Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 5

Quality
I work in dozens of projects, this seems to be the only one which promotes articles without even a passing thought as to the quality of the articles its noting. Is that best for our readers? That our article on 2017 (say) contains target links to articles which are POV, unreferenced, non-verifiable, etc etc etc? I believe a quality criterion needs to be added to this project to ensure our readers are not disappointed by what they see. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That would mean excluding some deaths of heads of state/government whose articles are of low quality. Jim Michael (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So you're content that this project has precisely zero quality threshold? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Each article has to be good enough to qualify to have an article, otherwise they can be deleted for being unreferenced etc. Jim Michael (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand, we don't delete articles for being unreferenced. This project effectively sanctions any article in any state, correct?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles certainly can and are deleted for being unreferenced, but those articles are very unlikely to qualify to be included in RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, articles are deleted by community consensus. This project effectively sanctions any article in any state, correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some unreferenced articles have been speedy deleted without a discussion.
 * Yes, that's always been the case - and that fact has been added to the criteria today.
 * Jim Michael (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I added the fact that quality is not a consideration to this project today. Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And I removed it per BRD. It's POV, and has no consensus to be added. Just because you don't like (or even understand, given that you haven't waited for the input of experienced members of this project) is no reason to demean the project. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 04:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, not at all, and it's been confirmed here, no consideration is paid to quality, so editors and readers alike should be aware of that. Several of my earlier assertions were based on the false thought that this project would use quality articles, this needs clarification.  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you didn't. I merely said that it was added. Article quality has never been part of the inclusion criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite, and I've clarified that explicitly now. People should be aware that this project actively adds BLP violations, unverifiable material etc to its pages.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't add vios to RY articles. You're talking about vios on articles of people who died recently. Jim Michael (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The project links readers to articles which fail BLP. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

BLPs
At least five of June's deaths (which still fall under WP:BLP of course) are maintenance tagged, yet acceptable by this project. Is that correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't exclude them on that basis. If an article were so bad that it were deleted, then it would be removed. Jim Michael (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you actively allow BLP violations which aren't subject to AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no BLP vios on RY articles. If they exist on the articles linked, it's the editors of those articles who need to improve them - just as it would be if they weren't listed here. Also, it's ridiculous for articles of dead people to be regarded as BLPs. Jim Michael (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the key point here is that only the main articles for a year are under the scope of the recent years guideline. So, one could argue that poor quality articles should not be linked in RY artiles, but those articles themselves do not fall under the scope of RY. This is a fairly tiny project, really, only 15 articles are within it's scope. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is, but it's an important one, BLP vios should not be linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Relevant project/guideline which says that we are not allowed to include people in the deaths section on that basis? DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 04:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thousands of articles on WP link to other WP articles which contain various vios. Jim Michael (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but these articles aim to collect items together, so people should be aware, when doing so, that quality (or lack of) is no barrier (at the moment), and that BLP violations are tolerated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, length has been a criterion in the past. If the Wikipedia article is a stub, or if the foreign Wikipedia articles were substubs, it was considered a reason for exclusion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What's your point? That it isn't now?  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't copied from the talk page notes into WP:RY, so, technically, it isn't part of the guideline. It should be.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you need to step away now Rubin, you're not making much sense especially compared with the backdrop of your attempts to get me banned because (a) on one hand you seem to readily accept that the current "guidelines" are incomplete yet (b) you only allow regular editors to change them. This is poor behaviour and an ownership issue in the simplest sense, and an abuse of your position.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Notes at WP:RY
