Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Remove deaths from Year articles

Propose removing deaths from these Year articles and leave it to the 19XX and 20XX deaths articles which do a better job. If the death becomes an event like a big international funeral and such like then that comes under the event criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong support, leave it to the main Deaths page unless (to use an ITN analogy) it's blurb-worthy. These year pages are far too death-biased, it should be the opposite, more events, fewer deaths. Plus eliminates this bizarre nine-Wikipedia rule. Great idea, probably needs its own heading... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Yet again you show a complete inability to stick top the topic at hand. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hardly, everything I said there was on point, but thanks for your input! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Clearly would be jarring to remove the section on recent years and not all years, and not sufficiently advertised for a consensus here to apply to all years. It would make more sense to eliminate WP:ITN which is clearly unencyclopedic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    Not at all, that's why we have the "Deaths in ..." articles. There doesn't need to be a bizarrely constructed subset in each year article when the comprehensive set is available in a dedicated page. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    I Didnt restrict the proposal to recent years, if it is removed then it should be for all years, as is clear "recent years" is a bit of an artificial man made barrier. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Long tradition of such lists in yearly reviews, not just in Wikipedia. Removing them just because somebody thinks the selection criterion is odd would be ridiculous. — Yerpo Eh? 19:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    Not at all. A link to "Deaths in ...." which actually is already there, is perfectly sufficient, fit for purpose, and actually comprehensive, unlike those currently listed at RY which are cherry-picked by fewer than half a dozen individuals against a bizarre unreliable set of criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    I thought you were opposed to badgering, but it looks like different standards apply to your actions. But since you brought it up, "Deaths in ..." is so large that it overwhelms the reader. Not practical at all, if one is not interested in obscure Bangladeshi actors. — Yerpo Eh? 19:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    No, the responses here are to correct factually incorrect assertions. I'm not sure why you have something against Bangladeshi actors, a huge number of English speakers (e.g. Bangladeshis) would be interested in that sort of thing. Maybe the project is all about promoting systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    It's bad enough that ITN are now including deaths of people whom the large majority of people haven't heard of. We need a list of deaths of internationally notable people here. Jim Michael (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    "large majority of people haven't heard of" in your personal opinion. Keep reinforcing that systemic bias! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    If you mean a bias in favour of Europeans and North Americans, ITN has that. The RD there now are an American and 3 Europeans. Jim Michael (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    No, I mean the bias against Bangladeshis and other minorities that this project strongly advocates. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    Which policy or guideline advocates that? Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    Just read above, where your strongly opposing colleague stated "Not practical at all, if one is not interested in obscure Bangladeshi actors." Clearly the project is setting out to ensure that minorities aren't catered for, in fact the opposite, that minorities, yet still English speakers, are directly ignored. Not to mention your own bias against people you've never heard of. Nice one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    He was just giving an example. Most of the RD on ITN weren't well-known or very notable people - since having high notability was removed from the inclusion criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    No, you both gave your games away I'm afraid. Good news is that we're going to revise the whole "guideline" so we can address it in due course. We're done here for now, let's see if anyone else has any thoughts on this systemically biased, cherry-picked, non-reliably sourced (or determined) selection. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
"We" are are we? And who would this "we" be? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • What game are you saying that I gave away? All I'm trying to do is keep domestic events out of international-only RY articles. What bias is there in the current rules & guidelines? Jim Michael (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    You and your colleagues are trying to keep items of (your perception of) minority interest away from this, the English language Wikipedia's articles. As you and Yerpo clearly stated above, you both believe that articles on lesser known Bangladeshi actors or "people you've never heard of" shouldn't be here. Your implementation, written or otherwise, promotes systemic bias and discrimination. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    No, Rambling Man, you are picking my words out of context in order to advance some personal agenda. I was referring to such obscure Bangladeshi actors that not even Bengali wiki editors have bothered to write articles about. I could have said the same about obscure American actors - and have. The fact that we were also accused of anti-American bias before is a clear indicator that we're being objective. What is your approach to making it unbiased? All you keep saying is "we'll get there in due course", but so far it's only been bluffing, tearing down, and insulting. Zero building. So go ahead, propose an alternative guideline so the community can finally choose. You've wasted enough of everybody's time. — Yerpo Eh? 05:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    Not at all. You are cherry-picking based on personal preference, which is a great shame for a large number of our English language speaking community, based on "I haven't heard of him" or "obscure actor". I haven't wasted any time, in fact, it's quite the opposite. You and your colleagues have fought so hard to defend your current approach yet the community have clearly demonstrated to you that it's wrong. No bluffing, yes tearing down because the project has built such defensive walls around its peculiar approaches that's it's been absolutely necessary, insulting not at all (unlike your claims of me "spitting" at others, frankly disgusting but I'm not surprised), building, plenty of that, including supporting various different inclusion approaches. We're not going near the "guideline" yet until these RFCs are closed, but rest assured we're at least on step one, admitting there's a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    The only inclusion approach you proposed is copying the ITN - for which there was no support. After that, nothing but hot air. Insulting, plenty of that too (if indirectly in most cases). So if the "community" can't think of anything better, then the status quo is better than nothing.
    As to your accusation, I'm not cherry-picking anything, I work with others to select the most important people for featuring in the yearly review. Those include Chinese linguists, French conductors, British economists, American actresses, Russian diplomats, Saint Lucian poets, Indian cardinals etc. etc. By what measure do you call me biased? Your prejudice against me? — Yerpo Eh? 06:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    Nope, I have also advocated removing the bizarre "nine-Wikipedia rule", (or your "select the most important people" to exclude cetain nationalities or others that "people haven't heard of") I have also demonstrated (with support) that the cherry-picked, systemically biased deaths don't belong here. This has all concluded with a huge amount of support that the project is currently way off-course. I understand that you and the other three regulars don't like that, but that's just tough I'm afraid. As for all your insinuations, personal attacks, veiled threats, accusations etc, they do not belong here. Attempting to derail the crux of the discussion, i.e. that the inclusion criteria for both deaths and events are out of step with community expectations, is a waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    Again, what sytemic bias? And if it exists (for which I admit there is a possibility, we're only humans after all), how much worse it is than the one at ITN you proposed as an alternative? Present an analysis or stop making unfounded accusations. Also, you keep talking about what "the community expects", but all we see now is what you don't like, supported by a handful of !votes. I'm not insinuating anything, but I have precious little to work with. — Yerpo Eh? 06:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    Actually what we see now is an overwhelming support of precisely the opposite to the regulars. This project's "guideline" status was supported by fewer individuals than have currently contributed to the various RfCs that clearly demonstrate how out of touch the project regulars are. The regulars have admitted to excluding minority individuals and claiming to know who people have or have not heard of. ITN at the least enables the community to decide what is and what is not important, not an elite handful of regulars who routinely remove events as "doesn't seem significant". Plus, and you seemed to think "education" was important, at least ITN items meet a minimum quality threshold. Linking readers to articles which are sub-standard is hardly "educational". We're going to fix this project, one step at a time. The RfCs form a very strong basis for going forward with completely re-organising the project, which we can all agree is a good thing. In the meantime, keep the threats and personal attacks to yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    ... and again with your misrepresenting my statements and "we're getting to that". Not to mention misrepresenting RfCs - just look at the Manchester Arena bombing, do you really call 5 opinions against and 7 in favour "clear"? And it was your flagship case, that's why you probably badgered the non-regular who has dared to speak against inclusion. Plus me as a regular supporting the inclusion of the Yemen cholera outbreak. Etc. etc. This is getting more pathetic by the hour. — Yerpo Eh? 07:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    Then take your insinuations, personal attacks and veiled threats and do something else. I'm improving Wikipedia for our readers. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Blatant rubbish! You're a legend in your own mind! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, hello. I'm not sure how that's a helpful contribution in any sense. Bye! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • And, predictably, you avoided my message again. Is that your idea of improving a collaborative project? At some point, you will have to get from your high horse and consider opinions of all involved editors. I, for one, will not be bullied away by you. — Yerpo Eh? 08:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    I don't really follow you, I'm improving Wikipedia while all you seem to be doing is chatting away here. It's not helping make a difference to our readers. What is clear is that your bullying threats, personal attacks and slurs will not stop me from ensuring the community get what they deserve here, and that's obviously very different from what you and your three colleagues are serving them right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    I mentioned the fact that most of the RD on ITN are of people whom most people haven't heard of, which is true. Those people are disproportionately North Americans and Europeans, so there's a bias there. There's no notability requirement on ITN (other than the person having an article). Jim Michael (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, the notability of those individuals is enshrined in policy, WP:N. And how can you prove the people on ITN are indivudals "most people haven't heard of, which is true"? And how can you prove the list of RDs at RY articles doesn't contain individuals "most people haven't heard of"? You can't, you're speculating. RY has systemic bias against the inclusion of minorities. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    I hinted at that, too, but it's really difficult to compare because ITN's archives are not functioning. Another problem with this approach is that they are fewer people interested in WP:RY than content featured on the main page, and so the process is not comparable. Taking away the bar and letting the community vote for each case separately will thus produce the same baseline result (assuming the regulars don't go away), but with added bias towards American entertainers - those are usually the ones for whom we get demands for inclusion by the average "outside" editor. How exactly is that better? — Yerpo Eh? 09:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    Another problem, requiring a voting procedure for a normal content page (i.e. not the protected main page template) goes against the basic principles of how Wikipedia functions in practice (WP:BOLD is out of the picture) - much more so than the current approach. So again, even worse than the status quo. — Yerpo Eh? 09:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    No, the plan is simple:
    RY events are those selected by the community at ITN, ensuring a consensus for inclusion and a minimum quality threshold. That way there are not two different systems selecting stories that would be of interest to our readers (which is one of the core principles of ITN, and not RY it seems).
    RY deaths are covered by "Deaths in..." articles. That way the artificial "nine Wikipedias" criterion can be extinguished and systemic bias is overcome because all notable people are covered there.
    Essentially, these recent year "articles" become comprehensive archives of ITN stories (which our readers are interested in) and link out to deaths. Much, much easier to maintain, consistent criteria for helping our readers understand, win win win win win. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Finally your viewpoint is stated clearly. And it's completely wrong. WP:RY has absolutely no connection to ITN, and nor should it. The sooner you can comprehend this FACT, the sooner this project can move and and get something worthwhile done instead wasting endless days on the current drivel. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but that's not going to happen, the sooner you comprehend that fact, the easier things will be for you. We're in this for the long haul now. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other things to do around here, improve articles, nominate FACs etc. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Except that ITN is biased in itself (and more than RY), and inconsistent in selection of events, exactly the two features that should be avoided in an overview like this. As for deaths, we can continue the discussion after you have addressed my concerns about "Deaths in...". — Yerpo Eh? 09:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    There's no need to have two separate sets of critieria for newsworthy events throughout the year. Selection of events is community-driven and ensures quality items are selected which would interest our readers. Deaths is simple, don't have a weird subset based on some non-reliable Wikpiedia coverage. Deaths in .... covers that already, there are no concerns at all with that, otherwise the "Deaths in..." articles wouldn't exist in their current form. Cherry-picking to enforce systemic bias against minorities is very concerning. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, there is a need, because the two projects have different goals, and the one you like better is biased and inconsistent. Secondly, cherry-picking to enforce systemic bias against minorities would indeed be concerning if it was there, but, fortunately, it only exists in your head (unless proven by something more tangible than my awkward example). — Yerpo Eh? 09:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    I thought you said the encyclopedia was here to educate? To do so we need to provide information our readers are looking for. The ITN solution is less biased as it works on the English language Wikpiedia's community consensus, not some odd selection criteria which is then oversighted by four individuals guardians. The systemic bias reinforced by your odd nine-Wikipedia criterion ensures that minorities are not featured here. That's why just linking to the main Deaths article is far more appropriate and neutral. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    Your plan would lead to the most popular events being included, rather than the most internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    "internationally notable" according to your oversight group... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: what data is your accusation of systemic bias based on (aside from your interpretation of the guideline and of my awkward example, neither of which is relevant)? And which "minorities" are you talking about? — Yerpo Eh? 11:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    It's simple enough, do a delta between the Deaths in 2017 page and the 2017 page. You'll find the prejudiced minorities that you're so keen to keep out of these pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    Now I should look up facts to back your lazy argument? You're joking, right? — Yerpo Eh? 19:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    More attacks. I suppose that's what happens when you run of out constructive commentary. It's simple enough, if you can't be bothered, let's just wait for when we overhaul the project, starting with removing the bogus "guideline" status, and then on to transforming the inclusion criteria so it's not just in the hands of four guardians who implement what they want. Cheers for now, it's clear you can't discuss this in a civil ("lazy", "spitting" &c) or mature ("lol!") manner so I think it best if we just agree to disagree at this point and let others have their say. Then the big RfCs! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    Oh, I overlooked this one. I see you've found another excuse to avoid backing your false accusations. Perhaps you don't realize, but this attitude is far more insulting than anything I've said, and impossible to base constructive commentary on. — Yerpo Eh? 09:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    I've indented your comment correctly. I don't know what you mean by "false accusations" but as I've said, I don't converse with people who resort to personal attacks, and especially those who are actively seeking to enforce systemic bias. We'll leave it to the community to decide how best to proceed, but given those RFCs are showing strongly against the status quo, it should be an interesting time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    And I've asked you to prove this systemic bias against "minorities" (because I deny it), but you avoided it. However, just repeating the same false accusation won't make it true. It will only make people question your motives here. — Yerpo Eh? 14:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    No, it's just fine, as you can see, we have plenty more eyes on this project and the approach of the four regulars who have been oversighting the project has now been cast into serious doubt, along with its inclusion criteria's status as a bona fide Wikipedia guideline. We're wasting time here, it's clear from the example you gave that you don't want to include people you consider to be minorities, regardless of what the community are interested in reading about. I suggest we both go and do something else while we wait for the RfCs to close and then we can really tackle the meat of the problems here. I certainly intend to go and make some mainspace edits, that's going to actually improve things for our readers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: More eyes are always good, but making false accusations and then avoiding the answer isn't. And now I've had enough. So prove that I've been enforcing systemic bias or take back that comment, or I'm going to take you to ANI for personal attacks and violating AGF. There, an unveiled threat. Full disclosure: with "obscure bangladeshi actors" I was referring to Nazmul Huda Bachchu who was just at that time featured on the Deaths in 2017 and is so insignificant for his side roles in a handful of films that not even Bengali editors have bothered to create an article about him. A similar example is Ed Crawford (American football) featured now. That they are too insignificant for any comprehensive review is a fact proven also by their exclusion from ITN. Will you deny this? A clear and to-the-point answer, please. — Yerpo Eh? 05:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    You've already mentioned your bias against "obscure Bangladeshis". Now against "insignifcant" American footballers. These aren't PAs, they're statements of fact. The constant defence of the existing approach for this project, claiming that just because an article doesn't exist on the "Bengali Wikipedia" that clearly demonstrates "insigificance". Members of the project oversight team are dead set on removing people "nobody's ever heard of" which is an astonishingly POV perspective. This is Wikipedia, we use reliable sources not opinions of a handful of editors, nor the existence of articles on other Wikipedias, etc. These indivduals you keep claiming are "insignificant" (which is completely unnecessary) all pass Wikipedia's notability policy and are, as such, encyclopedically notable to those people reading the English language Wikipedia. That the project regulars fight so hard against that is amazing, and that all the effort that goes into stripping the page of notable events yet including a strange subset of Deaths in 2017 (while excluding a certain subset because they may or may not appear in 2017 in sports etc) is truly wasteful and has resulted in a mess, a page which no reader has any idea what is included and why. Full disclosure: you lost all good faith when you accused me of "spitting". Where I come from, that's a despicable thing to say. (P.S. that's not how "pings" work by the way, retrospectively adding the template doesn't generate a ping). The Rambling Man (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    I'm sorry if you found it insulting, but it was a response to the series of emotionally loaded phrases you used when describing the state of WP:RY ("pretty bloody obvious", "bizarre", "junk", "awful muddle", "bonkers", "shambolic", "an embarrassment", "delusional", "silly", to name just a selection). Do you really find it surprising that I was feeling thoroughly spit upon? Now, to the point: prove my bias against minorities with my edits or take back that comment. It's a serious accusation and I will not let you leave it hanging in the air like that. — Yerpo Eh? 07:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    No, I would never "spit" on anyone or anything, that's a foul and disgusting personal attack, unlike all the quotes you have listed above which relate to the application of this project, its guidelines and its subjective approaches. Personal attack means it has to be personal. You have accepted and reiterated that you object to "insignificant" individuals being listed, your example was against an individual from a country whose Wikipedia you berated. However, since you and I cannot agree what this actually means, I 100% take back any and all comments relating to any bias you may or may not have against minorities. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you. — Yerpo Eh? 08:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Just to reply to Yerpo against the comment "Removing them just because somebody thinks the selection criterion is odd would be ridiculous" my reasoning for proposing the removal had nothing to with any selection criteria being odd, the main driver was it seems to duplicate or be a small subset of Deaths in 20XX, any reader interested in recent deaths would go to the Deaths article as this list clearly misses a lot of people. The Deaths in article uses a fairly standard notability criteria that is having a wikipedia article. The death section almost overwhelms the article and apart from being "traditional" I have not seen why deaths are one of the more important things that happen in the year to the extent that some major events like the commonwealth games are excluded but the death of a minor political figure in downtown, USA is listed. Perhaps this is all to do with balance the pages give the impression nothing much happens in the world apart from the deaths of some minor policians and footballers that just happen to have multiple wikipedia articles. Removing the deaths would perhaps start to address this huge inbalance. I would include funerals and such like of important figures as many like Kings and Presidents become large global events, but these should be treated as events. MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
The comment that you refer to was actually referring to The Rambling Man's statements, not the original rationale. Imbalance can be addressed by less drastic changes, such as raising the bar for inclusion. I would like to know which entry do you mean by "a minor political figure in downtown, USA", though. — Yerpo Eh? 13:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
The deaths in Deaths in 2017 which are not here are of people who lack international notability. As with people in other fields, sportspeople have to be internationally notable to be included. Sports events which aren't worldwide aren't included. Jim Michael (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Correction, you believe they have to meet this project's "essay" on criteria which you believe amounts to "international notability". However, Wikipedia already has a notability policy which is irrefutable in nature, neutral and all-encompassing. Your keenness to keep hold of the old way of doing things is symptomatic of someone keen to promote a systemic bias in this, the English language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Which of this year's deaths of internationally notable people are missing from this article? Which deaths are included which aren't internationally notable? Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Which "international notability" criteria are you applying? The "nine Wikipedia" one? Please, this is becoming circular. All those mentioned at "Deaths in 2017" are notable per WP:N. That means they're notable enough for inclusion in English language Wikipedia. Which makes them notable to English language speakers. Around the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
The number of WP articles is a guide not a hard-and-fast rule. The deaths here are of people who have international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
No, the deaths here are people who meet the "nine Wikipedia" rule which is bogus because Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor does featuring in nine of them (!) confer "international notability". That would be conferred by reliable sources. Hence our reason for the WP:N policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
We've made quite a lot of exceptions to that guideline. Jim Michael (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I can't take your dripfeed responses Jim, so I'm out of talking this over with you. I'm happy to leave it to the community to decide, it looks like those participating in the RfCs have completely contrary views to you and your cadre of regulars. So we'll see. Once those close and set healthy precedents for completely revising the project criteria, and once we re-establish the fact that the project is in fact not governed by a Wikipedia "guideline" but an essay (despite the best efforts of some to assert the opposite), we'll have a redesigned, much more appropriate project that actually serves our community and readers, rather than this current project incarnation which serves the four regulars and no-one else. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Future years

