Talk:2017/Archive 8

GW170817 gravitational wave
I hesitate to mention this given mass murders are easier to understand and generally better reported but this is a major 1st and probably the most important astro-physic event of the decade.Inside Science compared its importance with the SN 1987A Thoughts please? It's currently in Portal:Current events & I presume it would be an August event. A collision between two neutron stars detected on 17 August 2017 around the world via both gravity and electromagnetic waves -the 1st Multi-messenger astronomy event. JRPG (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree but doubtless it will be recommended for a place in the anonymous and never-viewed 2017 in science or similar. That it's on the main page of Wikipedia right now and attracting more hits alone than the average RY year article seems to be of no consequence to those who continually vote to exclude these kind of articles I'm afraid.  Not enough thought seems to go into what our readers expect from a synopsis of the year's major events. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include. Technically, this happened 130 million years ago, but I'm willing to overlook that. Obvious global importance for science. Coverage worldwide. agt x  21:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Include. This is a major scientific discovery that has been discovered for the first ever. This will give them a better understanding of the way of the universe. This is also a belief on how many of the of minerals are made, such as gold and uranium. How is this not significant enough to be included? JoeyRuss (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Readers will in present and future be looking up the year in which this landmark event occurred. I can see subjectivity in individual fame and notability (hence why establishing a criteria for such is nigh on impossible) but this is clearly a significant moment for the world. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude - it should be on 2017 in science. It's important to science, but not to the vast majority of people. Try explaining it to people who don't have a detailed knowledge of science and they won't have a clue what you're talking about and won't be interested. Jim Michael (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You’re really sounding like you want to exclude every single thing that is in the talk page. Actually, when was the last time you wanted to include something that was in discussion? JoeyRuss (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have supported the inclusion of some things. Jim Michael (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include As the first multi-messenger astronomy event, this is definitely of international significance. I would recommend that the phrase "multi-messenger astronomy" and the significance of the event be explained in the blurb. -- irn (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's internationally notable only in the scientific community. Jim Michael (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that’s not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way is it relevant outside the scientific community? Jim Michael (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jim -gravitational waves are an alternate way of looking at things unlike x-ray,radar & infra-red which like light are merely variants of the electromagnetic spectrum. Ability to identify the event gravitationally as 2 neutron stars colliding & associate the event with the observation of gold and platinum in the visible spectrum has confirmed our 1970's understanding of the production of heavy elements. It will transform our ability to look at the universe and will be taught in schools & universities. The 2017 Nobel physics prize went to researchers in Gravitational waves  Regards JRPG (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That explanation is incomprehensible to most people, as well as being of no interest to them. No non-science publication/show/magazine etc. would include it as one of the most important events of this year. Jim Michael (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No that’s not true. Let’s then delete then Nobel Prizes too as they match your water cooler isolation paradigm.  You can’t have it both ways. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a bizarre anomaly that we include Nobel Prizes - but no other awards - in RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's funny, because it appeared on the front pages of New York Times and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and Le Figaro and the Financial Times. Is your position that these are all specialist science publications not of general interest? agt x  18:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't on the front pages - I said it won't be in reviews of the year. Jim Michael (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Is that based on anything more than your speculation? agt x 18:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously I can't know exactly what will be included in the reviews that will be published in a couple of months time, so I'm going by the content of reviews of the year in previous years in TV documentaries, newspapers, magazines etc. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * None of which you have referenced here. So the answer to my question is no, you don't have any source other than your speculation. I have tried to engage with you on this and numerous other issues, but this is starting toward WP:TEND type arguments.  agt x  19:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't reference TV reviews that were shown ten months ago - they're not usually available online. To be tendentious would mean I have a bias or agenda, which I don't. I merely want each year article to be a concise account of the international year - which is their purpose. Jim Michael (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jim, if Wikipedia does its job of educating people then you'll be wrong on this but hopefully amused first. Inside Science -a very popular BBC website is non mathematical and comprehensible to any editor here. Please listen to it. 2:30 mins in, Samaya Nissanke of Radboud University describes how she was at a conference expressing her belief that multimessenger astronomy would be detecting events in the 2020's. She was challenged to justify this ..and within 30 minutes the GW170817 event occurred. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's on the science section of the BBC site, not the news section or the main page. She talks using terms that are beyond the knowledge and comprehension of the large majority of people: "..... joint gravitational wave electromagnetic observations of neutron star binary mergers ...... " is inpenetrable jargon to anyone who doesn't have a science degree. Jim Michael (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments noted ..but thanks for reading it anyway. JRPG (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments aren't true. I don't have a science degree it's certainly not inpenetrable jargon for me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Try saying "joint gravitational wave electromagnetic observations of neutron star binary mergers" to people who don't have science degrees and see the puzzled look on their faces. Only the word star would give a clue that it's astronomy-related. Jim Michael (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that’s not true, I’ve talked to several people without degrees in science about this, far from being puzzled they are fascinated and want to learn more. Maybe you and I talk to very very different people. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They understand what joint gravitational wave electromagnetic observations of neutron star binary mergers means without you explaining it for several minutes first?!
 * I realise that the people whom you know are very unusual. The vast majority of people don't have a deep interest in or knowledge of astronomy. Jim Michael (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t mean that people with casual interest wouldn’t want to know about it either. It was huge in the news and there’s no denying that. JoeyRuss (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly would deny that. It wasn't the lead story in any mainstream media publication/site and the amount of media coverage it recieved is minuscule in comparison to that received by several terror attacks and Catalonia's attempt to become a country. Jim Michael (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I realise that the people whom you know are very unusual. no, that's not true. They're simply open-minded and reasonably intelligent.  Maybe it's the people you know who are different.  Anyway, I thought you didn't agree that media coverage represented notability?  You're using that now as an argument against this?  How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand by my assertion that the level of media coverage doesn't prove its level of notability. I was merely replying to the claim that it was huge in the news. Jim Michael (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But you no longer stand by all the other "watercooler" assertions? This was mainstream news and it's encyclopedically notable regardless of whether you think it is or it isn't. Some people aren't interested in some of the things you agree with listing at 2017, others are. But unilaterally, this is about best serving our readers and preparing an encyclopedia for the current and future generations, not cherry-picking and dismissing stories as not notable because you personally believe that based on the people you know that it is not of interest or not understandable. The world is a big place, and as I've said time and time again, the people I know (usually high school or above educated) show more than a passing interest in all such matters even if they're "depressing". No-one is unpopular for discussing difficult or challenging topics where I live or work. Quite the opposite. And I believe my world to be that commensurate with the creation of a topical, thorough and eclectic encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do stand by my assertion that natural disasters and science aren't considered appropriate topics by the large majority of people for discussion at the watercooler, over the garden fence, in the pub, at a party etc. - and that bringing up such topics would make a person quickly become strongly disliked as well as considered to be boring. I've worked in various workplaces and am acutely aware of this. Jim Michael (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jim, what exactly does fit your criteria? So far, just from discussions not yet archived, I have seen you snub internationally notable figures or events related to music, film, science, natural disasters, and atrocities. Are our readers not allowed to be educated and engage in intellectual discussions? The sciences, in particular, are one of the few areas where there is so much left to discover, and natural disasters are becoming more relevant, considering our increased attention to the environment and climate change. I'm sorry but your workplace does not impact the topics of interest for vast amounts of open-minded people.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No Jim, your assertions aren't true. You actually said that "science" isn't considered "appropriate ... for discussion"?!  I've already told you that it may apply to you, personally, and those you mix with, but it's not the case for anyone else.  Did you find a single other person here agreeing with you?  You need to stop basing your inclusion principles on your own personal experiences and remember this is an eclectic enecyclopedia for all people.  I don't suppose those who would consider you to be "boring" or "unpopular" would even know what an encyclopedia is, so you should be encouraged to ignore those people.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include. Since we don't have any standards, my opinion is that it's a major first in science.  The first LIGO detection was in general (not specifically science) lists of notable events of that year; I see no reason this to be different.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Planning to add The announcement of a collision between two neutron stars -event GW170817 130 million years ago, detected on 17 August 2017 around the world via both gravity and electromagnetic waves, is hailed as a breakthrough in Multi-messenger astronomy. Is it ok to proceed now? JRPG (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, be our guest, thank you for your patience. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For sure. I'd like to tweak that just a little bit: August 17 – The detection of the collision of two neutron stars (GW170817) is hailed as a breakthrough in multi-messenger astronomy as it marked the first time an astronomical event was detected via both gravitational and electromagnetic waves. To explain my changes: the announcement isn't what's important; the detection is. I think it needs some explanation of what we mean when we say "multi-messenger astronomy". (I expect that's an unfamiliar term to most people.) And they're gravitational waves, not gravity waves. -- irn (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed re gravitational waves -too many interruptions. No problems in principle -except as agt x  pointed out it occurred a mere 1.3 MYA. The Higgs bosun references the announcement date in 2012 which makes sense as that's when journals carry the news. However I'm expecting the experts to say whether we should use August or October. JRPG (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to explain why I took out the bit about it happening 130 million years ago! I don't see what it adds, and with the way I re-worded it, I couldn't fit it in neatly. If others think it does add something useful, I'm not opposed to it at all. As for the date, I don't think it makes much of a difference. (For what it's worth, the Higgs Boson was more the result of a long process, and I think the first detection of gravitational waves would be more analogous, as the delay is more about confirming results and checking to make sure you have everything right rather than the culmination of a process. And that one is mentioned in the 2015 article when the detection happened, and not in the 2016 article, when the announcement happened. Of course, I should note that I was partly responsible for keeping it out of 2016.) -- irn (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Athur Rubin = Include. Ouch, that's gotta hurt. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The long-term regulars have disagreed with each other in regard to other entries - we're not a cabal. Jim Michael (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hardly ever. But sense seems to be prevailing in general.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of late, you seem to be trying to shout everybody else down. Please don't.  p  b  p  18:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm giving relevant replies in a civil way. Jim Michael (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To whom are they relevant? Not the editor consensus, not the reader, so to whom? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Each comment of mine is relevant to the discussion which it is part of. Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Pardon? Given, the various discussions here where you are the only person with your perspective on things, the replies appear to be relevant to neither our readers or our editors, so I'm unclear still as to whom they are relevant?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a law of diminishing returns on each additional comment you make. Your first vote of include/exclude; that makes sense.  1-2 responses to somebody, eh, may work, may not.  By the time you get to the 18th, 19th, 20th in a single thread, you're not getting anywhere.  You might actually be hurting your stance.  p  b  p  00:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include: Seems to be pretty significant. p  b  p  15:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Cholera in Yemen
