Talk:List of terrorist incidents in October 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of terrorist incidents in October 2017 redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
	This redirect is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Lists

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles

Years

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles

To be included on this stand-alone list, each entry should meet the following list criteria (see discussion):

The incident is notable
The incident has a corresponding stand-alone Wikipedia article
The consensus of reliable sources describe the incident as "terrorism"

Number of page views in the past 30 days

2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting

@Aaf263:: 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting does not belong on this list currently as it has not been confirmed to be a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack is political, ideological or religious, and this one is unknown. From Sherriff Lombardo's press conferenceat 8.09pm:

We are confident that the primary aggressor in this event has expired, or passed away and is no longer a threat. We do not know what his belief system was at this time. We believe he is the sole aggressor at this point and the scene is static. We are attempting to locate the person of interest. Right now we believe it is sole actor, a lone wolf type actor and we have the place under control.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An example of why we should enforce NOTNEWS. Reuters has said US officials are skeptical of the ISIS claim.[1] Doug Weller talk 15:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sources now quoting the FBI saying no evidence of a connection. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the NYT, this hasn't been declared as terrorism, let alone as Islamist related terrorism. Yet it keeps appearing in the list. What do others think? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That it shouldn't be included.T v x1 21:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

MOS:FLAG defines when flags are appropriate in articles, and following discussion at WT:MOSICON#Flags in location columns of terrorism list articles, it is clear that they are inappropriate in the list in this article. For that reason I have removed them. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto:I'm going to be honest here; the article looks like shit without the flags so say what you will, but they served their purpose well. Say I want to look at incidents that occurred in Iraq. Before, I could scroll until I saw the Iraqi flag. Now, I either have to do ctrl+f on desktop or read every single entry until I find what I'm looking for on mobile. The removal of flags may have been warranted according to wikipedia guidelines (something with which I disagree), but what was the point of doing that if it lowered the quality of the article? Not one single person complained about the flags before you came along so how about taking that under consideration next time you decide to arbitrarily enforce Wikipedia guidelines.StrikeDog (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to see all of one country is to sort them by country name - that way they all come together. The flags suggest the terrorist(s) somehow represent the country where the incident took place and are undignified and insulting to the country concerned. MOS:FLAG was created for a good reason, and we need a very convincing rationale to justify flouting it. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto:Actually, sorting by location sorts by alphabetical order, the city in which the incident took place. Also, please explain to me how the flags suggest that the terrorists represent that country. This is complete and utter nonsense which I struggle to understand how you came to that conclusion. Regarding the guidelines, they are just that. If guidelines can't be violated for the betterment of the article then those guidelines need to be amended. StrikeDog (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly possible to make that column sort on the country name.T v x1 22:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After I removed the flags I put the country names first to make sorting work more logically, but that has been lost in the activity since. I tried though. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've coded the column so that it sorts on the country column now.T v x1 00:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the hidden sort key template is a good solution for a couple of reasons: first, it's inconsistent with the rest of the pages from 2017 (which still sort by location name), potentially causing confusion. Second, the hidden sort key template is deprecated and no longer supported. If you want to preserve the sort-by-country functionality, the data-sort-value attribute is recommended instead. Reldresal (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something not being applied (yet) to other articles is not an argument not to apply it this one. You can help enrolling it to the other articles if you wish. As for the deprecation, that was met with disagreement right from the start on the talk page of the template and the addition of the notes seems to have been invalid. They were added unilaterally without any preceding discussion.T v x1 18:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Country linking

When adding entries to the lists of terrorist attacks, there is no need to put a link to the country name in each entry of the list. The desire to reduce overlinking like this applies across the encyclopedia and is covered in MOS:OVERLINK. Links to country names should be removed if they don't add anything further to the reader's understanding of the article. Any link provided should take the reader to a page with more detail on the topic ('terrorism in country X') as is done by the specific conflict link (eg. War in Afghanistan (2015–present)), not to a general page such as the country as a whole (eg. France). Loopy30 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that country names do not need linking. If the reader wants to know more about the country, they will inevitably find a link to it in the article about the town or city which will probably be linked. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, a consensus was reached to remove the country links because the flagicon linked to that article already. Now that the flagicon is no longer used the need for country links is back. Either keep the flag icons or keep the country links. Removing both is not an option.StrikeDog (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Removing both is appropriate per WP:MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove the location of the attacks, it might make people think that the towns or cities are somehow being represented by them — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinzMaster (talk • contribs) 15:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not include any terrorist attacks at all because someone somewhere may get offended. StrikeDog (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StrikeDog:@DeFacto: Can we start a discussion about removing the location and who did the attacks, we don't want someone to be painted in a bad light (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Flag/Location/attacker etc.

@HeinzMaster:@DeFacto:Please explain to me how a country's flag or its mere mention in the location negatively portrays that country. And I'm looking for a better reason than "someone may be offended." Also explain how the article looks better without the flagicons. Don't give me any of the wikipedia guidelines BS. From a strictly visual perspective, do the flagicons have a positive impact on the article or not? StrikeDog (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless – see WP:CONLIMITED. If you want flag icons in this article, you won't be able to make that happen by discussing it here. Mojoworker (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see a positive impact from having flags. I don't see what they do that the country names don't already do.T v x1 13:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In my opinion the Trelleborg shooting of october 12th should not be entered in the table of terrorist incidents. If you check on open source information, you;l see that police sueggests that the shooting probably concerns a gang shootout, raher than a terrorist attack. SgtWoody (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.T v x1 12:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of terrorist incidents in October 2017. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine

Based on this discussion, I am going to revise the accidents related to War in Donbass and only keep here those which are defined as terrorist attacks by independent neutral sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I am going backwards, already done December 2017, and I intend to clean up all months starting from 2014.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 18:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]