Are year articles from 2018 onwards subject to WP:RY? If they're not, then they will likely have many domestic events added to them, which will have to be removed when the year in question starts. Jim Michael (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a crystal ball? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
According to the project guideline, which is a Wikipedia guideline, "All articles within the scope of this guideline (main articles on years from 2002 to present only) should be added to Category:Recent years and should have the same edit notice as other pages in the category.". So unless you change the guideline, the answer is no. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that the guideline be changed to include future years. Not doing so would mean that many scheduled events will be added, but will have to be removed on 1 January of each year. Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
That's not what you asked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
In my first comment in this section, I meant scheduled domestic events, such as conferences and sports. Jim Michael (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The answer to your first comment in this section is "no". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The answer is "yes", per WP:IAR, possibly with additional restrictions. It is absurd for articles to become subject to additional restrictions, solely as a matter of time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It would be a good idea for it to be stated explicitly in the guideline, but a rational person would conclude it does apply. (The discussion was derailed by the suggestion that most future year articles should just be deleted.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
No, the Wikipedia guideline is absolutely and 100% explicitly clear, it says "... from 2002 to present only ...". There's no possible room for IAR here, so either change the guideline via RFC (per the admin here) or live with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
So, we delete all predicted and scheduled events in yyyy on January 1, yyyy, and require consensus for each addition unless specifically named in a guideline. That's a "common sense" alternative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry guys, the problem here is that you have a project governed by a Wikipedia guideline which has been recently ratified by the community at an RFC which explicitly defines its scope as "... from 2002 to present only ...". As Rubin has said, you can't just go and change the guideline with consensus to do so, and as is being proven by the current RFCs on items for inclusion in the 2017 article, the regulars here are very much out of touch with the community. So, at the very least, an RFC would need to be run to determine and agree upon any scope changes. I look forward to seeing the proposal and participating in the discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Potential attack vector could be "All articles within the scope of this guideline (main articles on years from 2002 onwards) should be added to Category:Recent years or Category:Future years and should have the same edit notice as other pages in the category." Agathoclea (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
All future years? That definitely needs an RFC. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Certainly, I am just suggesting some content to said RFC as a starting point. Agathoclea (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Since TRM doesn't agree that this was established as a guideline in an RfC, even though it clearly was, I see no reason to propose another RfC which he wouldn't agree with, unless he is willing to provide criteria, consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which he would accept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
This isn't about me, it's about the community. But in any case, no RFC = no guideline change. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
It is about your interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines about guidelines. I know what I think would be sufficient notification of an RfC to amend the scope of the guideline, but the one mentioned above which established this as a guideline far exceeds it, and you do not accept it. Fine. We need to reach consensus as to what an RfC needs in order to be valid before one is proposed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Nope, this is not an exercise in semantics, just community consensus, and since this is a Wikipedia guideline (at the moment), increasing the scope of the project by an order of magnitude without full community input would be highly irregular. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
As I said, since you don't agree that the RfC that made this a guideline is valid, I would like to know what you think would be necessary for a valid RfC. I would then decide whether I would attempt an RfC which would meet your conditions, or whether to attempt to reach consensus over your objections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I said the guideline is the guideline because the RfC happened. We need another RfC to downgrade it back to "not guideline" because that status is highly inappropriate, mainly backed up by a complete lack of community input. The whole point is to intially determine whether or not this should remain a Wikipedia guideline (doubtful) and then whether or the current criteria are what the community want (highly doubtful). It's very simple as far as I can tell. In the meantime, if you wish to run your RFC on "future years", you are obviously more than welcome to do so. I can't imagine it being very successful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be simpler to propose a revision so that the community could decide whether your idea is preferred to status quo? That would reduce administrative burden for everyone, and provide the same final answer. — Yerpo Eh? 08:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This isn't my proposal. This is Rubin's idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd need to tag all future year talk pages to point to the discussion (which I can do when at home); so I want to get the proposal as concrete as possible before making it. However, as only TRM objects to applying it to future years, I'll continue acting as if it's a generally accepted project guideline for all future years, and remove trivia, the latest date a national election could occur, and sports events which do not meet the guidelines. The only difference is that I will tag unimportant events, rather than deleting them a second time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Then you are abusing your position as both an admin and an editor and should know much better. The Wikipedia guideline which was recently upheld via RFC is not in any way open for debate. The Recent Years project covers years from 2002 to present and no mention of future years. The whole insidious way this is being conducted (i.e. "only TRM objects") is the very reason a community-wide RFC needs to be presented. If Rubin starts to take project ownership of articles outside of the current precisely worded guideline, we'll be seeing the actions reviewed at ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The project I was talking about is WP:YEARS, not WP:RY. Even before Wrad mistakenly tagged WP:RY as a guideline, it was generally accepted as a WP:YEARS guideline. This is not a formal consensus, but there are several editors who think it a good idea; in the absence of a consensus against applying it to future year articles, it's likely to be applied, even if I choose not to. WP:BRD also suggests that additions to future year articles, if reverted, should not be reinstated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
We need to establish guidelines for what should be and not be included in years before 2002. Many year articles contain local/domestic events of little international importance. Jim Michael (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The original question was should future years be covered by this (RY) project. The answer is no. If people want that, get a community consensus to change the Wikipedia guideline. All other assertions are irrelevant to this threaded discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd say we have consensus for that - seeing as you're the only person who has said that future years shouldn't be subject to the same inclusion criteria as RY. Jim Michael (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. Your closed group has agreed to it, that's why it needs to be taken to an RFC because, as you can see, the RFCs that are currently running adequately demonstrate that the decision-makers in the project are way out of step with the community. I will revert any changes made and happily address this issue of any formal Wikipedia guidelines at ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
And please note, the only other editor to comment here who isn't one of the project oversighters also agreed that this change should be subject to an RFC. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not a closed group - other editors are welcome to contribute here. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Good news, they have been on other properly advertised RFCs and look, they all go against the four oversighters here. Think about it Jim. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
We have consensus as to a project guideline for all years, 2002 or later. It is, however, insufficiently advertised to be considered a Wikipedia guideline for years after the current year (now 2017). Because of TRM's insistence that all the guideline promotion rules be followed, I'm not going to propose an RfC until I've got all the details "correct", as I do not want to start additional RfCs to correct my proposal errors. I'll also need to tag all the talk pages for 2018 through 2100, at least as far as our year articles go. I can only do that when I get home, as I cannot use AWB on my smartphone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Rubin, you have a guideline which explicitly states that recent years applies up to the present, nothing more. Any attempts to subversively broaden this project scope will result in ANI, so be my guest, as it appears you are not really up to the admin task any longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
You must realise the absurdity of applying different criteria to future year articles than to the present year and recent years. It would mean having to remove loads of scheduled events from each year's article on 1 January of that year. Jim Michael (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
You must realise the absurdity of applying criteria to hundreds of pages, criteria which are completely out of step with what the community wants from these articles. Just look at the RFCs, the project oversight regulars are utterly isolated in their beliefs. Applying that to articles outside the clearly and precisely defined scope of RY is the very definition of absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we wait with this question until the current conflict over core principles of RY is resolved. — Yerpo Eh? 07:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, ever heard of re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagree - whatever change there may or may not be to the RY criteria, establishing whether or not it includes future years needs to be decided. It's an issue to be established separately. It's not like the Titanic - that's you assuming that the RY criteria will be scrapped. Jim Michael (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
No I'm not. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit break