The article presently has a reference to more than 200,000 cases of cholera in Yemen in June, yet more recent reports exist. This August press release from the WHO puts the number of cases above 500,000 and this one had over 800,000 cases on October 26. Do we update the June figure? Move the entry to October 26? EdChem (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we don’t move the rntry because it’s like saying we move the Rohingya crisis to a later date because we got new statistics. It should say it’s ongoing with an update with the new statistics. JoeyRuss (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting
Should the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting be included or excluded? 20:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a domestic event for 2017 in the United States rather than here. Exclude Jim Michael (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but you shouldn't have added the invisible comment without consensus. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't add it; McSly did. Jim Michael (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Include Should be included. It has global coverage and the number of deaths make this highly significant. You can't just keep calling things 'local' because they happen 'somewhere'. Everything happens 'somewhere'. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Agreed. Sadly, with Arthur and Jim, even a large asteroid crashing into the USA would be deemed "non-notable" and a "local event". Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Front page news in: Chile, Iran, South Africa, France, Italy, and Turkey. I'd say that's enough for international importance. agt x  13:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include Also going to chime in and say it's worth including here. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include p  b  p  17:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we clearly need to define the criteria by which things are and aren't relevant to this page. Jahelistbro (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include clearly a GNG-notable event with widespread and global coverage. Significant impact. It appears that consensus is to include.Steve Quinn (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Global coverage. Agathoclea (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While real impact is approximately zero (at least outside Vegas), it does rank among the deadliest terrorist attacks in the world and could therefore be considered for inclusion. — Yerpo Eh? 08:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Global coverage, major casualties. Continued refusal to accept consensus by the historical page owners is becoming disruptive. What will be next? Sockpuppets to bolster their opinions?  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dont Include probably going against the trend here but it still looks like a domestic event with no real impact on the rest of the world. Clearly a news interest but really just another fruitcake American with a gun (which is not that uncommon domestic event for the US) with no international or terrorism connection that can be found. Clearly a big fuss in America but just a curiosity in the rest of the world. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for your claim that this is "just a curiosity in the rest of the world"? Above, I've cited front page news stories in many different countries, suggesting that it is important news worldwide, not just a "curiosity." agt x  18:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include as recieved worldwide coverage and has major casualties. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dont Include Local and sadly, not uncommon event. No indication that it will have any historical impact. Not more newsworthy than any of the previous mass shootings. --McSly (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is very similar to many mass shootings: a lone madman with no apparent political or religious motive. The only differences with this one is that the shooter was unusually old and the death toll was higher, neither of which are part of our criteria or justify its inclusion. Jim Michael (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for your claim that this is "very similar to many mass shootings"? agt x  18:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's one of the many MSM articles that are along the lines of 'yet another mass shooting in the US': — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Michael (talk • contribs)
 * No, that's just routine coverage of debating the fact that the United States government and its population are generally not bothered to change anything about the crazy gun laws and, as such, the mass shootings continue. For every one of the links about debates over gun laws and NRA ownership of the US government, I could give you ten links noting the significance of this shooting:  this one is the worst in modern history and received global coverage for days and days.  Claiming that it should not be included in a synopsis of the year's most significant events is a mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so this is a 45-minute news report from France consisting entirely of coverage about the attack. That's in-depth international coverage of this event. Did you just cite it because it includes the words "yet another"? I'm trying to assume your good faith, Jim, but it feels like you're not even trying to come up with reliable sources that support your position. agt x  13:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Many media articles mention that this is one of many mass shootings in the US. This shows that it's a common occurrence. There have been attacks with larger death tolls in Asia, but we don't include them. Jim Michael (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, this is an opinion piece about mass shootings. It does not say that they are a "common occurrence," although it does say that they happen more than they should. But hurricanes happen more than mass shootings, and we still include the internationally notable ones. Your suggestion that we are not including some notable mass shootings in Asia concerns me, since I certainly want to avoid systemic bias. Which events are you referring to? We should consider whether they should be added. agt x  14:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Many articles point out that mass shootings are more common in the US than in other countries and the number of mass shootings with high death tolls has been much higher from the 1990s onwards. The US has a particular problem with gun crime and the only difference with the LV massacre is that the death toll is higher. If the death toll had been ten, there wouldn't be a call for it to be included - and death toll isn't a reason to include an event.
 * I didn't specify that the attacks in Asia with high death tolls were shootings - they're more often bombings. They're arguably more notable, because they're mostly terror attacks by (or inspired by) international terror groups such as IS. Examples are the 2017 Sehwan suicide bombing and the March 2017 Kabul attack. I'm not saying that they should be included - I'm merely pointing out the lack of a call to include them (because they happened in Asia) compared to the call to include the LV massacre which has a lower death toll (because it happened in the US).Jim Michael (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude due to previous precedent; the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting is not included in 2016, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is not included in 2012, the Virginia Tech massacre is not included in 2007. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include plenty of international coverage, casualties were not just American and ISIS claimed responsibility later refuted by the authorities.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 20:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A mass killing in any city that has a lot of tourists and/or immigrants will likely have foreigners among the casualties. The false claim from IS means nothing - there's no indication of Paddock having had any religious or political affiliation. Jim Michael (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you even bother trying. Whatever you say won't sway my position. Haven't my votes indicated that I oppose just about almost anything you say? I won't even try to explain my vote to you.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 16:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to say there were sone indications of international significance, but you've convinced me there aren't. Regardless of WP:RY, it should be excluded.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Would you like a cookie?  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 16:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include was headline news outside the US for several days, forming a decent % of this year's global news coverage. Our readers would expect to find this noted in a synopsis of the year's events, and we're here for the readers, not to simply follow our own arcane selection methods. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude I hate these events but they now becoming a competition fed by publicity. A US event yes, but nothing else. JRPG (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to dismiss inclusion because we don't agree with it's publicity. If its garnered enough publicity, like it or not, it should be included. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude The foreign coverage of the event does not change the nature of the event, and is more evidence of the fact that overseas bureaus had a slow news day. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, your claim would have some foundation if it weren't for the fact that my non-US "overseas bureau" covered it extensively, on homepages etc, for about five days, not just on a "slow news day". Something that makes the main page of one of the biggest news websites in the world for five days is probably worth including in a synopsis of the year's major events.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this anything other than speculation? From Le Monde alone:     .  agt x  19:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RY: "assassinations or other similarly serious crimes can be listed if international relevance is demonstrated." I see no evidence of international relevance. Perhaps there is three-continent media coverage; that doesn't mean there's any international significance. Had the shooting contained an international nexus I might agree with you but in this case, I don't. What's the hullabaloo to include this incident on this page, anyway? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well if you haven't been keeping up with recent events here, RY is no longer a guideline, merely an essay, and as both agtx and I have noted, your original assertion that it was a slow news day is patently false. This was worldwide news for many days, probably accounting for a sizeable percentage of global news coverage for this year, so by that very maxim it's relevant to our readers and should be included.  Excluded the largest mass killing in the United States for decades is an obvious omission and would make Wikipedia look incomplete.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I—and apparently many others—think that the narrow view of "international significance" that has been pushed at RY is making the pages less useful. It is possible for an event that happens in one country to be of worldwide interest and significance, as this one was. The "hullabaloo," as you put it, is that I'm tired of the arguments on this page being about editors' subjective opinions of what constitutes international importance. We need to make our decisions based on reliable sources indicating that the event was significant globally (even if it is not geopolitical in nature). It's tricky to get a source that straight-out says "this thing is internationally significant," so we have to figure it out a different way. I think that the judgment of news editors across the world is a pretty decent barometer and certainly better than rank speculation. agt x  19:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude Although there has been some initial coverage internationally, it is too soon to know if there will be any historical impact. Jay2net (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude no historical significance in worlwide perspective. Indian media has already moved on. This event falls under "International news". No historical impact. Most of the world thinks of it as "just another shooting in america", and they have moved on. — usernamekiran (talk)  10:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude Yes, I understand that this is something that did receive a significant amount of coverage, however, this probably won’t be remembered in 5 - 10 years time by most of the world especially if there’s another mass shooting that is more deadly and receives much more coverage than this. JoeyRuss (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the very epitome of WP:CRYSTALBALL. I don't think we can make decisions on editors suppositions about what might happen in the future. agt x  14:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Turku stabbing
I boldly added the following for 18 August, but it was undone as a 'purely a local event with no worldwide impact':

"2 people were killed and 8 injured in Turku in the first terrorist attack in Finland since World War II."

