Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some unreferenced articles have been speedy deleted without a discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLPs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes at WP:RY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of edit notice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

• The edit notices have been  Deleted by Sphilbrick under the G6 criterion, courtesy this revision.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Warning--If anybody wishes to restore them, please initiate a RfC and regain consensus.Thanks!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

---

A few months ago, Beeblebrox added an edit notice to recent years pages. Given the downgrade to essay, the edit notice is no longer accurate. I also think it is no longer appropriate, and I suggest that it be removed. agtx 03:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support it has had no impact whatsoever, regardless of the fact that the guideline is no longer (and wasn't really ever) a guideline. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It should be reworded, not removed. Jim Michael (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask you to elaborate a little on your reasoning for that, Jim Michael? There wasn't a strong consensus to add the edit notice in the first place (WP:SILENCE was expressly invoked). Having a notice at all has the strong feeling of WP:SQS, and the vast majority of pages on Wikipedia don't require such notices. agtx 20:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, SQS, I didn't know that existed. That's EXACTLY the problem here. Thanks Agtx for the link, I'll be sure to note that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The vast majority of Wikipedia pages do not have editors adding their own personal information. These (and, often, the articles covered by WP:DOY) do. However, I'm not convinced that edit notices are helpful. Those on pseudoscience articles don't seem to help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

They are helpful. They're not stonewalling; they're to reduce people adding non-notable or insufficiently notable people and things. Edit notices should be on all year and day articles, because it's very common for young people to add the births of themselves and people whom they know, as well as people adding births, deaths and events that all of us on this talk page would agree are nowhere near notable enough to include. Recent year articles often have to be protected because of flurries of such additions.

No-one is claiming that the 9 + English guide is perfect, but it's better than a free-for-all. Other aspects of RY, such as always including anyone who's been a nation's head of state/government (except interim/acting heads) are important. Jim Michael (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The edit notice says: "Please make sure all additions to this article are consistent with the guidelines for articles on recent years. Thank you." Do we really think that's stopping kids from adding their friends to the articles? How many 15-year-olds are going to stop, read the essay, and decide not to add something inappropriate. What it's doing, right now, is telling people operating in good faith that their additions have to comply with an essay, which is not true. agtx 14:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man:--As the editor who closed the RY guideline deprecation RFC, I will vouch for an immediate mandatory change of the wording to--For new additions to this article, try to conform with the project-essay for articles on recent years. removal of the notice.Sorry, I re-reviewed the guidelines et al and posting the notice is definitely pushing an essay down the throat of the readers.We hardly ever do that!I came across WP:SQS for the first time!If you are a template-editor go ahead and do it.That should have been a corollary of the RFC but was missed at it's entirety.Outright removal or linguistic changes could be implemented later per emerging consensus on this page.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Many of the additions of domestic/local events to year and day articles are from people who are acting in good faith. I agree with the proposed change in wording in the above comment. Jim Michael (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No the proposed rewording is not helpful, especially as the more stringent current wording has had no impact on the vast number of reverts that take place by the few regulars. Some individuals have pretty much no positive inputs to these pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing insufficiently notable people and events from the article is a positive imput. We've had people added to the Deaths section who are unknown outside their own countries - and people who are alive. Jim Michael (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not relevant. This edit notice has not prevented anything being added. Two or three regulars here are notable for the fact that they do nothing but remove material from these pages. They pretty much never add anything, so it's clear the edit notice is making not a jot of difference. As per the comment below, unless you can provide hard evidence that this edit notice has made any changes to the number of "people regulars deem unsuitable to be added", then it should go, period. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It was you who wanted the edit notice added. A few people, including me, agreed with you that a notice on the talk page was insufficient and it was added to every RY article. Now you want it removed. You also wanted Prodigy removed, then soon after argued for him to be included. You wanted Jerome Golmard removed; when I removed him, you quickly reinstated him and argued for his inclusion. Your contradictions make it difficult to assume good faith. Jim Michael (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Right, let's start with a simple one: It was you who wanted the edit notice added. Diff please. And before you make that classic mistake you're about to make, please read what I actually wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Next, You also wanted Prodigy removed yes, initially, and I explained why, as you very well know, and yet have disingenously chosen not to explain here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Finally, You wanted Jerome Golmard removed. Diff please. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Jim Michael, please respond inline above with the diffs and the explanation; a lack of response is would make it difficult to assume good faith. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to do diffs. On Talk:2017/Archive 3#Serving the readers at 12:28 on 1 August, you strongly implied that Golmard should be removed from 2017. Jim Michael (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You could ask Rubin, he's learnt how to do it by now. And in any case, you couldn't be more wrong. The point I was making in that diff was that it seemed insane to " reject Tommy Gemmell (71,000 hits in 4 days) and Deborah Watling" while accepting a minor tennis player who met the inclusion criteria. So no, I didn't want him removed at all. Please don't make stuff up. Redact the claim. Zero down, three to go.The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Honestly... Help:Diff. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Jim Michael, please respond inline above with the diffs and the explanation; a lack of response is would make it difficult to assume good faith. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You were saying that Gemmell should be included and appeared to be suggesting that Golmard should not, because he's much less notable.

We have long rejected people who lack international notability, even if they have enough articles. You can see examples of that in the archives of various RY articles. The 9 + English guide has never been a hard-and-fast rule. You're claiming that exceptions aren't or shouldn't be made to that guide.