I have added a note relating to the fact that no quality considerations are made by this project when considering the inclusion of items. That is evidential from the above discussions and from many of the items included in, say, the 2017 article. As most projects have some level of quality below which they will not consider inclusion, it seems important to me that this is directly brought to the attention of editors and readers alike. Of course, adding it at WP:RY will assist editors, but not readers who will find themselves directed to many articles (most of which are BLPs) with sourcing issues, tone issues etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does this needed to be stated explicitly? Why does it need its own section? And why does it need to be in there twice? Frankly, inserting this into the project page seems POINTY. If it's not a criteria that we use for determining inclusion, then there's need to mention it. We also don't mention that the color of the person's eyes, their country of birth, and their favorite foods are similarly of no consideration. The point of the inclusion and exclusion criteria is that these are things that we do pay attention to, not the things we don't. -- Irn (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not pointy at all. People should be aware that they add any junk article to the year article they like as long as it meets the current arcane rulings. BLP violations, unreferenced stubs, copyright infringements, all are welcome at RY, so editors should be made aware so it better facilitates their attempts to add items as long as they're sanctioned by the regulars. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's almost a textbook example of WP:POINT. You clearly disagree with it and are trying to bring it to people's attention. But the purpose of the page is not to bring something to people's attention but rather to delineate the criteria used for determining what content is added to RY articles. -- Irn (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, other "news" pages on Wikipedia are very much quality driven so it's important to note that this project has no regard for any of the articles to which it links. It's not pointy, its fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , there is no basis for your POINT accusation. Please withdraw it. 1.129.96.50 (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * this is not a "news" or "project" page, this is a content page that happens to be covered by a WikiProject, so a link from here doesn't mean endorsement of the target page any more than a link from anywhere else in the article space (in contrast with, say, WP:ITN). Therefore, explicitly mentioning the lack of criteria is really superfluous. If you wish to institute a policy which would ban linking to or mentioning badly written articles, you will need a far broader consensus. — Yerpo Eh? 05:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking to ban anything, it's just important to note that quality is of no concern. Plenty of other things aren't noted yet are routinely brought up by the regulars, so it's best to be explicit. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But you have to admit, adding the note *twice* does look suspiciously like a WP:POINT. I also note that you were fighting hard against the explicit mention of WP:NFC not long ago, which is then really confusing if it's "best to be explicit" about things "routinely brought up by the regulars". Please don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to understand your position in some other way than "whatever the regulars think is wrong". — Yerpo Eh? 06:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt I'm not the only one bored of your insinuations. Perhaps it's more like "whatever TRM thinks is wrong".  Noting a project-specific approach (i.e. no quality control) and repeating a site-wide policy (e.g. WP:FU) are completely different things.  You know that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't "know that". But I know many projects explicitly mention how WP:FU relates to the content under their auspice, while not mentioning the quality of articles they're linking to. — Yerpo Eh? 06:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Different things exist. Brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To be precise, this project used to follow common practice until you forced the change to the exact opposite. I also still struggle to understand why the note about quality has to appear twice in WP:RY. — Yerpo Eh? 07:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of edit notice
A few months ago, added an edit notice to recent years pages. Given the downgrade to essay, the edit notice is no longer accurate. I also think it is no longer appropriate, and I suggest that it be removed. agt x 03:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support it has had no impact whatsoever, regardless of the fact that the guideline is no longer (and wasn't really ever) a guideline. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be reworded, not removed. Jim Michael (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I ask you to elaborate a little on your reasoning for that, ? There wasn't a strong consensus to add the edit notice in the first place (WP:SILENCE was expressly invoked). Having a notice at all has the strong feeling of WP:SQS, and the vast majority of pages on Wikipedia don't require such notices. agt x  20:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, SQS, I didn't know that existed. That's EXACTLY the problem here.  Thanks  for the link, I'll be sure to note that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of Wikipedia pages do not have editors adding their own personal information. These (and, often, the articles covered by WP:DOY) do.  However, I'm not convinced that edit notices are helpful.  Those on pseudoscience articles don't seem to help.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They are helpful. They're not stonewalling; they're to reduce people adding non-notable or insufficiently notable people and things. Edit notices should be on all year and day articles, because it's very common for young people to add the births of themselves and people whom they know, as well as people adding births, deaths and events that all of us on this talk page would agree are nowhere near notable enough to include. Recent year articles often have to be protected because of flurries of such additions.