Disclaimer: This is my 1st experience of adding stuff on these timeline lists, so bear with me on the criteria. But I'm assuming the first terrorist attack in a country in over 70 years, referenced around the globe in headlines of prestigious news agencies and Wikipedia's mainpage as well as garnering international reactions from leaders would cross that criteria? Opinions? Manelolo (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Every terrorist attack in N. America and Western Europe receives international coverage, no matter how uneventful the incident was. I may have to agree with JoeRuss, who removed the content, especially since the article itself says the police are investigating it for terrorism. Has it been confirmed or not?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * True, I figured likewise! But then again there's the Manchester bombing, the Las Vegas attack and the Mogadishu attack, which objectively are internationally notable most likely only because of unprecedent domestic casualties (jeez, I sound like a sosiopath now). Whereas this Turku case would have similar unprecedented character as the first terror attack in a long while in the country that made it an out-of-average headline terrorism. As for the investigating part, isn't every terror under investigation until its proven in court 1-3 years later? Dunno, but from what I read on the article the terrorism aspect is confirmed as far as official authorities can confirm it under fair trial rules? I'll rest my case now and let wiser opinions prevail. Manelolo (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the article clearly says this is being investigated as a terror attack and the alleged perp is charged with "suspicion of two counts of murder with terrorist intent and eight counts of attempted murder with terrorist intent". Until he and his supposed accomplices are found guilty of these charges, this incident is regarded as an alleged terror attack -- BLP concerns and all.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, true BLP wise. Although it says "probable cause" instead of suspicion, but true, still not found guilty. Just out of curiosity, how can the Manchester attack and other recent attacks be described as terrorism without a trial (especially since the Manchester attacker died and he can't be found guilty of any terrorist motivation)? Manelolo (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Corpses do not have rights to a trial. But an investigation can still identify the cause and motives of an attack to determine whether it was terrorism or not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Although I bet a lot of human rights lawyers would beg to differ that even a dead person has to be afforded fair proceedings even if s/he is not around to defend oneself anymore. Manelolo (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Daisy Berkowitz aka Scott Putesky
I have wondered about adding him to the list, but a couple of things came into mind on why he might not be eligible, including lack of obits for him at the moment. That said, he was the cofounder of one of the biggest and most industrial bands of the 1990s, that being Marilyn Manson. So I could see arguments on both sides. Thoughts? JoeyRuss (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have much individual notability. Jim Michael (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include Marilyn Manson is a global, award winning group which has sold tens of millions of records. As Jim Michael has often argued (when it suits), someone's name does not have to be on the tip of every tongue like a Kardashian or a Goody - they can be the less recognised individual of whose contribution to the world is internationally notable, however recognisable their name is. I'd say this guy, co-founder of an international megagroup, is made for a list like ours, no? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include another hidden rule, about "individual notability" now we have a seminal member of a seminal band here? Death covered widely, contributions to music global, nothing more is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude Per Jim, he has very little individual significance. The significance of the band isn't automatically passed on to its members. -- irn (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh, this is becoming a deja vu on what happened at ITNC. People's own opinions on the significance of one individual versus another individual drained literally man years of time from actually improving Wikipedia.  The significance is already proven, per WP:GNG.  You, Jim and the other regulars are looking for some mystery "super notability" which cannot be properly defined.  This is going to become Wikipedia's next big timesink as RFC after RFC is held for each and every death that is deemed, by a handful, as "insignificant", for one reason or another.  I'll play along though, because this needs to be exposed, just as it was at ITNC, as a massive waste of time, and not serving our readers at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If your concern is that this is a massive waste of time, then let's do something to move forward with a new set of criteria. At this moment, we lack criteria for being added to this list. You've suggested that this conversation need to be had elsewhere. That makes sense, but where? If we expand the conversation from RY to all of WP:YEARS (and perhaps from "deaths" to "births, deaths, and events"), would it make sense to include it in Template:Centralized_discussion? -- irn (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Most of the problems here would be resolved by getting a wider community audience involved, not just those entrenched in historical assumption and super notability original research. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include - Obviously notable as per usual .... These discussions are really becoming not only boring but pointless .... Maybe we should start looking at topic banning Jim et al and then hopefully these bureaucratic shitshows might stop. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * His death was covered widely?! Where in the mainstream media was it a lead story?
 * In the absence of any international notability requirement, how would you stem the flow of insufficiently notable people to year articles? There would soon be hundreds of deaths on each year article. Jim Michael (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that another new requirement "lead story in mainstream media"? How is that defined? By being on the front page of a newspaper? Or homepage of a website? We should be told.  The death has been covered across multiple continents, you know that from a simple Google search, and the prominence of his contribution to such a globally iconic band should speak for itself, which clearly it doesn't as far you are personally concerned.  Your quest for an "international notability" criterion is a fool's errand and doesn't serve our readers at all.  Look at the stats, 20 times as many people visit the Deaths in 2017 article compared to the 2017 article.  And I imagine 2017 is linked 20 times more often.  This current approach is not what our readers want at all;  put them first.  There's not one single "insufficiently notable" person being discussd here, per WP:GNG.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and here where it says that he co-founded an "iconic band" should be sufficient. Interestingly there's a list of "deaths in 2017" there, in a mainstream publication, many of whom are excluded from this list for being too "insignificant". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The question isn't "Is he notable?" AFD is the venue to answer that question. The question is "Was his life significant enough that he should be one of a limited number of individuals whose deaths are listed on this page?" You and TRM complain about these conversations being a timesink, but that's literally why RY was created. No matter how you slice it, it's going to be arbitrary and ultimately comes down to personal opinion. Your opinion appears to be that anyone who meets WP:N should be listed here. I disagree with that, but until we can come up with a new set of standards, all we have are differing opinions. -- irn (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You’ve nailed it, but personal opinion should not drive article content anywhere. It doesn’t need to be arbitrary or personal or anything like that, the comprehensive list of deaths is just fine, we don’t endanger personal opinion-driven list dragging the quality of the encyclopedia down.  But goodness us that the community appear to want to dismiss RY altogether so this may be academic! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I’m personally staying neutral on this debate. Yes, I definitely understand that he was a cofounder of a significant band of the 1990s - early 21st century, which are still in the news to this day. At the same time, he left the band before the band actually broke through to people outside of Florida, and none of the other bands that he was in were really that culturally significant, so that’s why I am personally neutral. JoeyRuss (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * He left the band during the time that they were recording their second album - and became part of bands which weren't well-known or successful. When he left, MM hadn't even become well-known in the US, let alone internationally. He has never been a household name - either as his real name or his stage name. Jim Michael (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Kinda contradicting yourself yet again. You used to be arguing from the position that it would be criminal for RY to overlook people who have had a notable contribution, in favour of 'household names' who have achieved little. You were arguing for the unknown scientist or artist, over the Kim Kardashian's of the world. Now you are ragging on this guy, founding member of a seminal international group, because people won't recognise his name. Soooo bizarre. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Isabel Granada
She doesn't seem particularly significant, even in her native country. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude not enough international notability.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 15:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Paradise Papers
Why include? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the link in the heading is incorrect. Secondly, it's global news.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the portion of WP:NOTNEWS that is relevant here. I'm not finding it. agt x  21:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's part of the problem here. Without any of these items appearing in the news, they wouldn't be considered for inclusion in a synopsis of the year's major events.  If individuals here trying to control the content don't understand that, perhaps it's best if they are prevented from doing so in the future, perhaps by either topic ban or blocking for ongoing disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The only reason presented (so far) for inclusion here is that it is news. Perhaps TRM could state more specific reasons for inclusion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so that's a no, you can't point me to it then? agt x  02:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a worldwide news story that is of enormous interest to our readers. Of course, if this list of cherry-picked events is designed to be not of interest to our readers, I understand why you'd remove it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So at this point and time I am very unsure of my stance on this. I think I’ll wait for people to state its importance so I can actually decide on my final view. JoeyRuss (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it might help Arthur understand the international significance if he clicked on the article and studied the included map of the world with a significant proportion of it highlighted in red. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Papers leaked incriminating corporations, high ranking officials and politicians from around the world of the highly controversial and current hot button issue of tax avoidance. Most notably, the Queen of England whose international calibre is unrivalled. Maybe Arthur needs to raise his water cooler game ;). 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include – The international nature of the event can't possibly be disputed. And it has affected heads of state/government, high level ministers and legislators, and other prominent individuals from around the world. -- irn (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include per Irn.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 15:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include – This involves $10 trillion of money from around the world. However, can the article entry be made more succinct? It currently totals 364 characters, which seems a little excessive.Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include – This will have a global impact not least in the UK which has jurisdiction over many of the tax havens. A number of UK household names are involved including party donors & this will rock an already shaky government. JRPG (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include – At first i was unsure of its impact, but all those people who are wanting exclusion, plus continued news coverage on this made me realize this is a very significant event. I therefore think it should be included. JoeyRuss (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Colin Meads
