Jump to content

Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue/Archive 2

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

Requested move 4 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No prospect of even rough consensus to move. The existing redirect will need to do for now. Andrewa (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


Tham Luang cave rescue → 2018 Thailand cave rescue – Per WP:COMMONNAME, English sources call it the "Thailand cave rescue" or "Thai cave rescue". No other notable cave rescues have happened in Thailand so far this year so there is no ambiguity. Firebrace (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

But, as per "Article title" above, there have never been any other notable "Thailand cave rescues" at all. So is the year necessary? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the need for the change of title. 2018 Thailand cave rescue, Thailand cave rescue, and Thai cave rescue, all bring us to the same article. Redirects work fine therefore I don't understand why the change is called for. Bus stop (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is largely irrelevant. The distinction between the name of the cave and the name of the country is a function of a reader's familiarity with the region. It is largely not a function of which of the choices represent the most common name encountered. I prefer the specificity of the cave system's name largely for its educational value. A title provides prominence of place for the terms included in it. I simply see nothing wrong with the present title. The main thing is that this is not an instance of WP:COMMONNAME. Other arguments might apply but I don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies. Bus stop (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
We're not here to educate people by using terms they don't recognize in article titles. In fact, WP:TITLE prohibits it. According to the policy, article titles should be:
  • Recognizable – "a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize"
  • Natural – "one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles"
  • Precise – "enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that"
Firebrace (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
In order to ensure a productive discussion and debate, an admin should gray out Bus stop's comment because s/he has conceded that Firebrace has won the argument by not responding to the detailed argument based on policy and has even suggested we shouldn't follow policy. Otherwise everyone's time is wasted by repeating the same refuted arguments many times.--Espoo (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I won't get bogged down in reexamining what has already transpired but "he has conceded that Firebrace has won the argument" is an incorrect statement. I have "conceded" nothing of the sort. We should aspire to be a worldly and sophisticated encyclopedia when possible and I know of no indication that anyone has ever been confused by the present title. This is a solution in search of a problem. Unfortunately Wikipedia Talk pages are breeding grounds for debates that are sometimes almost pointless. Bus stop (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
By still not responding to Firebrace's clear arguments based on policy you are still conceding they won the argument, especially since your response does not respond in any way to what they said and is instead a typical dishonest politician's way of saying your opinion, this time without even any attempt at referring to WP article naming policies, which is even worse than the previous response, which at least claimed WP:COMMONNAME does not apply, though without any explanation why WP policies should be ignored. (Which is the reason for huge amounts of time being wasted all over WP on discussing things like this that should be discussed on the policy pages, not the individual articles' talk pages.).
No, actually, the current title violates policy. See above... Firebrace (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. It's immediately recognizable without needing any more knowledge than that a cave rescue is being undertaken in Thailand. Indeed I created the redirect because I typed "2018 Thailand cave rescue" in the search bar and was met with a red link. It is implausible to assume that a majority of people unfamiliar with Thai geography would be searching exactly for "Tham Luang cave". We need not be overly specific, nor use official names (hence North Korea, not Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea), nor is it the purpose of titles to educate readers on the name of the cave: the first sentence of the lead section covers that ("Article titles should be neither vulgar... nor pedantic.) If the majority of reliable, worldwide English-language souces refer to this as the "Thailand cave rescue" or similar, then so should we, until the point when that title becomes ambiguous. A cursory (but non-scientific) search of news articles shows "Thailand cave rescue" to predominate in news article titles, with the cave appropriately named in the body. I see no harm in including the year for now, which might satisfy pedants in the future. I note that most of the Oppose comments here outright ignore the Policies of Wikipedia:Article titles or arbitrarily claim they don't apply for personal opinions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is not even applicable. The title can be discussed via other factors applicable to it. But there is no "common name" for that which is transpiring. We have "common names" for those things with some degree of history to them:
People
Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)
Bono (not: Paul Hewson)
Places
The Hague (not: 's-Gravenhage)
United Kingdom (not: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
Science and nature topics
Caffeine (not: 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione)
Down syndrome (not: Trisomy 21)
Fuchsia (not: Lady's ear drops)
Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)
Other topics
FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football)
Seven Samurai (not: Shichinin no Samurai)
Please present your arguments in opposition to the present name. But you cannot realistically say there is a "common name" for what is transpiring. As long as redirects work I can't imagine what motivates anyone to prefer the name of the country to the more specific name of the cave. Would any reader realistically become confused if a redirect brought them to this article? In an immediate glance they would see that indeed it was the article they were looking for. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
We would (or should) if the vast majority of sources referred to it as the "United States mine rescue". That hypothetical situation however, is improbable, and irrelevant to this discussion. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It has been referred to as the "Pennsylvania mine rescue", and if the incident had global attention, I would go with "2002 Pennsylvania mine rescue". But the story failed to gain traction outside the US because the miners were trapped for just over 3 days. This is different. Firebrace (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Calling this "Thailand cave rescue" is unprofessional and inaccurate. I think this proposal shows that Wikipedia tends to be written from a European and American point of view, instead of a worldwide point of view. Naming this article the 2018 Thailand cave rescue would be like saying: "Yeah, it's that cave rescue from Thailand. We don't know where in Thailand, because we, Western people, actually don't know shit about Thailand. But it's from Thailand, and it's a juicy and dramatic event the whole world talks about, with no one knowing the actual name of the cave where it takes place." Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm willing to bet that few people in Thailand itself have ever heard of Tham Luang. Or English-speaking people in South America, Africa, or the rest of Asia, so let's not pretend only North Americans and Europeans have a poor understanding of Thai geography... Firebrace (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
