problem of insufficiently notable additions is less severe there. The RY criteria were established to stem the flow to the worst-affected year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the thousands of pre-2001 articles have been fine for time immemorial then there's no logic in trying to apply any kind of RY at all. And we have plenty of consensus here agreeing with that position, so we will simply mark RY as historical and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not since time immemorial; WP was created in 2001. They aren't fine - they need inclusion criteria because insufficently notable events, births and deaths are frequently added to them.

Another reason for having a higher entry bar for recent years compared to older ones is that recent years have far more subarticles to accommodate the many more entries. Jim Michael (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not true. They're just fine. Check this out, it demonstrates that the two years before the RY boundary get 50% more pageviews than the two years after RY! And even extending that search range demonstrates that RY adds nothing at all to the readership of the recent articles. Our readers seem to think that articles outside the remit of the RY criteria are just fine and that's what we're here to do, provide our readers with what they want. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That supports my assertion to a degree. The articles that weren't under RY are longer, so they receive more views - but there are fewer sub-articles than there are for recent years. The RY criteria had the effect of diverting many readers from the main page to its subarticles for more in-depth coverage devoted to its topic/country. Jim Michael (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it directly contradicts what you've just said. The years prior to RY are more popular than the RY ones, and the years prior to RY have no guidelines. This is all about serving our readers, and the RY articles, per the evidence, clearly do not. Readers are not diverted elsewhere, those articles are seldom viewed. Anyway, we have a clear consensus here to remove RY altogether, so I think we're done for now! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're viewed less often because many readers go directly to the sub-article(s) which they are interested in. Jim Michael (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more recent a year article is, the more sub-articles it has. The total number of views of all sub-articles for a year increase the more recent it is. That proves that more readers are going to the sub-articles for recent years. Jim Michael (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Jim, that's not true. There are hundreds of articles prior to RY which are sub-articles of years. RY doesn't have exclusive rights over sub-articles. Please don't continue to make false assertions. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that RY has exclusive rights over sub-articles. I said that the older the year, the fewer sub-articles it has. The larger number of sub-articles for recent years means that many readers go to those sub-articles - decreasing the viewership for the main articles for recent years. Jim Michael (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter what you believe to be the case, we have a clearcut consensus that RY is no longer required. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No per TRM. If there is going to be a set criteria at all, which might itself be overly bureaucratic as opposed to just the normal BRD cycle, they should be standardized across all years. Looking at recent discussions on this topic, it seems that this guideline is used to artificially relocate items that would've made into pre-RY articles on the basis of arbitrary criteria. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This no longer being a guideline (and questionably ever really being one, per the RfC above), is wording needs to be rewritten in an advisory not commanding tone. I've started at the top (series of tweaks, plus a fix by TRM, compressed into a single diff: [5]), and hope this will inspire some others to reshape it into a properly advisory essay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to this end as well. agtx 16:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might have been better to just mark it as historic and start again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. It doesn't need a rewrite, it needs deleting. There isn't any part of the essay that is relevant or worth keeping. Better to start again clean, with honest language and concise guidance, rather than mock-authority, cloaked language set up as a trump card for the tiny RY clique. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can write a better RY essay/guideline, you're welcome do so in your sandbox - and see if many other people agree with you. Jim Michael (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we should wait for the RFC to close, since the way it's going now, it's not at all clear there's consensus to have an RY standard at all. agtx 18:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might I make a suggestion or two? Jim Michael's position is obviously fixed and not likely not change, as is his right. It is equally obviously a very minority position and has been thoroughly disputed. No passing neutral reader is going to slog through the kilobytes that have been spilled (including by me) defending or disputing it at this point so we may as well get back to the RfC. The RFC is itself overlong and I've placed it at WP:ANRFC. Once that's over, there seems to be a developing sentiment that this should be put out of everyone's misery so it should probably just be taken out behind the sheds at MfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have N denied the request and would like to see the RFC run for it's entire course.Echo your first two lines, except the fact that a behaviour (I percieve as intentional disruption) is Jim's right. And, obviously, the best way to avoid these boring long threads is linked with a good understanding of the first law at WP:CGTW.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could say that holding a position strongly is a right, intentional disruption is not, and we have admins who get to decide when the former becomes the latter. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should always favour the most simple, clear and logical way to present our information.

It’s my opinion that there is no logical need to differentiate recent years from non-recent years, as discussed above.

Wikipedia is NOT a media company with a POV tailored to a target demographic. We are an encyclopaedic source of complete information. We should always strive to avoid creating content according to bias. Cultivating discriminate lists IS creating content according to bias. The criteria by which we are trying to cultivate these lists, is controversial in itself, as the notion of notability is subjective and we as editors cannot even agree what it is, or on a way to measure it.

