Wikipedia

Talk:2024 CrowdStrike incident/Archive 2

< Talk:2024 CrowdStrike incident
Latest comment: 16 hours ago by Jruderman in topic Archival of move discussions
Archive 1 Archive 2

Cyber

Latest comment: 4 days ago11 comments9 people in discussion

Is any reliable source calling it a "cyber outage"? The only footnote using such a term is a CBC article which uses the term "IT outage" in the title. Nemo 10:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I know Reuters and DW are calling it a cyber outage. But with that being said quite a number of outlets are calling it an IT outage too. Is there any huge differences between these 2 terms? S5A-0043Talk 10:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The page was originally called "July 2024 global IT outages" but was moved without any explanation. ―Panamitsu (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The term "IT" in titles is not a great practice – it relies on jargon and as an acronym, it is too English-centric and does not lend itself to ready translation. Cyber or computer outage has its advantages. I do agree moves like these should be discussed. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I forgot to read the talk page before moving the page, but I would say that the current '2024 CrowdStrike incident' is a fine title. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It's really bad form to unilaterally move the page without getting some form of consensus. Please don't do that. - Fuzheado | Talk 11:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
AP is calling it a Global IT outage, but I think global cyber outage would be better. JoseMoranUrena (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
"Cyber" is deprecated; "IT" is universally understood, and as such hardly jargon. kencf0618 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you may overestimate how much the average reader would know what "IT" means when seen in isolation, especially since it is an English acronym which even further narrows its understandability. It would be useful to find out what other Wikipedia articles have the term "IT" in its title, as I cannot easily think of any. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
See, I'd have assumed 'IT' is actually one of the most recognisable initialisms in the world, even amongst non-English speakers with little to no previous exposure to English. But it is an assumption; I could very well be wrong. Perhaps erring on the side of caution is more advisable. Regarding other titles, you appear to be correct: I can't find that many using 'IT' to my surprise. I note with similar incidents, we have e.g. 2012 RBS Group computer system problems, 2023 FAA system outage, 2017 Bank of the Philippine Islands systems glitch. GhostOfNoMeme 09:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Procedural distraction: please archive this in the same volume as the large move discussion, because there are anchor jump links between them. Jruderman (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 19 July 2024

Latest comment: 18 hours ago286 comments93 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus.

There were more people in favour of changing than not. The discussion ran for quite a few days, and significantly shifted as different sections tried to use different ways to get consensus on a single title. However, there were many more editors in the original unstructured discussion than the later sections. And with some Canvassing concerns, and a lack of notification to participants from the earlier discussion; it is not clear if 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages (the top candidate) is preferred by the everyone in the discussion. Specifically, it is not possible to conclusively declare consensus in favour of that title, more than every outcome as well as against the current title.