  • Yes, since 2018 will eventually become a "recent" year, it would make sense to have it be covered by the same editing principles. Whether, it's a "guideline" / "best practice" / "the way we have been doing this" seems to be a separate discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The same applies to all the other future years. I don't see any reason for them not to be subject to the RY guideline. Jim Michael (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair use images

No, I don't think it's conceivable that a fair use rationale could apply to an image on this page. It's obvious it couldn't apply to an image of a person.

And I think it necessary to remind editors that only (at least, US) public domain images should appear in these articles. I propose that a specific statement be added that it be part of this guideline that pnly public domain images be used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

No need, the same fair use policy applies across all of Wikipedia, it doesn't need to be re-specified for these 16 articles. And pictures on this microcosm of pages are not limited to pictures of individuals, they can be events too, so something that was truly illustrative of 2017 may conceivably have a fair use rationale which allows its use here. Trying to create a muddled version of the fair use policy here is a waste of time, confusing and completely unnecessary. Now please respond to my requests for diffs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I see very little harm in the guideline prohibiting non-public-domain images, and some benefit, in that reviewers could refer to this guideline, rather than arguing about which of the ten factors migh hold. In the unlikely event that there is ever an iconic image which illustrates the year, we could revisit the issue, or just override this guideline, subject to Wikipedia's fair use guidelines (which can also be overriden) and Wikimedia's fair use guidelines (which cannot be overriden). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is harm. The site has a policy governing fair use images. It applies everywhere. If you want to link it from this RY guideline, don't try to re-write it into a version of the policy that's actually badly phrased and unnecessarily obfuscated. Let the policy do the talking. We shouldn't have different versions, different interpretations, different imlementations of Wikipedia policy across the project, one fact one place, and the policy is the place for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I still see no potential harm in specifying images under copyright are not allowed in these articles. Perhaps someone else has an opinion? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
There's no point in repeating (and probably confusing) the policy which applies site-wide, just to make it less meaningful for these 16 articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

How to check if a death/birth meets the current "9 Wikipedias" criterion

As interwiki articles are now managed by Wikidata, and as Rubin has opined, it's not that reliable, we probably need to express to our editors, many of whom go absolutely nowhere near Wikidata, how to check entries meet the current criterion. A quick check of the edit history of 2017 for instance demonstrates that many, many good faith editors are either unaware of the "minimum inclusion criterion" or simply aren't technically competent enough to check it (or don't even understand that added complexity of having to check the history of Wikidata articles versus time/date of birth/death, for the (confirmed?) existence of an article on nine or more Wikipedias). Would one of the regulars here please write a concise "how-to" guide so that our various editors who are continually shunned by having their inclusions reverted stand a chance of understanding why, rather than the continually unhelpful "doesn't meet WP:RY" edit summary with which most of them are confronted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. Navigate to the biography of the person in question.
  2. Click on the "Wikidata item" link in the left column (under Tools).
  3. Click on "View history" in the Wikidata item that opens.
  4. On the history page, find the last revision before the date the person has passed away and click on its timestamp.
  5. Count the number of links to Wikipedias displayed there, on the bottom of the page - if it's nine or more (excluding English and Simple English Wikipedias), the person meets the "9 interwikis" criterion.
I suppose an automated tool could also be created to do this and return a YES or NO. I realize this sounds slightly complicated, but it is only necessary in borderline cases. In the vast majority of cases, the removed entries had a lower number of interwikis even at the time of removal - there, the check is simplified to:
  1. Navigate to the biography of the person in question.
  2. Count the number of interwikis displayed in the left column. If it's nine or more (excluding Simple English Wikipedia), the person meets the "9 interwikis" criterion.
— Yerpo Eh? 19:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Wonderful, and how straightforward! This needs to be added to the guideline to instruct our editors and readers as to how this current assessment criteria can be verified. As it's currently a "guideline" and as one of the regulars (an admin, no less) suggested that substantial changes needed communtiy consensus, should we start another RFC to seek to adopt these vital instructions into the guideline? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
AFAIC, this is not a change, so there's no need to waste time like that. — Yerpo Eh? 19:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, who said it was a change? What I'm saying is that I was reverted by an admin for clarifying the existing criteria into the existing "guideline", it was "not a change", but since that admin was very clear we can't change the Wikipedia "guideline" without community consensus, RFC is the only way to go, because, as we know, all we get here in this microcosm is the three/four regulars and not much else. An RFC at least exposes the situation to the community at large. And actually, it may be a good idea to do that, as a starter for understanding if the community actually believe in the "9 wikipedia rule". I'll finish my dinner and take another look!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Why are you asking me whether we should we start another RFC, then? — Yerpo Eh? 19:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I was asking the community, this thread is supposed to be an open declaration of discssion, but as usual, the regulars have overwhelmed discussion with their posts. It's okay, no need to reply, the RFC will post in the next couple of weeks. There's an order to this, and we're bang on schedule with the RFCs on inclusion going all against the current thinking, with the RFC on the guideline status going according to predicition, many people not actually grasping the point, but mostly in favour of dismissing it. Next is the 9 Wikipedias nonsense, then this odd and incestuous "we've always done it this way and it may not be in the guideline but you can find it somewhere in a talkpage archive" silliness. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so you've begun to understand the problem of !voting that I brought up earlier. At least we're getting somewhere. Too bad that you continue to misrepresent RfCs which have proven that neither your "community wish detector" nor your "current thinking detector" are terribly accurate. So no need to keep maintaining the impression that you're in total control of the process, nor speaking in the name of the unanimous community - both of these ideas have been shot down a while ago. As usual, you may have the last word, just please stop trying to intimidate me and other regulars with promises what will happen "in the next couple of weeks" or "after I finish dinner". It won't work. — Yerpo Eh? 05:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"It won't work"? It is working. And it will continue to work. By all means carry on badgering me at every opportunity, I'll just continue to improve articles, and ensure our readers get what they deserve from this project which currently doesn't serve them well at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I won't waste any more time with this thread, just to put the misleading as usual, the regulars have overwhelmed discussion with their posts in perspective: The Rambling Man has, in just a little over one month, added more text to Talk:2017 than all the "regulars" combined and has become the second most verbose contributor to Wikipedia talk:Recent years, where some of the others had started contributing to these discussions years ago. So it's not us who is overwhelming everybody, it's just that someone simply has to stand up to this one-man-army onslaught with highly dubious end benefit. — Yerpo Eh? 09:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Merely indicative of the problems here, and reflects the tag-team ownership nature this project by the "regulars". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair use images (Part two)