What about Sir Colin Meads? He was a critically acclaimed rugby player sometimes listed as one of the greats, and was even voted the greatest New Zealand rugby player of the 20th century. I think he’s notable enough to be included. JoeyRuss (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include indeed there was almost talk of him having a blurb in the ITN section at the main page because of his significance. An international rugby player (so not domestic, and yes he "scored some points") and one who was considered the "player of the century" for the greatest rugby playing nation on the planet.  I'd say that adds up to a shoo-in here, particularly compared to some of the individuals we have listed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Per the above, "the greatest New Zealand rugby player of the 20th century" should suffice. -- irn (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include clearly a very notable player; his death almost received a blurb. EternalNomad (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include World sport, notable player. Easy include. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalan Republic (2017)
This will only be of international relevance if Spain accepts Catalonia's independence and/or other countries recognise Catalonia as an independent country. Otherwise it's similar to other cases in which areas in various parts of the world have declared independence and that independence hasn't been recognised. Jim Michael (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include this is relevant to our readers and has been international news top story for many days now. It's exactly the sort of thing an encyclopedia should cover in a synopsis of the yea rand our readers deserve that respect. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include - It doesn't matter if Spain accepts; the declaration of independence by Catalonia is itself internationally significant. I'm not sure which other declarations you're referring to, but I'd imagine there would be a strong case for their inclusion in the respective year articles as well. -- irn (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW include. This can't be serious. Front page news around the world for weeks (build-up to referendum, referendum itself, aftermath). Unless has evidence that pieces of countries declaring independence is somehow routine (hint: it isn't, and he doesn't), then there is nothing to talk about.   agt x  21:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am serious. Many places have declared themselves to be nations - you must know that. If the rest of the world ignores/rejects their claim, then it doesn't change the map of the world and isn't important enough for the summary of the international year. Jim Michael (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See List of historical unrecognized states and dependencies, List of states with limited recognition and List of micronations. There is the solid proof that over a hundred places have done this. Jim Michael (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You've posted that many times - that's being disruptive. Posting a link of the huge number of places which have declared independence isn't. Jim Michael (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not at all, it's informative to all those who are trying to reason with you and all those who aren't aware of your previous posts. The pertinent points are as follows:
 * fails to cite sources
 * cites unencyclopedic sources
 * manufactures original research
 * repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits
 * repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits
 * continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors
 * Noting that you're engaging in many of these daily is not disruptive. Engaging in these daily is disruptive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just cited the sources - a long list of places that have declared their independence and haven't been recognised. It's commonplace.
 * They're certainly encyclopedic sources - well-referenced lists on this encyclopedia.
 * It's not original research.
 * I've given clear explanations.
 * You're not impartial in regard to me. You ignored me for years, then opposed me almost every day for the last four months.
 * I'm doing a grand total of zero of the disruptive signs. Jim Michael (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, i.e. you're simply not getting it. I'm not talking about this specific instance, I'm talking about your approach in general, as you know.  Should I take this to ANI?  I'm happy to do so, but I'd rather you resolved it here by understanding that your claims and assertions are not commensurate with the community's or the readers' best interests.  It really needs to stop as it's consuming too much of our time and energy.  Just take a look at, say, the last thirty contentious issues at RY and 2017.  How many of them did your continued arguments match the community consensus?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On dozens of occasions, the community consensus has been on the same side as me - most recently in regard to the Latvian politician, the chess player and Charlottesville. Jim Michael (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, not to worry, you can't quite see what I'm trying to say. I'll take this to ANI once I've had a chance to gather the hundreds of diffs that demonstrate thate you are very much violating multiple aspects of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS multiple times a day for weeks on end.  I'm afraid the end result will be a topic ban at best, maybe even a block.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see it very clearly, but I don't agree with what you're saying - or the tone that you're saying it in. Jim Michael (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I really don't think you do. You're responding as if this thread is the only thing you need to answer for, it's not, it's just one example of dozens where you're failing WP:DISRUPTSIGNS time and time again.  If you prefer, I'll start a dedicated thread at ANI with all of the transgressions collected together.  It might take a few days because there are literally hundreds of diffs I'll need to collect.  Or you can stop doing it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You want to be taken seriously, yet you post a link to list of micronations as if that were somehow relevant. Most of those are tongue-in-cheek or some sort of symbolic protest, and are nowhere near analogous to the results of years of an independence movement, as represented by the elected head of parliament declaring independence for a sizeable territory of millions of people over which that parliament has control. -- irn (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The head of a regional parliament which the Spanish government has dismissed in its entirety - not the head of a country's parliament.Jim Michael (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Come on Jim, this isn't serious. Those articles span literally hundreds of years. Yes, many places have declared independence in centuries of human history. How many on List of historical unrecognized states and dependencies—which is mostly unreferenced—are in the 21st century? Not to mention that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for any of this. agt x  23:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include Absolutely obvious include. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I advise you to !vote, give your reason, and then step back. Stop flooding every !vote with your endless, repetitive, disruptive, refuted, tired old arguments. We get it, you automatically vote to exclude everything. Move on. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't automatically vote to exclude everything. I supported the inclusion of the Boston Marathon bombing, due to the attack having happened at an international event. Jim Michael (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Would you like a cookie?  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 16:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong include - can't even be debated. This is fucking ridiculous.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 16:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong include – Isn't it time we banned Jim Michael? He is becoming a major troll, with no interest in developing this article, only annoying people by objecting to virtually every new entry that appears here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong include - Of course we have to entertain another ill-advised proposition by Jim. I fully support a tban for Jim; if anyone wants to start the discussion, I'll certainly be there with the boatload of evidence he provides on nearly every thread here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include. This seems to have some international recognition.  However, a new editor has added biased reporting of the event without sources, which I reverted.  Could someone please add a clean WP:NPOV statement with sources? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Judy Martz
She doesn’t have any international coverage for her outside of the US, and the US coverage she did receive aren’t even major news site in the United States despite having 11 Wikipedia pages, but we aren’t using RY anymore, so because of this, she seems like an obvious exclude. Anyone disagrees with me? JoeyRuss (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should exclude. Looks like US papers pretty much ran the wire story and international news didn't pick it up at all. agt x  14:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Even if the RY criteria were still in effect, she'd be excluded due to a lack of international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude as I don't see how a politician below national level is internationally notable. EternalNomad (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude I think this is cut-and-dry. Time to move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, I only started this because she was added, removed, and then added again, and someone even stated she has 11 wiki articles. JoeyRuss (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Vilnis Edvīns Bresis
Why include? He was the Premier-equivalent of the Latvian SSR, but the actual head of government was the leader of the Communist Party. What did he actually do? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems like an obvious exclude. No international coverage of his death. Not even much coverage in Latvia (just very small articles like this). agt x  00:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude He doesn't appear to have been head of state or government even if the definition of "state" is applied retroactively (Latvia was part of the USSR at that time). I don't see enough evidence of international notability.  EternalNomad (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude Exclude as per the evidence above. JoeyRuss (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude He was never head of state or government. Jim Michael (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude I think this is cut-and-dry. Time to move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Tony deBrum (deaths section)
I would like to nominate Tony deBrum, who died on August 22, to the deaths section. He is described in many international outlets as a "champion" of climate change activism and a key player in the Paris Agreement. He also served as Minister in Assistance to the President of Marshall Islands (equivalent to a Vice President) and the Foreign Minister of his nation 3 times. To me it seems clear he was internationally notable. EternalNomad (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include per nom. Plus, he won the Right Livelihood Award, which is definitely an indicator of international significance. -- irn (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include per Irn above. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Gord Downie
I have replaced Gord Downie on the page because he is internationally notable: See, , ,. If you disagree, please discuss here before reverting. agt x 16:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