As such, this needs to be closed as No consensus with no prejudice against a more structured formal RM/RFC with specific clear options. I personally recommend either a single Yes/No poll or multiple clear options at the top that anyone can add to. (non-admin closure) Soni (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 CrowdStrike incident → ? – Two reasons: the first is that the lede of this article is straightforward; it instead say that there is an outrage, before saying how, where the title is derived from. Second, most reliable sources often refer this event as an outrage. The title should at least be moved to a title containing "outrage". ToadetteEdit! 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The word "outage" is redirecting to "downtime". The servers/computers are crashing and not working due to the drivers not working.
  • It's more like a system crash, so the article could be renamed to something along the lines of that. Tonkarooson (discuss). 01:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it doesn't matter. Crowdstruck has become a verb already, the title could just be "2024 Crowdstrike" and there would be no mystery as to what it was about. Also, although I see outage used a lot (alongside other terms like failure and chaos), the distinction may matter, legally, since Crowdstrike may have obligations to maintain their service - which they did - carrying contractual penalties if they have downtime, and "outage" would be relevant to those obligations, but not relevant to refraining from releasing files with epic bugs in.  Card Zero  (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Crowdstruck has become a verb already, the title could just be "2024 Crowdstrike" and there would be no mystery as to what it was about.
    Where have you seen it "Crowdstrike" used as a verb like that? This title makes little distinction as to what happened. If I had just came across this article, I'd imagine I would be very confused by that name. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 03:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Nowhere very notable, but since you ask: Hacker News, and again, somebody's newsletter, Reddit. Of course I don't seriously suggest "2024 Crowdstrike", but I maintain that the choice of next word barely matters as a clarification due to being overshadowed by the first one.  Card Zero  (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    ah, that's fair. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 03:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Per WP:COMMONNAME, the event described in this article should be called an "outage", the term used widely in the media, and not an "incident" which is vague. Based on historical outages like the 2021 Facebook outage, Google services outages and others described above, these outages are attributed to the systems/platforms affected; following this format, the article could then be titled 2024 Microsoft outage or 2024 Microsoft Windows outage, as it's Microsoft's systems that became directly unavailable for users worldwide. If we want to depict the outage more accurately, because CrowdStrike was also unavailable due to the faulty patch which caused Microsoft Windows to crash, we could alternatively name this article 2024 Microsoft outage caused by CrowdStrike or 2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft outage. Polo (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    None of the titles are about the subject of the article though. The first proposal has exactly the same problems as "2024 CrowdStrike outage", and the latter two do not respect WP:CONSISTENT. 0xC0000005 (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree. The fact is that Microsoft’s systems crashed and had an outage so the proposed 2024 Microsoft outage or 2024 Microsoft Windows outage is appropriate. The latter two are also quite consistent with similar articles. I am more inclined to 2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft outage which I believe accurately and concisely describes the outage’s cause and scope (it’s Microsoft computers with CrowdStrike that went out and disrupted services). Polo (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    2021 Facebook outage is named after a company whose major product offerings were affected by the outage. Google services outages's title reflect the findings that multiple Google services were affected by different outages. Both titles reflect accurately the scope of their subjects.
    This one is not only about CrowdStrike, Microsoft or Microsoft Windows, and computers running Windows are not Microsoft computers per se. "2024 Microsoft outage" is unnecessarily restrictive compared to the article's subject. There is very little backing for the title "2024 Microsoft Windows outage" — except that only Windows PCs were affected, and I don't think there was a previous outage that was or has been named after an operating system. "2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft outage" combines all the disavatanges: it is not concise, it does not accurately describe the outage's scope and it is not very widely used in the press (compared to "Microsoft outage" or other proposals). 0xC0000005 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    There are numerous published reports in the press that refer to this event as a Windows outage, CrowdStrike–Microsoft outage, CrowdStrike, Microsoft outage, CrowdStrike and Microsoft outage.
    I understand that this Wikipedia article also talks about the IT outage in different industries, which is an impact of what happened to Microsoft Windows and CrowdStrike. Ultimately, they're all about the outage of Microsoft Windows PCs with CrowdStrike. Polo (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well, since most of the news reported that it was Windows PC that was affected but not for the Apple nor Linux PC, I think 2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft outage was more suitable for this headline. VernardoLau (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposal (edit: i.e., the proposal to rename to “2024 CrowdStrike outage”) is not correct. CrowdStrike didn't have an outage, it was their customers who went down. A better title might be “2024 CrowdStrike global crash”. McDutchie (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    "The" proposal? To clarify, there are multiple proposals. –Gluonz talk contribs 02:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Move to 2024 Microsoft outage in lieu of other – I agree that maybe CrowdStrike outage isn’t appropriate. But a lot of the news media has said this is a “Microsoft outage”, as such, move to 2024 Microsoft outage instead. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    That is not correct either. Microsoft did not have an outage, nor did Microsoft have anything to do with causing the global crash. McDutchie (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    And herein lies the problem, there should have been a proposed title as part of the move request to (1) focus discussion and (2) determine if a move was actually required. This move request was unnecessary because the current title is perfectly workable. I should add, there’s no criticism of OP here, it’s unfortunately common for move requests to be lodged as soon as a new article is created even when there’s no obvious deficiency with the title requiring rectification. Local Variable (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose and close Why did this get nominated when no alternative name was supplied? We don’t need to have a requested move template on the top of every new high traffic article. They should be avoided if possible. Local Variable (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think the open-ended proposal is fair, there's definitely room for discussion on a more fitting title, as this thread has already proven thus far. And I don't think traffic should have anything to do with requesting moves. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 03:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    We shouldn’t be having move discussions for the sake of having move discussion. At bare minimum, a problem with the existing title should be identified. This is a recurring theme with breaking news articles - someone rushes in with a move request, meaning a maintenance tag. Almost always, it can wait. Local Variable (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think the proposal brought forward some fair starting points about the wording. and what's the problem with the tag? why hold back on starting a discussion just because it would mean putting a template at the top of the page? TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 05:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak support to move to 2024 CrowdStrike Outage per WP:COMMONNAME. Typing "CrowdStrike" into Google News gives me an aggregate of various ways the event is being referred to in headlines. I'm definitely seeing the term "CrowdStrike Outage" showing up fairly often, but I'm also seeing some articles call it a CrowdStrike–Microsoft outage, or even just a Microsoft outage, etc. Nobody's calling it an "incident" though, so a move is merited. Nominator should've provided an alternative name at the start, but that they didn't doesn't mean editors can't voice support for suggestions already made in this discussion. As far as the idea that "CrowdStrike Outage" isn't valid because it sounds like CrowdStrike itself has experienced an outage... if the most common way of referring to the incident ends up being "CrowdStrike Outage" or something along those lines, I think the fact the name could be read by some as a little ambiguous or misleading would be something you'd have to find sources clarifying so as to tackle in the body of the article. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    The proposed title is misleading because CrowdStrike at no time had an outage. It was a bug in their software which causes other IT systems to have outages. This name is not workable. Local Variable (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't want to bring up specific examples because all that seems to invite is opportunities to cite WP:WHATABOUT or WP:STRAWMAN, but this would hardly be unique. I recognize Wikipedia editors are probably biased towards being more technologically literate and more aware of the nuanced reality of what is going on, but there are other topic areas with less nuanced titles because that is the most common name by which the event is referred to by reputable sources, and the matter of explaining the actuality of what happened (rather than what the common name might implicitly suggest to some) is tackled in the article itself. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    What is wrong with the current title? Local Variable (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    It is not the WP:COMMONNAME and does not meet the criteria for an article title (WP:TITLE). AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    The first point is debatable and the alternative is no better (and outage is factually incorrect), the second is circular reasoning (the title is wrong because it is wrong). Local Variable (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    The second is not circular reasoning. ATITLE defines the criteria for what makes a good article title, and the current title does not meet those criteria. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it's not an outage in the same sense. Keeping the existing title or going with something like "2024 CrowdStrike computer crashes" would be better E1b40d38d9c0b718 (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    "2024 CrowdStrike computer crashes" has a similar problem: the article not only about the crashes of CrowdStrike's computers but about the crashes of Windows systems from numerous organisations that use CrowdStrike's software. 