For reference, compare the Riesending cave rescue. 183.83.222.113 (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
(facetious) Why not name it Some place on the other side of the world cave rescue? Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Precedence has these sorts of situations list the specific location, as they should. Spengouli (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Manifestation. AIRcorn (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Putting the name of the cave in article name is highly encyclopedic, as it immediately tells readers of the location of the incident and the significance of understanding the location. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 02:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The Common Name policy states: "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred". In the references as of today for this article, the phrase "Thailand cave rescue" or "Thai cave rescue" appears eight times in the titles of news articles about this event published by reliable sources. "Tham Luang cave rescue" does not appear at all in the references thus far. I believe WP titles should be very close, or identical to, the commonly-used expression for the topic. I support the proposal, but I think the year "2018" could be omitted. Disclosure: I created the "Thai cave rescue" redirect. DonFB (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Policy says that we use "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) . . ." A Google News search for "cave rescue" shows that the majority of reliable English language sources use the name "Thailand cave rescue" with a minority using "Thai cave rescue". None that I could find used "Tham Luang cave rescue". Of course, Tham Luang should be mentioned in the lead, but not the title. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The question here is one of perspective. If the article were being written from the Moon or Jupiter we might title it "Planet Earth cave rescue". Such considerations as prevalence in reliable sources are largely irrelevant considerations because once a reader gets here by a redirect referencing "Thailand" or "Thai" they will know immediately that this is the article that they were looking for—even if they did not know the name of the cave system. Policy is written for most situations but not all. There is no harm done in providing information right from the start, and we shouldn't allow policy language to prevent us from giving the article the best possible title. Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, more readers will know what Thailand is than will know what the Tham Luang cave is, but what difference does that make? Other than a slavish adherence to the "recognizability" clause in policy, how does your point have any bearing on anything that matters? How long do you think it would take for a reader to figure out that "Tham Luang" is the name of the cave—about a half of one second? Bus stop (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
To the reader, both names would have about the same effect, certainly, but one of them obeys policy better. If both are functionally the same but one is more right by definition, that one is the better choice. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
What is the point in having policies if editors can just ignore them at will? If we are keeping this title because some don't personally agree with WP:TITLE then it may as well be demoted to a guideline... Firebrace (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. We are not expected adhere to policy if policy prevents us from improving an article. The name of the cave has the appropriate level of specificity, even if it is not recognized. There is a learning curve which can begin with the title rather than the lede. We would be squandering an opportunity to get the reader immediately up to speed if we "dumbed down" the title to a more general level of specificity. I don't know if you still maintain your argument concerning WP:COMMONNAME but I don't think it is applicable because the real crux of this question is one of perspective rather than one of the most generally recognized name. Within Thailand they would not refer to it as the Thailand cave rescue and from the perspective of the planet Jupiter they would probably refer to it as the "Planet Earth cave rescue". But as inhabitants of planet Earth I think the appropriate level of specificity is the name of the cave system. There is nothing wrong with the policies and guidelines that are in place but we can question them in those instances in which we don't think they are especially applicable, and we can deviate from those policies and guidelines, and we can still defend the general applicability of those policies and guidelines. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. Seems fine as it is and there's no advantage to the change. This is Paul (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRECISION. Titles should be precise enough to be unambiguous, but no more so than that. I don't believe there other equally significant cave-ins in Thailand, so the current article title is overly precise. As for WP:COMMONNAME, I do note that the majority of sources refer to this event as "Thai Cave Rescue" simply because they are international news sites; however, local Thai sites use the Thai language and this is English Wikipedia. Since far more sources use "Thai cave rescue", that should be the name of the wiki page. — Reatlas (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The reasoning you are presenting serves no purpose—other than strict adherence to the letter of policy. Whereas a deviation from that reasoning does serve a purpose. I also want to point out that this is not a cave-in, which is "a collapse of a geologic formation". Bus stop (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
"I don't believe there other equally significant cave-ins in Thailand"
Actually, Thailand has many, many caves. - Manifestation (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
None of these links describe cave-ins in Thailand. FallingGravity 14:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he/she meant caves, not cave-ins. Cave-ins have nothing to do with this. :-) Manifestation (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
So 2018 Thailand cave rescue wins 3-1. There is a good argument for Thailand cave rescue, which wins on conciseness, so arguably scores 4-0. Cimbalom (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Thailand cave rescue" will be too vague in the long run. It may lack precision already; the claim that there have be no other notable cave rescues in Thai history seems suspicious. And presently, "2018 Thailand cave rescue" is not a common name yet.--MWAK (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:ENGLISH: The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources. FallingGravity 05:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support for all the reasons already given. It's simple and clear. Some of those opposing seem to favour obfuscation, a disturbing trend I see increasing in Wikipedia articles. I add that those who hope that English Wikipedia articles should be written from a language- or ethnicity-neutral perspective are naive and seem to be ignoring that most Wikipedia articles appear in more languages than English. For example, the current article currently has 16 versions in other languages, including Thai, where Google Translate gives its title as "The search and rescue operation of the Royal cave".Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
"Some of those opposing seem to favour obfuscation, a disturbing trend I see increasing in Wikipedia articles."
Really? That would indeed be a disturbing trend, since this is usually advised against.
"I add that those who hope that English Wikipedia articles should be written from a language- or ethnicity-neutral perspective are naive and seem to be ignoring that most Wikipedia articles appear in more languages than English."