Do you think fair use images should be used here in recent year articles? Because I just thought about it because for example someone adds an image of someone, who is deceased and the image is fair use. Does it say or does it get removed? Gar (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

They get removed from any article for which a fair use justification does not exist. That's site-wide policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Well it's pretty obvious if you think about. For example, Liu Xiaobo's image can only be here if's under a free license like Flickr or someone's own photograph of him. Like I didn't know about Liu until after he died. And at times, I don't mean to be rude, but this was a good idea or else IPs would add fair use articles and violate the non-free content criteria. Don't you think? Gar (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It applies to every article on Wikipedia, not just the sixteen governed by the RY project. Editors add fair use images all the time to numerous articles, mostly because they don't realise they're doing it. We just fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You got that darn right! Gar (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
And for what it's worth, the two images you correctly removed were from an article whose inclusion criteria are not governed by WP:RY, i.e. 1974 is included within the scope of RY. That page is lame, missing scores of citations, most of the events are completely unreferenced, it's a bit of a joke really. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Not only that, but the IP 124.106.251.20 kept making disruptive edits and not only that he added double image templates, but triple image templates too. At least I was aware on what I was doing. Gar (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the fair use rationale cannot apply to year lists, more specifically, they don't contribute much to the readers' understanding of the article topic. — Yerpo Eh? 19:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Well that's incorrect. If an image was deemed to be of significance to a specific year then it could conceivably have a fair use rationale for it. In any case, the NFCC policy is clear, and works site-wide, no additional information needs to be given here at the RY project which "governs" only 16 articles of the 5+ million to which the fair use policy applies. There needs to be no further discussion here, it's already well covered. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't imagine what image could possibly be of significance to a specific year when we only list assorted events. But nevermind, we're splitting hairs. At any rate, only you know who you're arguing with, here, because nobody really proposed adding the NFC policy. — Yerpo Eh? 19:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
No, not exactly: it's very clear what this thread was doing, in response to a thread about three or four sections above. Someone there suggested I propose that a specific statement be added that it be part of this guideline that only [sic] public domain images be used. which in itself demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of image licensing on Wikpiedia, so I'd suggestion that these issues are better left to the policy entirely. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Cheers. But what images under Creative Commons License like their own photograph or a photograph from Flickr like Alan Light's photographs? Like Roger Moore's image that's in the 2017 article is under CC-BY-SA 3.0 by British photographer Allan Warren? Gar (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Images under free licenses (such as CC-BY-SA) are of course ok for inclusion as far as copyright is concerned. If a Flickr image is uploaded to Commons, it normaly means that it is freely licensed, so these are ok for inclusion too. — Yerpo Eh? 11:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a guideline

Apparently this page did not go through the proper process to become an official guideline. As the person who added the guideline tag erroneously, I have now removed it and replaced it with an essay tag until the page goes through the proper process. Wrad ([8[User talk:Wrad|talk]]) 20:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Arthur, may you accept the bold downgrade to "essay" status for now until the consensus agrees to promote it to "guideline"? Jim, Yerpo, and DerbyCountyinNZ, may you do the same as well? --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Wrad: Your unilateral actions have in both cases been incorrect. You should never have just decided on your own about either thing, especially since this was reviewed at an RFC just a few months ago. Bold editing is great in article space, but usually a poor idea in project space. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Show me the consensus that decided that decided this was an official, WP guideline, and I might agree with you. There never was one. I should know, I was there. The fact is that it is not a guideline. Guidelines are created through a very specific process, which you are now knowingly violating (something I never did, acting in ignorance.) I'm frankly got tired of trying to help with recent year articles years ago and left long ago. Tried to help bring some sanity to the process then and got nothing but edit warring nastiness on one side and self-righteous judgment of my efforts (much like your own) on the other. I'm done for good now. Goodbye. Wrad (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Wrad, I think you did the right thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Wrad for your openness and honest edits here. I for one applaud your approach which is common sense. No doubt it will be bureaucratically reverted, but nevertheless, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, there you go. As I was writing that, the bogus status quo has been restored. How helpful. No wonder you gave the whole thing up, this kind of nonsense would drive most people away. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Once again, we had an RFC just a few months ago. Participation was light, but when it was closed it was with the decision that the original marking as a guideline, while admittedly improper at the time, be upheld. This isn't about what one or two people think, if you want to demote something from a guideline to an essay you must at least attempt a broad community discussion first. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This seems to be the appropriate course of action. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean downgrading to "essay" or status quo, DerbyCountyinNZ? George Ho (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Status quo. The RFC was closed with approval of guideline status. Downgrading to essay requires consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Had I known about the RfC, I would have participated, especially seeing that people actually opposed the addition of the Manchester attack because it apparently wasn't an international incident. In my opinion, it most definitely was. It (and the resulting benefit concert) received international coverage, and there were likely people from outside the UK at that concert. (Actually, the benefit concert that followed the attack may have received more coverage, as it was broadcasted in 39 countries' on several radio stations, including the UK, plus YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. But, obviously, we can't separate the two.) — Gestrid (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving forwards with this

Right, we need to formulate an RFC in which the community can participate where the official Wikipedia "guideline status" of this project's inclusion criteria is discussed. That, no doubt, will expand and digress into the actual quality of the criteria, so I'm interested to know if we should have the downgrade discussion first, absolutely and 100% exclusive to any discussion over the current content of the criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be foolish not to have a standard. It would be foolish to have a standard similar to WP:ITN, but even that would be better than nothing. You can bring a downgrade RfC, but it should be clear to all that a guideline is needed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
To be precise, without a guideline, we would need a discussion on each entry added to a "recent year" article, even if it were approved as an entry in WP:ITN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you miss the point entirely. There needs to be guides for inclusion, but not a Wikipedia guideline which you yourself see fit to selectively uphold and selectively defend. Even massive projects like WP:ITN do not claim to have their criteria enshrined in a Wikipedia guideline, and that's featured on the main page. This project is responsible for the content of fifteen (15) articles, the Wikipedia guideline slapped on it is entirely inappropriate, it seems clear from almost all commentators that we need to revise that and apply some common sense. Then we address the content. So, "it would be foolish not to have a standard", yes, but no-one's actually stating that's what we should do. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It applies to a lot more than 15 articles. It's all year articles from 2002 ownards. That's the most recent 15 past years, the current year and all the future years. Jim Michael (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
So currently, how many articles is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how many future years we have, but it's relevant to them as well. They contain future events. Jim Michael (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Here: see Category:Recent years. Just those are governed by the "project". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There isn't a clear consensus that it does apply to future years, but it's just common sense that it should. (See comments in the next section.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There is, however, a clear and binding Wikipedia guideline that ensures that it only applies from 2002 to present, per the precise wordings, regardless of individual claims of "common sense". If we applied "common sense" then most of RY would be revised, so let's not go down that route quite yet! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
You suggested we use "common sense". "Common sense" requires that article guidelines do not automatically become more restrictive with the passage of time. (It also requires that WP:ITN guidelines not be used, but I see no need to deal with that until someone produces a specific proposal.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

No, look, we don't need two threads discussing the same topic. Call an RFC to modify this Wikipedia guideline to change the explicit and precise wording. You need community consensus to do that. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems the overall Year articles are supposed to be a highlight reel of all the domestic subs. The regulars have in good faith enforced the erroneous criterion “International Notability” to help justify what events/people get special attention from the wider pool, which can be established as applicable to ALL countries, and therefore deserves the ‘upgrading’ from domestic subs. I get it. But as even the regulars admit, International Notability is almost impossible to source and can be ultimately subjective to personal opinion. So rather than persevere with the argument over how to measure this value, or all the disagreements over which events/people meet this ill-defined criteria – why not just change the criteria?

You COULD make it very easy and say something like “Year articles are a highlight reel of the most popular events/people” and then the criteria could be page hits. The top 5 events for each month, or top 10 people of that year would make it into the article. The criteria would then be simple, rational and enforceable. You wouldn’t need lengthy discussion and there would be little room for argument. Most of all, it would be a reasonable and understandable justification for inclusion and, more importantly, exclusion. Would it make it a bit of a western-leaning reel? I dunno, maybe. But if the reel is referencing its own mother Wikipedia that would be justified, and the numeric non-subjective determiner would rule out discrimination. I dunno, surely anything is better than what is in place currently. The articles are a confusing, seemingly random and incomplete selection of people and events, and the arguments over the criteria and who/what to include are as unhelpful and pointless as the articles. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

