The following references only a YouTube video and doesn't state what "Fireship" is or why the speaker is relevant or an authority. Does it really belong?
Jeff Delaney of Fireship commented that "Giving one company kernel access to the computers of most Fortune 500 companies might actually be a bad idea."
2A04:4A43:424F:DC33:3D59:212C:8E0A:5594 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I've now removed it. The video is informative and engaging but a minor YouTuber is not a reliable source, and his personal opinion shouldn't merit inclusion alongside industry professionals and security experts. GhostOfNoMeme 05:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- 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: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
2024 CrowdStrike incident → 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages – Been a few months since the last RM with consensus to move, but a flawed process resulting in no consensus on the new title. I am going to do a simpler RM, one that simply asks if the most popular title, that had an average score of 9/10 in the poll that was run, should be accepted. It seems clear to me the word "outage" needs to be in the title, "incident" is horribly vague an not the common name whatsoever. Its a little bit of a thorny one, since CrowdStrike caused the outage but CrowdStrike doesn't actually deliver the services themselves that crashed (Windows primarily but included other services). "2024 CrowdStrike-caused IT outages" might be more technically correct, however that seems awkward and unwieldy to me. If you don't like the current title but want a different one than proposed, please say what title you think is best and if many people want a different title we'll ping the involved editors to decide out of the main options presented. MarkiPoli (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Support: Clearly better than what we currently have as the title of this article. –Gluonz talk contribs 00:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Support, it is the most fitting title ‹hamster717🐉› (discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠) 14:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose — I'm probably an outlier here, but I find cramming a bunch of terms into the title unnatural and unnecessary and think the current title identifies the topic fine. Per my last source analysis, there's not a single common name but there is a tendency for sources to 1) use the term "outage" and 2) use the term "CrowdStrike". I'd support "2024 CrowdStrike outage", though I don't really mind "incident". "CrowdStrike-related" seems less grounded in usage, though, and I honestly don't even think it means anything. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 18:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Consensus is going against me and I don't need to argue it, but since I was pinged: I understand the details and believe the current title is perfectly sufficient under WP:NDESC. "CrowdStrike" in the title implies relation to CrowdStrike. "CrowdStrike-related" adds a needless extra word. I don't see a reason to ensure CrowdStrike is distanced via prolixity from an event that is nearly universally linked to them in sources. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 13:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Support - Most fitting title. TechyTommy💬 22:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Support, most fitting title. pcuser42 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Support Concise title that accurately conveys all necessary information. I can’t support the alternative proposed by @Dylnuge for the reasons that have been expressed numerous times over the many RMs - it was not an outage of CrowdStrike but Windows systems, so this title conveys an inaccurate meaning that is avoided by the current proposal. Local Variable (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Support: This title has emerged as the most accepted candidate among many in the prior discussions. — BarrelProof (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.
Is there a source on related deaths? And would should this be part of this article? With hospitals and emergency numbers affected world wide, I'd assume that damages go beyond materialistic issues.
But even if it was zero, it would be worth mentioning. Mikuszefski (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Perhaps surprisingly, I can't find any mention of deaths in any reliable sources. It would be a reasonable assumption that at least some deaths could possibly be attributed to the event—considering the many GP surgeries and hospitals that had to cancel non-urgent appointments, had trouble accessing patient records, had completely inaccessible IT systems, etc.—but I can't find any deaths reported amongst the disruption. GhostOfNoMan 18:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