You do know that neutrality is one of Wikipedia's core pillars, right? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Is "Tham Luang cave" an obfuscation of "Thailand"? Is "Thailand" more ethnicity-neutral than "Tham Luang cave"? Bus stop (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, of course [t]he vast majority of readers would not know what Tham Luang cave is. That is why an encyclopedia exists. The question is, would a title "Tham Luang cave rescue" hinder a reader's use of the encyclopedia in any way? Our raison d'être is not to see how closely we can adhere to policy. Any reader arriving at this article via any of the several redirects would instantly know that they were at the right article. So, what would be accomplished by the blind adherence to policy? A title such as "Thailand cave rescue " is more dumb than "Tham Luang cave rescue". It is stupid because it contains less information. It is slightly parochial to cite only the name of the country in the title because we should at least be aspiring to know the world on a more detailed level. Tham Luang cave is within the country of Thailand; the country of Thailand is not within Tham Luang cave. The level of specificity in our title matters. And it is preferable to be appropriately specific—regardless of anything that policy might say. We don't exist to adhere to policy. Bus stop (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Since you take a stance that goes distinct against policy there is absolutely nothing backing up what you're saying here. We don't exist to adhere to policy, but that's not a reason not to follow it most of the time. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
most of the time The exception being those times that If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
You seem to think rules are for other people and are confusing precision and accuracy. "2018 Thailand cave rescue" contains all the information an English-speaking visitor (the target audience of English Wikipedia) needs to identify the subject. It is also accurate; titles should only be precise insofar as avoiding ambiguity. Firebrace (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
We are not just trying to arrive at the title that removes ambiguity. We should go beyond merely removing ambiguity in this case because Thailand is familiar to all people. We should be more precise. We should introduce unfamiliarity (in this case). We should introduce as much unfamiliarity as is tolerable. By "tolerable" I mean without introducing confusion. On a pragmatic level no clarity is lost in using the title "Tham Luang cave rescue". There are redirects from titles that only use the country's name in the title and any reader would know that they were at the article they were looking for immediately upon arriving at this article. Your reasons for preferring "Thailand cave rescue" have everything to do with adherence to policy and nothing to do with this specific article. Let us say there were no policies and guidelines. Can you tell me in your own words how this article would benefit from being titled "Thailand cave rescue" or any other title using "Thailand" in the title instead of "Tham Luang cave" in the title? Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it should be called "2018 Thailand cave rescue" not only because the policy dictates that's the course of action to take, but because I think that policy makes sense: an aim for recognizability. The point of the title is to label, is it the job of the article to teach. The label should be something the reader sees and recognizes, something they read and say "oh, that's what this is about". Not something that they look at and are confused about, something they need to the article to explain. Regarding your example of "they'll just be redirected", what about an appearance on the main page as a DYK or a featured article? There's also google results to consider, this name will be what gets displayed to people looking in from outside. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
what about an appearance on the main page as a DYK or a featured article? Wouldn't there be accompanying text? There's also google results to consider, this name will be what gets displayed to people looking in from outside. The Google search algorithm is smart enough to to treat varying search terms similarly, and there too there would be accompanying text. In all cases, including the article itself, accompanying text obviates the need for the term more familiar to the widest number of people, namely the country, "Thailand". Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and Cullen328's arguments.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 04:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Nobody knows what Tham Luang is. Headlines specifically say Thailand because it's common. Also WP:COMMONNAME Ottoshade (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you can recognize "Thailand" and remember (at least vaguely) where it is and what it's all about, you can learn "Tham Luang" to a similar familiarity with the same effort. Don't sell yourselves short! And if you would, at least don't insist on holding more eager students back with you. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:AT, which requires titles to be "precise". A reference to Thailand alone would be vague. Edge3 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Invalid argument, see WP:PRECISE: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". Firebrace (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
      It is possible for more than one cave rescue to have occurred in Thailand in 2018. Thailand is huge, and not every incident is reported in the news. Therefore, the proposed title may require disambiguation that could be avoided by choosing a more precise title. Also see 2010 Copiapó mining accident for another rescue that similarly garnered international attention, so WP:CONSISTENCY applies.
      Furthermore, even if the proposed title meets the precision criteria, note that WP:PRECISE also states, "Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria." The relevant naming criteria is WP:NCE, which does not appear to support using an entire country (Thailand) to describe the location of an event. Edge3 (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
      On your first point, Wikipedia only covers notable events; if an incident wasn't reported in the news, then it wasn't notable by default.
      Two, with regard to consistency, Wikipedia should not cling to a mistake just because it has spent a lot of time making it. I would be all for moving 2010 Copiapó mining accident to 2010 Chile mining accident as well.
      Third, WP:NCE states: "If there is an established, common name for an event … use that name".
      Firebrace (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The claim about WP:NCE is very easily disproven given one of the two given examples for a "when, where, what" title such as the proposed "2018 Thailand cave rescue" is 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this article is directly comparable to a political crisis that affected all of Russia. In contrast, this cave rescue effort is taking place in a specific location (Tham Luang), not the entire country of Thailand. Edge3 (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
You may have had a point if the proposed title were "2018 Thailand caves rescue". 'Cave', a singular noun, identifies the rescue as taking place in one Thai cave and not multiple Thai caves. Firebrace (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Language Doesn't make sense, only the title itself but ok. Bryan (talk) 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong, strong oppose - While I do concur with others above who argue for some change to the title, I strongly oppose changing the title to the year-country/city-event title format, as it has become kind of a plague on Wikipedia that sterilises the majority of articles on events of any unique, indentifiable name that allows them to stand out among other events, especially in lists or categories. This naming scheme just has to stop. It has to stop. Please. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that "massive oppose", "strong oppose" and over-the-top cries of "stop please" carry no more weight than a straightforward "oppose" when it comes to building WP:CONSENSUS, which states: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Firebrace (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
      • While not a cave system noted for being a site of a rescue operation, Rising Star Cave, an archeological site, is not given a title which includes the term South Africa. Due to the presence of wp:redirects there is nothing lost in just cutting to the chase and presenting the cave's name in the title. While I'm reluctant to predict the future it seems possible the cave's title may eventually become a household name. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    • That particular naming scheme, "year-country/city-event", is a result of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Conventions. In other words, it is a format that is supported by Wikipedia guidelines. If you dislike the formatting, then you should petition to have the guideline changed. Until then, we should strive to follow the guidelines, as that is descriptive of what most editors agree on. Mz7 (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per arguments above. Perhaps a redirect (if anything), but the current title is fine. QueerFilmNerdtalk 06:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I can understand the arguments to switch to the most wide-used naming in general, but for a cave rescue the name of the cave is the obvious choice and it just feels wrong to move away from it. As pointed out above, in the most comparable cases Copiapó, Riesending, we made a similar choice. --Stupid girl (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Either title is 100% acceptable. Some things have more than one name. Whatever the final outcome, both names should be listed in the lead. Hopes and prayers for the team. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Naturalness: In the long run, the cave will be tainted with the outcome of this story, to a greater extent than the country will. Precision: There are numerous large caves in Southeast Asia. There are likely to be other tragedies, some in Thailand as well. Bob Stein - VisiBone (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Because most people are not aware of Tham Luang cave, but most of the people can simply understand the title 2018 Thailand cave rescue or 2018 Thai cave rescue instead of 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue. Abishe (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
most people are not aware of Tham Luang cave The reader doesn't need the term "Thailand" in the title. Beyond a certain point simplification becomes oversimplification. It is readily apparent to any reader that Tham Luang cave is the specific geographical location within Thailand of the subject of this article, and Redirects bring the reader to this article—so what are we trying to accomplish by placing the term "Thailand" in the title? Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Changing the title loses accuracy and suggests Western bias. Any reader ignorance can be addressed through redirects. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no Western bias; non-Western WP:RS also call the incident "Thai/Thailand cave rescue":
Of course, there is an English language bias to the proposed title, but we are the English version of Wikipedia. Firebrace (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As a Western reader, I didn't know the name of the cave, but I also expected the title of the article to include the name of the cave, whatever that name would be. Identifying a cave by the country it's in sounds silly. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All closely comparable articles in Wikipedia (2010 Copiapó mining accident, Beaconsfield Mine collapse, Riesending cave rescue) have names that specify the town or cave, not just the country. Cave rescues more generally tend to be listed by cave name, as in the Cave rescue article. GKSmyth (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
"In the majority of cases, the title of the [event] article should contain the following three descriptors:
  • When the incident happened.