We certainly won't be going by popularity. That would result in being swamped with trivial stories and reality TV and blogging/vlogging personalities that the media love to sensationalise. The death of someone who's famous for being famous receives far more media coverage than the death of an important scientist. Jim Michael (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
You don't own the project Jim, we do, so if we decide popularity is the way ahead, that'll be what we use, whether you like it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
And turn it into something that resembles a tabloid article rather than an encyclopedia article? Jim Michael (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
If that's what the community decides our readers want, that's absolutely fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
You want the content to merely be more popular at the expense of it being less encyclopedic? Jim Michael (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The community by large has already decided against that. There are numerous essays, cleanup templates etc. for dealing with articles containing such worthless junk. The current WP:RY guideline has also been devised to help deal with cruft, which is, unfortunately, still littering other year pages and serving nobody. So considering such ideas again would be a pure waste of time, the only real question is how to devise the bar for inclusion of important, relevant entries. If we only serve what the readers expect, they don't need us. — Yerpo Eh? 16:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
We'll see, won't we. This thread has passed its "best by" date, no progress will be made here while two of the incumbent regulars argue with the one person making active changes around here. We'll see what the community at large thinks in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jim Michael Well, you don't get to decide that mate - but I get your point and was only using hits as an example of nonsubjective evidence. But even with this, as with say, media coverage in RS, why do you think that famous scientists (who I agree, should be more 'notable' than Kim Kardashian - but that's POV) would slip through the loop? Why can't Kim and Tim Berners-Lee both be permitted per the guidelines? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Famous scientists, such as Tim Berners-Lee and Stephen Hawking will receive a lot of media coverage when they die and would be included under any criteria. However, the large majority of important scientists aren't high-profile, and most of their deaths aren't front-page news - even if they're Nobel Prize-winners. All the television personalities in the Kardashian-Jenner family have much higher media profiles. If any of the Kardashians or Jenners die whilst still in the public eye, the media coverage will be many times more than for most of the important scientists. Look at how many important scientists die each year, and notice that most people won't even have heard of most of them - let alone be aware that they have died. This is one of the reasons why we can't set inclusion criteria based on page views, amount of media coverage etc. Jim Michael (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, once again Jim you kinda dodged my question. Why can't Kim and <insert scientist here> BOTH be permitted per the guidelines? Surely it can be yardsticked so that neither less hit obscure 'notables' and media hit magnets are excluded? Or why not provide guidelines specific to the event or individual's field? Separate simple guideline for the sciences, arts and celebrity? That way you don't run the risk you fear that one person would be excluded by the conditions set for the other? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
People like her shouldn't be included because they don't have any real achievements or important work.
If we go by popularity, page views, amount of media coverage etc. - we would exclude some Nobel-prize winners - yet we'd have included Jade Goody in 2009 and Ryan Dunn in 2011.
Guidelines for each field would be useful, but would be complicated. The guideline for sports alone would be long: tennis players could qualify if they've won a grand slam, an Olympic gold medal or been world number 1. What would you do for sports that most of the world doesn't play, such as rugby or cricket?
Jim Michael (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I would include sportspeople who have achieved top honours in their sport, or actively participated in a major competition, as per WP:Notability. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Actively participated in a major competition includes tens of thousands of sportspeople. The Deaths section would be swamped with about a hundred sportspeople every year under those criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTPAPER covers this nicely. It's better to include an eclectic mix of notable sportspeople from around the world and around different sports, even minority ones, than to actively reinforce systemic bias to just leave it to footballers, tennis players and American footballers, wouldn't you agree? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that the Deaths section would be dominated by sportspeople. You've said that there are too many people in the Deaths section, but your suggestion would increase the number significantly. The more important sportspeople in the more global sports will tend to have articles in more languages. Jim Michael (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Head of state

I want to explore clarifying "head of state", as a well-meaning editor has been adding Presidents of Switzerland to recent year articles, which our article notes is not a "head of state", while both the President of France and the Prime minister of France are heads of state. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Heads of state or government, as it presently reads, is not even close to a well-defined set:

  • Is it supposed to encompass only sovereign states? By what definition of sovereignty? (That's a colossal can of worms in itself, and isn't presently addressed at all.)
  • What about heads of government in federated states, autonomous territories, or any of a number of other sometimes-complex arrangements?
  • Are only heads of state or government who die in office supposed to be included, or does it include anyone who held such in a post in a non-interim capacity at any point?
  • What about former heads of state or government for polities that no longer exist?
  • What about those whose legitimacy in such a position was/is in dispute?

If a criterion like this is to be useful, it should, at the very least, cover a more clearly-defined set of polities. (Incidentally, the Prime minister of France is not a head of state; he or she is only a head of government. The topic is a confusing one!) Layzner (Talk) 03:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The criterion as a whole seems flawed - as you say carving out an exception to general principals based on an ambiguous standard is not a good idea. And more generally the criterion does not seem justifiable given the very strict limits we place on inclusion elsewhere, with respect to Taneti Mamau or Peter M. Christian I don't think they are actually internationally notable people who should be included in a recent years article if they die. AlasdairEdits (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I hadn't realized that my suggestion that country leaders be considered "of international importance", for the purpose of reporting deaths, in this guideline/essay would be so problematic. I was just attempting to codify local consensus which seemed to be established on this talk page. I still think discussion is worthwhile, as no constructive suggestion has been made as how to reduce the size of the article to manageable proportions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
We should keep the rule and deal with disputed cases when they arise. People who are no longer in power when they die - including those whose countries no longer exist at the time they die - should certainly be included, for example former leaders of Yugoslavia. Jim Michael (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
How is "remove cherry picked deaths from the article and just simply link to the 'Deaths In article'", not constructive? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Because we should have a shorter list on RY articles of internationally notable deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Why? Who benefits? This isn't a paper encyclopaedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
People who want to see who was internationally important, instead of trawling through the whole list of the year's deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Aha, [citation needed]. You have not one shred of evidence that our readers approve of this arcane selection process, do you? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You don't have a shred of evidence that they don't like the current inclusion criteria. Readers who aren't editors aren't writing their views. Regular editors are needed. Jim Michael (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You're joking, right? Outside the regular three or four project owners, no-one thinks this project's inclusion criteria are correct, either for events or for deaths. Just look at this talk page, just look at the various RFCs, it's as claer as day that your attempted imposition of your version of your interpretation of what is "internationally notable" does not match either our editors' or our readers' expectations. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jim, the criteria for a suggestion being "constructive" is not your approval of it. I think this is a sad reflection of the wider issues at play, here. But returning to the point of "worthy" notables, it's simply a case of either (a) being able to find a measure of worthiness that is fair or (b) not measuring it and including all notables. So it really is in your interests to work with people to find a way forward and contribute to suggestions, rather than just rebuffing everything. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Splitting out a new section #Inclusion criteria / motives of editors given the shift in thread's subject matter — JFG talk 09:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Going forward

My understanding is that the intent is that events, births and deaths, are to be of international (or world-wide) importance or significance. This is a subjective test, so we need proxies which may indicate importance.

At present, for events, the only proxy is that the event be reported on three continents, although it can be overridden (in either direction) by consensus at the talk page of the year in question. Other possible proxies would be

  1. There is in-depth coverage on three continents.
  2. There is in-depth coverage in n languages (where n is subject to discussion)

A Wikipedia-hit-based proxy would be problematic, as the event need not have a Wikipedia article of its own.

Also, annual (or more frequent) sports and entertainment events restricted to a single continent are excluded. Examples for both inclusion and exclusion are in the guideline. There seems to be consensus that anniversaries of notable events are not included unless the celebration or commemoration is separately notable.

For births and deaths, the intent is that the person's life be internationally notable or significant. The current proxy is that the person must have an en.Wikipedia article, and have 9-non-English language Wikipedia articles. For deaths, the Wikipedia articles must exist before death. I agree that this proxy is absurd, but no one has yet suggested a workable proxy which selects births and deaths on objective criteria, and would bring the year articles somewhere near the maximum recommended article size. For deaths, heads of state and heads of government are exempted from the 9-Wikipedia rule, but may still be excluded if they didn't actually do anything. Again, exclusion or inclusion can be changed by consensus at the year's talk page. For births, it is suggested that the only people notable at birth would be heirs to a kingdom, but it's not specified in the guideline.

Other possible proxies include:

  1. A Wikipedia-hit based count; for deaths, the count must be taken before the death for this to make sense. I would suggest the count be taken before reliable sources report the death is imminent. Even if desired, it has both false positives (people are looking for someone with a similar name, and this article is the best hit) and false negatives (people cannot spell the name sufficiently closely to locate our article). This has false positives and negatives based on Wikipedia users; in a sense, it's less reliable than Wikipedia, itself.
  2. Other hit-based counts, such as Google. This the additional advantage of being a reliable source, but disadvantage that near-misses are more complicated to analyze.
  3. The person has in-depth articles (again, on 3 continents or in multiple languages) before death.

or the sections could just be eliminated in favor of Deaths in yyyy and Births in yyyy' articles. This option requires coordination with non-recent WP:YEARS project guidelines, as eliminating the deaths only in recent years would be jarring.