There aren't three to go. You gave the impression that you wanted Golmard excluded, at least if Gemmell is. You agree that you initially wanted Prodigy removed. I can't find the first conversation about putting the edit notice on RY articles. It was put there because many editors don't read talk pages. Jim Michael (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No, you might have assumed that, but my text clearly relates to the absurd non-inclusion of clearly more notable individuals. And incidentally, I explained explicitly and clearly why I didn't think Prodigy should be included: as the RY "guideline" hadn't made it clear that quality wasn't an issue for inclusion, unlike at ITN. You provide the diffs for the three accusations (I've linked you how to do that, out of courtesy), or redact them, or we'll go to ANI about you placing unsubstantiated lies here, just like Rubin. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The RY criteria have never claimed that the quality of the articles it links to are part of the criteria. I've struck my comment. Jim Michael (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of that now, and as I said at the time I found it surprising. So it's nothing to do with contradiction whatsoever. Just be more careful when levelling unfounded and inaccurate accusations without evidence. Don't do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal. I, too, don't see who the target audience for this notice is supposed to be: it's difficult to imagine more than an insignificant fraction of legitimately clueless editors (the "young people adding their own birthdays" case) bothering to read a notice, and active vandals certainly won't care, but it's possible that editors who are new to Wikipedia or RY may be scared off from making positive contributions. Without fairly hard data suggesting the notice is a net plus, I don't think it's appropriate. Layzner (Talk) 17:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It's for editors who are unaware of the inclusion criteria for RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't work and we don't mandate or even necessarily suggest compliance with an essay. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There isn't an inclusion criteria for RY articles. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I notice the admin Beeblebrox has failed to respond to this thread, despite being pinged. They put the edit notice on, seems only polite they come here and explain why they think it's still needed. 1.129.97.23 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Beeblebrox hasn't edited WP since 5 August. Jim Michael (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

There's a message on his talk page: Due to personal issues, Beeblebrox will be away from Wikipedia for an undefined period of time. It can safely be said that Beeb is both unlikely to comment or otherwise have any input into this thread and that he will be Ok with whatever decision is reached by others. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh and support removal for the same reasons as The Rambling Man. 1.129.97.23 (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Pursuant to Godric's comment as the closer of the RfC, I'm posting a template edit request now. agtx 15:56, 14 September 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.

Deaths

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

"or, when death is imminent"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selecting deaths to feature in recent year articles: a review of options

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

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

RFC: International notability for inclusion in the deaths section of RY articles

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

*Summary:--Despite the procedural problems of a quasi-strawman, there is a strong consensus to reject the RFC poser. To be more specific, international notability ≠ existence of nine or more non-English Wikipedia articles.

• Details:--Foremostly, other Wikipedia articles i.e. the products of the editorial judgment of a group of editors subject to self-set notability rules and inclusion policies etc cannot substitute the role of reliable sources. Also, as some have said, many persons who manage to acquire a worthy covg. at their death (may) have a good chance of not being yet covered at en.wiki.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

---

This is probably the first of a number of RFCs on this topic, so let's start with a simple one:

Is the definition of "international notability" the existence of nine or more non-English Wikpedia articles about a subject at the time of death?