  • Where the incident happened.
  • What happened."
Firebrace (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, so would COMMONNAME trump the requirement for when? Current common names very rarely have a year, since they are current? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Where does it say titles must be 100% the common name and nothing else? "Thailand cave rescue" is the common name, and prefixing it with "2018" conforms to the article naming convention for events. Firebrace (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Those words are not used. I was asking only since the requirement for COMMON appears first. My apologies for using the t-word. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The current title also follows the convention. When was the sitewide consensus for this guideline established? Does it correctly reflect current community practice? James (talk/contribs) 13:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You said that years are generally used to disambiguate, and there is no need for that here, but omitting the year would violate the naming convention (which is a guideline) for events. The outcome of this discussion must respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, per WP:CONSENSUS. Firebrace (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It's referred to as the 'Thai cave rescue' and the 'Thai cave boys' etc in every article. I feel like that title would be a lot more recognisable, also internationally. Romeowth (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we can have "2010 Copiapó mining accident", "Beaconsfield Mine collapse", "Riesending cave rescue" to name a few, then we can have "Tham Luang cave rescue". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myfyp2 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Massive Support. As has been mentioned above numerous times, almost every single English article refers to it as Thailand Cave Rescue, not Tham Luang. Tham Luang is an unfamiliar name and hard to remember. When looking for information about it, 99% of casual English readers will type in "Thailand cave rescue" in their search. The specific name of the cave is unimportant to them. Also, some people who are opposed make the argument that there are a lot of cave rescues in Thailand and that Thailand is too broad. Well, I'm sure there won't be another major one like this in the year 2018, if at all in the next couple decades. "2018 Thailand cave rescue" seems the only logical title. Airgum (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Airgum—you say "When looking for information about it, 99% of casual English readers will type in 'Thailand cave rescue' in their search." But does that matter? They would still arrive at this article. There are redirects in place. You also say that "almost every single English article refers to it as Thailand Cave Rescue, not Tham Luang". There are prominent journalistic articles using Tham Luang cave in titles of articles. But I think you make a valid point: most use Thailand cave rescue. But there is a reason for that. Journalistic articles jostle cheek by jowl with the other news stories of the day. By contrast we are only writing one article. We don't churn out an article per day. And a reader seeking our article has already made up their mind what they want to read about. They aren't perusing the day's news. They have their mind set on learning about the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Bus stop, yes it matters, even with redirects. An encyclopedia should be standardized, not sloppy. WP:TITLE (which is different from WP:COMMONNAME) tells us that the most recognizable name should be in the title, not in a redirect. I agree with your reasoning in your point about journalists naming their articles, but that has (unfortunately, IMO) not been the consensus here. Editors seem to prefer to use names found in source material, even if they are offensive. Dcs002 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The name of the cave has already been shortened from "Tham Luang Nang Non" to "Tham Luang", which I believe meets WP:COMMONNAME. Heolkpop (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The exact name will forever be obscure to the average user, and redirect can be notoriously bad. I would suggest instead the exact name redirect to the "2018 Thailand Cave Rescue."Mzmadmike (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The comment above was persuasive to me that existing articles are named, for example, "2010 Copiapó mine accident" and "Riesending cave rescue." What journalists refer to the incident today, during ongoing events, is not necessarily illustrative of what it will be commonly referred to going forward, either colloquially or in the history books. --Xwu (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Redirects work, and it is not a given as to what the common name will be for this operation after another month or so. The current name is concise and will be used by people who seek the cave's name first. Strongly advise not renaming this page until after the operation is over and enough time has elapsed that people can look back and say with more certainty what this operation will be called in the future. --EMS | Talk 20:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I will add one more point: "Thailand cave rescue" is a media term, coined to describe the event in the context of the moment, not the long term. But pages like this are going to be present for the long term, and so should have a name that reflects that. --EMS | Talk 21:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Is there any evidence that people are coming here to find out the cave's name instead of read about, you know, the rescue operation? Also, per WP:TITLE, if a redirect is used more often on Wikipedia than a page's actual title, the page is supposed to be moved to the more commonly used title. Firebrace (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: Per Firebrace way at the top of this discussion: recognizable, natural, and precise. That standard doesn't say recognizable, natural, and precise unless there are redirects. The article title should be the most obvious, regardless of redirects. Redirects are not meant as a primary means of finding the article. That's where the less recognizable (etc.) titles should be - redirects. The first thing that comes to mind in the worldwide English-speaking public should generally be at least part of the title, and I don't think that's the name of the cave. Remember, we're not just talking about what's recognizable today, but how this event will be recognized in a few years. The name of the cave just isn't widely known to people not following the story closely. Giving the year also follows a convention that's grown in disaster articles. It puts things in place so we won't have to have this discussion again if another such event happens in Thailand while still adhering to the recognizable-natural-precise standard. Dcs002 (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support To the average English speaker (our intended audience), Tham Luang is unheard of; people generally refer to this incident as being in Thailand. And while there is a good chance of an other cave rescue in Thailand in the future, there's a low chance of it being this year. (And such a rescue in the US should be named after the state.) 109.186.171.239 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Tham Luang is not the common usage by reliable sources. Look at CNN articles. They mostly refer to "Thailand", not "Tham Luang". Sorry, we go with reliable sources not our own made up thinking. Vanrich (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