 * No-one is claiming that the 9 + English guide is perfect, but it's better than a free-for-all. Other aspects of RY, such as always including anyone who's been a nation's head of state/government (except interim/acting heads) are important. Jim Michael (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The edit notice says: "Please make sure all additions to this article are consistent with the guidelines for articles on recent years. Thank you." Do we really think that's stopping kids from adding their friends to the articles? How many 15-year-olds are going to stop, read the essay, and decide not to add something inappropriate. What it's doing, right now, is telling people operating in good faith that their additions have to comply with an essay, which is not true. agt x 14:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * --As the editor who closed the RY guideline deprecation RFC, I will vouch for an immediate mandatory change of the wording to--For new additions to this article, try to conform with the project-essay for articles on recent years. removal of the notice. Sorry, I re-reviewed the guidelines et al and posting the notice is definitely pushing an essay down the throat of the readers.We hardly ever do that!I came across WP:SQS for the first time! If you are a template-editor go ahead and do it.That should have been a corollary of the RFC but was missed at it's entirety. Outright removal or linguistic changes could be implemented later per emerging consensus on this page. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Many of the additions of domestic/local events to year and day articles are from people who are acting in good faith. I agree with the proposed change in wording in the above comment. Jim Michael (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No the proposed rewording is not helpful, especially as the more stringent current wording has had no impact on the vast number of reverts that take place by the few regulars. Some individuals have pretty much no positive inputs to these pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing insufficiently notable people and events from the article is a positive imput. We've had people added to the Deaths section who are unknown outside their own countries - and people who are alive. Jim Michael (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not relevant. This edit notice has not prevented anything being added.  Two or three regulars here are notable for the fact that they do nothing but remove material from these pages.  They pretty much never add anything, so it's clear the edit notice is making not a jot of difference.  As per the comment below, unless you can provide hard evidence that this edit notice has made any changes to the number of "people regulars deem unsuitable to be added", then it should go, period. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It was you who wanted the edit notice added. A few people, including me, agreed with you that a notice on the talk page was insufficient and it was added to every RY article. Now you want it removed. You also wanted Prodigy removed, then soon after argued for him to be included. You wanted Jerome Golmard removed; when I removed him, you quickly reinstated him and argued for his inclusion. Your contradictions make it difficult to assume good faith. Jim Michael (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, let's start with a simple one: It was you who wanted the edit notice added. Diff please.  And before you make that classic mistake you're about to make, please read what I actually wrote.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Next, You also wanted Prodigy removed yes, initially, and I explained why, as you very well know, and yet have disingenously chosen not to explain here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally, You wanted Jerome Golmard removed. Diff please.  Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , please respond inline above with the diffs and the explanation; a lack of response is would make it difficult to assume good faith. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do diffs. On Talk:2017/Archive 3 at 12:28 on 1 August, you strongly implied that Golmard should be removed from 2017. Jim Michael (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You could ask Rubin, he's learnt how to do it by now. And in any case, you couldn't be more wrong.  The point I was making in that diff was that it seemed insane to " reject Tommy Gemmell (71,000 hits in 4 days) and Deborah Watling" while accepting a minor tennis player who met the inclusion criteria.  So no, I didn't want him removed at all.  Please don't make stuff up.  Redact the claim.  Zero down, three to go.The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Honestly... Help:Diff. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , please respond inline above with the diffs and the explanation; a lack of response is would make it difficult to assume good faith.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You were saying that Gemmell should be included and appeared to be suggesting that Golmard should not, because he's much less notable.
 * We have long rejected people who lack international notability, even if they have enough articles. You can see examples of that in the archives of various RY articles. The 9 + English guide has never been a hard-and-fast rule. You're claiming that exceptions aren't or shouldn't be made to that guide.
 * There aren't three to go. You gave the impression that you wanted Golmard excluded, at least if Gemmell is. You agree that you initially wanted Prodigy removed. I can't find the first conversation about putting the edit notice on RY articles. It was put there because many editors don't read talk pages. Jim Michael (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you might have assumed that, but my text clearly relates to the absurd non-inclusion of clearly more notable individuals.   And incidentally, I explained explicitly and clearly why I didn't think Prodigy should be included: as the RY "guideline" hadn't made it clear that quality wasn't an issue for inclusion, unlike at ITN.  You provide the diffs for the three accusations (I've linked you how to do that, out of courtesy), or redact them, or we'll go to ANI about you placing unsubstantiated lies here, just like Rubin.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The RY criteria have never claimed that the quality of the articles it links to are part of the criteria. I've struck my comment. Jim Michael (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware of that now, and as I said at the time I found it surprising. So it's nothing to do with contradiction whatsoever.  Just be more careful when levelling unfounded and inaccurate accusations without evidence.  