Jump to content

Talk:2017/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

More refined articles

I've been advised numerous times that certain events belong in more refined articles (such as 2017 in politics) rather than in the parent article of 2017. To that end I've moved those items which have a clearly more refined categorisation to those subarticles. I think we perhaps need just one or two more refined articles (e.g. 2017 in conflicts) to cover the remaining handful of events. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree, but that's up to you I guess. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 05:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't agree with what? Do you think these events should all be shown in both places? Or is there a secret rule that determines what does and does not qualify for that treatment? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Delete everything

Hey, let's just delete everything and have a blank page. I'm sure that would please a lot of people around here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, why not work on a sensible and clear set of criteria which establishes which items get sent to the sub-articles without a trace here, which articles stay here and don't get sent to the sub-articles, and which articles (special ones no doubt) which get the double treatment? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
(redacted what might be considered a personal attack, but only refers to edits.) Good idea. Have any proposals? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
What are the current criteria? P.S. you wrote "(redacted what might be considered a personal attack, but only refers to edits.)" but you didn't redact anything, are you ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
"International significant" (interpreted as having (potentially) lasting significance to multiple countries) was considered clear until last month. I'm not sure where to go.
What I deleted before posting was a more personalized version of the last statement, which was unnecessary.
How about, as a start, for events, it is considered one of the most significant events of the year by independent sources on three continents. It still needs refinement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
But you didn't post it, so you didn't need to redact it, or are you simply trying to make another point here? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Landau instead of Shepard

Landau is the more notable individual. Landau is an Oscar winning actor. In comparison Shepard isn't as notable. Using other wiki sites as an example, Landau's count is almost double of Shepards. In regards to the public domain part, the particular image of Landau is also a PD picture. Rusted AutoParts 04:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Shepard is of more interest to our readers than Landau, by approximately a factor of 2. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I know more Landau than Shepard, but why not Jeanne Moreau for more females? We need more females. The only thing I fear is an IP adding a double or triple template like this. Gar (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
"Shepard is of more interest to our readers than Landau, by approximately a factor of 2." What? What metric are you using to measure that?
In regards to Moreau being used too I propose why not Landau AND Moreau? I swapped out Don Rickles picture so that the entertainers count would be slightly reduced. Rusted AutoParts 13:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Page views of day or two after death. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
That's how you measure someone's overall notability? That's not how that works.... Rusted AutoParts 14:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Did I mention notability? Or did I mention "interest to our readers"? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll reiterate. "That's now how that works". Rusted AutoParts 15:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
you didn't answer the question. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I think I did. You think the picture selection should be based off "Page views of day or two after death". So in two years time Shepard should still remain because he got more Page views after his death? So if say Elizabeth II passed and we had limited space for pictures, would you swap her with say Nathan Fillion because he got more pages views? Rusted AutoParts 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Did they both die the same year? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Its clearly a hypothetical. My point remains is that picking pictures based off page views is silly and counter productive in my mind. Rusted AutoParts 18:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
It was an odd choice. Pageviews are indicative of our readers interest in certain subject matter. Why would we deny them the things in which they are most interested? Instead there's a edit-war approach with individuals claiming "A is more notable than B", which is, of course, pure nonsense. Our readers want to find things they're interested in. We're not serving our readers well to give them things in which they will have little or no interest, I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
You're basing that though on the aftermath of their death though. Which is not a good metric to base anything off of. During and in the years after their deaths, Landau has and will be generally more notable than Shepard. Rusted AutoParts 19:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
In your own point of view. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't care who I find notable, but all matters is that we're happy with who we choose. Fair enough? Gar (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yup. It's also your point of view that Shepard is the more notable one. Perhaps it would be best if I sought out an alternate choice. It's foolish how much investment we seem to be putting into what is essentially just decoration. Rusted AutoParts 04:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I replaced two males for two females, so looks like we're good for now. Gar (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I would argue Rickles should be swapped back in place of Moran though. Moran's only claim to fame was Happy Days while Rickles has decades worth of acting and comedy that outweighs anything Moran did. Rusted AutoParts 05:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Gar (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"Nine Wikpiedias"