Please refrain from offering arguments such as "in the absence of anything different/better...", just stick to answering the opening question, with reasons. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comments by proposer-Please refrain from offering arguments such as "in the absence of anything different/better...", just stick to answering the opening question, with reasons.The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The articles on other Wikipedias are not checked for references, reliable sources, any kind of notability, it's merely counting stats, and as shown by the current listings, heavily biased to prominent and popular Americans. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Close enough for our purposes, at least (with some exceptions). In case anyone hadn't noticed, the world is heavily biased towards prominent and popular Americans, and we are here to reflect reality, not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If anything, the current system prevents even greater bias. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Not at all, the list at 2017 is about 1/3 American, so are we really saying that for an English language global encycplopedia, 1/3 of "internationally notable" people who have died are American? That's reinforcing a bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  I challenge you to find a RS with less biased selection. Until then, my argument stands. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  I challenge you to find an RS with such an absurd dependency on the existence of unverified, low quality sources such as foreign language Wikpiedias. Until then, the argument to sustain such an approach is utterly without sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Answer my challenge first, then we can continue. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  I don't need to, this is Wikipedia, not some other list. Why are we so hellbent on maintaining such an absurd status quo? I suggest we use Deaths in 2017! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Then make a RfC with this suggestion and let the community decide if it's better! Simple, no? — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  To help you argumenting it (actually did your job here, yes): there's 175 Americans out of 547 people featured in Deaths in 2017 right now (i.e. August and part of September). That's exactly the same proportion as in 2017 so far. How, then, is Deaths in 2017 better as far as bias is concerned? — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  I don't know what "argumenting it" means, but you're missing the point. Anyway, we're here to discuss if the current way of arbitrarily counting unreliable sources is suitable, and we all know it is not. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Argumenting why it would be better to point the readers to Deaths in 2017. Except, for all its "unsuitability", the current method produces results that are comparable in quality to any other method that has been mentioned so far. Amazing, isn't it? — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  "results that are comparable in quality to any other method" this statement couldn't be further from the truth. The "quality" of many of the items "selected" here is pitiful. The sources used to "verify" international notability are both unreliable and pitiful in quality. Amazing, isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  So how is Deaths in 2017 better? It doesn't take article quality in account either. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  It's not pseudo-filtered by a handful of individuals following an arcane rule obligated to unreliable and unverifiable sources. And you were the one claiming any kind of "quality" here. The only way you'll get that is to follow the ITN model and you DONTLIKETHAT either. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  ITN?? The model which even some regulars say is broken and should be scrapped? You have got to be joking. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Seriously, if it was a race to the bottom, RY would be winning by some margin. And you mentioned quality, and ITN is the only process that actually guarantees a level of quality control, while this essay currently promotes BLP violation after BLP violation. I'm sure you're happy with that, but some of us aren't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  And yet, by any objective standard, it still produces results that are comparable to any other method. Even two+ months of your bashing didn't change that. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Um, no. And what's being achieved here is more eyes on this bizarre approach. I want for nothing more. The community decides, not just you, Jim and Rubin. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Um, yes, and I've presented data proving this. Your denial doesn't negate this. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Um yes, we'll see how the community feel about it, shall we, i.e. follow the whole general purpose of an RFC. And your sentence made no logical sense, but that's no important right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment arguments such as "in the absence of anything different/better..." are crucial, despite the fact that the editor who opened this RfC doesn't like to hear them. Telling everybody for two months that the current way of constructing RY pages is not ok has so far only lead to two months of wasted time and zero actual improvements to the system (the constant promises that "we're getting there" don't count). — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Not at all. This RFC is simply designed to establish that the status quo needs to be changed. Then we can move to phase 2 where we understand the options. And by the way, I have suggested pointing the readers to Deaths in 2017 since day one, but you always choose to ignore that. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  You "established" that long ago (as far as your personal criteria is concerned), and you keep promising the fabled phase 2 for months now. And your suggestion has been rejected by several editors. Enough. Propose a better replacement and let the community decide. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  No, let's establish the current approach is no good first, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  You have things the wrong way round. The status quo needs to be maintained until a better way is agreed on. We need better inclusion criteria before scrapping the current criteria. You wouldn't suggest that Theresa May isn't doing her job well enough, so she should be kicked her out of Number Ten and then we'll select a new PM; a new PM would need to be selected before she could be replaced. Jim Michael (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Wrong again, just look at Brexit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  That's a bad analogy - the UK doesn't need to be in another supranational organisation instead. Jim Michael (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Then take de:Vertrauensfrage. Strangely missing on enWiki while on more than 9 other language editions. Agathoclea (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Not at all, it gives you an example of a "yes/no" vote, which then leads onto further discussion on how to solve the perceived problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• No a) Wikipedia is not a reliable source b) notable subjects are not always covered c) junk is usually covered very well. A reliable metric would be an international reaction to the death or a nondomestic inclusion in major biographical work. The criteria is also flawed in as much as "non-English" suggests that the deceased is from an English speaking country and the question is asked if they are recognized outside of that area. Agathoclea (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest that. We say 9 + English because having an English article is a requirement and that an article in Simple English doesn't count. Jim Michael (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would an article on enWiki be a requirement? "International notability" is based on sources, and not the random fact that someone had bothered to start the article here. We have often even have articles missing on heads of state and similar. Agathoclea (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Because this is the English-language Wikipedia. Having an article of his/her own on here is a requirement for inclusion in all year articles, not just recent ones. Which modern heads of state/government do not have articles? Jim Michael (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Having an article makes sense, just the requirement that the article has to exist at the time of death does not. And yes there are still a number of 20th century leaders missing as well as the possibility of a new stateleader being assassinated quicker, than we can write his article. Agathoclea (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that any current or living former heads of state or government don't have their own articles. Jim Michael (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well there are enough redlinks in the 20th century. And the issue is not the current state but "at the time of death" clause, to which there is reasonable chance of existing articles of dead former leaders that were only created after their demise, and future state leaders who will also only receive their articles after dying. My point is that if such "important" people can be without articles at the time of their death, other international notable people can be as well, especially those of the pre-internet era who are strangely enough those who are most likely to die right now. Which brings us back the starting point: Wikipedia is not a RS. Agathoclea (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Heads of state/government are exempt from the 9 + English guide. People in other fields can be exceptions if there's consensus. Jim Michael (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well obviously, but the actual point here is that the baseline criterion is nonsense, so once we establish that there's a consensus to find a better way, we can move forward. There's no point in suggesting a bunch of other solutions if every member of the community believes in the 9-Wikipedia rule, is there? So one step at a time, we get consensus this is junk and then find a better solution. And there are many alternatives, so we'll discuss those in due course. Of course, now the RY "guideline" is an essay, we actually can be pretty flexible, BRD and all that, so anything added that's borderline will need a good discussion to remove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• NoIt is obviously a garbage method of determining what we should have in the article and it's a telling pattern above - oppose any changes, then say "we haven't made any improvements so we should keep the status quo" Opposition to changes becomes the justification to oppose changes! And anyway we have a number of proposals above that while not perfect are at least rational - such as that the death is included in some reliable source as one of the most significant events of the year or that the death recieves significant independent news reporting from three continents or just providing a link to all notable deaths during the year. What we choose as a better definition can be determined in a subsequent RFC AlasdairEdits (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• An RfC gives two (or more) options. Here, the options appear to be "international notability" as defined above and anarchy. In light of that, yes to the original question. A better RfC would be formulated in the sense of "Should the inclusion criteria be changed to X?" where X is your proposed alternative. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Indeed - which is why I say we should keep the current criteria until a better suggestion is put forward. Jim Michael (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Not at all, you fail to understand the purpose of referenda then. And to BU Rob13, let me just clarify, you think that the existence of unverified articles about a subject in nine non-English Wikipedias is equivalent to "international notability"? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't abandon rules without implementing new ones first. If biography articles in other languages are unsourced, they should be reliably sourced or deleted. No-one is saying that the 9 + English guide is a hard and fast rule or proof. Jim Michael (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand. This is a "fit for purpose" discussion, not an "abandon anything" discussion. I would like a community-wide observation of this arcane approach to see if it's worth spending time creating a better way of doing it. Stop scare-mongering. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: This comment is absolutely contrary to WP:5P5. The RfC is trying to figure out if the rule in the RY essay is working. If we decide that the rule isn't working and is in fact preventing us from improving Wikipedia, then WP:IAR applies, and we shouldn't follow it anymore. agtx 18:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It says that content and interpretation evolve over time. It doesn't say to abandon a way of doing things. Jim Michael (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And there you go again. Two things, this project does not enable articles which evolve over time to be included, the instructions are clear on that. Secondly, stop with the hyperbolic "abandon" claims. We're not "abandoning" anything right now, we're just allowing the community as a whole to view the way in which RY is currently run and to give their opinions on whther it should continue in the same way, or be modified. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• No. This is, and has always been, an absurd test. Other wikipedias don't have the same inclusion criteria that we do, and some notoriously allow bot-created articles. Agathoclea also makes a good point above—we might not know how notable someone is at the time of their death. I am not convinced by the FUD of not having another absolutist policy like this in place immediately after this policy goes away. I agree "international notability" is a good goal for the deaths in the article, and I think there's a number of ways that can be proved. For example, obits (not just death announcements) in newspapers worldwide might be a good indication. If there's a dispute, then we can have a discussion about it (like we do on, as I may have mentioned before, literally every other page on this encyclopedia). agtx 16:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• No At the risk of being tautological, reliable sources are reliable sources. Not only are other wikis not RS, as others have said above, but this requirement is an attempt to substitute the editorial judgment of a group of editors in place of RS coverage. It apparently needs to be said again: we as editors don't decide, either directly or through byzantine requirements such as this, who "deserves" and who doesn't "deserve" coverage. We reflect the coverage that has occurred. If that results in devoting an entry in 2016 or whatever to a completely unaccomplished buffoon who has had massive RS coverage, than that's the entry we make. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• No, but the RfC doesn't accurately represent the current consensus, and it's the wrong question.
  1. This RfC misrepresents the status quo. The criterion is "international notability". The 9-Wikipedia criterion was intended as an objective proxy for the subjective term "international notability", subject to overrides by consensus on the individual year article talk page.
  2. Even if point 1 were not understood, this is clearly the wrong question. If there is consensus in the negative, it doesn't reduce the number of steps required to change the (project) guideline. The argument
     1. Something needs to be done.
     2. The next RfC determines an alternative.
     3. Therefore, what the next RfC determines should be done.
     • ... is one of the worst arguments imaginable.
     • If there were consensus in favor, this would show no further changes are needed. So, it would only be productive if TRM believed a positive consensus was possible.
  3. See #Going forward above for my attempt to explore the actual consensus (however weak) and options.
  4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  No, this RFC simply asks a question as to whether we should spend more time fighting the regulars who are staunchly defending their fifedom. And as it's an RFC it gets far more eyes on the problem area than before which can only be good for Wikipedia and our readers. "One of the worst arguments imaginable"? Be careful Rubin, you're about to be desysopped, I would hate to see you blocked for contiuing your ill behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• No. Criminally terrible determiner. Whoever came up with it as a 'test' should be sent to prison. Wikipedia IS NOT a reliable source. How an essay (let alone a guideline, which this sneakily became - an arbcom case in itself, if you ask me) can base itself on a breach of wider wikipedia guidelines is beyond me. I don't know how anyone of balanced mind can defend it. I understand what it is trying to do (identify a small pot of significant people from a large pot of deceased) - but I don't know WHY it wants to do that and this isn't the way to do it. In fact, I don't think this sort of subjective selection can really be automated, and that's the point. The PRESENCE of a terrible criterion and the ABSENCE of a good alternative, is a clear demonstration that we shouldn't be making this selection at all. Which brings us back to just linking to DEATHS and be done with it. Who cares if Jim Michaels or Arthur Rubin don't like most of the people on that page, this project is not for them alone. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Please refrain from insulting other editors like that. Hiding behind an IP is not an excuse for ignoring WP:CIVIL. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Please note, the IP has made a statement of fact ("Who cares if Jim Michaels or Arthur Rubin don't like most of the people on that page, this project is not for them alone."), this is not uncivil in any way. In fact, it perfect sums up one of the many problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Did you overlook "Whoever came up with it as a 'test' should be sent to prison" and "how anyone of balanced mind can defend it" on purpose or did you genuinely fail to notice those two insults? — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Those bits might be close to the bone, but considering the way admins (including some here) talk to regular editors and some users here, it's not really that troubling. I think you get the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Excuses, excuses... — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Reasons, reasons. And if you really cared, you'd go to AIV or some other venue to silence the opposition whose tone you disapprove. But you don't. Excuses, excuses. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Contrary to you, who keeps trying to intimidate people by shouting "IBAN!" every now and then, I have no interest in silencing constructive arguments. I just gave the IP a warning, the fact that you felt the need to provide excuses for him adds to my general feeling that there's a curious pattern here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Maybe I'm socking? That would be perfect for you, eh. Go get that Checkuser request in before I hop onto another IP! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Wow, it went quiet real quick there... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to add, I think alluding that somebody is socking, in an effort to derail the discussion away from the points made, is a far bigger crime than gentle bewilderment that people could defend using foreign wikipedia articles that lack any sort of quality control as a reliable source to confirm some subjective notion of superiority between deceased people. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to reply, this was far from "gentle bewilderment", and, in the same manner as someone else, merely consisted of bashing (just a notch more aggressive), with complete absence of points on the basis of which any discussion across our gap could be started. Not necessarily socking in the narrow sense of the word, but at least blatant copycat behaviour. Completely unconstructive (beside being insulting), regardless of intent. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