And Mexico for good measure. agt x 16:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It would have been more believable if he had been noticed before he was diagnosed with (untreatable) cancer, but he certainly qualifies as having international notability if you include the First Nations, so I'm not inclined to argue further. I read the entire article, and didn't see signs of even Wikipedia notability the first time.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "it would have been more believable". Are you suggesting I made up the sources? I also see that has reverted again with a flippant edit summary about his personal views on the subject. I'm not going to revert again before this discussion is over (although I'd warn that what the three of you are doing is edit warring).  agt x  16:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * International reporting of a death doesn't prove international notability of the decedant. First Nations aren't a country; he's only notable in Canada. Jim Michael (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me be very clear about this: International reporting of the death is a strong indication that someone was internationally notable during his or her life. Media outlets publish the stories that are of interest to their readers. The fact that media outlets in many countries report on someone's death indicates that that person was of interest to readers in many countries. Is it absolute proof of international notability? No, there could easily be outliers, such as someone who is reported on worldwide because the manner of their death was unusual (meaning that the death, rather than the person, was of interest to the readership). But in general, normal obits about someone's life's achievements in many countries is a strong indication of international notability. agt x  21:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include his records have charted in Canada, the US and the Netherlands to name but three. This is more than adequate to demonstrate notability for inclusion here.  The claim that he is "only notable in Canada" is patently false and should be discouraged as more disruption.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For those who are unaware of his work with The Tragically Hip, please read his article, follow the link and see how many top ten hits he had with his band in the United States etc. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * He never charted in the top 50 anywhere outside Canada. Jim Michael (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I think he should be included. The Tragically Hip may not be the biggest name around, but I see them as kind of a cult band such as The Velvet Underground was back in the day. There are other names that are put in that aren’t as well known as he was, so I think he should stay. JoeyRuss (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim and Arthur haven't heard of him. Then again, they have never heard of Rugby. Just for a bit of perspective.62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've known of rugby since I was a young child. However, the sport is very much a minority sport in most of the world. Most countries have never won world championships, because it has a large following only in a few countries. Jim Michael (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Most countries have never won a world championships (sic) in any sport. Take “soccer” for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if a sport is a minority sport in most countries. If it's big in enough countries across the globe, the sport is significant. Rugby is arguably in the top 10 of biggest international sports, has televised, professional leagues in Europe, Africa, South America, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, while gaining popularity in North America too. Your inability to see outside your own box has been and continues to be a huge problem for this project. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Total Solar Eclipse
Why not add the August 21 solar eclipse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdoodlebop (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a previous discussion which did not produce a consensus to add. That discussion is at Talk:2017/Archive 6  p  b  p  20:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That discussion wasn't ever closed properly and it showed a distinct consensus for inclusion. It shouldn't have been archived without a clear closure statement from an uninvolved editor or admin.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted in the previous discussion, there are approximatley 70 total solar eclipses every 100 years, which means that most year articles could include a total solar eclipse. I may or may not be opposed to that; I'm not sure. However, I think the argument here is that there was something special about this eclipse that sets it apart, right? I can't really see what makes it special other than that it happened over the US and things that have to do with the US become international news when they would be ignored if they happened elsewhere. I could be mistaken here, and maybe there's another reason. Perhaps viewership? I've seen the claim that it was the most-viewed eclipse ever, but there are no good numbers on that, and I'm not sure that it's even true. There also may be a claim to make about the eclipse's relationship with technology putting it on blast around the world in a way that other eclipses haven't? I don't know. I'm just speculating here because I don't see anything especially remarkable about this eclipse. -- irn (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While all total eclipses are completely predictable, they are still something that humans and Wikipedia readers are really interested in reading. That we continually insist here that there's some kind of invisible threshold that our readers apply is patently absurd and incorrect.  So we have one entry per year roughly that says there was a total solar eclipse?  What's the problem with that?  Currently the regulars' deletionism has rendered the events in year articles down to a one or two per month, and that's simply nonsense, our readers expect and deserve better, in this case less is not more, it's just odd, off-putting and unencyclopedic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point of your comment. The question here isn't whether to include all eclipses; it's whether to include this particular one. If you want to make the argument that every total solar eclipse should be in every year article, you're free to do so, and I'd recommend you start a new section on the main project talk page. But at this point, we don't include each one, and so there needs to be some sort of additional reason to include this particular eclipse. -- irn (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's odd you don't understand. It's pretty clear, especially from what I've said, there's no reason to exclude any such event because our readers would expect to see them here.  I don't need to start a new section anywhere, this is about a single event, which I believe is part of a group of events which should always be included because our readers would expect to find coverage in this encyclopedia of such an encyclopedic event. If you'd like me to explain in more detail why that should be the case, feel free to ask.  I thought it was pretty clear, but sometimes I guess I'm discussing things with those who don't understand my viewpoint or my English or something else technically challenging.  So, I guess I could respond by saying "I don't understand the point of your comment" to your comment.  Hardly collegiate, you could work on your tone there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So if I'm understanding you correctly, your argument can be stated as follows: "It's a total solar eclipse. All total solar eclipses are inherently notable enough to be included in these lists. Therefore, it ought to be included." If that is a mischaracterization of your point, I apologize, and please do correct me. I'm just trying to understand your argument.
 * As I said above, I don't know if I agree with the second point (all total solar eclipses ought to be included), but I see two problems with it: (1) it's clearly not already the consensus here, and (2) the only argument you've made to support it is that our readers want to see it. How do you know that? Why are all total solar eclipses notable enough to be included?
 * I'm also confused because you were clearly opposed to the inclusion of the solar eclipse last time around, and now you seem to have flipped completely. What changed? (PS Thanks for pointing out that you don't consider it "collegiate" when I express my lack of understanding. I'm just trying to engage in honest dialogue, but I recognize that sometimes things can be read differently than intended. Do you have any recommendations for ways in which I can work on my tone? Since it's pretty off-topic here, feel free to use my talk page.) -- irn (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you don't get the irony of stating that an astronomical event is "domestic" or somehow "local". The fact of the matter remains that the original discussion was not closed preoprly, consensus was not assessed by a neutral party, and this page lumbers on as a battleground mainly due to the intransigence of those who simply cannot see that their point of view, original research etc is not commensurate with the wishes of the readers or the community.  If you wish to understand what articles interest our readers, simply look at their pageviews.  If you wish to understand what the community wants, simply read the many varied discussions here and at RY which point primarily at the fact that the extant RY regulars have created a walled garden which is finally being exposed to a wider group who are far from comfortable with its current implementation.  Does that have any "point" to it? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Unfortunately, I only see it as impactful in the United States and nothing else. If this one is included, then we would have to include all other solar eclipses as well. It just isn’t significant enough to be included imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyRuss (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * RE: The archived discussion that apparently never reached a consensus - I count 14 Include to 5 oppose. Any rational behind your notion this is not a consensus? Thanks. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right that the previous discussion does seem to show a consensus to include. (Indeed, I count 16 !votes to include.) I don't know why you think I had previously made any comment about that not being a consensus. I don't remember ever making such a comment, but I concede that I may have. Do you have a diff for that? -- irn (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It was Purplebackpack who suggested there "was a previous discussion which did not produce a consensus to add". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include It's roughly annual, so it's nice to see an interplanetary event documented each year - you'd imagine readers might be looking for it: "/Did/when did/ a solar eclipse happen in 20XX?". Previous !vote was overwhelmingly in favour of including solar eclipses, so it is obviously favourable among our editors. So yeah, doesn't hurt, its not going to 'clog up' the article(s) at that frequency and I think its a helpful event for an annual report to document. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude - this is a domestic event. The only reason that this eclipse received more media coverage is that it occurred in the US. Jim Michael (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Domestic Event" is not a relevant/meaningful or guideline/essay-based rational for exclusion. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment Ooops, got a nice fat talkpage warning for asking the above question. No answer to the question, however. I do understand though, admins are busy people. What with all the warnings and such. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Irn isn't actually an admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * He sounds like an admin. With all the wikilaws flying around and "consider this a warning"s and "you will be blocked"s and going through my bins. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Redux
So Rubin has just removed this again, and yet we still have the unaddressed issue of it having clear consensus to include. I can start another RFC here, or we can just agree that it had consensus to include (obviously apart from Jim Michael who opposes all such "local events"). Here we go again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When are you guys gonna lay off each other? History says no good can come from reverting each other.  p  b  p  00:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually history shows no good can come for AR. Not that PBP89's comment was very helpful in answering what TRM proposed. We should probably have another RFC; after all, at least one side should work towards consensus and what would benefit the readers.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec × 3) I was wrong as to the consensus, but the version I removed was completely unusable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So we include per consensus, and please try to stop removing things that you personally consider "unusable", we can always adjust text without reverting others' good faith additions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Metadiscussion: should closed sections be marked "closed" in the section header
Arguments against:
 * Violates WP:TPG
 * Never been done before on this talk page, including closing RfCs, where it made some sense.
 * Damages links into the talk page. (I don't know if any of these were linked other than in edit summaries in 2017, but others have been linked.