The simplest, clearest and most logical step forward would be to simply stop doing it. There is no coherent argument as to why we should be doing it. “Other media sources do it” – well, we aren’t a media source. “It’s helpful to our readers” – our readers don’t seem to visit these cherry-picked articles at all, and much favour the comprehensive lists RY link to. “It presents information in a clearer way” – well, it doesn’t because the reader is completely in the dark; nowhere in these articles is it explained that the events/deaths listed are incomplete, why they are incomplete, why specific information may be missing or how the process works.

So I propose a completely simple resolution, that avoids POV, conflict, controversy, argument, duplication and confusion. Just YEAR articles, formatted thus:

20XX

--Lede--

Events

By Topic:

• Events by topic links

By Place:

• Events by place Links

Births

Deaths

• Link to Deaths in 20XX

Job done. Minimal admin, minimal conflict, just a clean source of links to complete, comprehensive information and no need for these redundant, meaningless, unused, time sink POV lists. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very reasonable and logical argument. Thank you for proposing it! However, I think it misses a key point: these are articles about years. There's no reason that 2017 as a year can't have an article explaining what happened that year just like 2017 in India exists as an article explaining what happened in India that year. Just because we're having a hard time reaching consensus doesn't mean we should give up entirely. Also, what would go in the lead? And how would we write the lead while avoiding all of the pitfalls you've enumerated?

Also, Cultivating discriminate lists IS creating content according to bias. This is a bit more philosophical, but literally every decision that is made by an editor is subjective and is, therefore, affected by bias. Every edit is the result of someone's opinion. We can't get rid of that; we can only try to create systems to minimize its effect (see, for example, WP:SYSTEMICBIAS). But even looking at your solution, 2017 in India is subject to the same bias problems as 2017, only on a smaller scale: instead of asking which events are of international importance, the question becomes which events are of national importance. You can't avoid that sort of subjectivity; it's present in literally everything we do here. It's just that in this situation, it's more obvious than in others. But the solution shouldn't be to gut the article, but rather to come up with a system to handle these differences of opinion. RY was an attempt at that. It wasn't perfect – the 9 wiki rule is arbitrary and the “international significance” requirement is vague and was interpreted by the most active users in a very restrictive sense, both of which seem to have frustrated many users – but it's better than ditching the year articles all together.

And there seems to be this idea that because RY is no longer a guideline, it should be disregarded entirely, but I would like to point to the closing decision, which stated editors are advised to try to follow by the essay as far as possible, while working in the subject area. -- irn (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happened in India in 2017 is not up for the same level of debate. It happened in 2017. It happened in India. There is very little cherry-picking, as the objective is clearer and events are fewer. As it is sourced at 2017 in India, we would simply just have to link to it from the 2017 year article, under ‘by country’. The data would be recorded, and would be filed correctly and logically.

On the other hand, what happened in ‘the world’ in 2017, is entirely up for debate. We don’t have any idea what constitutes as internationally significant. We have different nationalities, with different POV’s, arguing with different ideas of whether something is important or not. Instead of a national gauge of impact we have a varying degrees of crystal balling and conjecture. Cherry-picking what ‘domestic events’ (every event is domestic) is significant to the world incurs offence, exclusion, accusation and argument – which occurs far less under a shared nationality. If we record everything that happened, we may as well just link to the sub-articles and avoid duplication. If we present an abridged list, it is entirely subject to POV/bias as I outlined above. And we would need a reason to do this, and a way of doing so. We don’t have either.

I’m not arguing that, because RY is no longer a guideline, we should abandon it. I’m arguing that there is actually no logical reason for RY and no sound way of doing it anyway. Pointing out the country sub-articles as a reason for RY is an erroneous argument. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While what is "national" may not be up for the same level of debate, it's still very much up for debate, and I see no reason to believe that any list aggregating national events won't run into the problems with aggregating a list of international events. Just as some events appear "international" to some and merely "national" to others, within a country, you can just as easily have events that appear to be "national" to some and merely "local" to others. (I do agree with you that I would expect there to be less disagreement and less conflict, but, as you've stated, forcing all events off the main year page will draw more attention to the year-in-country articles, which will increase that level of debate.) Essentially, your proposal doesn't solve the problem of a cherry-picked list because the national lists are also inherently cherry-picked. If the cherry-picking is your main concern, the only way I can see around this would be to mandate that the lower-level articles include everything that happens within the borders of a given country – every notable event, every notable birth, and every notable death. If that is your argument, I think that needs to be made explicit. I also think it's untenable.

That said, systemic bias is my main concern here, and I think this proposal does address systemic bias in a constructive way. I'd like to find a better solution because I think that having an article about each year that actually offers an overview of what happened in that year is useful. But if we can't come up with anything that adequately addresses systemic bias, I'd be willing to support this proposal.

tl;dr I disagree with the logic behind your proposal, but I could get behind it if we can't come up with a better way to address systemic bias. -- irn (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]