It now appears that the only way an editor can actually check this is using historical Wikidata diffs, which have been called into doubt for their veractiy. I believe this is a retrograde step, technically onerous and unnecessarily complicates Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, even in this project. As such I suggest we drop the "nine Wikpiedia" criterion and replace it with a consensus-based voting system to include individuals whom the community agree should be part of a year's review of births and deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the rule is not perfect and is getting more and more difficult to justify with the passing years, but I disagree with the alternative proposed. Even at ITN with its significantly larger group of involved editors, the result is quite Western-centric and random. We could instead look at other online reference sites that could be regarded RS, and mimic their selection. Perhaps a cross-section of several or something like that. — Yerpo Eh? 18:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Then suggest an alternative because using diffs on Wikidata is simply not appropriate, the nine Wikipedias thing never was appropriate. It is simply a statement of acceptance of systemic bias, popular Wikpidias win, it is most definitely not a measure of global notability which I believe seems to be the excuse given for persisting with it. That should be reliable third party sources from around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Did you even read my comment past the first sentence? — Yerpo Eh? 19:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think I phrased it rather more succinctly, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't call your reply succinct, no. But never mind. I proposed an alternative, do you think it's worthy of consideration or not? — Yerpo Eh? 19:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's already there, the criterion which speaks of news on three continents. That's sufficient. Although perhaps this project, as attached to arcane rules as it seems to be, would prefer a precise listing of publications in which a death is announced before it is declared sufficient for inclusion in recent year articles, e.g. The Times, The New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald etc. Get to three of those and you're in! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The three continent criterion is insufficient (that's why it's the minimum at which we can even start talking about eligibility), and would lead to even more people included if used alone. With "online reference sites", I meant notable deaths compilations in various RS such as the BBC. — Yerpo Eh? 19:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, minimum. And then after that you regulars "decide" on behalf of the community. Which is not appropriate any longer, now we've caught you out. Time to open it up. We need RS like mainstream news sources across the globe. But it's clear we don't agree, so we'll wait for the dust to settle on the current RFCs, on the ANI report and on other bits and pieces, and we'll move forward with a much more straightforward approach which the community can assess and which the reader will benefit from. Right now we have nothing of the sort. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree, we need additional opinions about whose proposal is better, so let's leave it for now. But please stop referring to yourself in plural, that really doesn't give your opinions any additional validity. Not to mention consistently ignoring the main message of my comments which is mildly insulting. — Yerpo Eh? 20:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Give it a break. This continual resorting to "insulting" is insulting itself. The community, once given a chance, has voted overwhemingly against the thoughts of the three or four regulars who appear to edit this project most regularly. It's great that it's been given more exposure to prevent it from becoming something which is entirely out of touch of community norms. If you continue to claim such insults, we'll need to stop interacting permenantly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Not nearly as overwhelmingly as you try to paint it, nor has it given you the mandate to speak on its behalf in every sub-thread. And you still ignored my proposal which is not the way to lead a constructive discussion. — Yerpo Eh? 20:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Overwhelming consensus it most cases! And yes, your suggestion, like mine, has some merit, but it needs more than you and me to decide the date of this project's guideline. So once we have input from not the regular three, we might stand a chance of seeing what the community and what the readers expect from such pages, don't you agree?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Not so much, no, as I demonstrated before. The thing is, as you probably noticed, that the larger community will react if you open an RfC on a trending topic (for example a minor celebrity who has passed away or a terrorist attack in a Western city), but they are not so interested in the long-term development of RY pages. Of course I agree that such a change needs a wider consensus, but if noone else but you and the regulars chip in, what do you think we should do? Go against the regulars because it's "obvious" that we are wrong by default? — Yerpo Eh? 05:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Well sadly yes, it looks like the regulars are out of touch with the community, doesn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
That's your opinion, and no, it doesn't give you the mandate to implement all your ideas. The regulars are the community too. — Yerpo Eh? 06:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
No, its fact. Denying it won't change it I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Return when you have a real argument. — Yerpo Eh? 05:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Snippy. But pointless. Several "real arguments" have been put forward, even from some of the regulars. The section below and the various RFCs adequately demonstrate the community's total dissatisfaction with this project's output. The sooner change is embraced, the better for Wikipedia and, more importantly, the better for our readers! Return when you're happy to be part of the solution! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I still haven't seen any solution that the community would embrace. Only criticizing and promises - none of which is a real alternative. — Yerpo Eh? 13:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course you have. Reliable sources around the globe do the trick, not vote-counting unreliable, unsourced foreign-language Wikpiedias. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
No, they don't do the trick. Or would you feature everybody whose death has been mentioned by RS? You fail to see the forest for the trees. Gain consensus to change the current practice with your explicit proposal, then you can say to have accomplished something. Until then, this has been nothing more than over a month of wasted time and energy. — Yerpo Eh? 19:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course they do, and that's how the rest of Wikipedia works. But right now you're attempting to defend a page which has one global event per month but dozens of globally significant deaths? It's all the wrong way round. People will be visiting this page to see the events of the year, but now there's one event per month and a selection of deaths which isn't quite the totality but is based on some unreliable and unsourced foreign language Wikipedia presence. Instead of global reliable sources. Madness. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
So you keep repeating and repeating. But we still haven't seen a better strategy for selecting each. — Yerpo Eh? 04:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, selections should be based on coverage in multiple reliable sources across the globe, not some arbitrary number of poorly referenced articles in Wikipedias across the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. Can we please focus on solutions and stop repeating what you think is wrong with the current approach? You made your point already, long ago. But there are too many deaths covered in multiple reliable sources across the globe. So how would you select them? You said by voting for each one that somebody proposes, but I don't see anyone supporting that idea. — Yerpo Eh? 06:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
No, there aren't "too many deaths", see Deaths in 2017, that page seems to cope just fine. Oh...! And as for anyone supporting anything, no-one else is getting a word in edgeways as the regulars continually bat them away with disdain. Once all these RfCs have concluded, we'll stand a better chance of getting more involvement, and I'll open an RFC to get the nine Wikpiedia's rule dismissed, and another RFC to get the "guideline" status revoked. One step at a time! In the meantime, it's clear this discussion is proving fruitless, so feel free to continue on your own, I've got better things to do right now, like improve articles, write featured lists, review OTD articles and DYK hooks etc. Cheers for now! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
More promises and haughtiness... Bravo. — Yerpo Eh? 07:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
More statements of fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Does a consensus-based voting system mean a discussion or vote is had for every individual where there is a question of inclusion?—Laoris (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Unless proper subjective criteria are agreed to, then yes. Right now, we have a so-called "minimum inclusion" criterion, but it's superseded by the project regulars who get to determine what is and what is not important. The nine Wikipedia rule is demonstrably absurd, so that will need to go in any eventuality. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Serving the readers

Currently it's abundantly clear that this "nine Wikipedia rule" is not serving our readers well. For instance, we can apparently include Giulio Angioni who mustered a whole 2,500 hits on the four days after his demise, yet above we see that the regulars reject Tommy Gemmell (71,000 hits in 4 days) and Deborah Watling (50,000 hits in 4 days). We've just had Jérôme Golmard added (who meets the current criterion because many Wikipedias have active tennis editors!), who currently averages 12 hits per day, so one can simply imagine how much interest our readers have in his death. Individuals whose apparent "global notability via nine-or-more Wikipedias" yet fail to secure more page views in four days than a poor DYK would muster in 12 hours should be subsequently removed, and more attention should be paid to listing the individuals our readers would expect to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