Arguments for:
 * Allows those who don't actually read the talk page to monitor which sections are closed? I don't know.  It's the best argument I can find.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let’s just agree to stop this continual pick pick picking, we should just close each closed discussion with the archive templates and leave the headers as they are, as if some people believe links may be broken, of course we have anchors to solve that problem, but there’s clearly just a certain need to continually revert here. Maybe contributing a net negative amount to the encyclopaedia is some people’s idea of what we’re here to do, but it sure isn’t mine. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, you are the only one adding "closed" to the headings,

3 times so far. (Of course, if you can point to someone else doing it, I'll withdraw the comment). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I said let's just close the discussions and leave the headers.  Why do you feel the need to perpetuate and accentuate the argument?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Mr Rubin .... Wasn't you desysopped only a few months ago for being an incompetent admin ? .... please don't start being an incompetent editor too! - I agree with TRMs edits - Not everyone wants to trawl though finding what's open and what's closed .... I see no valid reasons for the removal/reverts, – Davey 2010 Talk 22:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Sierra Leone mudslides
Would this be considered appropriate for inclusion? I originally created the article when the story first broke and have followed it for a few months; international media also tracked the disaster and relief efforts. Don't hold me on it, but the 1,000 estimated dead may be the second highest death toll of 2017, and the most devasting disaster that Sierra Leone has ever faced. It also exposed tragically flawed urban planning and major deforestation, not just in Sierra Leone, but in several West African countries as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude Really only seems to be more of a local event. Plus, I personally haven’t read any coverage on this so far, and I’m pretty good with keeping up with the news anyways. JoeyRuss (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the input but I really hope you have more to add to this later on. What you personally read does not contribute anything to this discussion. It was internationally covered from the Middle East to bothcoasts of the United States, as well as the U.K., India, Japan, Canada, and many more even in October. You may be "pretty good" with keeping up with the news but you missed a catastrophic disaster affecting a wide area in Sierra Leone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * PS - I can confirm this was the second worst natural disaster of 2017 thus far . Considering later reports list the death toll between 1,000 and 1,100, it almost surpasses the first spot overall.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did do some more research, and while it did receive international coverage (which I never denied), there doesn’t seem to be enough coverage to be included. I just think some other events needs to be included before discussion continues for this event. JoeyRuss (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include – Per nom. Keeping out one of the two worst natural disasters of the year because editors haven't heard of it is a clear example of systemic bias. (Also, looking at the US News list you posted, we should probably mention the 2017 South Asian floods as well.) -- irn (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude - domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Include internationally noted event, one of the worst natural disasters of the year, exactly the sort of thing our readers would expect to see in a synopsis of the year's events. I even talked to people around the watercooler about this and ended up as "most popular guy in the office" for the month.  comme ci, comme ça....  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Very funny, TRM - you're popular due to talking about a mudslide in West Africa! Being serious, many countries are prone to natural disasters which is one of the reasons why most people aren't interested when they happen yet again. Jim Michael (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. You've got the logic all wrong.  I'm just not declared as unpopular because I talk to others about these kinds of things.  You seem completely alone in that belief.  This received widespread coverage, denying it is a complete waste of all of our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * --What did your comment/reply to TRM, add to this disc., for the greater good of readers or the editorial community? IMO, it did precisely nothing, except to further your personal banter with TRM about the appropriateness of water-cooler topic(s). As many editors, at different points of time, has attracted your attention to, it's, you change your lines of reasoning to something more logical and rational or (even better) don't exercise your right to reply unless you have anything substantial.The behavior that you are displaying, over here, consistently, across numerous threads, is plain disruption.Nothing more.Nothing less. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 17:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In which case it may have risen to the point of topic ban if it continues. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your claim of great popularity at your office due to mentioning this disaster was both ludicrous and off-topic - even if it was a joke. I was replying to it and adding the fact that most people aren't interested in natural disasters unless they happen close to home. Jim Michael (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. It was a direct response to your ongoing claims that people are shunned if they discuss these topics, which you are using directly as a reason for opposing the inclusion of such items here.  Whether you thought it ludicrous or not is irrelevant, it most certainly was on-topic, a topic which you yourself started.  You are stating things and claiming them as "fact" when they are actually just your personal experiences.  More disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No-one believes it to be true that you gained great popularity at work due to mentioning this disaster to your colleagues. It is a fact that I have personally known people who've been ridiculed and ostracised at work due to mentioning such subjects - and none who've gained popularity due to mentioning them. I've worked in various different workplaces with people from many walks of life, ethnicities, ages, social class etc. - with varying different levels of education and interests. Jim Michael (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jim. Whether you thought it ludicrous or not is irrelevant, it most certainly was on-topic, a topic which you yourself started.  You are stating things and claiming them as "fact" when they are actually just your personal experiences.  More disruption.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm replying to comments; that's not disruption. They're not just my experiences; I've asked many people whom I personally know (who are from a wide spectrum of society) - and they all said that talking about natural disasters would not be welcome at their workplaces - nor at the pubs/bars/nightclubs, groups, parties etc. which they attend. Jim Michael (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And I find precisely the opposite. So it's not really a gauge for inclusion/exclusion is it?  Stop claiming your personal experience as "fact". That is disruptive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll never believe that talking about such a miserable subject can make a person well-liked - unless I see it for myself. It's not enjoyable, interesting, exciting, sexy or productive. Jim Michael (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

See: WP:IVENEVERHEARDOFIT and WP:AADP. These are the arguments you're making, and they're not good ones. agt x 18:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not making the argument that people haven't heard of natural disasters. I'm saying that the vast majority of people have no interest in such things. Jim Michael (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you personally believe. This is an encyclopedia. See WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, we can tick about three of those boxes at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include per reliable sources cited above. agt x  17:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm so bored of Jim's constant onslaught against what HE believes people don't talk about. Jim has openly admitted his circle of friends talk about who they shagged the night before. Jim is using his unique low-brow interaction as a gauge by which to measure notability of events and people, for inclusion in our project. This is a blatant competency issue. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sex isn't a low-brow activity or topic of conversation - many upper class, well-educated people also do it and talk about it. Not everyone whom I know talks about sex, or is low-brow. I personally know people from a wide variety of walks of life. I don't use the people whom I know to measure notability; I merely said that natural disasters aren't a popular topic of conversation at work or in social settings. Jim Michael (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At YOUR work and social settings. Which is in conflict with the experiences of other editors. And yet you are using this O.R. in the composition of these articles, which is against policy. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Is there a consensus to include here? As the one who opened this thread I would not feel comfortable closing it. Neutrality concerns and such.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

John Hurt
I put a picture of John Hurt on the page since he was a notable person who died in 2017. Can I ask why it keeps getting removed. Bob3458 (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because there isn’t enough room on the database to include him. JoeyRuss (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You removed his image.  The "database" has nothing to do with it.  Please don't make false assertions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't deal with images on year articles, because there are no agreed criteria, but the usual reasons given for removing an image are (1) no room for the image, (2) too many (actors, scientists, ...) [presumably relative to the number of entries, or (3) improper license. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Leonardo Davinci painting
I’m personally neutral on this one, as any answer is fine for me but is there a reason why this event is put up on the 2017 page. I mean, considering what the other events were on there, it does seem a bit odd that this is included but not other cultural events... JoeyRuss (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include world record, international notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include world record, international notability. Wjfox2005 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Azzedine Alaia
It is claimed he is an internationally known designer, but the claim may be sourced to his own website. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include globally noted designed, his death is on the BBC homepage right now. Just Google it next time.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include Alaia was no Oscar De la Renta by no means in the fashion industry, but the man was covered wide enough in numerous non-English Wikipedia articles prior to his passing that completely merits him inclusion here. — *riot_iori* ❰talk❱ 22:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Rance Howard
Let's not edit war. Most of his notability is "inherited" from Ron Howard, but he was in a lot of films, but mostly bit parts. I'm not specifying a preference here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include staggering filmography and reported globally. Clearly and demonstrably notable in his own right. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

José Manuel Maza
He was the sitting Attorney General of Spain and played a major role in the Catalonia crisis. Death is reported internationally, including BBC. EternalNomad (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include – seems like an obvious inclusion, I don’t know why this is on the talk page. JoeyRuss (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * marginal Include. I had to read the article carefully to find something notable that he did &mdash; being Attorney General of Spain does not seem sufficient in itself.  Mention of the "Catalonia crisis" should be in the article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include highly notable Spanish attorney, death reported globally, clearly something our readers would be interested to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ʻOumuamua
Is featured in current news. It is a long thin rocky asteroid and is the first known interstellar object to pass through the Solar System It featured on the [Inside Science http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09fj9n8] program partly because of its unexpected shape -not even roughly a sphere or ellipsoid- and composition -a rock not a ice comet. Nowhere near the importance of gravity wave events but still very notable even if unpronouncable. JRPG (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add it. No objections from me. It will, of course, be opposed by Arthur. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard of it, but, if it is as you describe (which it isn't; at least two "long-period" comets appear to be leaving the solar system, and are believed by some scientists to have originated outside the solar system), it should be included. However, WP:NOTTRUTH, so I suppose it should be included if the coverage is as you describe.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this one's more clear. Eccentricity is 1.199. The comet record is 1.057 (outbound, caused by Jupiter, inbound it only came from 1.17 light years away if no unknown perturbations so not interstellar). The record inbound is still pretty close to 1 so scientists weren't willing to say they were definitely interstellar given how easy it would be for gravitational perturbations like passing stars (orbital periods of millions of years remember), comets, galactic tide to make eccentricity over 1. Average nearby stars have fairly large velocity differences with the Sun so it seems unlikely a comet from another star would have eccentricity very close to 1. 'Oumuamua on the other hand has a velocity relative to the Sun of 26 km/s if the Sun had no gravity which is a typical speed differential in the Sun's neighborhood (for example, the Sun's differential to the local average is 20km/s and I think 30 km/s is average between two random stars) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's the first known interstellar asteroid. That's adequate for inclusion, even if not the first known interstellar object.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it's on the main page of Wikipedia right now.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for their input. Assuming its the right thing to do, I'll add it shortly . JRPG (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