Have I missed any options? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Basing it on page views or other measures of popularity is a bad idea because it would put people who are 'famous for being famous' above important scientists, inventors, academics etc. Jim Michael (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Serves our readers much better than the current approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The process of examining deaths that pass WP:NOTABILTY in an effort to promote a select few as extra notable (for who? And why?) seems (1) highly subjective, (2) deeply contentious and (3) utterly uninformative. If there isn't any way to determine whether a person is 'super notable', don't do it. Just link to the deaths article and stop duplicating selective information via ambiguous criteria. If you guys really HAVE to include your favourite deaths, why not keep it simple? From the pot of deaths that month, get people to vote for a top 3. If anyone is upset that Person X has been missed off, point them in the direction of the vote. And if you don't find that satisfying, just go with RS and be done with it. The only argument against that seems to be RS don't stipulate that a person IS notable, within the source. But I don't see 9 Wikipedia's stipulating that either, and that's apparently fine - so what gives? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That would make it RY articles a tabloidish popularity contest. For example, it would mean including Jade Goody in 2009, but excluding 5-time Olympic gold medalist Yukio Endo and former Moroccan PM Abdellatif Filali who both died during the same month. That would be just because Goody inexplicably had loads of fans despite having done no productive work, whereas the Olympic champion and former head of state would be excluded because the vast majority of people have never heard of them. You can't reasonably claim that a reality TV contestant should be valued more by an encylopedia than an Olympic champion or a head of state. Jim Michael (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
No, we wouldn't consider tabloid coverage as RS. You need to stop second-guessing what our readers want and expect to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jim - well, this is the problem with trying to cherry pick extra notability from a pot of notable people. If 50 reliable sources from around the globe report on Jade Goody, that would make her internationally notable. You may not like the reasons why she is internationally notable (neither do I) but this isn't Jimpedia. PS. Do Yukio Endo and Abdellatif Filali pass the 9 Wikipedia rule? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Many reliable sources - including the BBC, The Guardian and The Telegraph - reported Goody's death. I don't know how much the media in other countries did.
I don't know how many articles Endo and Filali had at the time they died. However, Endo would clearly qualify for inclusion because of his Olympic medal haul and Filali passes automatically due to him having been head of government. Their deaths weren't prominently covered outside their own countries because important people such as them aren't valued as much by the public as fame whores are.
Jim Michael (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, the world is what it is Jim. Your criteria is "International Notability". Not "Worthy International Notability." You just can't use your own bias to establish worthiness. What you can do is (1) justify WHY the criteria needs to be "Worthy International Notability" (honestly, what is the reason for an article about a year, excluding deaths of famous people who didn't necessarily achieve an accolade? What specifically about a Year article makes this even relevant? Honest question!) and then (2) include a second criteria beyond that of notability, that establishes worthiness i.e. sports honours, awards etc. What would be the problem with that?62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must agree that statements like "no productive work" suggest standards based on arbitrary personal metrics rather than a supportably policy-based set of criteria. Inevitably, this advances systemic bias of one form or another; if there are too many notable deaths to fit in the main article, I feel that fairly clearly means we oughtn't have a list of deaths in the main article. Layzner (Talk) 21:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. As I stipulated in a section above, if the process of identifying 'special' cases among standard notable people is problematic, the obvious solution is to stop doing it. Jim and Arthur seem incredibly protective of the inclusion of cherry-picked deaths, and yet have shot down suggestions on how this would work and made zero suggestions of there own. Do they really want the only/best idea to be removing deaths entirely from RY? I find this whole thing quite odd. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I also agree. Everyone with this encyclopedia's definition of notability who dies in any given year is listed in the "Deaths in 20.." article. There seems no benefit in artificially cherry-picking a super-notable set based on flawed or personal criteria. Even some of the regulars have admitted that the nine-Wikipedia rule does not stand up to scrutiny. Bin the deaths from here and simply link to the complete, objective, comprehensive article containing all deaths instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems that there is broad agreement (except Jim) that the current criterion for deaths is both arbitrary and more importantly does not do a good job of serving readers. At the same time, I don't know if just a link to an article about all deaths is the right approach. Those articles are absolutely huge and very hard to navigate. What would be the impact of switching to "in-depth coverage on three continents" (i.e detailed obituary's) similar to events. At the least I would have thought that would get rid of the Viktor Tsaryov's and Heinrich Schiff's clogging up articles at the moment. AlasdairEdits (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I've never advocated the 9 + English rule and I didn't help to establish it. I merely follow it, with exceptions, because it's the current guideline. The problem with switching to listing those deaths which receive the most international coverage is that it would exclude important scientists whom the vast majority of people haven't heard of and whom most of the mainstream media aren't interested in. It would also mean including people who are famous for being famous - because much of the media cover such people extensively due to millions of people being interested in them. Jim Michael (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Jesus Jim, change the record mate. It doesn't matter who YOU think is worthy or not worthy of inclusion. And the 'guideline' isn't a guideline and will be changed. You need to provide an alternative non-subjective inclusion criteria or subscribe to real guidelines and principles of editing Wikipedia. If the vast majority of people haven't heard of someone, or their name isn't receiving any real recognition anywhere, they can't be particularly notable, can they? Reliable sources do not merely concern themselves with reality TV stars, there are plenty in the established media who cover scientists, discoveries, politicians, artists and engineers. You may even be surprised that most mainstream newspapers actually have dedicated sections to those fields. Stop assuming reliable source = OK magazine. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
"The problem with switching to listing those deaths which receive the most international coverage is that it would exclude important scientists whom the vast majority of people haven't heard of...." While this might be a problem to you, I don't think it is a problem for Wikipedia. We want to serve our readers not some arbitrary standard of importance AlasdairEdits (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It would certainly be a problem for any encyclopedia to base inclusion on amount of media coverage. Articles such as this one should list important people who die during the year. Ryan Dunn's death in June 2011 received far more media coverage than that of Frederick Chiluba during the same month. You can't reasonably claim that Dunn is more deserving of being listed in 2011#Deaths than Chiluba. Jim Michael (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It would be a problem for you personally but probably not for our readers for whom this project exists. And we keep reiterating, reliable sources, Jim, reliable sources, upon which the rest of the Wikipedia is based. This mini-project should be no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The statement that we "can't reasonably claim that Dunn is more deserving...than Chiluba" is elitism and personal selectivity at its worse. We as editors are not, and never should put ourselves in the position of being, arbiters of who is or is not "deserving" of coverage. If the more sources covered Dunn's death than Chiluba, then by definition Dunn's death had a greater impact. Why that should be is a completely separate question and one that should be covered in sociology journals rather than in these types of articles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, there are a couple of individuals here who seem to believe that the Recent Years articles do not and should not comply with the common sense and regular notablity policy applied across all of the rest of Wikipedia, which is odd considering this project curates 16 articles out of a total of nearly 6 million. Time to start getting with the programme RY regulars, if any of you are still here beside Jim. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. We should certainly define criteria, but those should be guided by general pillars of Wikipedia. RS coverage of "year in review", which pops up every last week of every year, would be a good start. To ensure balanced coverage of various subjects, thankfully, the world offers us a cornucopia of specialized RS focusing on every field of potential encyclopedic interest: sports, politics, science, environment, entertainment and whatnot. Compile the "top 10" events in each category and call it a day. — JFG talk 00:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I can't wait to get rid of the International Year of the Potato! — JFG talk 00:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias?

Well, what do other encyclopedias (or books of the year, or almanacs) have? I recall the Britannica book of the year did have a list of notable deaths, selected from the people who died during the year. A Britannica DVD did have the capability of listing all who died during a year, but it's more analogous to Category:2017 deaths than to Deaths in 2017. Anyone know what other encyclopedias have? There is no way we could determine what our readers expect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Other times have editorial oversight, they don't publish inclusion criteria. We should use reliable sources, per our policies, as opposed to what we do right now, which is frankly the opposite. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
What you should be asking is HOW and WHY they select those people from the pool of all that died that year. I guarantee you the answers won't be "are they mentioned on 9 different Wikipedias?" and "because I want them to be." I expect their inclusion criteria was properly established, rather than slyly snuck past everybody in a hooky vote. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
So propose some criteria. I've suggested some for people (in-depth coverage on multiple continents or in multiple languages), but I have no rational criterion for events other than "international significance", and no objective proxy for that criterion. It's hard to imagine a less objective criterion than "consensus for inclusion" without there being a criterion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I see an implied proposal above: that the event is included in some reliable source as one of the most significant events of the year. (This means that we could not list events until the end of the year, though. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
That proposal would open the way to improve 16/17th's of the articles (and avoid some of the total insanity like the election of Donald Trump archives) so it seems a good start. RY's could be done based on that and the Current Year based on a subset of the current criterion until we can come up for something less insane for that as well. AlasdairEdits (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
There'd be a similar problem with a quota-based criteria, such as one person from each field per month in the Deaths section. If no-one with much notability from a particular field died during a particular month, we'd have to include someone who has little notability. If Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger were to die during the same month, we'd have to exclude one of them simply because we'd only be able to include one musician per month. Jim Michael (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
See Paul is dead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Just link to the Deaths in 20xx article, after all the people included there meet policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC: guideline status of this project's inclusion

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.
Weighing the arguments from both the sides of the proposed motion, there is a clear consensus to downgrade this guideline to an essay.That an essay, by an inadvertent error (which was regrettably tended to too late!) became an guideline and was used as one for many years, does not stand as a reason to continue the practise. Also, while the local consensus of a limited number of editors are sufficient for documenting best practices, they lack the consensus to implement/enforce a self-decided(written) essay as a guideline.Also, editors are advised to try to follow by the essay as far as possible, while working in the subject area.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 12:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A month or so ago, it become apparent that changes to the inclusion criteria for this project (which governs around about 16 articles, 2002, 2003, ... 2017) were subject to more scrutiny because the project guidelines had been advanced to become a fully-fledged Wikipedia guideline. A quick look at Category:Wikipedia editing guidelines shows that this is only Wikiproject currently enshrined as a full Wikipedia guideline. The individual editor who promoted the criteria to being a Wikipedia guideline (Wrad has already accepted that his promotion of the project guide to a full-blown Wikipedia guideline was erroneous (here) and even attempted to remedy that situation (here) only to be reverted by Beeblebrox who quoted a recent RFC which apparently reinforced this view of the guideline being an official Wikpiedia guideline. Wrad subsequently retired when his attempts to remedy the situation were reverted).

I submit that:

  1. This project, which covers just 16 pages, is more than entitled to a style guide (like Wikiproject Football, for instance) to define what kind of items do and do no belong here.
  2. This guideline be downgraded to an essay, in keeping with all the other style guides and inclusion criteria for Wikiprojects across Wikipedia.
  3. The current criteria, however flawed, should probably be the default adopted position once this guideline is downgraded.