In how many more ways are you going to tell us that the current approach of selecting content isn't ok in your opinion, before finally coming up with a viable alternative? — Yerpo Eh? 12:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
As many as necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
This is starting to become a Filibuster. Rusted AutoParts 14:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Not really, it's another aspect that needs to be examined, why are we adding nobody French tennis players and nobody Italian writers to this list yet excluding international footballers and actresses? Our readers seem to be far more interested in the latter than eht former. And the analogy doesn't really work in any case, if anything it's more like death by a thousand cuts. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: You told us as many ways as necessary a month ago - unless you plan to just keep criticizing until others figure out a solution that will satisfy you. In which case I can tell you right now that this conflict will end badly, probably for all involved parties and likely for the project as well. So I appeal to your good faith to start contributing constructively. Is that too much? — Yerpo Eh? 15:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
You've already threatened me, I'm frankly not interested in that because you're not in a position to do that, I'm asking important questions, providing alternative views, statistics, I'm thinking of our readers, and all you appear to be doing is criticising me, certainly going by your contribution history. Please allow others to participate, we all know your thoughts on whatever I say well enough by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
You could've just answered "yes", it would amount to the same. — Yerpo Eh? 16:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed Golmard due to lack of international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Which, of course, is nonsense. He meets the requirements for inclusion, yet your personal interpretation of international notability means that you feel empowered to remove his listing. Where is that enshrined in the current criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not nonsense - it's common sense. The 9 WP articles plus English is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule. We make exceptions where is it clear whether or not the decedent has significant international notability. With tennis players, that's grand slam titles. You pointed out that he lacks international notability, so I removed him. You've reinstated him, so you're contradicting yourself. Jim Michael (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm applying the guideline consistently. On the other hand you are applying your own personal guidelines. We have an international footballer who drew tens of thousands of hits upon his death which you (and the regulars here) have wholesale rejected because he didn't meet the nine Wikipedia rule. Yet you yourself now reject a tennis player who does meet the minimum inclusion criteria by applying your own personal view of international notability on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
P.S. You said " With tennis players, that's grand slam titles" - where is that written down please? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting the guideline in order to make it seem ridiculous. You can see from the page history and archives of RY articles that we've made exceptions to the guideline on many occasions. The specifics of what constitutes international notability are written down, but perhaps they should be - if we can agree on them. The grand slams are the biggest tennis tournaments of the year, so it makes sense to measure notability by them and whether or not the player was ever world number one. I doubt that anyone (other than perhaps the editor who added him) would genuinely support Golmard's inclusion here. You only reinstated him to make the guideline look absurd. I'm not certain regarding Gemmell - if I had to vote yes or no to his inclusion then I'd vote yes solely because of the international goal he scored. Jim Michael (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
No, you're making up guidelines as you go along. And no, the inclusion of the French tennis player meets the guideline, and if that's absurd, so be it, you've made your bed. And you want international goals? So no goalkeepers then. What baffling nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Lack of entries

It is simply ludicrous that so few entries are allowed on this page. When you look back at earlier decades, all of the years have plentiful entries. Let's take a random example: 1962. It's really interesting to read through and follow the progress of history. But now, in recent years, and particularly 2017, we are literally seeing one entry a month, or perhaps two at most. How does this make any sense? I see a load of perfectly acceptable and relevant entries I posted a while back for 2017 have now virtually all been either deleted or moved to sub-sections. The admins here have become so absurdly strict in their requirements, it seems you're only allowed to post something that is 100% globally significant. While I agree that some entries aren't important enough for inclusion, the pendulum has clearly swung too far, we need to restore some balance and flexibility and let more entries be posted here. Some people here seem fanatical about deleting everything, and they see Wikipedia's rules as some Holy Bible of commandments that must never be broken even slightly. Why is it okay for older years to have plenty of entries, but 2017 is so incredibly sparse? Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Years from 2002 onwards have to meet WP:RY inclusion criteria, whereas years before then don't. The sub-articles, such as 2017 in science and 2017 in the United States aren't subject to RY criteria either. Jim Michael (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
A very good demonstration of just one of the issues with WP:RY. It's piggy-in-the-middle and providing nothing particularly logic or useful to our readers except a cut down version of "Deaths in..." articles and a pointless "globally significant events as selected by three or four individuals" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
This. I came across this fall out after finding the 2017 page and wondering what the heck it was. Just seemed to be a few randomly selected moments throughout the year (making me wonder why other major events seemed to be ignored), followed by another random and incomplete list of deaths. I guess I understand that, with 2017 sub categories (sport, politics, United Kingdom etc) there is a desire to avoid just duplicating everything or making 2017 just a big bloated combo of everything that happened everywhere. But it was confusing trying to understand what the criteria for inclusion was. This talk page, the arguments on WP:RY and the 'guideline' or whatever it is/isn't, just confused me further.
Outsider looking in, its like 3-4 guys just decide what they want and when a rule or guideline should or shouldn't apply. Even more bonkers is that the guidelines or rules are so silly. Arguing over the semantics of what is or isn't of international importance? What a waste of time. And if you can't include say, a sports event because it's covered in the sports sub for that year, why do isn't the same logic applied to deaths? Just don't include deaths either. In fact, why not make the Year article just a selection of links to the subs? Or, if for whatever reason Wikipedia needs to have an 'annual review' of Planet Earth for each year, get your categories together, then pick say, 5 of the most significant events for each category and stick up a link to their wikipedia article, maybe a brief summary of each if you have to write something. Pick the 5 by vote, or come up with a sound way of rating international significance. Because the current idea of an event not being international because its "domestic" is dump. A event has to take place somewhere "domestic"! How/if/why/what it's impact was internationally is just a headfuck argument nobody is ever going to win without nonsubjective criteria. Can't be bothered with that? Then just kill the year articles and perhaps the regulars could just write their own annual review and host it on their talk page or something. They can make up whatever weird/exclusive/spontaneous criteria they like then! Meh, my 2 cents. And yeah, I know. I'm nobody. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