"Look at CNN articles." Look at The Guardian articles. "Tham Luang cave rescue begins: what we know so far" Bus stop (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Even CNN, after titling today's article "Thai cave rescue: 11th boy freed, just one boy and coach still inside cave", begins the article "Tham Luang caves, Thailand (CNN) Only one boy and his soccer coach remain trapped in a Thai cave, after rescuers pulled out three more members of the Wild Boar soccer team at the end of an 18-day ordeal." Bus stop (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tham Luang is not commonly known, but referring to the naming of the article 2010 Copiapó mining accident, the fact that Copiapó is in the article name despite being not as well known provides no issue due to the redirect and how the name is "also known then as the Chilean mining accident..." There should be no big need for the year 2018 in the title as well. Redirects work perfectly fine. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 05:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Many people don't know where or what Tham Luang even is. It's an obscure title. Most of us know this incident as 'Thailand Cave Rescue'. Now sure, if another cave incident occurs in the country maybe we can then create specific regional titles. But that's pretty unlikely. Therefore, we should just stick with 'Thailand Cave Rescue' for the time being. Meganesia (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
If we want to dumb-down our article we can title it "Thailand cave rescue". But the name of the cave is Tham Luang. And there is nothing forcing us to follow most articles produced by journalistic sources because those articles are produced on a daily basis and they are found in the midst of articles on every other topic that is in the news on a given day. Simplification is called for in the titles of journalistic output to make it easier for readers to pick out the stories they want to read from the avalanche of news items presented on any given day. We are by contrast writing only one article. And a reader seeks out our article with far greater intentionality. That is why redirects matter. If the reader types "Thailand cave rescue" they get "Tham Luang cave rescue". No reader is conceivably confused by arriving at an article titled "Tham Luang cave rescue". On the contrary they are immediately reminded of the correct name of the cave system. Bus stop (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bus stop: See WP:BLUDGEONING and tone it down, thanks. You have made your point. Firebrace (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Firebrace: is there a difference between the naming requirements of a journalistic article and an encyclopedia article? We are writing one article. Every day hundreds or thousands of articles are published by journalistic sources on this topic. Wouldn't different guidelines apply? You've weighed into this discussion many times but I don't think you have addressed specifically this point. Bus stop (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bus stop: Wouldn't different guidelines apply? Yes, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply. Firebrace (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per arguments above. I see little reason to believe this piece of news will have a lasting impact in the memory of general world population to the degree that "Thailand cave rescue" will be more memorable than "Tham Luang cave rescue", which means that the more exact name is better. /Julle (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Manifestation and Rosalina2427. --Chris Howard (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It's a simple, commonsense title per WP:COMMONNAME. I've yet to see a single argument that convinces me we need to use the more specific but far more obscure exact cave name. Marshall Stax (talk)
  • Strong support The cave's name is rarely mentioned in media. Wikipedia should be user-friendly. The actual name of the cave is widely unrecognized by 99% of our English language readers. werldwayd (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia, not a news source, and we use redirects. "Tham Luang cave rescue" is an entirely "user-friendly" title for anyone that can read. The fact that we are covering this story in real time should not determine the title. Other publications will no doubt follow this event, including full-length articles and books. Such entities may very well choose to include the name of the cave system in their titles. We are not tied to the daily reportage of news stories. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Now that you mention books, I could not find any book titled Copiapó mining accident, but there is:
Firebrace (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I never mentioned "Copiapó mining accident". That is a different editor. And I said that "[s]uch entities may very well choose to include the name of the cave system in their titles. I didn't say that future books definitely will include the term "Tham Luang" in their title. The point I was trying to make was that we are not compelled to conform to the majority of articles that are daily produced by news outlets. WP:COMMONNAME describes those instances where there exists a history of usage. Bill Clinton is preferable to Willian Jefferson Clinton. But we are in uncharted territory in the sense that there is no common name for entrapment in the Tham Luang cave system in Thailand. I feel that education is an ever expanding thing. If we were in the 3rd century BC we wouldn't even be referring to the region as Thailand. In the 21st century we can refer to the Tham Luang cave system due to the ever expanding nature of information technology—especially as we are an encyclopedia—not a news source. Bus stop (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
See WP:NAMECHANGES: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers". Firebrace (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't attempt to predict the future. All references are to the present. An encyclopedia in 2018 can use naming conventions that focus on a cave system rather than an entire country. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Everything you said is refuted by WP:NAMECHANGES. We are tied to the daily reportage of news stories and the title is determined by the fact that we are covering this story in real time, because we use what is familiar to our readers, i.e. the name used by media outlets. And "such [books] may very well choose to include the name of the cave system in their titles" sounds to me like crystal ball gazing. FWIW, precedent of the Chilean mine rescue suggests that books about this event will not use 'Tham Luag' in their titles. Firebrace (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
You refer to "the name used by media outlets" but the media outlets invariably use the term "Tham Luang". Your quibble is over the title most commonly used by media outlets for their daily news stories which have to be easily identifiable to readers perusing the plethora of news stories on a given day. I would argue that we operate in a different environment. In a word, our environment is one of "intentionality". A reader is generally seeking out our article. It also should be noted that occasionally daily news sources have used the term "Tham Luang" in the title of their article. But you are correct that most news articles use "Thailand" in the title of their article. But the term "Tham Luang" is the second most prominent term. Please see this BBC source for instance. I predict you will argue that "Thailand cave rescue" is given prominence of place. In fact, since this is a video, both terms are displayed almost simultaneously. Bus stop (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The comparison to an issue of transgender identity is ludicrous, if not insulting. "Tham Luang cave rescue" is an acceptable name—we can just do better. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