In doing so, minor and common sense changes will be able to be made to the essay, without the necessity for admin intervention (e.g. this) or burdensome community interjection. And in absolute terms, there is no good reason for this tiny Wikiproject's style guide to be treated with the same gravitas as WP:AGF or WP:BITE or WP:FORK or WP:RS or WP:BOLD.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. This should never have been a guideline in the first place. Double sharp (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was made a guideline through the proper procedure and a lot of discussion was made by project regulars over the years to reach the current criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    I think you're missing the point. It doesn't really matter how or why we're here, what matters is where we are now. Why is this the only Wikiproject who's inclusion criteria is a full Wikipedia guideline? Is this project's inclusion criteria as important to Wikpiedia as WP:AGF, WP:RS etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    The inclusion criteria needed to be officially defined because many people misunderstand or don't know of the criteria. Most other projects don't have this problem, because their scope is clear, obvious and undisputed. Jim Michael (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    Once again, I think you've missed the point. The criteria will still be defined, just in an essay rather than an official Wikipedia guideline. This project which governs 16 pages is not in any way comparable to WP:RS or WP:AGF in its significance. And given all the hidden rules implemented and the reverts made by the "regulars" here, there's clearly no point in claiming that that the guideline even prevents individuals from misunderstanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    That should be remedied by clarifying the guideline, not downgrading it. Jim Michael (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    We'll do both. This project which governs 16 pages is not in any way comparable to WP:RS or WP:AGF in its significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    It's very significant to RY articles. There's no benefit to be gained from downgrading it. Jim Michael (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    Yes there is, as I noted in the nomination. Moreover, the 16 articles this covers is not quite the 5.7 million articles that, say, WP:RS covers, or every single talk page which is covered by WP:BITE. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    Do you want it downgraded to an essay so that you can disregard it as mere advice - and encourage others to do likewise? Jim Michael (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    No, did you read my opening statement? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    I did, but you've made it clear that you want the guideline to be abolished or changed massively, so it looks like downgrading it is intended by you as a step towards that. Jim Michael (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    Then you didn't read it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Not appropriate for a guideline. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Huh?. @The Rambling Man: You keep referring to this as a WikiProject, but I see no WikiProject. What are you referring to? Kaldari (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    WP:YEARS is a WikiProject, but WP:RY isn't a WikiProject - it's a part of WP:YEARS. Jim Michael (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    Even more reason to downgrade to an essay. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I have thought this for some time. I appreciate the hard work of the core of regulars who work on these pages. However, I often see arguments here referring to this guideline as the overwhelming and settled consensus of the community, but the history of how the guideline came about shows that it isn't (and never really was). What's really going on here is a WP:OWN issue. Additions to these pages should be discussed and debated the same way that any other page. The way it operates now—where dissent is shouted down with reference to the guideline—is not sustainable. agtx 16:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless it is both recognized as a WP:YEARS project guideline and as WP:CONSENSUS on all applicable articles. If that is not done, most entries in 2017, and many in other recent years, will need to be discussed before being added. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    Project guidelines are usually essays, not full Wikipedia guidelines like WP:BLP. Please re-read the nomination if that's unclear, all that changes with this RFC is the status of the guideline, none of the content is proposed to be changed at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    Why wouldn't WP:BOLD continue to apply? People can make changes, and if you or others disagree, then we can hash it out on talk like on literally every other page on this encyclopedia. Except that instead of just pointing to a guideline, we're going to have to have real, meaningful discussions about what content belongs here and what doesn't. The idea that a handful of regular users is going to decide what's on Wikipedia for something that literally every single person on Earth experienced is, to me, the antithesis of what this site ought to be. agtx 22:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't fully agree with the "other projects use essays, not guidelines" argument in itself; there might plausibly be some reason for distinguishing this situation. However, I haven't seen any convincing reason advanced. As WP:PGE notes, editors need to follow the most relevant advice regardless of the status of its source, so the criteria will not lose force through the downgrade. (The current criteria are still current consensus on the applicable articles, as the proposal states.) Ultimately, past discussion should not be privileged above future changes in consensus: our default position should be to avoid granting unusual procedural protections. Layzner (Talk) 19:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. The opening statement is seriously biased, even if it didn't contain misstatements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    Here we go again. You're on a fine line here Rubin, with the "misstatements" lark, but feel free to offer a more neutral take, but right now you're just filibustering. Wikipedia does not need to afford a project which governs 16 articles a full guideline, can you name any other sub-projects of Wikiprojects which have such a situation? What makes this sub-project so special? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support if there was ever any doubt, just take a look at Wikipedia:List of guidelines and see the odd one out. The promotion was made in error, the reinforcement was made with little community input, but all that aside, purely logically this should not be the only sub-project to a Wikiproject (which itself doesn't have a guideline covering its inclusion criteria!) under a Wikipedia guideline, an essay would be just fine, less restrictive, more open to change and less likely to be abused by those implementing special unwritten rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Guidelines are for describing best practices, which is exactly what this page does. If there are parts of it that don't have consensus, those parts should be removed or changed. I don't see any point to changing this into an essay. Essays are for expressing personal opinions or giving advice, not describing best practices. This whole tendency to treat guidelines as some kind of binding regulation written in stone is silly, IMO. Why has Wikipedia become so bureaucratic? Kaldari (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    Well that's part of the problem. Some regulars here spend most of their time arguing about issues that aren't covered in the guideline, arguing about unwritten exceptions, claiming that "we've always done it this way" even though it's not in the guidelines. Worse, admins prevent the guide line being updated without community consensus and when that community is three or four owners who know all the hidden rules, that's why this is not and should not and never should have been a Wikipedia guide line. I ask again, find another content sub project who has their inclusion criteria bound up in a guide line and I'll personally send you a cheque. What makes these seldom viewed 16 articles so special? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    There aren't many arguments between the regulars - conflicts are usually caused by newcomers who don't know how RY articles work. All the more reason to define and clarify the guideline. Jim Michael (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    See WP:OWN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, @Jim Michael: but this is the problem. Further entrenching the guideline to protect the "regulars" from newcomers who have ideas they don't like is the wrong answer. agtx 22:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    That's not what I mean. The large majority of events and deaths that are inappropriately added to RY articles are done by people who are unfamiliar with the inclusion criteria. They typically add the death of a person who's not internationally notable or a domestic event. I would welcome there being far more than four regulars here, but few people stick around. Jim Michael (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    Whether you meant it or not, it's the reality. The project suffers from serious ownership issues. This guideline and its status appear to form part of that regime. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This was never a guideline. The consensus of Beeblebrox, Arthur Rubin, Scribolt, and Nyttend (on that last RfC) does not proscribe rules for the rest of Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Guideline status is going too far, in part because guidelines are supposed to be broadly applicable, not applicable to a small group of pages. However, that doesn't get in the way of enforcing consensus from the discussion above referred to against the disruptive editing that prompted the discussion. For that reason, it shouldn't be marked as an essay either; essays are optional, while heeding this consensus (without getting consensus to change it, of course) is not. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    Perhaps the point is a subtle one, but essays are not (inherently) optional, nor are guidelines (inherently) mandatory. Consensus itself is what must be followed; the form in which consensus is expressed does not affect that. Layzner (Talk) 01:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - This "guideline" is flawed to shit and should never have been made a guideline in the first place!, Downgrading to Essay is better because that way it can hopefully be ignored and thus common sense should hopefully take over. –Davey2010Talk 01:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    That's the real motive - to downgrade it so that it can be disregarded. Jim Michael (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    You're already disregarding the guideline to suit your personal view of international notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • My motive to downgrade it is because it's clearly not working and that's been proven with the various debates with you, TRM and Arthur - If the "guideline" was working none of us would be here and this RFC wouldn't exist. –Davey2010Talk 13:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not disregarding it. We make exceptions to the 9+ English rule when the person's (lack of) international notability is clear. Jim Michael (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
No, you and other "regulars" disregard things you don't like, even when there's no criteria to do so. We start with fixing the root causes, one of which is the "hallowed guideline" which one of your regular admins stated needed community consensus to change in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral - this page having a status of a guideline is convenient because it facilitates maintenance of RY lists. But, as Nyttend pointed out, it will still represent the best approximation of a consensus even without it (the same way as other project pages do, which is why they are regularly invoked in content debates). So if the status is that much out of place, I don't mind removing it because that will not change the fact that a better strategy of handling entries will need to be proposed and accepted before editors can consider this one null. — Yerpo Eh? 04:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support essentially per TRM. There is an unfortunate degree of possessiveness on these pages at the moment, and the odd status of WP:RY as a guideline is only encouraging this. I see no reason for it to be a guideline. Furthermore, even if there was strong consensus for it to be a guideline at some point, and for the specific form of this guideline, consensus can change. "We have always done it this way" is a dreadful argument for doing something a certain way. It is the reasons we have done it a certain way that are important, if there were any. Maintenance of the RY pages is not a bad reason, but having this as a guideline is at the moment facilitating ownership, and as such is hindering the maintenance of RY pages. Vanamonde (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Vanamonde. I also have a problem "We have always done it this way", when there is no valid reason (de:Gleichbehandlung im Unrecht). But I agree with treating equal things in an legitimate equal manner. Agathoclea (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm saddened and disappointed that Chris Troutman doesn't seem recognise that my opinion in an RfC always represents the opinion of the entire community. However, weak support. This does seem to be out of step with other guidelines. I fail to see a real practical difference between a non mandatory essay, a non mandatory guideline or a non mandatory project, but if altering the status assists with improvements, then go ahead I guess. The important thing is that there some documented and agreed criteria for what ends up in the final articles. Scribolt (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Scribolt: Just to emphasize, I mean no disrespect to you or the other editors, as Snuge purveyor rightly points out. I take no position on the writing of the proposal, only that the proper procedure wasn't followed and that a WikiProject usually doesn't possess a guideline across all of Wikipedia. WP:MILPEOPLE, for example, is an essay expressing the consensus of a WikiProject. I think the result of this blow-up on Wrad is unfortunate, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: No problem and zero offence was taken. I think asking the original question regarding its status on the policy page was legitimate, but you and others are also entirely right that the lack of input that resulted there doesn't compensate for the scrutiny that a guideline should normally receive. Scribolt (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to a lack of replacement plan. BRD on these pages would be burdensome due to the sheer amount of changes to be made. ~ Rob13Talk 16:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    You didn't read the opening statement. The guide stays in place, just not as a guideline, as per most other project inclusion criteria.what makes this project any different? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    I really don't know what you're going on about with "project inclusion criteria". This is a guideline, meaning it is not simply project inclusion criteria. Project inclusion criteria are, by definition, not guidelines. If you mean content area specific guidelines, we have plenty of those; see every single content area specific notability guideline such as WP:NSPORTS, WP:NBIO's additional criteria, every single content area specific naming conventions guideline (e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)), etc. The argument "This is relevant to a WikiProject, therefore it shouldn't be a guideline" has no logical basis. ~ Rob13Talk 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, that you're missing the point entirely is somewhat troubling because I believe you're an admin? If you believe that the inclusion criteria for a project with 16 articles necessitates a fully fleged Wikipedia guideline, examples of which include WP:AGF, WP:BOLD, etc, then it's clear that you aren't really aware of how the project is structured and how it should work. You have one single "project" whose inclusion criteria are indoctrinated into a Wikpiedia guideline. It appears you don't get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    There are plenty of guidelines of varying levels of importance. I don't see a major difference in importance between a guideline on which articles we should include in the encycloepdia within a specific topic area (WP:NSPORTS) and what information we should include within articles within a specific topic area (WP:RY). Moreover, there's something to be said about the fact that 2017 has 177k page views in the last month. You've started several discussions about making arbitrary exceptions to the guideline. You're trying to demote this to an essay presumably so you can then either say "well, that's just an essay" or gerrymander the guide to fit your opinions of what should be in the article without that "burdensome community interjection". I don't support having a complete lack of formal inclusion criteria for a set of vital articles that can easily balloon in size if everyone gets their "arbitrary inclusion of the day", nor do I support downgrading this to an essay just so you can make changes to it without seeking consensus. ~ Rob13Talk 20:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    There are plenty of guidelines of varying levels of importance but yet not one that applies to a project covering 16 articles. You can question my motives, but I've already given you and all others here a clear indiciation that we should retain existing criteria until we RFC a new set. That's clear from my opening post, but once again, you appear to have missed that, or misinterpreted that, and as you're an admin, I'm genuinely concerned you're not really getting it. Your concluding statement is the icing on the cake. Nobody suggested that anyone could make changes without consensus. Nobody. I just stated that relieving it from being a Wikipedia guideline (which covers WP:AGF, WP:BOLD etc and not one single other project content criteria) would result in an easier approach to understanding how to improve the current malaise. But you're missing the point time after time, maybe your admin status needs examination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    Ha! That is the go to threat, isn't it? Get a quick lynch mob together and try to go for a good ol' desysopping whenever someone disagrees with you? You stated "In doing so, minor and common sense changes will be able to be made to the essay, without ... burdensome community interjection". Per WP:BOLD and WP:PGBOLD (a guideline and policy, respectively), this can be done already unless someone disagrees with the change and reverts it, at which point WP:BRD (an essay, since we're keeping track, but certainly applicable) would apply. Since I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you knew policies and guidelines as an admin and your knowledge hasn't decayed, the appropriate conclusion is that you want to make changes over such dissent. Am I wrong? Are you perhaps unfamiliar with WP:PGBOLD? Did you perhaps mean something other than wanting to keep the community out of things when railing against "burdensome community interjection"? I'm sorry that those who disagree with you are such illiterate dullards [1] without lives [2] (diffs provided, as I know you like them); perhaps you should slow down for us. Or better yet, I just won't respond to you anymore. My opinion has been made clear. ~ Rob13Talk 20:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    No, but your defensive posture speaks for itself. Can you provide evidence of another project that needs a fully fledged Wikpiedia guideline to define its inclusion criteria? And be very careful. You're using diffs of my edits yet paraphrasing them into attacks (e.g. I never said "illiterate dullards" and I never said "without lives"), your last edit is a clear and undeniable personal attack on me, so we'll see where that gets you. I'm more than happy to see the back of abusive admins, and you are most definitely one of those. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    I believe I've made clear I'm done responding to you here since you're unwilling to accept that alternative viewpoints exist. I'll simply point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; I've already explained why these articles need a special level of structure over most other topic areas. I've very obviously not personally attacked you. I don't believe "illiterate" was even an exaggeration of what you said, let alone a personal attack. You claimed on multiple occasions that those who disagree with you must not be reading what you've written. You've done the same in response to my disagreement above. You're either arguing they're lying about reading your comment (without diffs! editors can be taken to ArbCom for that!) or that they're illiterate. And if you'd like to go to ArbCom over whether that comment of yours was meant to imply I did not have a life, be my guest. I trust the Committee's reading comprehension skills. ~ Rob13Talk 21:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    I believe I've made clear I'm done responding to you here after the personal attacks, paraphrasing and then yet you still respond. How peculiar. You made stuff up to suit your edit, and you're apparently an admin. We'll deal with your edits in due course, right now you're derailing this current issue. There's no deadline and we'll address your tone and edit issues when a moment arises. I'm glad you have confidence in Arbcom, you'll need it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    I responded per WP:ADMINACCT to the accusation of a personal attack. It's curious that you find that peculiar, given you just took an admin to ArbCom for doing the opposite. ~ Rob13Talk 21:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    Your response was inadequate. You made up personal attacks from my edits. That's not good enough. But as I've already said, that's de-railing this debate, so do your job and stop, and we'll deal with it in another forum. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    And another point of information, I didn't start the Arbcom case. As an admin, I'd expect you to know that kind of stuff, clearly you're not quite up to scratch on that. In this thread alone you've made a handful of errors, I guess the best thing to do would be to apologise for each of them? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support downgrading to essay. With respect for the contributors who have worked hard on this project over the years, this talk page's parent reads like an MOS style guide, and rather clearly no longer enjoys the high degree of consensus typical of guidelines. Agree generally with Vanamonde and TRM, although "burdensome community interjection" and "however flawed" may have been rather infelicitous choices of wording for the proposal. Agree further with Chris Troutman that the four participants discussing guideline status at the previous RfC do not consensus make, with no disrespect intended to those editors. Snuge purveyor (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support downgrade to Essay. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW Support for removing any reference on this page to it supposedly being a "guideline", per the absolutely most basic, longstanding, and broadly supported principles of this project as to what constitutes policy, as implemented through the appropriate community processes, and what is mere editorial opinion. There is only one process on this project for promoting an WP:ESSAY to a WP:GUIDELINE, and that process is WP:PROPOSAL, through which the community vets suggested policy through a meticulous process of consensus. A handful of editors cannot just create their own idiosyncratic rules for one of their favourite areas to edit in, slap "guideline" on top of them and then (if they fly the page under the radar for long enough) it magically becomes policy. That is so far outside of how this community defines its guidelines, the editors who did it are not only kidding themselves if they think the community will allow it to stand, they are frankly lucky to not have had their activities fall under deeper scrutiny here, since it seems at least some of them were aware of exactly what was going on here.
Anyway, to allow this page to retain the status of a guideline would not only represent a spectacular subversions of this community's most fundamental rules and principles of consensus, it would create a perverse incentive for other editors wanting to create their own upjumped rules in the same way, by creating a fake guideline page and then hoping others don't notice long enough until it's grandfathered in. No way; I've never been more certain about any single call I've made on this project; this has to be marked as an essay with resounding community voice (and frankly, again, I wouldn't mind a little scrutiny on those who tried to enforce this as supposed guideline, and benefited from quoting it as such in content disputes, even though the knew it had not gone through WP:PROPOSAL). But at a minimum, if those users who have so benefited from their fake guideline wish to continue using it, they can put the page through the proper PROPOSAL process, where the community can vet it and evaluate whether the essay's guidance is consistent with other principles of community consensus that actually have been codified as guidelines. I try to be open minded when it comes to reasonable disagreements on policy, but any one user who thinks they can create a guideline simply by 1) asserting that their advice is logical, 2) loading it on to a WP-space page, and then 3) slapping the word "guideline" on it is suffering from a very basic deficiency in understanding of how this project works. Snow let's rap 04:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Snow Rise, I agree with your conclusion, but think you may have misunderstood the process whereby this talk page's parent became a guideline. Did you happen to read through the Not a guideline section, above? I refer in particular to the parts where the editor who first applied the guideline tag, retired user Wrad, called the application "erroneous", and when their removal of the guideline tag was reverted, said: "Show me the consensus that decided that decided this was an official, WP guideline…. There never was one. I should know, I was there…. Guidelines are created through a very specific process, which you are now knowingly violating (something I never did, acting in ignorance.)" (emphasis added). I personally have no reason to believe that Wrad's statements were anything other than contrite and honest. Snuge purveyor (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
No, indeed I agree with you completely! I first noticed this affair when responding to an RfC at Talk:2017, at which discussion the curious history of this page was first discovered. It was at this point that someone (I think TRM?) contacted Wrad, who was quick to come foreward and admit they had retitled the page without knowing about WP:PROPOSAL and other guidelines about the creation of policy. They even went so far as to try to revert their edits, though this was quickly undone--and more the pity, because this (pretty obviously WP:SNOW) issue could have ended there. In any event, I made a point of thanking Ward for disclosing the important information and his congenial gesture--totally AGF on his part, it was a good-faith mistake made because of a lack of familiarity with the relevant policies.
However, from watching the debate / WP:OWN behaviour / desire to stamp the rules of a small group of editors on any contributor to a certain subject, without proper review of those "guidelines" by the community, who might have found it prudent to make substantial adjustments before greenlighting any such alterations to the project's content policies, I suspect that at least some involved editors here knew that this guideline never went through WP:PROPOSAL, and certainly not all of them can honestly plead ignorance of the fact that this was a thorough thumbing of the nose to the community's rules on what makes advice into a guideline. At this point it doesn't make sense to call specific people out on it; the proposal is almost certain to pass with support, seeing as this thread has been linked at CD, and the resulting broader community input is certain to make consensus on these matters clear in no time--indeed, arguably already has. But for the group it still bears repeating in plain terms that this whole course of events has been noted by the community. Given the laissez-faire and/or cavalier attitudes of some of those involved, I would otherwise worry that someone might be tempted to try it again, this time entirely intentionally. Again, not pointing to anyone in particular of being likely to do this. Just want to head any possibility of such trouble off at the tracks, as the idiom goes. Snow let's rap 05:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There is no way this should ever have been considered anything more than an essay in the first place, as demonstrated by others above. The opinions of a sub-sub-group of editors on a subject, while useful and deserving of documentation, should never be even semi-binding on other editors unless subject to WP:PROPOSAL. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This should be an essay; if views change on this over time, it will not fundamentally change the nature of the encyclopedia. Some have said these pages are especially controversial or prone to mistakes by new users, but I've seen similar problems elsewhere that are handled by the normal site-wide policies & guidelines. The discussions on this page have a strong whiff of WP:OWN, but that might be unfair, as I've never (or extremely rarely) edited these pages. Matt's talk 23:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It was incompetently granted guideline status and they don't make any sense. What does the "9 Wikipedia" rule even establish?? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – The scope of WP:RY is extremely narrow, so that the "Wikipedia guideline" status is unwarranted and unnecessary. In addition, the inclusion criteria must be reviewed and debated fairly with input from a wider community than just the "regulars" here. Several editors (including myself) who tried to contribute and discuss the acceptable contents have felt like walking into a walled garden where only the Knights who say Ni know the rules and exceptions, and argue at length why nothing should ever change because "it's been like this". Sorry, WP:CCC is a key principle of Wikipedia, and although the diligent work of "regulars" to maintain some order is appreciated, the community at large can't leave them in full control unless we tolerate a long-term WP:SQS and WP:OWN attitude. — JFG talk 21:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, @JFG: has it absolutely right here. The intense status quo stonewalling is why I more or less gave up on these pages. I think that whoever is closing this discussion should note the number of users who have brought up WP:OWN behavior on these pages. The editors who are causing the problem have made clear that even if this RFC results in a downgrade to essay (as seems a foregone conclusion at this point), they are not going to change how they operate. Frankly, I'm not sure how to fix that problem (another RFC? some other mechanism?), but something has to change. agtx 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
A topic ban could easily be applied to those users who refuse to comply with community norms. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that would be way overkill. I don't want to punish people. I want to encourage them to see a different viewpoint and to change their behavior. agtx 15:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Not at all, if individual users aren't in line with community norms, despite RFCs to the contrary, they should be discouraged from editing in those areas. A quick glance through all these walls of text will show a handful of individuals who have not changed any viewpoint and not changed any behaviour despite RFCs demonstrating that they are working against the wishes of the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: This is just a WP:PROJPAGE essay, and covers a trivial number of articles. The idea to elevate the page to guideline status should have been a clear WP:PROPOSAL at WP:VPPRO, but instead was buried at the end of a multi-part RfC about RY-related trivia at WP:VPPOL, here, where it received support from no one but three of the project's regulars. The close of the RfC was also inappropriate, since it was performed by one of the RfC's participants. It's highly unlikely any uninvolved admin would have concluded to promote any page to WP Guideline status on the strength of nothing but three comments (two besides the closer's own) in a discussion no one was paying attention to but people already steeped in its previous rounds at this page we're reading now.