How DARE you. A disgusting, despicable and untrue underhanded slur. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Really? Show me one point he/she made that you haven't at least once in the past two months. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't about me always having to prove anything to you. I couldn't care less what you think, your accusations or allusions are disgusting and baseless and you won't even have the decency to follow it up, just leave it hanging, because that's how you edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Well if you never answer to any misgiving that anybody expresses about your ideas, how can you claim to be constructive? There's simply nothing to follow up. I'm sure you think that you're right, but that's not enough in relation with other people. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Disgusting. This is enough now, with sockpuppetry now being alluded to, I'll be requesting an IBAN. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I said I didn't necessarily mean sockpuppetry. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever, tell it to Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yerpo: I apologise for my comment. I thought the prison part was an obvious joke. Let the records reflect that I do not genuinely believe people who come up with bad guidelines on Wikipedia should be sent to prison. That put to bed, I disagree with your assertion that my post lacked any discussion points. I asked why we were trying to cherry-pick deaths, and I suggested that this sort of subjective selection could not be automated under a guideline/criteria. And I supported that conclusion with the fact that the ‘best’ you can come up with is at odds with Wikipedia standards and evidently problematic. I then went on to propose a solution, which was to stop trying to problematically cherry-pick deaths in the first place. So the content was there, it was your choice to ignore it in favour of faux-outrage at a blatantly silly remark. And my interest in this process and my agreement with anyone who is striving for a solution, is no more criticisable or evidence of socking/copycatting, than your duplication of Jim and Arthur’s ownership of this article and resistance to any sort of change. The point here is that the 9Wiki rule is nonsense and we are almost unanimous on this conclusion. You, Arthur and Jim do not get to dictate who should and who shouldn’t be included and can’t use this fraudulently established guideline anymore, as and when you chose, to rule for or against people you do or do not like. Surely you understand this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@62.255.118.6: I see now that you're capable of being a bit more reasonable than The Rambling Man, so I take back my insinuation of sockpuppetry. I also accept your apology, but please, please don't put words in my mouth. Your questions and suggestions have been made more than once already by The Rambling Man and answered, which is why I didn't felt the need to do it again in absence of new arguments for your solution. Please also keep in mind that I'm no less interested in a solution than you, having acknowledged that the current one is far from ideal and coming up with at least one alternative. Your (and The Rambling Man's) assertion that I'm resisting change and want to maintain ownership - just because I object to the method of changing which has achieved nothing constructive in >two months - is therefore really unfair. So I'm sorry, but I think my reaction was really not that surprising, seeing that your comment did little but amplify the summer-long campaign of repeating how the regulars are a disaster and should best go away. Sarcasm doesn't transmit well on text-based forums. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yerpo: To be fair, I think I've been reasonable throughout and have just been trying to help fix the problem. I don't believe the suggestion of linking to DEATH IN 20XX articles has been fairly acknowledged, and I think it is a far better solution than the 9wiki one. I still don't understand WHY we are trying to cherry-pick, especially when cherry-picking is so obviously contentious. The fundamental problem will always be "why do YOU think person X is more important than person Y" - and if we have no sound criteria in place, we have no reasoning to cover ourselves. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