Don't do it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support removal. I, too, don't see who the target audience for this notice is supposed to be: it's difficult to imagine more than an insignificant fraction of legitimately clueless editors (the "young people adding their own birthdays" case) bothering to read a notice, and active vandals certainly won't care, but it's possible that editors who are new to Wikipedia or RY may be scared off from making positive contributions. Without fairly hard data suggesting the notice is a net plus, I don't think it's appropriate. Layzner (Talk) 17:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's for editors who are unaware of the inclusion criteria for RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work and we don't mandate or even necessarily suggest compliance with an essay. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't an inclusion criteria for RY articles. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I notice the admin Beeblebrox has failed to respond to this thread, despite being pinged. They put the edit notice on, seems only polite they come here and explain why they think it's still needed. 1.129.97.23 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox hasn't edited WP since 5 August. Jim Michael (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a message on his talk page: Due to personal issues, Beeblebrox will be away from Wikipedia for an undefined period of time. It can safely be said that Beeb is both unlikely to comment or otherwise have any input into this thread and that he will be Ok with whatever decision is reached by others.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh and support removal for the same reasons as The Rambling Man. 1.129.97.23 (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Pursuant to Godric's comment as the closer of the RfC, I'm posting a template edit request now. agt x  15:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Deaths
Propose adding to "at the time of the person's death"
 * "or, when death is imminent"

Reasoning: If the person's death has been expected for a long time, he/she may have death fans. The intent is that the person have significance when alive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose someone's about to die and we just got a way of detecting it. Nonsense.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This comment no sense makes. I was actually thinking of Terri Schiavo, where her death might be an internationally notable event, but her death clearly doesn't belong on the "deaths" section.  This year's example of the North Korean prisoner is the current example; it was known that he required medical treatment he was not receiving; the trigger event for timing should have been his capture, rather than his death.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You sunk your own battleship. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * After careful consideration, I see no actual content. Could you explain? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are proposing a prediction machine. Your example was about something that might be notable.  Things that might be notable don't have a place in an encyclopedia, I thought that was obvious.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no need to complicate the guideline. Such cases are covered by "Persons whose notability is due to circumstance rather than actual achievement do not meet the basic requirement for inclusion" and can be excluded by consensus. There's only a handful of cases each year, at any rate. — Yerpo Eh? 19:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Oppose. 1.129.96.224 (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

RFC: International notability for inclusion in the deaths section of RY articles
This is probably the first of a number of RFCs on this topic, so let's start with a simple one:


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

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


 * Comments by proposer-Please refrain from offering arguments such as "in the absence of anything different/better...", just stick to answering the opening question, with reasons.The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The articles on other Wikipedias are not checked for references, reliable sources, any kind of notability, it's merely counting stats, and as shown by the current listings, heavily biased to prominent and popular Americans.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Close enough for our purposes, at least (with some exceptions). In case anyone hadn't noticed, the world is heavily biased towards prominent and popular Americans, and we are here to reflect reality, not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If anything, the current system prevents even greater bias. — Yerpo Eh? 06:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all, the list at 2017 is about 1/3 American, so are we really saying that for an English language global encycplopedia, 1/3 of "internationally notable" people who have died are American? That's reinforcing a bias.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to find a RS with less biased selection. Until then, my argument stands. — Yerpo Eh? 08:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to find an RS with such an absurd dependency on the existence of unverified, low quality sources such as foreign language Wikpiedias. Until then, the argument to sustain such an approach is utterly without sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Answer my challenge first, then we can continue. — Yerpo Eh? 08:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need to, this is Wikipedia, not some other list. Why are we so hellbent on maintaining such an absurd status quo?  I suggest we use Deaths in 2017! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Then make a RfC with this suggestion and let the community decide if it's better! Simple, no? — Yerpo Eh? 08:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To help you argumenting it (actually did your job here, yes): there's 175 Americans out of 547 people featured in Deaths in 2017 right now (i.e. August and part of September). That's exactly the same proportion as in 2017 so far. How, then, is Deaths in 2017 better as far as bias is concerned? — Yerpo Eh? 09:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "argumenting it" means, but you're missing the point. Anyway, we're here to discuss if the current way of arbitrarily counting unreliable sources is suitable, and we all know it is not.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Argumenting why it would be better to point the readers to Deaths in 2017. Except, for all its "unsuitability", the current method produces results that are comparable in quality to any other method that has been mentioned so far. Amazing, isn't it? — Yerpo Eh? 11:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "results that are comparable in quality to any other method" this statement couldn't be further from the truth. The "quality" of many of the items "selected" here is pitiful.  The sources used to "verify" international notability are both unreliable and pitiful in quality.  