    WP guidelines are something that all long-term WP editors should read. (We don't require people to read even formal policies before editing at all, but we expect them to get up to speed on our norms quickly.) For topic-specific guidelines, they're ones we all should be aware of, and should read before editing substantively in the topic-area in question. Even the topical ones are very broad categories, covering nationalities, international sports or groups of sports, major genres or groups of genres of writing or other arts, and other "big" or "meta" topics. Sixteen articles about years do not qualify. No one on WP needs to be made aware and to remember that such a "guideline" exists. Otherwise we'd have 5,000 or 50,000 guidelines instead of fewer than 250, even including all the topical ones (and it should really be well under 200 – many of that 250 are other PROJPAGE essays that need Essay not Guideline tags and categories on them).

    The false labeling of this material as an official WP guideline is a WP:OWN / WP:LOCALCONSENSUS / WP:VESTED / WP:SQS problem in itself, and leading to more of them (which I detected on my own; others above who are saying so are agreeing with each other and with me; I am not taking their word for it).

    Finally, this simply isn't needed. See Template:Main Page toolbox for a full layout of all Main Page-related stuff, including all its highly contentious features like DYK, ITN, etc. Note than none of them have or claim to need their own guidelines, yet they also have normative processes. Use the same methods used in them for this one, which is not appreciably different in any relevant way. An alternative might be to codify the norms of all of them into some kind of "WP:Special features layout and processes" guideline, but none of them need stand-alone guidelines, least of all this one.

    PS: See also WP:SAL; it's normal for stand-alone lists (which is what these pages are) to have inclusion criteria, "enforced" by talk-page consensus, without individual guidelines for each such article or group thereof. What's happened here is a confusion between list inclusion criteria and site-wide guildelines.
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC). Postscript added 02:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Thanks for tracking down the relevant RfC at Village Pump. Participation was weak indeed, and the scope of questions asked was too wide. If we're going to build new "best practices" for the year articles, we should craft much narrower proposals and advertise them widely. — JFG talk 00:15, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Recent_years/Archive_4&oldid=1137434026"