To repeat, I think removing deaths altogether and just linking to Deaths in 20xx is disingenious because selections of notable deaths are standard part of such lists (in other words, it's what readers expect here), because RY would then appear totally different from other year pages for no obvious reason, and because "Deaths in 20XX" are too big to find useful information there. It is these misgivings that haven't been fairly acknowledged. Moreover, solutions without the need for cherry-picking do exist (such as the cross-section of such lists in various RSs), and have been proposed in the discussion, but they drowned in this flurry of tearing down existing practices and belittling the regulars. That's why I continue to say that we need to start behaving constructively and cooperate to come up with various alternatives for the community to decide. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, why do readers "expect" to find cherry-picked deaths in these articles? and why does it matter that RY appears different? You shouldn't resist change and improvement on the basis that pages before RY suffer(ed) from the same issue. I notice that Football World Cup / European Cup articles have been written differently year to year, following improvements and access to information, different ways of presenting information, improvement to style etc. Sure, you want consistency but not at the detriment to quality. Ever. Nobody is going to be bothered when years from 20XX stop cherry-picking deaths in the same way previous years did. And the baseless assumption that they will is not defence enough to keep a terrible system in place. And the absence of another system is not enough to keep it in place either. I again propose we simply link to deaths UNTIL a better selection is suggested. Problems with DEATHS articles <<<< problems with defective cherry-picking. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Events are also cherry-picked and nobody is saying that we should just erase everything and leave just a bunch of links to other pages. That certainly doesn't equate quality. And again, this is meant to stimulate people to come up with a better alternative, not jump at the most comfortable (and lazy) solution. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