0xC0000005 (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support to change the name, strongly oppose 2024 CrowdStrike outage. Something like 2024 global IT outages as put forward by @Wugapodes is far more clear and conveys the scope of the incident far better than "CrowdStrike outage", plus it accurately reflects reporting on this event. Pave Paws (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Way better to change the name to something like "2024 Worldwide tech outage". SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    This title is too informal. Local Variable (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Outage or MS in title, neutral to name change — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycosys (talk • contribs) 10:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose It wasn't really an outage of CrowdStrike, just a computer glitch. The proposed title would be overly confusing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support to change the name as it is ridiculously vague (I originally thought someone at CrowdStrike created it to downplay the severity of the incident); strongly oppose 2024 CrowdStrike outage as CrowdStrike wasn't out. 2A00:1028:8390:E032:30E4:92B5:A007:6E9B (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Move to 2024 Global Outage or 2024 Global CrowdStrike Outage. "Incident" sounds like a small local event. David Crayford ☎ 12:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose the suggestion to move the title to 2024 CrowdStrike Outage. The issue was not a outage of CrowdStrike, but the systems that CrowdStrike was monitoring. The suggested title is wholly inaccurate. - Skipple ☎ 12:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support to change to something like ' 2024 Worldwide tech outage. "outage" is definitely better than "incident", "global" or "worldwide" should be here to emphasize that many countries were affected, and mention of CrowdStrike is useful but not absolutely needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.205.143 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps technological crisis? That's one of the items on the list that incident links to.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I would like to see something similar to "2024 global technology outage" as it did affect a significant amount of businesses globally and caused a lot of financial losses as a result. Urbanracer34 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support → Given that CrowdStrike itself didn't experience an outage, but rather, its faulty update caused global disruptions, a more accurate title would be: 2024 CrowdStrike faulty update incident. This title clarifies that the issue was caused by a faulty update from CrowdStrike, which, in turn, led to widespread outages across various sectors globally. Sources like SiliconANGLE provide detailed coverage on this incident, noting the disruptions caused by the faulty Falcon update and its widespread impact. → Deutscher, Maria (July 19, 2024). "Faulty CrowdStrike Update Causes One of the Largest-Ever IT Outages". SiliconANGLE. Palo Alto: SiliconANGLE Media Inc. Retrieved July 20, 2024.   – Eurodog (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    "Faulty update", to me, doesn't sound very encyclopaedic. GhostOfNoMeme 16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    How about:
    1. “Inaccurate Update”
    2. “Erroneous Revision”
    3. “Incorrect Modification”
    4. “Misleading Edit”
    5. “Incorrect Update” Eurodog (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    I like the idea, though it might make the title seem a tad too long. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 03:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    None of those terms are appropriate. The issue was a faulty software update. Not an 'inaccurate update' or an 'incorrect update', and certainly not any variety of 'revision', 'modification', or 'edit'. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 15:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • support the proposal Ved548 (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    "the" proposal? –Gluonz talk contribs 17:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage. CrowdStrike caused outages on systems running it, but it didn't experience outages. TechyTommy💬 18:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong support for a rename. July 2024 Global Computer Outage is my suggestion. It clearly defines what the outage was and when it happened. The articl itself, in particular the lead can describe it was caused by a Crowdstrike software update and its global effects. Truthanado (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    Disagree with this on multiple fronts. It shouldn't be in title case and it's not correct (not all computers were affected, just Windows computers). "July" is too specific too; nothing else similar happened yet in the year. If something does happen later this year then something like "July" can be added. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose outage, but support rename, if incident is too vague maybe failure? Something like 2024 CrowdStrike software/driver failure would keep CrowdStrike in the title and still be accurate. ThePikachin (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage. "Incident" is too vague. Oppose variations without CrowdStrike like "2024 worldwide computer/IT/tech outage" or "2024 global computer/IT/tech outage" because they are too non-specific by not mentioning CrowdStrike and could refer to any widespread tech outage and would also incorrectly imply that computers without CrowdStrike were directly bricked. —Lowellian (reply) 00:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support 2024 CrowdStrike outage. "Incident" is too vague, "outage" is more specific. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    It may be specific but it’s factually incorrect. Even if there was local consensus in this move request to move to outage, the discussion closer is unlikely to move it because such a title is so plainly incorrect and therefore contrary to policy. Local Variable (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage because this is a worldwide outage, not an outage limited to CrowdStrike. Suggest 2024 worldwide IT outage for the same reason that "2024 rock concert power outage" makes more sense than "2024 rock concert electrician incident". Obankston (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The Great IT Outage Of 2024 I just saw this as a title to a YouTube video and think it makes a grand name! David Crayford ☎ 03:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    now here's a name i can truly get behind!.. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 03:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    Strong oppose this. It is not the WP:COMMONNAME. It's also excessively flowery; the floweriness could be ok if that's the name everyone used (like Alexander the Great), but it isn't. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose as ambiguous   — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Windows BSOD IT outage 2024. It only affected Windows, it caused BSODs, a loop which caused outages, and was from Crowdstrike. Alternatively July 2024 Crowdstrike IT update causing worldwide Windows BSOD outages I realise this will not pass, but it is more descriptive - the problem is that we can make lots of redirect pages for people who are searching, we do not need the title of this page to be descriptive. We need it to be the most common used name, or close to it. It only affected larger systems, servers, cloud providers and data centres. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    The first is not in comformance with the convention for naming articles (the year comes first if included: WP:NCWWW), the second is too verbose and is not the common name. Also, it suggests the cause was Windows, but it was CrowdStrike that caused it - and that is what most reliable sources are referring to. Local Variable (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to "2024 CrowdStrike outage" per reasons above. However, moving to 2024 Windows outage does seem viable IMO. Otherwise, keep as is. CycloneYoris talk! 09:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Move to 2024 CrowdStrike update outage or CrowdStrike update outage because I think that it will be somewhat obvious that an update cannot go down in the same way that a computer or website can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    An intriguing idea. I like that it's more precise than "CrowdStrike-related". But I'm worried that it might be hard to parse for someone unfamiliar with the outage or with IT terms in general. It's a bit of a noun pile.
    It could have a hyphen (2024 CrowdStrike-update outage) but I don't think it needs one.
    I've added it to the polling section below. Jruderman (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • oppose move to "2024 CrowdStrike outage". CrowdStrike itself did not suffer an outage, but did cause an incident — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Suggesting to have it renamed as 2024 Microsoft BSOD Global Outage. It is Microsoft which shown BSOD where Crowdstrike is the root cause. Adithyak1997 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    strongly oppose: Microsoft did not suffer an outage, nor were they the cause. By the same logic, you could argue this should be called "2024 Global Airport Outage". Alex Rosenberg (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • strongly oppose move to "2024 CrowdStrike outage". Incident itself is vague but the usage of the term 'outage' is worse, as when it placed immediately after the company's name, it reads as though the entire company suffered a blackout instead. Have words like 'global Windows outage' or some form of description would help. Yienshawn (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • oppose: "CrowdStrike outage" is incorrect - CrowdStrike did not suffer an outage, their customers did. Alex Rosenberg (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support 2024 Crowdstrike outage. It's the WP:COMMONNAME, and it could be read to mean "the outage caused by Crowdstrike". — Gestrid (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    But not everyone will read it like that, and it would certainly be misleading. Incident seems best in that regard. CycloneYoris talk! 09:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    It could be, but I strongly feel that an unfamiliar reader would read it as "an outage at CrowdStrike". That would be the plain interpretation. Why introduce ambiguity when we have the opportunity to avoid it? GhostOfNoMeme 19:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages. There is no good common name. It is up to us to craft a neutral, descriptive title that meets the core criteria for article titles. "2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages" is recognizable, understandable, and as concise as possible. The wording "CrowdStrike-related" is sourcable and avoids weighing heavily on where to assign blame. Pluralizing "outages" helps communicate both the magnitude of the incident and the scope of the article to first-time readers. Jruderman (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    2024 International CrowdStrike-related IT outages I think is fitting. Then again, there is no consensus. FloridaMan21 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think including "global" or "international" adds enough clarity to be worth the hit to concision. What's your thinking on this point? Jruderman (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    I saw a user above suggested the title: 2024 worldwide IT outage. I think its a clear and quality title. FloridaMan21 (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    See my thoughts far above on precision issues with titles that do not mention CrowdStrike, and how they might be addressed. Jruderman (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • neutral-I do not really care which title you rename it to, maybe the former title be made into a redirect, thanks, Daisytheduck (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support A move should be made. I support something akin to 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages. As it stands, incident is too vague. But so is "outage(s)" on its own. Clarification in the title is needed.  DiscantX 07:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Support move. Oppose any title that does not include "CrowdStrike", as there may be other worldwide IT outages in 2024. Also oppose the specific phrase "CrowdStrike outage", as CrowdStrike did not suffer an outage, but caused one. Jerdle (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Poll for best new name