[Ready] Prodigy

(non-admin closure) Consensus to include. Arguments for inclusion were more plentiful and backed by sources.- MrX 13:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Exclude - he didn't have significant international notability in his own right. Jim Michael (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Include just because he didn't have an article on "nine Wikipedias" at the time of his death, it doesn't mean he wasn't significantly internationally notable in his own right. A lot of good work has gone into the article since its nomination at ITNC so it would be foolhardy to exclude it on such arcane grounds. Plus he's featured on 14 Wikipedias!! And his death has been widely covered, e.g. Australasia, Europe, North America, South America, Asia, Africa etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Include - as of the final diff prior to his death, his article was on 13 other languages + Simple English, a clear WP:RYD pass.- OZOO 09:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Include as has been widely covered in sources (as shown by TRM), Being on another Wikipedia should have no bearing here and it's quite laughable that anyone would think otherwise - I don't mean to be disrespectful but most of the articles I've come across on foreign Wikipedias are all hopelessly shite (EN being the only project so far that actually cares about its articles) but regardless of all that the rapper was notable so therefore should be included. –Davey2010Talk 13:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this project seems to have deemed "nine appearances on non-English Wikipedia" to be the bar for "significant notability"... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It's difficult to assume good faith when earlier this month you said that he shouldn't be listed on this article. I removed him, now you say that he should be included?! Jim Michael (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It's utterly moronic in every sense of the word, Any clueless plank can create an article on for instance DE Wiki and it would never be deleted because the patrolling is next to none on most if not all projects so this "policy" or whatever you wanna call it is just stupid!. –Davey2010Talk 17:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
But you want Prodigy included?! Jim Michael (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in spite of the "nine Wikipedias" rule, which, as noted, is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
So why did you suggest that he shouldn't be included? Also, do you really think he's internationally notable as a soloist? Jim Michael (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Because his article was junk, and that was before I realised this project doesn't care about article quality at all. And since when does "as a soloist" enter the criteria? Can you point me to that please? And please use "preview", you create so many edit conflicts that it's frustrating. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It's been the consensus for years. Jim Michael (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Can you point me to that wording in the criteria please, particularly as we're looking to help our readers understand who and who is not eligible for inclusion in these articles? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not written in the criteria, but it's been established as consensus after discussions on talk pages of recent year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Aha, so yet another "hidden" rule that neither editors nor readers are aware of. Got it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The long-standing editors know. Yes, it should be clarified in the criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
(a) it doesn't make it right and (b) how do the readers know? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
"The long-standing editors know." - No .... no we don't! - Contrary to popular belief we're not mind readers and nor are the readers of this project, Without sounding disrespectful it really does seem like you're making all this up as you go along ......, Point us to these various discussion ... if you cannot provide links then all of your posts should be ignored entirely. –Davey2010Talk 21:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I mean long-standing editors of RY articles. There are discussions in the talk archives. Jim Michael (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Well those editors are somewhat irrelevant. You have new editors and new readers, none of whom are aware of all these hidden criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You well know that if you wish the inclusion criteria to be comprehensively described and available to all, you should not be pointing people to "discussions in the talk archives", that's simply not how it works. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


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

... and you shouldn't close a discussion you participated in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
If you care, re-open the discussion, otherwise it's more heat than light. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
reopening, then, as clearly an improper closure. Still no consensus, even as to what is being discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Fine, a clear consensus exists, just one person says no, on dubious grounds, while four say yes. Still, why make a decision when more heat can be generated, Arthur Rubin, standard admin behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
TRM, you've changed your mind on whether or not to include him, you prematurely closed as discussion in which you were involved and you're continuing your patronising sniping. That's against the rules and far from civil. My reasoning is that he doesn't have significant solo international notability - which is the consensus for including deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Jim, remember what I said, he shouldn't have been included when his article was junk. It isn't now. And besides, the article more than meets this project's criteria. The discussion (with four people in favour of his inclusion against your singular opposition) was wasting time, and no, there's no "patronising sniping", there's just a real need for you to start answering questions properly, that's not "against the rules", and nothing to do with civility. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. where in the criteria does it mention "solo notability"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - I read the article Prodigy (rapper) and Prodigy discography. Honestly, this rapper (should have added quotation marks, but whatever) hasn't done much significance to be included in the "2017" page. The impact was... too regional in contrast to other past rappers like Tupac Shakur whose careers were significant internationally. Prodigy's death is already adequate in 2017 in the United States, so I don't know why else his death should be mentioned in the "2017" page. I don't see also why readers should be given an entry about the death of a rapper other than to encourage readers to become editors or to reflect what press outlets do to their own audiences. Wikipedia readers interested in what happened in the US this year can go to the other page. Those interested in searching for the whole year itself can be shown a sidebox and other entries. Meanwhile, no offense to African Americans, but there are already others like Chuck Berry and René Préval, both more significant than Prodgy. --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Err...I don't think there is a limit on the amount of black people we can have on the list. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Oops, sorry. I shouldn't have implied discrimination. I don't know which part to strike out, so I'll rephrase: Why including Prodigy (rapper) other than he's dead and to match the media outlets' coverage of his death? I don't see how impactful Prodigy was in his lifetime. Has he made any significant works? Also, we already have selected whoever is significant at this point. Why add more from other past months? Well, the whole year is incomplete because we've not past the future months of the year, so there will be more significant events and deaths of significant personalities this year. --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Nohomersryan, may you or I add the RFC tag then? This needs more attention. George Ho (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead with an RfC. Jim Michael (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Added the RFC tag. --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include (Summoned by bot) But lets get rid of that 9 Wikipedias rule, per the above. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Include - He was a notable rapper, as well as a member in a two-man notable rap group. The criteria of significance as a solo artist confuses me if that is a real rule. Also the number of Wikipedia articles created on other languages also confuses me. It's borderline circular reasoning for how notable he is. There are articles on other wiki's that wouldn't necessarily be notable here, and vice versa. From WP:OTHERLANGS: A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable. - that idea works both ways, the lack of an article elsewhere does not mean he is less notable, and therefore other language contents shouldn't be used as a guideline, at least not a blanket one. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"International Notability"