No, the selection method for events is also deeply flawed and we'll get onto that in due course. Arguing to the contrary is a bit silly in the face of all the RFCs which have contradicted the status quo. It may be that we do erase everything and leave links, but now we have a decent set of community eyes on the problems, not just the three or four regulars, we'll get a heap more better ideas than just "accept the current approach because it's all we have". The Rambling Man (ta Ulk) 17:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are you bashing the straw man an repeating the same clichés again? I'm not defending the status quo but encouraging the search for better alternatives. Next time, please read my message before replying. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I did read your attack on others. You accused people of being "lazy" which is somewhat close to hilarious given you and your regular buddies lazy acceptance of a "it will do for now" inclusion criterion for years, and then actively defending it in clear opposition to the wishes of the community. It's not strawman, it's fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I said it was the most lazy option. Or do you deny that deleting everything requires by far the least effort of all the options that have been brought up? And yes, it is a straw man, because I'm not so foolish to try to force my opinion on the community (which of course would be impossible). Explaining what I think are the merits of the status quo even when I know most people don't agree is something completely different, and, in case you missed it, I've even tried to come up with a different solution. But even bad solutions can contain some useful idea, it's not a black-and-white world. So don't oversimplify. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yerpo: Fair point, though I would question events too. However, the articles seem to suffer most regarding DEATHS and there isn't a clear method of linking to ALL events in the same way as there is for deaths. And you didn't answer my questions: why do readers "expect" to find cherry-picked deaths in these articles? And why does it matter that RY appear different? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I repeat: consistency. And it's what many RSs do (examples: 1, 2, 3). If we don't provide it, the readers will go elsewhere. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Your fist link is to an obituary. Of course that will document deaths. Your second link appears to list hundreds of deaths and doesn’t appear to be any more abridged than our own Deaths in XXXX articles. Your third link is another obituary and is actually titled “The great, the good and the lesser known”, also lists hundreds of deaths. So many in fact, it has a filter function. So these examples do not justify having a cherry-picked list of deaths in an article about a year. If anything they justify what I was proposing – a link to a separate page regarding deaths. They certainly don’t demonstrate that “readers expect to see a cherry-picked list in these articles”. And "consistency" isn't a justification for repeating mistakes. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your comment. What obituary? All three link to lists of notable deaths in a year. With the exception of the second one, they are exclusive enough to be easily navigable by month (as WP:RY deaths) and if we use a cross-section, they would be even shorter. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

My comment was pretty easy to understand mate. I asked you why you think readers expect to see cherry-picked deaths in a Year article, rather than an exhaustive separate list of all deaths in its own article. You’re arguing that its some kind of common procedure, and yet two of your examples are pure obituaries (as in a list of deaths) and not year compendiums, while the other is just as big as our own Deaths In articles. So they all fail to support your argument. If anything, they support mine! 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

They don't. All three are cherry-picked, with even the largest one almost 20 times (!) shorter than our "Deaths In YYYY" lists (if you add all months together). True, two of them are stand-alone, but this difference becomes merely academic if neither RY nor "Deaths In YYYY" lists provide comparable overviews. Also, your comment was not easy to understand because the word "obituary" doesn't mean "a list of deaths", but "a notice of a person's death usually with a short biographical account" ref, which made me think that you weren't looking at the web pages I linked. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Why ARE you guys so frosty about this?! I know what an obituary is mate. And I still don't see how showing me webpages about deaths, are good examples of how cherry-picked deaths are expected in a Year review article. I also notice those articles you think shine a light on our process contain people who aren't internationally notable. I mean, I don't mind what examples you give - it's for your benefit really that you chose ones that are persuasive for your argument.

62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, the question where to put the cherry-picked list is secondary. Some of the choices may seem trivial by our standards, but that's because a publication's editors will pick those deemed to be of interest to that publication's readers. Seeing that we're a general encyclopedia, we can be more selective and construct a cross-section of those sources to exclude people not of general interest (Britannica does it too, in a way). PS: it wasn't my intention to come across frosty, I just wanted to avoid misunderstanding from the outset. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• No - Why would there be a criteria which measures notability by the quantity of Wikipedia articles? At what point was it decided Wikipedia can accurately gauge a subject's notability but only for these types of articles? Perhaps we need a quick refresher: we are here to reflect upon the coverage a subject receives, not decide whether they deserve that said coverage. Compound this issue with editors who hold a firm ethnocentric view on notability and we have an ideal environment for editorial partisanship.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• No Per everyone else above. AIRcorn (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Who on here is ethnocentric? Jim Michael (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

So that's the only bit of TGS's summary you disagree with? That's good. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• No – Ad hoc criteria do not reflect mainstream notability of deaths as reported by sources. Editor judgment is subjective, even when cloaked in elitist arguments such as "Scientist S is more important than politician P or celebrity C". If that's what we want, then notability and sourcing criteria must be challenged across the board, not in a walled garden of RY articles. — JFG ^talk 08:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - What's the point of this RFC? I don't think anyone particularly likes the current system for determining which names to include in RY articles, but the question as posed is misleading (no one defines international notability as "the existence of nine or more non-English Wikpiedia articles about a subject at the time of death") and serves no clear purpose, especially given that you've asked respondents to ignore the context and treat the question as some sort of stand-alone inquiry. Where is this going to get us? Knocking over the strawman you've created isn't going to improve RY in any way; it isn't even a first step in that direction. -- Irn (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Umm, I don't know if you've read this project page's own definitions: Births are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in English and at least nine non-English languages about the individual in question. ...The same criteria apply to deaths as to births... They were put into place and have been strenuously defended so saying that "...no one defines international notability as..." is flat-out incorrect. The RfC proposer didn't make it up out of whole cloth to make another group of editors look bad (which is what "strawman" actually means). Rather, it's the actual definition of what was, until recently, a policy guideline that we're now being requested to comment on. This RFC is designed to decide if those definitions are useful, which your comment seems to imply you think they aren't. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