2024 CrowdStrike incident (no change)

2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft outage

2024 CrowdStrike outage

2024 CrowdStrike update outage

2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft IT outages

"IT system" - the type of outage
"IT systems" - plural, and maybe also the type of outage

2024 Microsoft outage

2024 Microsoft outage caused by CrowdStrike

  • 2/10 -User:Jruderman
  • 1/10 -User:FloridaMan21
  • 1/10 -User:Ahecht
  • 2/10 -User:Gluonz (I would prefer a change of "outage" to "outages")
  • 1/10 -User:Trigenibinion (this is a CrowdStrike/MicrosoftCloud incident)
  • 1/10 -User:BarrelProof (very clunky, and CrowdStrike was not the only cause, and "Windows" would be better than "Microsoft") —⁠ ⁠05:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 2/10 -User:The Nth User (clunky, and I think that CrowdStrike has gotten little enough attention beforehand that also mentioning Microsoft isn't necessary for clarification, but if another media story involving CrowdStrike receives a comparable or greater amount of attention before the end of the year, we could change the title then)
  • 10/10 -User:Jothefiredragon (I'd prefer there to be both "CrowdStrike" and "Microsoft" in the title. In my honest opinion, while this title option is quite clunky, it describe the outage(s) the best.)

2024 Microsoft Windows outage

2024 global information technology outages

2024 global IT outages

2024 worldwide IT outages

2024 worldwide tech outage

Global IT outage of July 2024

  • 9/10 -User:Jruderman (my secondary proposal)
  • 6/10 -User:FloridaMan21 (problems of outage could reach into August)
  • 8/10 -User:Terovian
  • 3/10 -User:GhostOfNoMeme (not a big fan of a title ending in month/year; it's uncommon)
  • 3/10 -User:Ahecht
  • 1/10 -User:Gluonz (I would prefer a change of "IT" to either "information technology" or "technology" and a change of "outage" to "outages"; also, the title is formatted quite awkwardly)
  • 8/10 -User:Trigenibinion ("IT". Is it outage or outages? Has there been another global (but "small") tech outage in july 2024? July can be removed next year if there's not another one)
  • 1.5/10 -User:The Nth User (somewhat wordy, omitting "CrowdStrike" makes it less quickly recognizable, and including the word "of" followed by the date (and, to a lesser extent, including the word "global") makes it feel like it's supposed to be a common name, analogously to Great Storm of 1703 (and many other Great Storms of such-and-such year), but there isn't a common name)

Global Microsoft–CrowdStrike IT outages of 2024

  • 8/10 -User:Jruderman (eta: i took the early popularity of this option as a sign that I should invent some title with CrowdStrike–Microsoft to put into the #Recap for the next round. obviously CrowdStrike goes first if we include both company names.)
  • 9/10 -User:FloridaMan21 (my proposal)
  • 7/10 -User:Terovian
  • 3/10 -User:Ahecht
  • 6/10 -User:Gluonz (I would prefer a change of "IT" to either "information technology" or "technology"; also, this title implies that Microsoft and CrowdStrike played equal roles in creating these outages)
  • 10/10 -User:FreeGuy789 (The best one so far) — FreeGuy789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic – your friendly neighborhood bot.
  • 1/10 -User:Trigenibinion (CrowdStrike did not stop "protecting")
  • 2/10 -User:BarrelProof (extreme editorializing blame assignment to a degree that reduces recognition) —⁠ ⁠04:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 0.5/10 -User:The Nth User (too wordy, and I don't like how "outages" is plural, as that would imply that after providing a fix, CrowdStrike either reverted back to the problematic version of published another ubg shortly thereafter)

July 2024 global cyber outages

  • 2/10 -User:Jruderman ("cyber", as a standalone word rather than a prefix, means "IT security" in government and... uhh... something else to a certain age group)
  • 4/10 -User:FloridaMan21 (Sounds like a list)
  • 2/10 -User:Ahecht
  • 2/10 -User:Gluonz (WP:AVOIDCYBER)
  • 1/10 -User:BarrelProof ("cyber" is a pretty terrible word – especially for an encyclopedia to use in an article title) —⁠ ⁠21:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 1/10 -User:Trigenibinion (it was not a cyberattack, at least in the case of CloudStrike)
  • 1/10 -User:The Nth User (using "cyber" rather than "IT" makes the title feel less professional, omitting "CrowdStrike" makes it less quickly recognizable, and I don't like how "outages" is plural, as that would imply that after providing a fix, CrowdStrike either reverted back to the problematic version of published another ubg shortly thereafter)

Other options?