Hi. This term keeps being thrown about, especially by Jim Michael and I guess I am struggling, like everybody else, to understand what exactly is going on here - (1) What is "International Notability"? and (2) Why do people/events require "international Notability" to feature on Years? I hope you can shed some light on this, Jim. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A central requirement for inclusion in recent year articles (2002 onwards) is that the person or event must be internationally notable. Important domestic events should be on sub-articles, such as 2017 in the United States, 2017 in politics - not on this article. This has been agreed through consensus and has been how things have been done here for years. Jim Michael (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, firstly thats a rather big appeal to tradition fallacy there, Jim. "How its always been" is not a justification for continuing to do something. Do you disagree with the abolishment of slavery, for example? Secondly, it's my understanding from reading this page and WP:RY that the way the guidelines/rules were founded was not exactly bona fide. You determining content using a crooked guideline, that shouldn't even be a guideline, just because it's been there "for years" doesn't seem very helpful to the project. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
And international notability can be gauged by the appearance of individuals in reliable sources around the globe, it does not need for any one particular editor to decide upon themselves and implement their own POV, non-RS-based, international notability criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It's been agreed on by the regulars - you're making it sound like I wrote the guideline.
As I've said before, many people's deaths are reported by the mainstream media in several countries without them having been internationally notable.
Jim Michael (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No, no-one said you wrote the guidelines, you just happen to be someone who selectively implements them. International notability can be gauged by the appearance of individuals in reliable sources around the globe, it does not need for any one particular editor to decide upon themselves and implement their own POV, non-RS-based, international notability criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Why do you keep repeating yourself about it being agreed upon by the regulars, Jim? why does that matter if we've identified that the criteria is flawed? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
How many times do I need to say that international media coverage does not prove international notability? If any of the television personalities in the Kardashian-Jenner family were to die tomorrow, there would be a huge amount of media coverage of it in many countries. He or she still wouldn't be internationally notable. The only one of them who's actually internationally notable is Caitlyn Jenner, due to her Olympic achievements when she was Bruce. Jim Michael (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that we wouldn't be posting Kim Kardashian here if she died?! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No doubt many people would add her - but she shouldn't be included because she isn't internationally notable and hasn't done any important work. She's just famous for being famous. Jim Michael (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No, she definitely would be included, 100%. Your opinions on the matter would not have any effect that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
P.S. where is " hasn't done any important work" in the guideline? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
On what basis would she be included? In what way is she internationally notable? Having cameras follow her about and being idolised by people who wish they were like her so that they could be rich and famous without any achievements or work doesn't constitute international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but what does constitute international notability, then? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Her death would be covered across the globe by reliable sources. NPOV RS to V her N. None of this personalised application of duff hidden criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Which doesn't make her internationally notable. The media report stories about her just because she has many fans. Jim Michael (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's where you're wrong then Jim. We've hit a brick wall and the community disagree with your version of "international notability". Most of the community will stick with reliable sources. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Which doesn't make her internationally notable.

Aaargh!! What DOES? Please Jim, help me out here! 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
You don't know the difference between an internationally notable person and a reality TV personality? Jim Michael (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
My bad, I phrased the question wrong - I'm not talking about anyone specific. I'm asking you to help me out and tell me:what does make somebody internationally notable? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Kardashian's death would make it into Britannica. But this is a great point. We actually have now arrived at the ultimate conclusion - people who are listed here should be debated and included by community consensus, not an arbitrary rule (which is often ignored by the regulars). So when I launch the next RFC, that's something I'll consider. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
But without a guideline, we'd have to discuss every entry and suggested entry. Jim Michael (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Not true. How do you think every other list on Wikipedia works? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll try again. Jim - What makes someone internationally notable? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Real international achievements. Examples are: heads of state/government, sportspeople who have won major titles competing for their country, musicians who have played at major venues in many countries or who have sold large numbers of records in several countries, actors who have starred in films that have been successful in many countries, inventors whose products are widely used in many countries. Jim Michael (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Then a discussion needs to be held for each entry to ensure they meet your requirements, because your requirements are purely subjective. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
You have to admit Jim, he has a point. You have to imagine criteria as a form of automation. The measures you have listed up there formulate a discussion. I suppose I return to this question: Why are we trying to determine "international Notablity?" 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
RY articles are for internationally notable events, births and deaths. There are a lot of sub-articles, such as 2017 in the United States and 2017 in science which don't have such a requirement. Jim Michael (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
You're just repeating yourself and not answering the questions Jim. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I've given examples of what gives a person international notability. There can be - and sometimes are - discussions regarding marginal cases. Jim Michael (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
No, what you've done is given some abstract concepts that you yourself believe constitutes international notability, these are all personal opinions and have no place here without consensus for each item. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Not true - there have been discussions about it over the years on talk pages of RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Which aren't in the guideline, right. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The only exception that's stated in the guideline is that heads of state or government are automatically eligible regardless of how many articles they have. It should be stated that other people who have significant international notability are eligible likewise - and that people who lack significant international notability should be excluded even if they have enough articles. This has been established through consensus after talkpage discussions. Jim Michael (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

And back to the same original problem, just two or three of you deciding what you personally believe "significant international notability" (suddenly "significant"!) instead of leaving it to reliable sources. We're going round in circles, so let's see what the next RFC brings. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I've said significant on many occasions, because there are many thousands of people who have slight international notability, such as having competed in an international competition. As I've said, being reported internationally doesn't prove international notability - and news reports often don't say whether or not someone is genuinely internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
As I just said, you're not answering the question and this is going in circles. Best to leave it here and wait for the RFC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