As Arthur Rubin explained above, the 9-Wikipedia criterion is a proxy; no one thinks that it defines notability. The RFC is only asking if we agree with that definition. But since no one (other than TRM in this RFC) has put that forth as a definition, it's a strawman. If the question were, "Do we think that it works as an appropriate proxy or can we come up with something better?", that could be productive, but that question is explicitly excluded in the formulation of this RFC. -- Irn (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll explain as clearly as I can. This nine-Wikipedia rule was somehow indoctrinated into full Wikipedia guideline status following a "vote" of around six people, some of whom didn't even really agree with it. Since then it has been used to summarily reject individuals who are clearly notable given the volume of international coverage their deaths have received. The RFC has been formulated in such a way as to get as much "outside RY" commentary as possible. This used to be a closed shop, the regulars running the place and rejecting anything that didn't meet their expectations. Now, at least, we're getting more eyes on the pages, and this is step one, nothing to do with a strawman. Is any criterion that relies on unreliable sources a useful barometer of anything? Unequivocally no. In my opinion, but this RFC aims to get full consensus for that. Then we can spend (probably a lot of) time coming up with a solution. Mine is to link to Deaths in 2017 which is comprehensive and doesn't cherry-pick based on unreliable sources. Or use an ITNC model where people are included based on a community consensus and a minimum quality threshold. Both are superior to this unreliable source method of cherry picking. But until we establish the current methodology is duff, there's no point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Don't fall into the Jim Michael trap, this isn't "abandoning" anything. This changes nothing, other than opening the door for an RFC which will result in a change to the criteria. And a much wider audience to assist in that process. This isn't about users, this is about readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• No, and we clearly have consensus in this thread. Time to close it. 1.129.97.23 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• No, obviously. Other Wikipedias are not reliable sources; the system is easy to game; and really, since when did we begin to use such an arbitrary number to decide anything? There are many possible criteria that are better than this one. Substantive coverage for the death in sources outside the country of origin is one such. Substantive coverage in sources outside the country, whether in life or in death, is another (but probably too broad). Obituaries in reliable sources outside the country of origin is yet another. Whether or not a person was described by sources as internationally significant is yet another. Vanamonde (talk) 11:03, 15 September 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.

Do we need "Recent Years"?

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

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

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

Inclusion criteria / motives of editors

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.

---

Most of the people who object to the inclusion criteria are people who want one particular event or person included and don't know that international notability is required. They usually don't come back, because they only wanted to include one particular event that happened in their country or one particular entertainer/sportsperson included - most don't care about the article or project in general. Jim Michael (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the comments Jim. You got more folks commenting because they were RFCs and not just limited to your little group of oversighters. Times are changing and so is this mini project. Many of us are here to stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It would be better if there were far more regular editors - but few stick around. Jim Michael (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm here for the longhaul. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jim, are you saying that everyone here who thinks the inclusion criteria is problematic, are just butthurt about not having their favourite star included?? Christ. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No, but most of the people who've disagreed with the RY criteria over the past few years do merely want one particular event or person included. Jim Michael (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. People come to include an event or a person, fall afoul of the criteria (either stated in RY or implied per local habit), start discussing with the "regulars", cannot convince them of anything, and give up. Status quo is effectively perpetuated. — JFG ^talk 19:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

But most of them only want to include one particular domestic event or a particular entertainer/sportsperson etc. whom they're a fan of. Most aren't interested in improving the article, the criteria or being consistent. Jim Michael (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And with that assumption, you reject each and every person who may want to improve the articles beyond a single entry… Even when other editors agree that their rules are arbitrary, they won't change a thing. I remember pointing out that the International Year of the Potato was perhaps not a notable event, or that tracking atmospheric carbon levels was perhaps out of scope, but well nobody moved a finger. — JFG ^talk 23:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not an assumption - most of the objectors over the past few years have been centred on merely adding one event or person - with no other interest in the article or project. Jim Michael (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

See WP:ABF, and please, [citation needed]. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not an assumption - I know it to be true. There's no doubt - I've followed the history of RY articles and their talk pages for years. Typically, a person who disagrees wants only to add one domestic event or a person whom (s)he's a fan of who's not internationally notable. This has happened many times. Jim Michael (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said, WP:ABF, [citation needed] and actually, once again WP:OWN. Let's see what evidence you have and why it would be so damaging for this article. It's getting to the point where all you and the other regulars do is revert other good faith editors. And nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

How many times do I need to tell you? I'm not assuming - I know from years of experience on RY articles. You can see it from the history of RY articles and their talk pages.

Why what would be damaging for the article?

We do a lot of reverting the additions of non-eligible additions. Whether they're good-faith or not, they don't belong here, so they're rightfully removed.

Jim Michael (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You assume bad faith, that's clear from what you write. The history of RY tells the same story: you and the regular three or four object to anything outside your enclave's internal acceptance criteria. Your group's assumption of bad faith on all other editors is clear. Your "right to remove" will soon disappear, as the "guideline" will soon become an "essay", the next step will be to remove the arcane regulations (primarily) you impose on additions, so we can expect an article for English readers that genuinely represents what they would expect to see. You may not be around to help with that journey, but rest assured, it's going to happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Not true - that's merely what you infer. We remove unjustified additions regardless of whether they are in good or bad faith. The current guideline was established and modified over a period of years by several regulars, some of whom are no longer editing. It's not about what the largest number of people would expect to see - it's about internationally historically notable events and internationally notable people only. We're not a tabloid or a popularity contest. We aren't aiming to beat rivals to gain the most readers or praise. Jim Michael (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

And that, exactly, is not what our community or readers want. Thanks for expressing it so clearly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You, TRM, are probably the first person objecting to WP:RY, since it was first proposed, whose stated goal was not to add a specific person or event which was excluded by the guideline/essay. I don't see your proposals as an improvement, but, at least your stated goal doesn't involve specific people. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Come again? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Although I initially proposed the insertion of a particular event, I ended up questioning the relevance of many other entries, contradictions in the rules, and I made proposals to create a process that would result in recent-year articles more reflective of the zeitgeist of each year as reported by WP:RS. See Talk:2016/Archive 2#Election of Donald Trump, Talk:2016/Archive 2#Widening the debate and particularly my comment here,[1] to which a "regular" even agreed.[2] — JFG ^talk 09:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The point is, does it really matter what the motives of prior editors were? All that matters is that it has drawn our attention to a problem. The fact that there has been so many issues regarding what event/person is included, merely reinforces the notion that the selection criteria is vague, subjective and inconsistent. You wouldn't have arguments if the criteria was understandable and quantitative. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:59, 22 August 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.