What he probably meant was that we shouldn't always follow the masses / the mass media. I agree that this comparison is pretty skewed, though. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for the mixed metaphor. I merely wanted to point out that the media's title for an event/person should not dictate what the WP title ends up being. And we frequently let mass media frame our perception/framing of events, and we should be cognizant of it before we make unnecessary changes. TheSavageNorwegian 18:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't disagree in principle. I do think "Thailand" is more immediately recognizable than "Tham Luang". --BDD (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Then we had better delete all content sourced from the mass media in this article... Firebrace (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
That's why I had originally brought up the Manning example. That was the last time I remember media coverage overriding proper naming. Way back then when she transitioned, I remember myself feeling swayed by arguments that because the news was doing all its reporting referring to her as "Bradley", then the article should be named similarly. Just because the news is calling this rescue the "Thailand Rescue" shouldn't be our primary reason for migration. Sorry to be using a bit of a dated and charged example, but that's the move discussion that sprung to mind. Didn't intend to come off as someone hyperskeptical of the news. TheSavageNorwegian 21:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Massive, strong, unbridled, intergalactic, over-the-top support per the many WP:COMMONNAME arguments above. Changing the title to something more generically recognizable will not dumb-down the article. The reader will still learn the name of the cave; all it takes is reading the first sentence of the lede. Furthermore the Thai language version of this article is titled "Cave and Rescue operation" (according to Google translate), so the argument that changing the title to "2018 Thailand cave rescue" will give the article a Western bent is shaky. Minimal Counterexample (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the translation I am getting is "The search and rescue operation of the Royal cave.". Royal Cave = Tham Luang, so the Thai Wikipedia article sticks to the actual name of the cave, which is unsurprising. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. A number of searches on a news search engine would suggest that ~4 times the number of articles (including non-Western, English sources) in the past 30 days mention 'thailand,' 'cave,' and 'rescue' as opposed to 'tham luang,' 'cave,' and 'rescue,' even when you exclude the actual titles of the articles. This is a nearly indisputable case of WP:COMMONNAME as "a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" utilize this form. Indeed, in the future, it may be referred to by a separate name, but given the information available right now, "Thailand cave rescue" would clearly be more representative of the terminology used by the reliable media. If that day should come, the name of the article as it stands now may simply happen to be the best choice, but we have no way of knowing the future, which may favor either "2018 Thailand cave rescue" or "Tham Luang cave rescue"; since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we must accept the name which is currently common. I also reject the idea that the name of an article should somehow teach something or serve as a tool of education in some way—it should serve first and foremost as the identification for the article: the actual educative purpose most occur within the body, lest every article's title begins to resemble the full one of the original Robinson Crusoe. WP:PRECISION suggests that titles should serve to identify the article unambiguously with the least specificity, and this goal also promotes the easy finding of the article by people who are not already well-versed in the geography of Thailand. Sure, "Tham Luang cave rescue" might serve this purpose nearly as well, but why should "nearly" be the settling point? Yes, redirects exist to help along this process, but they only work within Wikipedia and do not serve to make this article easily searchable on other search engines, which is how a large number of people navigate to Wikipedia pages. The least common names should be relegated to the redirects, and the most common should be instituted as the title of the bona fide article, not the other way around. Just because people searching "Thailand cave rescue" into the Wikipedia search bar will get here doesn't mean that situation is ideal. I will admit that consistency dictates this article's name stand as-is, but WP:CRITERIA has four other points which I would say override this small hiccup. Mysterymanblue (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Very strong support I haven't seen any good reasons for keeping the current title, and even if someone would come up with one (I did in the metadiscussion below), they would still be encouraging further vìolations of current article naming policies and further insane and harmful discussions like these. Such discussions should be on the relevant policy and MOS pages, not on individual articles' talk pages! --Espoo (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support 2018 Thailand cave rescue will be much more recognizable, compared to Tham Luang cave rescue. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 10:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:MOS: A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles. Cochonfou (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support primarily per WP:TITLE which is policy, and WP:NCEVENTS, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MOS and the rationale expressed by Mysterymanblue and Firebrace and others supporting. "Thai Cave Rescue" is the term used in The New York Times, the BBC, as well in a vast majority of the press. Article titles are not there to teach, they provide the most recognizable way to identify an article. From WP:TITLE: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." From MOS: "A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles. If these criteria are in conflict, they should be balanced against one another." Emphasis on recognizable, as the name of the cave system is not recognizable to those not familiar with Thailand geography. - Becksguy (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Meta-discussion

  • Listen up, people, these kinds of insane discussions causing huge wastes of time have got to stop! We are already losing more frustrated experienced editors than we are getting new ones. We should really not discuss things that are clearly stated in the MOS or in basic policies. The same insanity and waste of time is common in attempts by fans of a topic trying to defend capitalization because the term is capitalized in the literature. That's why every publishing house and we have a MOS, so we don't have to go looking for and counting the number of sources that do or don't capitalize. If someone doesn't like what the naming conventions and article title policy clearly say about this article's title (see Cimbalom's and Mz7's comments for clear explanations), then they can go discuss their proposed changes there, not here!! --Espoo (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I completely agree, the fact that we are arguing over something like this is just absurd. 344917661X (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    • More evidence (if evidence is needed) that Wikipedia "editors" are more interested in squabbling, tagging articles with silly templates, "requesting" that other people do work, and in general screwing around than they are interested in making a quality reference work. Of course the first is just more internet buffoonery and the latter is work. I guess this shows what an inordinate number of "editors" like to do. BTW, has anyone had any difficulty finding this article as currently titled? Of course not. But that doesn't prevent Wiki-Controversy. AnthroMimus (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Truest point made in this train wreck of a "discussion": "We're not here to educate people ..." AnthroMimus (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