(Not included) Sean Hughes
TRM is repeatedly adding him, claiming I'm being disruptive by removing him after TRM reinstated him after Yerpo had removed him. He's of only marginal notability in the UK and is certainly not notable anywhere else. If he'd died before 2002, he'd still not have been notable enough to include. Jim Michael (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * He wasn't only marginally notable here, he was a big deal in his heyday. A quick google shows that his death was reported on in France, Germany and Australia, as well as the UK. I dunno, 'merica might not have got his humour or knew much about him but as a reader I'd be a little surprised to scan through 2017 and NOT see Sean Hughes death listed. I'd want to know why. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude
 * There has never been a credible claim that the criteria should be that the death was notable. The criteria has always been related to the person's life being notable.  (In other words, the argument given for inclusion fails.)
 * I see no credible claim of international notability, and little notability in France. I also don't see a claim of international recognition or acknowledgement in the article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well done, you've used 100 words to communicate the monotonous equivelant of a buzzing fridge. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude - he was never anything like a big deal anywhere. The highlight of his career was appearing on Never Mind the Buzzcocks. Jim Michael (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See, what I dislike about Jim is that he is so disingenuous. Present your argument, don't embellish the truth. He didn't "appear" on Never Mind the Buzzcocks like some one off guest as you are making out, he was the fucking team captain! 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude. My research didn't turn up coverage outside the UK. I understand that 62.x notes that there is some international reporting, but I couldn't find it. If there are reliable sources supporting int'l notability, I'd change my mind. agt x  16:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I find that expressions like "he was never anything like a big deal anywhere" for someone who died a couple of days ago to be extremely offensive, distasteful and disrespectful. These kinds of personal opinions are best left at the watercooler, and not placed on an encyclopaedic website.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note, some users here tread very closely to, if not cross, BLP violations in their comments. Any such violations will be taken immediately and with prejudice to ANI for swift blocking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We deal with things in an unemotional way, often discussing people who died very recently. Anyone who is too sensitive for such discussions is in the wrong place - we don't eulogise people here. Claiming he was a big deal is preposterous; his death wasn't a major story anywhere. Jim Michael (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We're also human. How about just acknowledging that you see that your comments might have come across as callous? You can make the same point just as effectively without being quite as dismissive of Mr. Hughes and his career. agt x  04:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And of course, claiming his death wasn't a major story anywhere. is yet another lie, as at the very least this was the top story in the UK, made breaking news on the BBC News homepage, along with all the other broadsheets, plus Irish websites too. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would have said 'Include, for me he sits alongside some great British stand up comics and was a long standing co-host of one of the UK's biggest alt TV shows. He's more notable than some weird American hackysack player nobody outside of YooEssAye has ever heard of but it's up to the editor how they vote - if you think a medal in an obscure sport nobody watches makes you more notable than being screeneed to an audience of millions every week, you must be having a giraffe. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm stating facts, not being callous at all. Hughes was only a team captain for the first 6 years of NMTB, a BBC Two show which never had high viewing figures and was never the UK's most popular panel game. He never reached anywhere near the level of the greats of British comedy. On which mainstream media source(s) was his death the lead story?
 * Which hacky sack player is included in any year article? Jim Michael (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 6 years? That sounds like a long time to me. Can you back up your claim NMTB "never had high viewing figures"? As I said, at his peak, Sean Hughes was as big as anybody else on the alternative comedian circuit. For somebody who hates mainstream tabloid fodder celebs and sees himself as a champion of wrongly undervalued talent, I'm struggling to see your consistency here - seems to be just another roadblock for an editor you have a vendetta against, because he criticised the process you so dearly love. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * BBC 2 rarely receives high viewing figures - and NMTB certainly never did. NMTB is almost forgotten; unlike more popular British panel shows (including 8 Out of 10 Cats, HIGNFY and Mock the Week) it isn't broadcast on Dave, or repeated on the BBC. Your personal liking of SH and of other less-well-known entertainers doesn't change the fact that he was never big. Most people have never heard of him - even in London or Ireland. Even if you narrow the goalposts to alternative comedians in the UK, he was still never one of the big names. He was never anywhere near as popular as Rik Mayall, Ade Edmondson, Ben Elton, Jimmy Carr etc. Even if he'd been the biggest name in alternative comedy in the UK - or even in comedy in the UK in general - that wouldn't justify his inclusion. My opposition to his inclusion in purely due to him lacking international notability - it's nothing to do with what I might think of him or of any WP editor. Jim Michael (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't 62.255, it's not worth it. Let the community speak, and disagree with this individual just about each and every time.  Eventually it will become a case of the boy who cried wolf, as it's realised that the obstructive "domestic/local event" paradigm and "... then we'd post Kim Kardashian ..." (which we would) arguments are of no real consequence.  It won't be long now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * BBC 2 rarely receives high viewing figures - and NMTB certainly never did. This isn't evidence. Most people have never heard of him - even in London or Ireland Neither is this. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Include I'm yet to see a convincing, evidence based counter to my belief that he is noteworthy. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm yet to see evidence that he was internationally notable - or even that he was at any time a major figure in the UK. A career which peaked at at being one of the team captains during the early years on an almost forgotten BBC 2 panel game isn't indicative of being an important figure. Jim Michael (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * almost forgotten BBC 2 panel game This isn't evidence. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still waiting for evidence to back up your conjecture above. Thanks. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's for people who claim he's very notable to prove that - not for me to prove he isn't. It's a fact that his stint as a team captain during the early years of NMTB is the work that he's best-known for. It's true that it never had high viewing figures or mainstream popularity. It isn't repeated on the BBC or Dave, which it would be if it had enduring appeal or even a cult following. It has been almost forgotten. Compare that to HIGNFY, which has higher viewing figures and is frequently repeated on both the BBC and Dave. Jim Michael (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jim, this is disruptive. You have a bunch of different factual assertions in the above comment, none of which you've backed up with any source. You need to stop making unreferenced conjectures. agt x  17:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude – The only coverage I have found on him is in the UK. While he does have some notability in the UK, there doesn't seem to be evidence that he's well known outside of the UK. JoeyRuss (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(Included) Antonio Carluccio
He’s a well known chef internationally with a career spanning over 50 years. I think he should be included. JoeyRuss (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment give it a day or two to see if this is reported outside the UK. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m seeing multiple obits outside the UK right now, including Italy, Romania, and Ireland. I think that shows he has some international notability. JoeyRuss (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Include He seems to have been very notable; wide coverage of his death. EternalNomad (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude Notable enough for an article, obviously, but not notable worldwide.  Scr ★ pIron IV 22:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think appears to have evidence to substaniate that he was, in fact, notable outside his locality.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Notable in a tight European enclave; not elsewhere.  Scr ★ pIron IV 22:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for JoeyRuss' evidence, thanks. But even then, people who are notable across Europe should be considered for inclusion here.  We're not in the dark days of the RY "9-Wikipedia" so-called guideline any more.  We need to be spending more time thinking about our readers than adhering to some arcane and obsolete criterion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got evidence from multiple countries. Apart from the UK, they are Ireland, Italy , Hungary , and Belgium , and that's just across Europe. Heck, even Australia , New Zealand , and the United States have an obituary in some form for him. If that's not enough to prove he's internationally significant, I don't know what is...JoeyRuss (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include With the amount of obits outside of the UK, I see no reason why he shouldn’t have a mention on this page. JoeyRuss (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include clearly notable worldwide given the coverage of his death. Why else would there be such evidence covering his passing? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Faulty argument. The deaths section was intended to include the deaths of people whose lives were notable, not whose deaths were notable.  Still, I would lean toward include, in the absence of actual guidelines.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The faulty thing here was the way in which RY was conceived, defined and implemented. Completely against the community and the readers interest. So any argument talking about what RY was_intended_ to achieve is absolutely faulty. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So propose some guidelines/standards. In the absence of any such standards, I will stand by the project consensus at WP:YEARS that it is only for people whose lives may be notable, not those whose deaths may be notable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do whatever you like, but avoid making false and unfounded accusations, the same kind of things which saw you shamefully de-sysopped. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Season of Goodwill
Could we please have a little more respect for other editors' differing views and interests please. JRPG (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

(Included) Ed Lee
Ed Lee has been added to the deaths section, deleted, and re-added, so I think we should discuss whether to include him. I personally lean toward include, because he was the sitting mayor of a major internationally significant city and his death is being reported internationally. EternalNomad (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Include death being reported globally, significant individual. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Include, but disregard "mayor of a major international city" as being irrelevant. Significant international reporting of his death (which I consider irrelevant) and his actions as mayor. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(Included) Angry Grandpa
Sure he was a very well-known local YouTube celebrity, but did he have any real notability besides having a number of views and endorsements on his channel that merits him inclusion here?

I vote on Exclude — *riot_iori* ❰talk❱ 18:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Include these are modern times and YouTube personalities are just as valid as television and movie personalities. The individual had global coverage during his life and his death has been globally noted.  No brainer for inclusion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Only the local paper says he has significance; some credible sources mention his channels and some affiliations which could be significant.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Include. After rereading the changes in the article, I'm convinced he had sufficient notoriety for inclusion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Include – While I wouldn’t include every Internet personality that have achieved some fame, I think that Angry Grandpa reaches a level that is more than a regular Internet personality with millions of subscribers and with some of the most notable YouTubers paying homage to him, he definitely deserves a mention. JoeyRuss (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything in the article which warrants inclusion here, although there might be something in some of the references. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Include. After reading much on the context of famous deceased YouTubers on The YouTube Wiki and consideration from all you folks to include him (one that also included the late Christina Grimmie whose career also started on the video-sharing website), I had a change of heart on my vote despite questioning the many wiki pages for him created AFTER his death that made me question his notability for inclusion.