Should the year range for WP:RY (2002–2017) be changed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unhelpful chatter
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
'"The reason for 2002 to be the year it that the stricter criteria start is that it"' - what the shit are you on about, man? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC) WP began in 2001. Therefore, 2002 was the first full year of its existence. Years from 2002 were created at the time, rather than retrospectively. That is the reason that 2002 is the first recent year. Jim Michael (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Yes, I understand that. What I don't understand is someone who edits Wikipedia while seemingly falling down a flight of stairs. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Who's editing whilst seemingly falling down stairs? Jim Michael (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hidden comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Recent Years Selection Process

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

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

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

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

There are three key ways forward:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewrite to reflect essay status

This no longer being a guideline (and questionably ever really being one, per the RfC above), is wording needs to be rewritten in an advisory not commanding tone. I've started at the top (series of tweaks, plus a fix by TRM, compressed into a single diff: [3]), and hope this will inspire some others to reshape it into a properly advisory essay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

That's enough.The discussion has already took place in the section just above.No need to rehash the same arguments.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If RY is abandoned, what would replace it? We don't have a consensus for any alternative inclusion criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Yes, you've made your view on this quite clear above in the RFC I just referenced. I'm not going to have the same argument again here. agtx 19:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC) RY can easily be abandoned as we have WP:YEARS which helps maintain the other thousands of articles (just not the fifteen or so from 2002 onwards). Since there's a clear consensus right now that delineating between "recent" and "non recent" years is inappropriate, we can now move onto working for inclusion guidance on any year article. It will serve us well to completely delete all the historical "we've always done it this way" behaviour and start afresh, and think of our readers every step of the way, not some kind of ideological year summary which is designed to parrot what you might find in a newspaper or magazine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC) If we have the same criteria for all years, the more recent ones will be much longer because far more people will add to them. Jim Michael (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC) I've already dealt with that concern. And the summary is "so what?". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC) It would make WP even more biased towards recent events than it already is. Jim Michael (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Yet another "it would" offered without evidence or any backing. When will you provide some evidence that all these horrible foreseen outcomes have either any validity or, even more to the point, any actual detrimental effect? Otherwise, it's reasonable to think that you've been dressing up personal preference as policy without cause. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC) No, that's not true, it would simply mean more recent years are more comprehensive than earlier ones. As I already discussed, this is perfectly acceptable and understandable – and importantly, would not surprise our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC) @Jim Michael: Again, "so what?" Obviously more information is available in the modern era. We shouldn't be ditching information to comply with the lacking state of the past. We are supposed to be providing complete information. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC) We have many sub-articles for each year (by topic and country). We're meant to exclude the large majority of things from the main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC) No, that's not true. We're not meant to exclude the large majority of things from the main year articles, whoever told you that? We're meant to serve our readers by providing them links to the stories that they would expect to see in a synopsis of the year. Your assertion is patently false. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC) If we included half/most/all events and deaths, each RY article would be multiple times longer than they currently are and the sub-articles would consist mainly of info that's duplicated from here. That wouldn't make sense. The main article for each year should be a concise summary of the international year, with the sub-articles giving info dedicated to its subject or country. Jim Michael (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC) No, that's not true. Nobody here agrees with you Jim. Nobody. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Everyone who contributed to establishing the RY criteria wanted most events and deaths excluded from the main articles and put in sub-articles. Jim Michael (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Perhaps against my better judgment, I'm just going to drop this here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Jim Michael Diffs please where "everyone who contributed ... wanted most events and deaths excluded from the main articles" please. Shouldn't be too difficult to find. The walled garden of RY is well and truly open to all now, and we're seeing a clear consensus for radical change. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Under the RY criteria, the large majority of events and deaths which were eligible for inclusion in at least one of the topic or country subarticles weren't eligible for inclusion in the main article. Excluding most events and deaths from the main article and including them in subarticles - leaving the main article only for internationally notable events and deaths of internationally notable people - was clearly the intention of the people who formulated the rules. If 2017 is expanded to the extent that it includes most of the events and deaths that are in 2017 in the United States, 2017 in science etc., then it reduces the value, usefulness and popularity of the many subarticles. Jim Michael (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Those sub-articles are pracitcally unviewed. Take the 2017 in the US for instance, an average of 224 hits/day, even the similar "in science" page gets fewer than 500 hits per day. These are clearly not targets for our readers. By the way, I asked for some diffs to prove your assertion of the statement: "everyone who contributed ... wanted most events and deaths excluded from the main articles", thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC) They would be viewed even less often if the main page were lengthened substantially. 500 per day is more than 20 per hour. I'm not going to go back nearly a decade to find diffs to provide evidence for something which is obvious. The RY criteria excluded the large majority of events and deaths, so that was clearly the intention. Jim Michael (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC) 20 per hour is pathetic on the fourth most-viewed website in history. Diffs should be very simple given the RY talkpage archive is so slim. So either back your assertion or redact it. If I recall correctly, the so-called "guideline" was created by a handful of users, so it should be very simple to locate. It most certainly did not exclude the large majority of events and deaths, can you provide evidence of that as well please? If not, it's just more unverifiable disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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