UN approves fresh sanctions on North Korea

As a little experiment, I've added this entry for 5th August. I fully expect it to be deleted by the usual crowd of deletion-obsessed people. Let's see how long it stays up. Now, we can see that it's notable, and internationally (if not globally) important, since it relates to the escalating nuclear weapons program of a politically volatile country. It clearly deserves an entry here. And yet, I suspect it will be deleted, for the usual spurious reasons (e.g. "Oooh, North Korea, that's a local event"). Let's see, shall we...? ;-) Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Exclude domestic event, lacking in significant international notability, and no way there's nine Wikipedia coverage of it and it's all based in social media or related to the high concentration of journalists in a particular city at a particular time or it's something to do with something we've covered before that isn't in the "guideline" but has definitely, at least once, been covered in a talkpage chat sometime in 2013, and in any case, we've always done it this way so why would would do it any differently, I mean this project was fine until more than three people contributed to it, and that's why this should definitely be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you two guys trying to make a WP:POINT here? Of course a significant increase of severity of UN sanctions against a country meet all criteria for inclusion, which is why the entry hasn't been removed. Surprise, surprise, but the system can actually work! — Yerpo Eh? 19:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The OP had an element of mischief about it, as did my response, which pretty much covers most of the responses the regulars give here to something they collectively disagree with. This has nothing to do with the "sytem actually working" because it doesn't, as is demonstrated day on day right now, and that will be addressed in one of the forthcoming RFCs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I just noted that you're again trying to convince people that the system doesn't work in a case where it did. Which proves that the issue is, in reality, not completely black & white. — Yerpo Eh? 19:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
"Convince"? No, just a reminder. As you'll see, we'll RFC this (along with the 9 Wikipedia rule) in due course. Then you can coninue the defence of the current "guideline". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Vanamonde93, please add citations to events that you add, to match all the other cited events. Softlavender (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to do that yourself, it doesn't take an admin to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I am requesting the editor who added the material. Softlavender (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, now I've linked the cholera outbreak article, there's no need for inline references, per the RY guideline, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Both of the uncited items that Vanamonde93 added need citing. Wikilinking elements of the event is not linking the event itself. The destruction of the mosque is not linked (nor does it have a separate article), the WHO announcement/estimation is not linked (nor does it have a separate article). So both of those need citations. Softlavender (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope, the destruction of the mosque is covered in the mosque article, and as I already said, now the outbreak article is linked, that's no problem either. If you see it as something different then you are welcome to fix it to your satisfaction otherwise this just seems frivolous. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia:Recent years#Format: "If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article but is deemed sufficient for inclusion, it must be externally sourced in the year article, especially if it refers to living people." -- Softlavender (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    The events are cited in the articles linked already. Asking for more is frivolous. Solve it yourself if it's such a a big deal by copying and pasting the citations from the linked articles. Fuss about nothing, why not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    To repeat: "If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article ... it must be externally sourced in the year article ...." (bolding mine) That's quite unambiguous, and does not refer to or make any exceptions for events that are "cited in the articles linked already". I'm not fussing; it's you who entered into a conversation I am having with Vanamonde93, who logged off for the day before she saw my post. She will added the needed citations to her additions when she comes back on-wiki. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    To repeat, add the citations yourself. This isn't a user talk page, it's a project talk page, so it's not a private conversation you're having. What you're asking for is simply frivilous. But if you insist, you should do it yourself. It would probably take you two or three seconds. Honestly, what a waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Hold on, are you the same person that gave an editor a warning for adding {{talkpage}} to a newly created article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    To repeat yet a third time: "If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article ... it must be externally sourced in the year article ... (bolding mine). Citing, accuracy, verifiability, and guidelines are anything but "simply frivolous". Softlavender (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    I thought I recognised the name. If you're really actually that concerned, you'd do something about it yourself. You seem to be just making a fuss (and creaing KB of talkpage, ironically) when a couple of positive edits would fix the issue. How odd, and what a frivilous waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Again, I'm not making a fuss, and I'm not concerned; as I stated above I know Vanamonde93 is offline and will return and add citations. Every post I've made here since my OP has simply been responding to your repeated posts (which includes your post on my talk page [1]) and explaining the guideline to you. Softlavender (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Again, all fixed, in sub-one minute. You could have done the same but chose to create all this. The Rambling Man (talk)
    No, the uncited additions that Vanamonde93 posted are not cited, which is what this thread is about. I didn't "create all this"; you've been the one perpetuating this thread addressed to Vanamonde93. Softlavender (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Is it all fixed per WP:RY requirements (even though you could have done it in under a minue)? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    No, to repeat, the uncited additions that Vanamonde93 posted are not cited, which is what this thread is about. Softlavender (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    No, per WP:RY the hooks now meet the requirements as the events themselves are linked. Right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Not in the uncited events that Vanamonde93 posted. To repeat yet a fourth time: "If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article ... it must be externally sourced in the year article ... (bolding mine). Softlavender (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Which outstanding events aren't linked directly to their own article? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    The two uncited claims in June that Vanamonde93 posted. Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Cholera outbreak is linked to a target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    The event is the World Health Organization estimating 200,000 cholera cases in Yemen on 25 June 2017, not the 2016–17 Yemen cholera outbreak. Softlavender (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Ah, now you're taking the piss. Okay, forget this, you can do this yourself. That's the article about the event. You're wikilawyering and being frivilous with my time. I'll go back to adding {{talkpage}} to new articles instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    No, I'm not taking the piss. For the fifth time: "If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article ... it must be externally sourced in the year article ... (bolding mine). Citing, accuracy, and verifiability are anything but "frivolous". I'm not going to add the citations, Vanamonde93 will, as I requested in my OP, when she comes back online; she is capable of citing her own additions. Softlavender (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Repeat away. You're frivilously wasting precious time, time that you could have used to fix the issue. But that's just not what you do is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    I'm replying to your posts in this thread request to Vanamonde93. If you don't desire or require a response, then you need not post. Softlavender (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Vanamonde was just closing out RfCs, you could have solved the problem hours ago but you prefer this way of doing things. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    She posted uncited events. I requested that she cite them, and she will when she sees my ping and the request. Softlavender (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It's all fixed, I think it took about 51 seconds to do it, but phew!. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Softlavender: as TRM pointed out, the requirements of verifiability are satisfied by the linked event being sourced in the main article. In articles I have been involved in, this is fairly common practice: for instance, lists of people who were born or who died on a certain day only rarely contain references. That said, there is no harm in adding the citations, and I was planning to do so when I came back online and had more time: TRM has now taken care of this, so I do not think there is more for us to discuss. Thanks, TRM. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    No problem. The 51 seconds of fixing was certainly less frivilous than the wall of text here. Onwards! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Vanamonde93, the events per se are not linked in the two entries you added. Please read Wikipedia:Recent years#Format: "If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article ... it must be externally sourced in the year article". There is no Wikipedia article on the destruction of that specific mosque, and there is no Wikipedia article on the World Health Organization's 25 June 2017 estimation of 200,000 cholera cases in Yemen. The former entry now has a citation, but the latter still needs one. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Please, if you're really that concerned, you need to fix it yourself. This is a completely frivilous waste of time when you can "fix" it in seconds. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned the purposes of verifiability have been satisfied, and I cannot be bothered to split hairs in the wording of an obscure guideline. Vanamonde (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Jérôme Golmard