      • But you're apparently arguing for not following naming conventions and article title policies, and you're apparently calling people silly and buffoons who request that these be followed, and you're arguing for not having professional conformity in article titles because readers will find any kind of idiosyncratic title format through redirects -- and you don't understand that the title they'll end up seeing will look weird and perhaps even wrong and in any case amateurish if it's formatted differently from other titles. Worst of all, by trying to ridicule efforts to follow policies and conventions in our MOS, you're helping to produce more of these insane and silly and unnecessary and harmful discussions. --Espoo (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Looks like this guy made a drama on his user page [1], a little bit discussion doesn't mean it is a fight. Stupid Boy (talk) 11 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Don't let us stop you from helping make the article a quality reference work. I see you have yet to contribute anything. Firebrace (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Looks like AnthroMimus has been around for 8 years but hasn't understood the most basic things about Wikipedia; they wrote this on their talk page: "The best part is that it is such an exciting discussion that one editor decided the flag it on the article itself so that everyone can see the childishness of behind-the-scenes Wikipedia." So they're more concerned about the article looking bad due to a template and readers finding out about this discussion than about wasting everyone's time with a silly discussion (instead of just agreeing that Cimbalom and Mz7 explained why the title should be changed and ending the discussion, moving the article, and quickly getting rid of the template). The best i can say about their efforts is that they're probably right that this article would probably have a title such as the current one in Britannica or Columbia (if they had articles on such specific events), not something generic as recommended by our MOS and policies, but then they should be trying to change Wikipedia:Article titles and not wasting their own and everyone else's time by arguing for an exception to article title policy here. --Espoo (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Here, let me help you, AnthroMimus. Your goal isn't bad at all, but your arguments are pretty bad (even Britannica and other encyclopedias don't choose titles to educate their readers) and you're wasting everyone's time by presenting them here. Please go to the talk page of Wikipedia:Article titles and propose getting rid of the current first criterion, "Article titles should be recognizable". And your best argument would be that exotic names are not used in the titles of newspaper articles but most definitely in article titles of professionally edited encyclopedias. --Espoo (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Espoo: If you think this is drama, then you clearly haven't seen anything yet. Discussions like these are a normal part of the Wikipedia routine. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I know this is very typical and common and i also know it is very wasteful and harmful. It has to stop. We need to have more guidance from an admin. The boilerplate should always remind editors that this discussion only applies to this page and should only contain arguments showing why a suggested title does or doesn't follow relevant policies. Any arguments for ignoring policy should be grayed out and given a friendly reminder where this perhaps brilliant comment should be posted. And in order to encourage a productive discussion, admins should add a warning to each vote that it wìll be ignored if it doesn't respond to a response showing that the vote doesn't refer to policy or why it's referring to policy incorrectly or illogically. --Espoo (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if it will ever stop because of the way Wikipedia is structured. Aside from the ArbCom, Wikipedia has no leadership, no one to 'cut the knot', causing a deadlock when opposite sides in a discussion have a lot of supporters. Often, both sides make good arguments, and when the point of the debate is rather trivial, such as the title of an article, it can tick a lot of people off. I should also note that many Wikipedians, including myself, are opposed to a mindless bureaucracy of rules, mechanically following all kinds of procedures to get the job done. I personally never try to follow rules, I try to do what's right. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Increase the articles' class from C to B?

Yesterday the article was rated the start-class on both projects, I increased it to the C level because I considered that move to be uncontroversial. Now I am thinking we should probably rate it B-level (at least). What do you comrades think? Openlydialectic (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I would hold off for a while, I don't think it quite has the comprehensiveness needed. There's also a little too much WP:COPYPASTE -- mainly from BBC News website -- for my liking. MPS1992 (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
It also appears to contradict itself in places, for example the last sentence of the "Disappearance" section versus the first part of the Timeline. MPS1992 (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
And I'm not sure a "Timeline" is appropriate or necessary at all, though I don't know if that's relevant for B-class. MPS1992 (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate

So now it seems that the "status quo" for overriding years of consensus is only that material that violates Wikipedia policy and guideline be in an article for a few days. Then it's achieved some sort of mystical "status quo" and allows people to ignore the talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 07:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I see no talk page consensus, nor is there Wikipedia guidelines or policies, that prevent the publication of victim's names. They are all over the world's media (reliable sources!) WWGB (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTMEMORIAL, also, just because sources report something, doesn't mean it appears on Wikipedia. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 17:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTMEMORIAL refers to dead people. None of the boys died. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Recovery

As they say in the biz: "This story has legs". So I hope we can follow up on the young lads' recovery. Meanwhile, this cautionary tale from someone who researched and wrote about the Chilean miners' experience: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-july-11-2018-1.4741978/thai-boys-recovery-could-be-put-at-risk-by-media-spotlight-says-author-who-worked-with-chilean-miners-1.4741995 Quote from this: "The boys, he said, should go to the beach with some psychologists, and just "go slow."" Hope all concerned will 'handle with care'. Macadavy 04:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Macadavy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macadavy (talk • contribs)

Current event is over?