I am neutral, but would like to hear thoughts. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Global Microsoft–CrowdStrike IT Outages of 2024, inspired partially inspired by the name the Washington Post Universe Youtube Channel. FloridaMan21 (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote. However, the best option from this could be put forward for discussion. But just to be clear, the winner of this poll will not automatically become the title, particularly if it is inaccurate or not in accordance with naming conventions. Local Variable (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Once the polling slows down, what do you recommend as the next step? Pick one, then discuss whether to adopt it? Pick two or three, then discuss the choice between them? Jruderman (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Seek input from relevant WikiProjects or RfCs. Failing that there may not be consensus to move and the discussion is simply closed. Local Variable (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
For completeness, Slate calls it Y2K Lite. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
2024 CrowdStrike oopsie! 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
this made me chuckle a bit rofl Daisytheduck talk to me 22:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your submission to worst title suggestions. It has been accepted. Jruderman (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Global Microsoft Windows and cloud outage of July 2024 . Both events overlapped and combined, CrowdStrike not an outage and not the single reason, unknown reason for cloud outage, all cloud products, other global tech outages possible, can happen again, July can be removed next year. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Global Microsoft cloud and Windows outage of July 2024 . This makes it more clear that we are talking only about Microsoft's cloud. I write cloud because we know Azure and Office 365 went down Trigenibinion (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
2024 CrowdStrike-caused outage might be a good idea because the only thing I didn't like about 2024 CrowdStrike-related outage was the vagueness of the word "related". Also, I found myself typing that mentioning that the outage was global felt "less obviously unique than CrowdStrike-caused outage", when I wasn't even trying to come up with a title idea but instead rate others, which reaffirms my sense that "CrowdStrike-caused" is a fairly natural thing to call this. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this list, the discussion was getting quite unwieldy to sift through. Added my 10/10 score to what I think is the most clear and concise option. pcuser42 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This polling request is too complicated. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I personally prefer it. It's less complicated then the Requested move chaos. FloridaMan21 (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree, I couldn't tell where any consensus was in the comments above. If there isn't a consensus on one option in this poll, at the very least it could help prune down all the options to a shortlist for people to vote on if they find this list too complicated Terovian (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
This probably isn't the perfect solution but indeed the discussion above was becoming a muddled mess, especially with many well-meaning editors saying they support or oppose "the proposal" without clarifying which of the many, many proposals they are addressing. GhostOfNoMeme 02:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment withdrawn. It did seem to help find a signal in the noise. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Once we choose a title, I sure hope CrowdStrike doesn't cause another global outage during the remainder of 2024.

:(
Your device ran into a problem and needs to restart in a loop forever

Jruderman (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Haha, we can close this on Friday. Hopefully no more outages 🤞. FloridaMan21 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
You could turn that into a UBX... though a regular screenshot of the real error screen would be good for a Commons gallery -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm using it like a userbox on User:Jruderman, but with inline HTML. Do you want to help turn it into a template? Jruderman (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Recap

The polling has helped us identify the strongest candidate titles from each family. It's time to return to discussion, this time focused on how well each title balances the requirements for article titles.

Among the CrowdStrike titles, we have a division over whether to include Microsoft:

  • 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages
  • 2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft IT outages

Among the non-CrowdStrike titles, we have a division over the position of the date:

  • 2024 worldwide IT outages
  • Global IT outage of July 2024

Some comments from the first discussion phase that I'd like to draw attention to:

Naming policies and guidelines:

Second phase of discussion

  • I've created a #Recap section above to help everyone catch up. It includes a list of the four titles I believe are the strongest from each category, links to two excellent comments I wish I had read earlier, and links to the three policy sections that will be the focus of this second discussion section. Jruderman (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I prefer CrowdStrike-related over CrowdStrike–Microsoft. "CrowdStrike-related" is an as-neutral-as-possible modification of the common attributive use of "CrowdStrike outage" while achieving clarity. "CrowdStrike–Microsoft" is used in some sources but not enough to justify Wikipedia taking the stance that the two companies are ~equally responsible. Both options raise similar questions "related to the company(s) in what way" but at least "CrowdStrike-related" owns up to the fact that it leaves the question unanswered. Wikipedia rarely uses compound attributives for reasons other than commonname-associated recognizability (Tay–Sachs disease, Michelson–Morley experiment). The parsing (as a compound attributive) might not be obvious to readers who aren't familiar with the complete phrase, even if it is obvious to me (a person with keen enough eyesight to see the en dash and who recites MOS:ENBETWEEN every night from memory as he falls asleep). Jruderman (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    I have little to add except to say that your argument is very well-reasoned and I completely agree. I strongly prefer CrowdStrike-related. I hope we can reach a consensus on this. GhostOfNoMeme 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Regarding the limited precision and information content of CrowdStrike-related, I just don't think we're going to do better (among titles mentioning CrowdStrike). caused by a faulty configuration update to CrowdStrike clients is far too long and irrelevant. caused by CrowdStrike takes too strong a stance. We could try 2024 outages of CrowdStrike clients, but I worry that it undersells the magnitude of the incident. Jruderman (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Here's a list of my strongest candidates
    • 1: 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages –  Y I think its our best bet, and on the bright side, Its a lot better than the current title.
    • 2: 2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft IT outages – Very strong title too, close to being 1st.
    • 3: Global IT outage of July 2024
    • 4: 2024 worldwide IT outages – Sounds too much like a list.
    • Alternative title: 2024 Global CrowdStrike Software Outages FloridaMan21 (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    I support the first one you mentioned,
    Daisytheduck talk to me 22:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    how about 2024 Crowdstrike–Microsoft cyber-outages 173.72.3.91 (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Regarding the blame aspects of mentioning CrowdStrike, I just can't bring myself to care either way. The ultimate causes were the continued use of memory unsafe programming languages and a near-global unwillingness to intervene in market failures until it's too late (a phenomenon some on Twitter refer to as "capitalism"). There are dozens of companies that could have caused a catastrophe of similar magnitude for similar reasons, and it happened to be a company called CrowdStrike that I hadn't heard of until this week. I'm sure as hell not going to stump for the title 2024 Stroustrup–Reagan global IT outages. Jruderman (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Setting aside comparisons, I wholeheartedly endorse 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages as meeting the requirements of an article title. Mentioning CrowdStrike is the right thing to do on commonname and recognizability grounds. CrowdStrike-related is neutral enough on blame when considering reliable sources. IT outages (plural) is accurate and helps communicate both the magnitude of the event and the scope of the article. Date-first aids in recognizability as an event by being consistent with how Wikipedia often titles articles about events. The rest of the title sounds specific enough that readers are unlikely to mistake it for a yearly-list type of article. Jruderman (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I like the initialism IT because it is an established term-of-art meaning something like "the use of computers at scale by organizations". information technology is long and doesn't quite have the same connotation. technology is too general. Jruderman (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    +1 for IT. I don't like "information technology" because unnecessarily expanding well-known initialisms/acronyms is unnecessary and somewhat ugly, in my opinion. GhostOfNoMeme 20:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • One thing that bothers me is that we seem to be rejecting two prominent non-CrowdStrike titles for different reasons: 2024 worldwide IT outages for sounding too much like a yearly list, and Global IT outage of July 2024 for its unusual order. What are the best candidates for non-CrowdStrike titles that have neither of these problems? Jruderman (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I suggest not looking for a non-CrowdStrike title. A bad update from CrowdStrike was the direct proximate cause of this set of outages. It is the one thing that all of the affected systems had in common (aside from being computers that run the Windows 10 or 11 OS, but the other 99%+ of Windows machines were not directly affected). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"IT system outages" vs "IT outages"

Alright it's time for what might be our simplest !vote section.