This tennis player was never in the top 20 players in the world and the furthest he reached in grand slams was the third round. Therefore he is nowhere near internationally notable enough to be included here - he's appropriately on 2017 in France. Jim Michael (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Then start an RFC to determine whether he meets the current inclusion criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how to format an RfC.
I'm saying that he should be an exception to the 9+ English guideline - if he did have that many articles when he died.
Jim Michael (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
He had more than nine so he's more than qualified for inclusion. Per the current guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Good example of my point above (under Lack of Entries) - with such stupid inclusion criteria, whatever the result is, it's going to be stupid. (1) 3 blokes arbitrarily decide by themselves he isn't important enough and don't include him. Stupid. (2) People argue the case using the current dump inclusion criteria, and some player few people have heard of outside France gets included for featuring on 9 other Wikipedia sites (what?? why is this a criteria, serously?) Stupid. Or (3) The bloke isn't included despite meeting the damn criteria. Stupid. Regardless of which side you are on, surely everyone can agree a system which guarantees all outcomes are unsatisfactory, is a system which needs to driven to the woods and left to die. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
We've excluded people from the Deaths section before due to a lack of international notability, despite them having enough articles to include them. Jim Michael (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
You pointing out that under bunk criteria an unsatisfactory outcome has occurred in the past, doesn't make this pending outcome any more satisfactory, or the criteria any less bunk, mate. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
So you get to decide this, do you Jim? Because your previous track record seems to indicate that your edits are not inline with community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the track record matters. What happens going forward does. I mean, Jim could just go on adding the same words over and over to this wall of dull contrary text or he could do something useful, I guess. Like I dunno, let go and work with TRM to sort out some better inclusion criteria, that isn’t so banal and woolly that even he arbitrarily ignore it when it suits. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There was a long-standing consensus regarding the guidelines until the last few weeks. The community decides - there's no leader of Year articles. There has been no reasonable alternative guideline suggested. Jim Michael (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes there has, for a start we use WP:RS, not "9 Wikpiedias". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem with that is that in most cases they don't clearly state whether or not a person is internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
What does that mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
In most cases, reliable sources don't state whether or not a person is internationally notable, so we can't use them to decide which people are internationally notable enough to include in the Deaths section. Jim Michael (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
You're missing the point, if their deaths are reported in reliable sources internationally then that makes them internationally notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Not true. That person may merely have a significant number of fans in several countries rather than actual international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand how Wikipedia and notability works so I have nothing more to say to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand very well; I've been a frequent editor for years. Jim Michael (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That appears to be irrelevant, I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that is that in most cases they don't clearly state whether or not a person is internationally notable.

Where on the "9 Wikipedias" does it state that a person is internationally notable?62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It's been established through consensus in discussions that internationally notable people should be included in the Deaths section and that people who lack internationally notability should not. Jim Michael (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Please copy the relevant paragraph(s) of the guideline here which state that please. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I asked though, Jim. You say RS should not used to determine international notability over the "9 Wikipedias" rule, because they don't clearly state international notability. Where on the "9 Wikipedias" does it clearly state international notability? It's a simple enough question, I'm only trying to help and understand. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not stated on the RY guideline, but it should be. It's been agreed on as a result of discussions that are on the talk pages (and their archives) of various RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not how a guideline works. So you're implementing something that isn't in the guideline. Please stop doing that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm supporting a consensus that's existed for years and which has been confirmed many times. Jim Michael (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
If it's a consensus that's existed for years and confirmed many times, it would have been included in the guideline. Now please, stop making up criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Jim, I still don't see an answer to my question. Please help me understand where the "9 wikipedias" sources clearly state that a person is internationally notable, avoiding the flaw you put forward as a reason to dismiss RS. I'm just trying to help. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In most cases, sources don't state that a person is internationally notable, so it wouldn't work as a guideline. The 9+ English WP articles is a guide - no-one claims it's foolproof. Jim Michael (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you think a single reliable source would have described Margaret Thatcher as "internationally notable" or do you think that her death being noted in RS across the globe demonstrated her international notability? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Her having been Prime Minister gave her international notability, not the media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In most cases, sources don't state that a person is internationally notable, so it wouldn't work as a guideline. The 9+ English WP articles is a guide - no-one claims it's foolproof.