With that said, is it preferable to credit him appropriately as Charles Green or his famous internet persona? — *riot_iori* ❰talk❱ 08:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you on the last part of showing his entry as Charles Green. We don’t show any specific work for individuals who are on the page, so I don’t understand why he should be any different. JoeyRuss (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

World’s oldest people
When RY was around, people would exclude them from the years article cause they weren’t notable. Since RY no longer exists, do we still exclude them? Personally I think they still should be excluded since they weren’t significant at all in their lifetime except for their world oldest claims, and I think people should have some other claim to fame in order to be included. The only exception I may consider is if whether they become either the oldest in their gender ever or the oldest person ever, but they still seem insignificant. JoeyRuss (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include if global coverage of their life and passing exists. RY was nonsense then and implementing it now is still nonsense.  We include other Guinness World Record holders, so I don't see why these globally notable and globally noted individuals shouldn't be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently the recently de-sysopped user User:Arthur Rubin is now making claims that "The _addition_ requires a talk page discussion in each case" (per this diff). I'd like Rubin to actually substantiate that claim about the "requires"...  which policy or guideline backs up this bold claim?  If there isn't one, then I suggest that Rubin stops making such claims and makes a statement here to redact such claims as they are clearly not true. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of other “Guinness World Record” holders that are just known for their record that is on this page? Cause I’m not finding any. JoeyRuss (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Give me some of the examples you looked for. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You’re dodging the question. Unless you actually answer that fair question that I asked you, you’re not going to have any chance of persuasion at all. JoeyRuss (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need to "persuade" anything, I'm here to ensure we give our readers what they want to read about. These individuals are covered across the globe and are therefore inclusion material.  If you don't don't like it, that's a different issue altogether, so maybe you can explain yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude, per common sense. I'll supply a more detailed reason when TRM stops babbling  excessive posts, and I can avoid edit conflicts.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "babbling", is that a personal attack from the shamefully de-sysopped former admin? Suggest that's redacted immediately or we can do another roundtrip to ANI for a full-on site ban.  Include because the individuals are covered globally and are of interest to our readers and encyclopaedias like Britannica and reliable sources like The Times and The New York Times and The Sydney Morning Herald cover their deaths.  I thought we're here to satisfy our readers, not our personal opinions on what is "common sense".  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (completely uninvolved in any disputes here, just passing by) Agree, it's a personal attack. Also what does "per common sense" mean? Elaborate, . Your reply is incomprehensible. Please supply a policy-based reason for exclusion if you continue to take that stance. -A la d insane  (Channel 2)  23:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Include as per TRM - globally notable and as such should be included. – Davey 2010 Talk 23:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

How do you know readers are expecting a list of people who were notable in life, and not notable deaths? In my opinion readers who come here to see an 'annual review' type article, would expect to see "oldest man/woman dies aged XXX" recorded as significant. I don't see the relationship between notably aged individuals dying and murder victims, especially as 'age' in these cases are akin to achievements. So it's not their death that is notable, it's their life (i.e. the length of it). 62.255.118.6 (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The readers (at least those looking for encyclopedia articles) expect a list of deaths of people who were notable in life, not a list of people whose deaths were notable (or noted). If you feel otherwise, I would like to see evidence. These people should be listed in "deaths" only if deaths of all with Wikipedia articles are included.  Similarly, murder victims who are not otherwise notable should appear in "events", rather than in "deaths".
 * ... and I apologize for the term "babbling", which apparently doesn't mean what I thought it did. I meant "excessive" posts, whether or not appropriate or comprehensible. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rubin, please describe what about my posts are "excessive"? In what sense are they "excessive"?  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for you to explain this, or else please redact it. Your continual need to make unverified and unverifiable claims is becoming disruptive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * you've edited several times since I posted this, please respond. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * should I take this to ANI then? Just answer the question. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Excessive is correct. Many of your posts consist in attacking other actions of editors, irrelevant to the current discussion.  There is an appropriate place for those attacks.  It is ANI, not here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true I'm afraid. If you continue to make such accusations, and continue to disrupt the project as a whole, I'll see for your exclusion from the project.  Plus, your original excuse of delaying the provision of a real reason because of "edit conflicts" is actually complete nonsense, isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, as usual.
 * In context, excessive is an "opinion".
 * After attempting to post real reasons and getting edit conflicts with your edits, I posted a quick reply and went on to other things (not Wikipedia-related). As you should know by now, I have seen no workable ideas to recover from an edit conflict on my smartphone except to retype the comment.  There seems to be no analog to shift-click for a block select. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "as usual", another personal attack. Okay Rubin, we're done here.   Your technical inability is irrelevant, your continual fake and unverified and unverifiable assertions must stop.  Last warning. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Include. Never liked this rule. Jiroemon Kimura was internationally notable while he was alive and received global coverage when he died, and yet he's not on 2013. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's what I would expect in an encyclopedia's review article. You apparently expect otherwise.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a strange argument anyway, because the oldest people in the world are notable while they're alive. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you need to state that it is your opinion, and not dress it up as the opinion of readers. I'd also advise you try and set your obvious dislike for TRM aside, because I think it's clouding the words on the page. I can't actually see any 'attacks' by TRM as you claim. He's not even close to approaching the behaviour of your compatriot Jim who needlessly counters every single point made that is at odds with his position, with the same arguments that have already been addressed - and I don't see you piping up about his behaviour. Clearly you are targeting the user here, rather than the behaviour. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * TRM presumes to speak for the readers, with no evidence that he is speaking for anyone but himself and people around his water cooler. As for Jim, his methods may be inappropriate, but his goal is clearly for the usability of Wikipedia.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong and wrong. I have plenty of evidence that my values and the items I deem appropriate here are, in almost all situations, that which have found consensus, unlike you Rubin, who continue to make unfounded, unverifiable personal attacks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Include. Per me, above. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Exclude
 * Just in case you think this is simple, it needs a huge caveat -does the elderly person come from Japan AND are they receiving pension payments? Some are in their mid 150's!! Conversely some Buddhists monks aren't as dead as they look.
 * We could include people who have become the oldest person ever recorded ..but I think this is best in a regularly checked separate article. I have a particular interest in this topic as Britain's HMG is continuously claiming that people are living longer & hence pensions must be reduced saving a huge amount of money. This is based on statistical analysis of how long the oldest people live together with data projected from the 2001 census and earlier. In the UK the 2011 census showed there were fewer 90year olds than expected.  Perhaps the Japanese don't live as long as they think! JRPG (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

August Ames
She doesn’t seem to be particularly notable at all, yet people keep deciding to add her back to the list. Thoughts? JoeyRuss (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Include articles on many Wikipedias and death covered in multiple reliable source across multiple countries and continents. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh. I leaned toward include, but TRM has almost convinced me there is no "significant" coverage anywhere in the world, which would be a good argument to exclude.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Disney-Fox merger
It may be important, but the entry should wait for our article on the merger, so a description with at least a pretense of WP:NPOV can be written. "Historic" and "major" fall under WP:WTA, among other problems. I think it's a different division of 21st Century Fox which is being acquired by Disney.

Also, I think that the entry could wait until either the merger is approved or until (expected) unusual opposition from DoJ is announced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Little Foot
Little Foot -a skeleton 3.67 million years oldis unveiled in South Africa. Whilst not of gravitational wave importance, this very complete skeleton of a tree living great ape is set to change our understanding of human evolution ..I could say change it for about the 3rd time this year but I gather it probably wouldn't strengthen the case for inclusion:) JRPG (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Our Little Foot article says it was uncovered 1994–1998. Why 2017? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings Arthur and apologies for the delay in responding to your perfectly reasonable question -I should have explained it better.  The final line in the article references its unveiling in 2017.  Clearly 20 years ago it wasn't worth a mention even if extracted.  The article says
 * "This is one of the most remarkable fossil discoveries made in the history of human origins research and it is a privilege to unveil a finding of this importance," ..The results of the decades of studies will soon be released in a series of more than 25 scientific papers, the scientists involved say. 
 * The BBC Inside Science and former Nature editor Adam Rutherford gave it prominence on the program plus a BBC news item.   JRPG (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2 entry about newly discovered species of Orangutan
The current text states: "A new species of orangutan is discovered in Indonesia, becoming the third species of orangutan and the first great ape to be described for almost a century."

Upon reading it, I understood it to mean both "the third species of orangutan to be described for almost a century" as well as "the first great ape to be described for almost a century."

I think this text could be improved.

Perhaps, "A new species of orangutan is discovered in Indonesia, becoming the third known species of orangutan. It is also the first great ape to be described for almost a century." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonker.in.geneva (talk • contribs) 13:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good call. I made a few tweaks to make that distinction clear. (And I changed "discovered" to "identified" because they were discovered 20 years ago, but only just now identified as a separate species.) -- irn (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump inauguration attendance
Even Trump's estimates range includes 250,000 to 1,500,000. I suspect credible estimates are lower on both ends. Where did 500,000 come from? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've noted above, if the crowd size is contentious, then it might be better off omitted: what is important in the inauguration is the commencement of the presidency, not the physical ceremony itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, just delete the number. Who actually cares?  What's significant is what Brad mentions, and is clearly relevant to our readers (the vast majority of whom are American).  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Deaths section pictorial row cleanup
If someone can contribute to clean up the overcrowded Deaths section pictorial, please. I'm coming to this cause of a suspicious edit warring by a vandal when I added the ToC to the page. From January to April, the rows look absolutely fine, but after that month the rest just makes the section look very disorganized and overlaps the next month below it.

The 3-5 photo limit per month depending on row length of monthly section was always standard as far as I know. — *riot_iori* ❰talk❱ 16:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Page protection
Is there a reason why the page is now protected from vandalism right now? JoeyRuss (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's being protected from disputes, not vandalism.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 04:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a bad time to protect the page. Starting in 3.5 hours it will need periodic updates as the year changes over in various parts of the world. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and the protection was complete overkill, the protecting admin making no attempt to actually resolve the situation, simply delaying any edit war until the protection expires todays. And we wonder why there's no faith left in most of these individuals.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)