Based on the cardinal polling above, it looks like everyone slightly prefers IT system outages over IT systems outages. We can ignore the latter.

That leaves two possibilities for the title's tail: IT outages and IT system outages.

You know what's not bad for choosing between two options? A little thing Wikipedians call "!voting". Jruderman (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Comments that disregard policy entirely. IT outage kinda makes me wonder what happened to the IT team. IT system outages has the right cadence to follow a monster term like "CrowdStrike-related" or "CrowdStrike–Microsoft". I like that IT system outages might be more understandable to people who aren't familiar with the term "IT" – they still have "system(s)" to work with. Jruderman (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  • IT outage I don't think that adding "system" would do any help to clarify because lots of things can be part of systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs) 03:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Motion to conclude

  • Snow. 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages is a clear favorite in both the poll and substantive discussion. We've also had focused discussions on possible small variations on the title, such as alternatives to "CrowdStrike-related" (subthread) and "IT" (subthread), and the unmodified title has clear consensus in each. I think we're ready to conclude. Jruderman (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Snow. We now have a clear favourite. pcuser42 (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Snow per nom. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 07:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Snow. I believe we've reached consensus here. We had a healthy discussion with many viewpoints and valuable arguments raised. I think this title is a clear favourite. GhostOfNoMeme 09:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this discussion. Selecting a new title for this article has been complex, with many interacting factors to consider. Nevertheless, we kept the discussion on-track and well-organized. Additionally, I have awarded eleven participants with 2024 CrowdStrike-related special thanks for their crucial and unique contributions. [Instead of replying here, please reply on my talk page or on the special-thanks talk page (which will also serve as a hub for stress relief, humor, and hijinks)]. Jruderman (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Show. Common usage in the media doesn't include "Microsoft". --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     13:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Snow. As per above FloridaMan21 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Wait. 2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft IT outages is more accurate. The file was only for Windows and Office 365 went down too. This should not have happened with a user-level API. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Trigenibinion wait Now that I think about it. I do agree that "Microsoft" should also be in the title. I shall strikethrough my previous comment. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 17:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    Wait 2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft IT outages is so much better. FreeGuy789 (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    • — FreeGuy789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    Good catch, same for Diaryofawimpykidlover below. Both accounts about 1 hour old and seemingly created just to vote to include Microsoft in the title... GhostOfNoMeme 19:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    Both accounts votes should be disqualified. FloridaMan21 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Wait. I created this account just to say that the title most want is inaccurate. I'm a IT worker and Microsoft should be included in the title. Diaryofawimpykidlover (talk)
    — Diaryofawimpykidlover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Support (without adding Microsoft): There is a temptation to add some expression of blame for Microsoft. That's not the purpose of an article title selection. It would make the title less concise without helping identify the topic. Also, this wasn't a Microsoft-as-a-company problem; Microsoft is a huge company with many products and service offerings, and this problem was specific to Windows and affected less than 1% of Windows machines. It would be pure editorializing to put Microsoft in the title. Most of the "Wait" people saying to add Microsoft in the title haven't even provided a reason, much less a policy/guideline-based reason. In the polling, "2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages" had a median rating of 9, and "2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft IT outages" had a median rating of 2.5. There is a clear consensus here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      I agree, hopefully The Crowdstrike-related title goes through. FloridaMan21 (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      Besides the user-mode API, wasn't it Microsoft who chose to use CrowdStrike with Office 365? Trigenibinion (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      Microsoft 365 doesn't use CrowdStrike, and as the article mentions that they are completely different ZalnaRs (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      The article states that many airlines failed because of Office 365, so this outage is actually two things at the same time? Trigenibinion (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      The article does mention that, but the connection is not very clear. Office 365 is barely mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and is not discussed in many sources. I looked at the sources that are cited, and they provide no real clarification. I'm guessing it was primarily a matter of Windows servers being operated by some companies that subscribed to CrowdStrike – e.g., as company-specific Outlook servers. I don't think Microsoft itself was using CrowdStrike. (Of course, some servers could be hosted on Azure, but it's the customer who chooses what's running there.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
      I understand that Office365 can only be provisioned by Microsoft. Trigenibinion (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
      That's irrelevant. The point of a title is to concisely identify the subject of the article, not assign blame to all parties that could be remotely culpable. --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE      )       18:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Wait/neutral though I favor the "2024 CrowdStrike-related...outages" pattern. (Moving longer comment to proper discussion area above). Fuzheado | Talk 19:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      I don't like -related. Too verbose. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      Would "2024 CrowdStrike system outages" or "2024 CrowdStrike computer outages" be acceptable? - Fuzheado | Talk 19:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      I don't think the blame should be put only on CrowdStrike. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      It's overwhelmingly CrowdStrike in the headline and in practice. Putting Microsoft into the headline is WP:UNDUE. FWIW, German Wikipedia has called their article (translated) "Crowdstrike computer outage 2024" - Fuzheado | Talk 20:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      Agreed regarding the inclusion of Microsoft. I very much oppose that. (Just a side note — Ausfall can be translated as both 'failure' and 'outage', with the former being more common. The verb ausfallen means 'to fail' or 'to malfunction'.) GhostOfNoMeme 20:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      The people who chose to install CrowdStrike are also responsible. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      And the people who chose not to have good redundancy and well-staffed IT cleanup teams. There's a lot of blame to go around. I think CrowdStrike-related strikes a good balance of blaming an entity we all agree deserves at least some blame, avoiding an editorial stance on exactly how much blame, and selecting one of the causes with the broadest recognizability. Jruderman (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      There were other options that assigned no blame. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Procedural request. Let's try to keep this section focused on the snow question only; try to be brief but do link to substantive comments that you add to the appropriate discussion sections (or sub-threads that already exist). I have refactored several recent comments in this section along these lines. Jruderman (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      Thanks for putting in that link. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      It is the first time I participate in such a process. I arrived late and it is very confusing. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      This is an unusually complicated move discussion. I'm trying my best to keep these ad-hoc procedures clear. If you notice something that's confusing, please tell me on my user talk page (or fix it yourself if you can). Jruderman (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Exhortations. CrowdStrike-related lovers, please have some patience and acknowledge that the evidentiary requirement for "we don't agree yet" is lower than that for "my version is better". Microsoft includers, please think carefully about whether you are likely to prevail, as well as whether CrowdStrike-related outages is enough of an improvement over the status quo that it might be better to accept it for now and open a second move discussion where we can take our time to discuss the merits of mentioning Microsoft. Jruderman (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      I agree. And wait. There is no reason to expedite this request because there is not an obvious problem with the current title requiring an urgent move. Local Variable (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Snow. As per above. Daisytheduck talk to me 22:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
      At this point we have several arguments for snow and several for wait, so it might be best to explain in a little more detail than "as per above". Jruderman (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Avoiding circularity. I don't know whether this is a real risk, but try not to !vote "Wait" just because others are !voting "Wait", or "Snow" just because others are "Snow". Remember that we are trying to determine whether the substantive discussion, much of which is in (or reflected in[a]) the second discussion section, has reached a snow-level consensus when weighted by the strength of policy-based arguments. Jruderman (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Moot: More than 7 days have passed since the discussion started. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Strong wait: I agree that 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages has significantly more support than the alternatives that have been proposed so far, but every proposal has some criticism to the extent that I think that the correct response to narrowing the proposed options down to 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages is not to rush for the least bad option that we've seen so far but instead to first try to tweak it in order to address the remaining problems that it does have. For example, I believe that outage should be singular, not plural because, as I have previously stated, using plural instead of singular would seem to imply that after providing a fix, CrowdStrike either reverted back to the problematic version of published another bug shortly thereafter, resulting in two separate outages instead of one timewise-continuous outage. Yes, there were many different places that had computer outages, but they were still part of the same event and therefore should be counted as a single outage. After all, we would not move Northeast blackout of 2003 to Northeast blackouts of 2003 just because many different cities in multiple countries lost power. Looking at the nineteen options with subheadings in the section for proposed names, nine use singular and ten use plural, which would not be considered consensus. Because there has not been major discussion specifically about singular vs. plural, the closest thing that we have to a poll about singular vs. plural suggests that 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outage has 47.4% (9⁄19) preference over 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages, so WP:SNOW does not apply. However, of the eight options with subheadings in the section for proposed names that include either IT outage(s), IT system outage(s), IT systems outage(s), or information technology outage(s), only one has singular, and this suggestion, Global IT outage of July 2024, has two major deviations from most of the proposed titles in putting the date at the beginning instead of the end and including the month, so for all we know, most people actually prefer singular outage, but plural outages, despite being an unpopular candidate, rode on the tails of IT outage and the year being at the beginning without the month. I remind all of this quote from Wikipedia:Snowball clause#A cautionary note:

      it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives

      In this case, there is a very real danger of excluding slight tweaks that might be better than a good-but-not-perfect proposed title because thinking of something new, even if it's similar to something existing, and justifying the change requires more mental effort and more typing time than just going along with what has already been proposed. For the same reason, I would, as a general principle, oppose any invocation of WP:SNOW that completely preempts a final tweaking phase of any decision with too many initially reasonable possibilities to cover by pure brute force. In a similar vein, the discussion about possibly adding the word system has only recieved two votes so far, not enough to establish consensus, and there has so far been no attempt to debate CrowdStrike-related vs. CrowdStrike-linked vs. CrowdStrike-triggered vs. CrowdStrike-caused, so we should also discuss those two things (and any other plausible tweaks) before closing discussion. (I personally prefer CrowdStrike-triggered, followed by CrowdStrike-linked then CrowdStrike-caused.) However, I do agree that we can eliminate most possibilities, specifically anything that is significantly closer to an already-specifically-considered-and-rejected alternative than 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    Amazing analysis containing great new ideas. I quite like CrowdStrike-triggered. I've edited your comment lightly for style. I'm trying to get in touch with CrowdStrike, both for their opinion and for their help getting more eyes on things like IT outages vs IT system outages, where many of us barely care about the distinction and so we're not voting. Jruderman (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Miscellany

    Jruderman has Bowed out

    Parting statement from Jruderman

    It has been real. We managed to turn chaos into progress, multiple times over. I have been impressed by everyone's ability and willingness to adapt to new procedures as I make them up on the spot. We have been serious. We have been silly (but never in inappropriate ways). I think we're on track to select a great title.

    But it's time for me to reduce my involvement. I need to take some time off to recover from a fidgeting-induced injury. And honestly, it wouldn't be fair for me to have heavy influence on the final moments after sorta controlling the discussion for so long.

    By consensus among the eleven participants who have received awards, you have my permission to cross out my Wait and reply to its spot with a new comment including the sentence "Jruderman has Bowed out".

    During this discussion, I've learned a lot of things about Wikipedia and a few things about myself. Including: I might be good at this? Next step is finding out what "this" is. Last sentence is worded in a silly way but I am 90% serious.

    Please watch my user page, subscribe to my blog, and follow me on Twitter. I will be posting a lot about this experience. And I have some exciting things to share over the next few weeks.

    (Reply on my user talk page, not here)

    — Jruderman (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

    Addenda on how to select procedures and make them work

    — Jruderman (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

    I have more procedure ideas up my sleeve that I'd love to try some time. I'd also like to learn more about how procedural innovations turn into within-overton-window options, then into guidelines, then into policies. Please reply in the threads linked just above, or on my user talk page. Jruderman (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

    Per Jruderman's final request

    !voting options include "Undecided", "Too busy", "Declined to participate in this nonsense", "Jruderman would wait", "Jruderman would snow", or most unexpectedly, "Moot".