Right, no I understand that Jim. But you were outright dismissing RS as a measure for international notability because they don't clearly state that a person IS internationally notable You've just admitted the "9 Wikipedia" rule doesn't do this either, so why is this even applicable? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes Jim, what 62.255 just said. What are you actually looking to see, a statement like "Jerome Golmard, an internationally notable tennis player, has died.... "?! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Not quite my point - RS won't say stuff like that but the "9 Wikipedia" rule won't either. So why is Jim using it as a stick to hit RS with? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, yeah. So RS coverage doesn't apply. But somehow having nine unreferenced stubs does confer international notability? But only sometimes? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
P.s. I prefer being called by my surname, 118.6. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The number of articles a person has gives an indication of international notability, but it's not proof.
Golmard clearly didn't have significant internationally notability - he was never in the top 20 and never got further than the third round in a grand slam. He has many articles because WP has a lot of tennis fans on it.
Jim Michael (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok cool, you are using the number of Wikipedia articles to loosely define how internationally notable someone is. And as this is not foolproof, you allow it to be overridden in cases in which you spot a discrepancy between the number of Wikipedia articles and your opinion of how notable they really are. Why do you want to continue using this ‘system’ so badly? Wouldn’t you like a better system that isn’t full of holes and doesn’t rely on POV? And don't say because its been in place for years! 62.255.118.6 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The discrepancy and the exceptions to the rule are decided by the community, which has been led by the regulars. There are only four of us now, but there have been more. I didn't suggest the 9+ English guideline, but I support it in the absence of a better alternative. Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
But you don't even follow the 9+ rule, you (personally) decide when it does and does not apply. Don't you see that's simply wrong? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a guideline formed by consensus which we make exceptions to by consensus. Jim Michael (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The first bit, I'll give you, just, as it was incorrectly promoted to guideline and then sanctioned by an RFC in which only a handful of regulars participated. The second bit is complete nonsense, you and other "regulars" summarily make exceptions without any discussion whatsoever, just as you did here with this French tennis player. You didn't gain a consensus to remove him, you just did. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't done incorrectly - it was done through the proper channels. There isn't a minimum number of people needed to form a consensus. You can see discussions on archives of talk pages of recent years about whether or not various people should be added to the Deaths section. That process often starts with WP:BRD. Jim Michael (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Even the person who "promoted" it accepts it was incorrect. Anyway, as you'll soon see, this will be resolved and then we can focus on fixing the criteria for deaths inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC

Should Golmard be included? He was never in the top 20 and didn't get further than the third round in any grand slam. Jim Michael (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yisrael Kristal

Despite having over 10+ articles before death, I think he should be here but at the same time, not. Because he was the oldest living man at the time and not to forget, Zhou Youguang, who died seven months ago was a supercentenarian too, but he's in here because he was the father of Pinyin. I think he should be removed or stay. Like the recent years says, "Persons whose notability is due to circumstance rather than actual achievement (e.g. oldest person in the world or last surviving person of [x]) do not meet the basic requirement for inclusion." And I know well that he is also the oldest living Holocaust survivor too. Thoughts? Gar (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the discussion where I came across that information if you wish to ask the editors involved in that to link you to the exact consensus. Rusted AutoParts 21:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Rusted AutoParts I read the discussion and do you think Kristal should be excluded because of being the world's oldest man? Gar (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
It was never included in the guideline so while it might be interesting, it's nothing more than that. Because RY is a guideline and because this individual passes the minimum criteria, that's all that's needed to include thus individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@DerbyCountyinNZ: @Irn:. Rusted AutoParts 22:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: @Yerpo:. Gar (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Although TRM is not convinced by facts or argument, the exclusion here IS in the guideline, and the fact should be noted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I wonder why the necessity to call in the "regulars" here? And I wonder why Rubin chooses to make this yet another venue to make unfounded personal attacks. Noted, and more for the impending Arbcom case. That fact is noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@DerbyCountyinNZ That's what I said, but I understand. Anyone else other than Rusted AutoParts and The Rambling Man? Gar (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@172.58.108.36 What does he have to do with basketball? Nothing. Kristal was the oldest living man and a Holocaust survivor. Has nothing to do with basketball. Gar (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
172.58.108.36 - Think you got the wrong article bud?, This article is nothing to do with basketball :) –Davey2010Talk 03:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Davey2010 Agree. I know what he was up to. Don't you? Gar (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
AGF goes a long way, You should read it sometime. –Davey2010Talk 20:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Did you see what this knucklehead did? He blanked an administrator's user page! AGF only goes so far.  — Myk Streja (beep) 02:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Include He was not only the oldest Holocaust survivor, but the world's oldest man for a time. People may not agree with this but surviving the Holocaust is an achievement beyond the pale. The odds were against survival for any persons sent to the concentration camps as a Jew, a Slav, a Gypsy and so on. He lost his first wife, but overcame his traumatic experiences, remarried, and successfully went back into his profession, and had another child.
Looking at the number of references, this story is well documented in sources and it seems as a topic Yisrael Kristal satisfies GNG. Also, WP:RY#Consensus says "Any of the standards set below can be overruled by a consensus to ignore those standards in a given case." - which refers to WP:IAR, a Wikipedia policy. That is part of the WP:RY guideline after all. And GNG is always applicable across Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - notability due to circumstance. I'm happy for him that he survived holocaust and managed to reestablish a normal life, but there were literally millions of people like that, so this is nothing particularly notable in itself. — Yerpo Eh? 05:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Yerpo – Agree. Other people survived the Holocaust. Gar (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jim Michael – Agree. Read my comment above. And not only that, there's other people older than Kristal despite the fact they'll never be here for the same reason. And plus, other people survived the holocaust too. Gar (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment he was notable per RY because he was both the oldest man alive and the last survivor of the Holocaust. Two claims, i.e. notable enough for RY. Honestly, are those voting exclude really thinking about our readers here or simply badly applying a corrupt guideline for the sake of it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
He wasn't the last survivor of the Holocaust - there are still many survivors who are alive. He was the oldest survivor. Neither of his longevity records are enough on their own or together to qualify him for inclusion in the Deaths section. Oldest people, survivors etc. are explicitly excluded, this rule having been established through consensus after several discussions over the years. Jim Michael (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Not for long! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It makes sense to exclude people whose notability is based purely on being lucky to have unusually long lives, sometimes combined with having survived a particular event. Jim Michael (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
No it doesn't. We're here to serve our readers, not our arcane rules concocted by a handful of users. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously has relevance for the readers. Inclusion should be based on reliable sources that that demonstrate its significance. For example he has received international coverage via the following countries: BBC, Jerusalem Post, the Smithsonian, India Times, Deutsche Welle (Germany), Irish Times, Straitstimes (Singapore), CBS News, and LA Times. I am pretty sure this fulfills the international criteria. Also, he has an article on 19 other language Wikipedias. I doubt there are strong counter-arguments for this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course there is, the ultimate strength objection: the RY "guideline" and those who staunchly defend it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017/Archive_3&oldid=1142750802"