@Thai Cave Person: did all trapped team was rescued? because the current event template was removed. 49.145.246.5 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It is still current event. For the next day or two, there will be official updates, condition of the boys, etc. Thai Cave Person (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you actually have access to real news sources where you live? I think we'd need to know before we tried to organise any rescue attempt. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The event will not be over for some time. Currently the 155th reference "13 July: The remaining British Cave Rescue .." have gone home. My interest today & Google search for "rescue crews abandon in place equipment close up cave" brought me here. I suspect political wrangling as to impassable gates be installed - or not. I do wonder the status of equipment brought in to the various depths. Greg0658 (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Naming the boys

Hi Stephen, Please can you explain why you have deleted the new section I added listing the boys' names? The article on the similar 2010 Copiapó mining accident contains an extensive table not only of the miner's names, but their age, the order they were rescued in, the exact time of their rescue, personal details, and the names of the actors who portrayed them in the later film. I started this list envisaging a similar table being built up for this rescue. Any comments? Gnangbade (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The children are not notable as individuals, and their names at this stage are non-encyclopaedic trivia. Stephen 10:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree: they are the human beings at the centre of this crisis, so how can they be considered less important than the (named) divers and others who are rescuing them? The principle of notoriety would certainly apply if someone was to create individual articles for each of the boys, but within a more general article like this, I think it is valid and important information. I'm not familiar with the correct procedure here: who arbitrates in cases of disagreement between users? Gnangbade (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Other users arbitrate, at first. I agree they're the central figures here, no differently from the miners, and should be similarly named. They'd only need individual notability to have their own articles, not to have their names noted in the article for the notable event they essentially (but accidentally) created. Naming multiple other non-notable people makes the stars' absence even more conspicuous. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and with the rescue operation beginning today, it seems even more important for the article to list the boys' names. Otherwise how can it accurately describe a one-by-one rescue operation? Gnangbade (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I would oppose listing the (full) names of the teenagers due to privacy concerns. - Manifestation (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
When you're underground and the subject of an international front-page humanitarian concern, hoping for anonymity is unrealistic at any age. Jessica McClure was just a baby, hence her new title "Baby Jessica". On the bright side, attention spans are much shorter today, so these children should more likely fade back into private obscurity afterward. In the meanwhile, the more humanized they are, the better it is for understanding an article of human survival, courage and compassion. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The names of the boys are now widely available on various news sites, here for example Gnangbade (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
looks like it was back. Oppa Justine! (talk) 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I also oppose naming the boys. Additionally, the 2010 Copiapó mining accident has a number of issues; if you look at the history you'll see I've worked on cleaning it up a little bit. I would argue that that article does not meet all the standards of Wikipedia and shouldn't be considered an appropriate comparison. However, for the record, some miners in that situation organized and took on different roles, making certain individuals notable enough to mention by name. In the case that news reports in the future report on the leadership or other notable role of certain boys it would become relevant to talk bout them by name. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 23:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Names are in reliable sources, many sources. There are not that many name, not like 25 names or 100 names. Vanrich (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Vanrich the argument is not about how many names, it’s about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Agree I agree with Gnangbade, InedibleHulk, and all who showed how having the names is according to WP policy, with a reliable source, and that in this case there is no privacy issue. I'm not sure, but it seems that Abductive agrees with a caveat about nicknames, Vanrich agrees but was misunerstood, and so does Anonymous user "Oppa Justine". This isn't a vote but I just want to note (and name) who I'm agreeing with. I've sided with similar arguments about terror attacks where the terrorists' names were prominent while the victims, even if their names became famous as victims, were deleted time and again in the name of non-existent or IMHO misinterpreted WP policy. They are not trivia. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I think there is a privacy issue.
Post-traumatic disorders. The rescued boys will probably have trouble sleeping and settling back into a routine as they recover from their “acutely traumatic” experience, said Professor Ian Hickie with the University of Sydney’s Brain and Mind Centre.
But how deeply affected they remain in the long term will probably depend on whether the rest of the team is able to get out safely, and if they are able to resume a relatively normal existence once the attention dies down, he said.
Thai authorities have so far been shielding the boys from the intense glare of the global media.
“The danger here for kids who are individually dragged into the limelight is that their whole life becomes about this one particular misadventure,” Professor Hickie said.
“I think the Thai authorities' emphasis on privacy and trying to deal with the group as a whole is actually a very mature one, assuming the families are intimately involved.”[2] Bus stop (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
As can been seen, the boys names are attracting unencyclopedic edits, such as nicknames. They should be removed. Abductive (reasoning) 19:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Tend to agree with Bus stop. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems like people again fighting if the names of the victims that were trapped should be included in an article or not. so do we start another vote? But I know its annoying.   S cobido   Sclamera  11 July 2018 (UTC)

Their names should be included as part of the encyclopedic content of the article. Names of some rescuers--including the man who died--and government officials appear in the article. Are the boys less important than those people, such that they should remain anonymous? NOTMEMORIAL does not apply, especially since none of the boys or coach died. The only case that might reasonably be made for excluding the names of the boys is the privacy issue, since they are all minors. However, that argument would not apply to the assistant coach. If we were, in fact, to publish the coach's name but not the boys, that would look very strange indeed. Moreover, all the names have now been published by one or more reliable sources. And I will apply a little CRYSTALBALL here: their names will surely be much published in the days and weeks to come in Thailand and elsewhere. Wikipedia will not be invading their privacy, since they are already becoming publicly known by their names, and that trend will certainly continue. An argument for privacy might be made in the case of some sordid crime or the like, but that is not the situation here. Exclusion of the names appears to be a purely arbitrary choice and not well-grounded in policy. DonFB (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Abductive:, Who knows this situation.   S cobido   Sclamera  11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thai news and Thai Wikipedia have boy names, also their nicknames. These informations should be in the English Wikipedia article. Should not resort to legal excuses to try to not have the names in the article. Thank you. Thai Cave Person (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. BBC also has names and much more biography. That's the current main source. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Please identify name and surname format in the table. Is it <First name> <Last name>? Thanks in advance. SWP13 (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tham_Luang_cave_rescue/Archive_2&oldid=1137226002"