    I'll set up the table rows one at a time in order to send pings (not because I think this is urgent, but just to ensure that all eleven of you are aware of this optional process). Jruderman (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

    Entrustee Stance Comments
    @ToadetteEdit: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Corporal: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @The Nth User: Jruderman would wait and advance to tweaking phase (This means "I hope that Jruderman would wait and advance to a tweaking phase", right?) I think that 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages is definitely near the maximum for article quality but that variations could be better, so we shouldn't end the discussion yet. However, most of the initial candidate space has been eliminated by WP:SNOW, so I didn't want to just type "wait" like I would if I didn't think that we had made any progress in narrowing things down.
    @Lowellian: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Wugapodes: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Jax 0677: Undecided
    @Local Variable: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Gluonz: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Fuzheado: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Trigenibinion: Jruderman would Wait
    @FloridaMan21: Jruderman would Snow

    Please do not change my stance directly from "Explicitly Neutral" to "Bowed out". Jruderman (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

    Discussion of Jruderman's final request

    Is this an actual vote? Some form of consensus? But weighted how? Based on the accuracy of your mental model of how Jruderman thinks? I'll leave it to you to decide how to conduct this piece, if at all. Jruderman (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

    The New Wiki Way

    We built something beautiful here. A process for selecting one of many candidates, with a moderate number of participants, while evaluating each candidate across an agreed-upon set of criteria. A process that converges on strong consensus. A process that feels fair. A process that feels even more democratic than casting a ballot.

    We might have found not only a solution to Wikipedia discussions, but also a way to save democracy and end war.

    But there is more work to be done. Will you join me in studying, improving, and promoting the use of The New Wiki Way? Will you contribute a suggestion, quote, or chapter to my upcoming book, "The New Wiki Way"?

    Humanity might have been saved. By us. This week. Because of a long-standing Wikipedia policy about what consensus means, and an unrelated IT catastrophe.

    — Jruderman (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

    I've posted a thread on Twitter explaining what The New Wiki Way is, and how I want to use it to select the next President of the United States.

    — Jruderman (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

    Addenda from Jruderman

    The Nth User has me down cold (shown in orange above). I want this discussion to be over quickly and I want this discussion to be over the right way.

    I want everyone here to create a Twitter account and follow @RadicalCenterUS. I want someone to make an index of my recent threads on Twitter under the name @jruderman. I want everyone here to think about whether this process that I discovered – that we discovered – that Wikipedia was always destined to discover – is worth bringing into politics.

    And into every other area of our lives where we must collectively choose between many candidates, evaluating each candidate across a fixed-ish set of criteria, in the course of about a week.

    I want someone to help me with the problem I'm having rotating the stars in the logo, and in converting the SVG to PNG for use in the Twitter prori

    "The New Wiki Way" could be the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia.

    "The New Wiki Way" could be the best thing that ever happened to democracy.

    "The New Wiki Way" could be the final synthesis of social choice theory. It could be the field's most important advancement since Nicolaus Tideman, since Kenneth Arrow, or even since 1776.

    Please edit my comments in line with Wikipedia:Thread-mode disclaimer to make my comments clearer, and located in the best part of the discussion that they can be. Add links where needed. Add notes about having been edited where needed, and omit them where they are not needed.

    If you're near Los Angeles or San Francisco, let's meet up some time for a celebration of our wonderful new title and our wonderful new process for reaching consensus. Hold one near WikiMedia headquarters and Twitter headquarters, at the very least.

    One celebration party will be in Rancho Palos Verdes, southern California, at a date chosen by my wonderful parents. Assuming they agree to allow the use of our beautiful house, or provide funding to use the the Terranea Resort[b]. It's late here in California, so I will ask my parents about logistics in the morning.

    My anti-anxiety meds are kicking in soon. And my anti-manic drugs – that was a new experience for me.

    I will return to bed momentarily. Have a great night and/or day, everyone.

    — Jruderman (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    P.S. can we move this collapsy section out of the move discussion so it doesn't have to be closed when the move discussion is closed? Make it a subpage of my user page or something.
    — Jruderman (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
    P.P.S. if you're up for some stress relief, come to the funnies page and help identify the worst possible titles for this article. Jruderman (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Footnotes

    1. ^ To explain what I mean by "earlier substantive arguments were reflected in the second discussion". First, some earlier arguments were summarized in the section, or pointed to with hyperlinks. Second, the arguments against e.g. "cyber" were not repeated because "cyber" was clearly not on the path to titledom by the time the section was opened. Third, arguments from earlier sections that were judged as more persuasive were more likely to be reiterated. All of these factors helped keep the second discussion focused and readable. -Jruderman
    2. ^ To be a red link no longer, if everything works out the way I hope it will
    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.

    Archival of move discussions

    Latest comment: 16 hours ago7 comments3 people in discussion

    Once the gigantic move discussion is concluded, I would like to immediately move it to an archive page so that external links are less likely to become broken. This is the kind of thing that could attract attention from Twitter and press. I plan to tweet about it, at least.

    I suggest setting aside "Archive 2" for just #Cyber and the big move discussion. #Cyber goes with it because it's also a move discussion and there are relative cross-links between them.

    And maybe we can put an editnotice on the archive page, since less-experienced editors may end up there. Like

    This is an archive page containing closed discussions. Please do not modify it. You may start a new discussion at Talk:2024_CrowdStrike_incident#? or chat about the closed move request over there →

    Fuzheado, do you know the right way to do this, so that subsequent archivals automatically go to "Archive 3"?

    — Jruderman (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

    Not who you pinged, but the simple way would be to let ClueBot III handle things. Right now it is archiving to Archive 1. When it fills up in another 40k bytes, it will try to move to Archive 2. However, if Archive 2 is manually created and already past 75k, which it would be if the only thing archived in it was the move discussion, then ClueBot III should automatically move to Archive 3. There is minimal downsides to doing it that way to my knowledge. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for that idea. If you can help support doing that it would be great, as you have more insight into the particulars of ClueBot III than I do. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Jruderman: I have archived the move discussion to Archive 2 since there seems to be no objections. The size of the discussion was over 125k, so I have left the Cyber discussion alone and untouched. Note that Archive 1 is currently 67% filled, so Cluebot III will continue to use that archive page for a bit longer before switching. If you want to add your edit notice to Archive 2, then feel free to as I do not have an objection to it currently. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for doing this for me, Goku. It looks perfect. Jruderman (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    Also, perhaps we can pin a section HERE that says like 

    == Move discussion has concluded ==
{{anchor|Requested move 19 July 2024}}
The closed discussion is now available for viewing only at Archive 2.

    — Jruderman (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

    There is already a talk page banner that mentions the move discussion with a link. I don't see the value with pinning a section about a move discussion as a result. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_CrowdStrike_incident/Archive_2&oldid=1237599998"