Amazing, isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So how is Deaths in 2017 better? It doesn't take article quality in account either. — Yerpo Eh? 12:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not pseudo-filtered by a handful of individuals following an arcane rule obligated to unreliable and unverifiable sources. And you were the one claiming any kind of "quality" here.  The only way you'll get that is to follow the ITN model and you DONTLIKETHAT either. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN?? The model which even some regulars say is broken and should be scrapped? You have got to be joking. — Yerpo Eh? 15:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, if it was a race to the bottom, RY would be winning by some margin. And you mentioned quality, and ITN is the only process that actually guarantees a level of quality control, while this essay currently promotes BLP violation after BLP violation.  I'm sure you're happy with that, but some of us aren't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet, by any objective standard, it still produces results that are comparable to any other method. Even two+ months of your bashing didn't change that. — Yerpo Eh? 15:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, no. And what's being achieved here is more eyes on this bizarre approach.  I want for nothing more.  The community decides, not just you, Jim and Rubin.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, and I've presented data proving this. Your denial doesn't negate this. — Yerpo Eh? 20:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Um yes, we'll see how the community feel about it, shall we, i.e. follow the whole general purpose of an RFC. And your sentence made no logical sense, but that's no important right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment arguments such as "in the absence of anything different/better..." are crucial, despite the fact that the editor who opened this RfC doesn't like to hear them. Telling everybody for two months that the current way of constructing RY pages is not ok has so far only lead to two months of wasted time and zero actual improvements to the system (the constant promises that "we're getting there" don't count). — Yerpo Eh? 06:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. This RFC is simply designed to establish that the status quo needs to be changed.  Then we can move to phase 2 where we understand the options.  And by the way, I have suggested pointing the readers to Deaths in 2017 since day one, but you always choose to ignore that.  Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You "established" that long ago (as far as your personal criteria is concerned), and you keep promising the fabled phase 2 for months now. And your suggestion has been rejected by several editors. Enough. Propose a better replacement and let the community decide. — Yerpo Eh? 08:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, let's establish the current approach is no good first, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You have things the wrong way round. The status quo needs to be maintained until a better way is agreed on. We need better inclusion criteria before scrapping the current criteria. You wouldn't suggest that Theresa May isn't doing her job well enough, so she should be kicked her out of Number Ten and then we'll select a new PM; a new PM would need to be selected before she could be replaced. Jim Michael (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, just look at Brexit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a bad analogy - the UK doesn't need to be in another supranational organisation instead. Jim Michael (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Then take de:Vertrauensfrage. Strangely missing on enWiki while on more than 9 other language editions. Agathoclea (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it gives you an example of a "yes/no" vote, which then leads onto further discussion on how to solve the perceived problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No a) Wikipedia is not a reliable source b) notable subjects are not always covered c) junk is usually covered very well. A reliable metric would be an international reaction to the death or a nondomestic inclusion in major biographical work. The criteria is also flawed in as much as "non-English" suggests that the deceased is from an English speaking country and the question is asked if they are recognized outside of that area. Agathoclea (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't suggest that. We say 9 + English because having an English article is a requirement and that an article in Simple English doesn't count. Jim Michael (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would an article on enWiki be a requirement? "International notability" is based on sources, and not the random fact that someone had bothered to start the article here. We have often even have articles missing on heads of state and similar. Agathoclea (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because this is the English-language Wikipedia. Having an article of his/her own on here is a requirement for inclusion in all year articles, not just recent ones. Which modern heads of state/government do not have articles? Jim Michael (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Having an article makes sense, just the requirement that the article has to exist at the time of death does not. And yes there are still a number of 20th century leaders missing as well as the possibility of a new stateleader being assassinated quicker, than we can write his article. Agathoclea (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly doubt that any current or living former heads of state or government don't have their own articles. Jim Michael (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well there are enough redlinks in the 20th century. And the issue is not the current state but "at the time of death" clause, to which there is reasonable chance of existing articles of dead former leaders that were only created after their demise, and future state leaders who will also only receive their articles after dying. My point is that if such "important" people can be without articles at the time of their death, other international notable people can be as well, especially those of the pre-internet era who are strangely enough those who are most likely to die right now. Which brings us back the starting point: Wikipedia is not a RS. Agathoclea (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Heads of state/government are exempt from the 9 + English guide. People in other fields can be exceptions if there's consensus. Jim Michael (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well obviously, but the actual point here is that the baseline criterion is nonsense, so once we establish that there's a consensus to find a better way, we can move forward. There's no point in suggesting a bunch of other solutions if every member of the community believes in the 9-Wikipedia rule, is there?  So one step at a time, we get consensus this is junk and then find a better solution.  And there are many alternatives, so we'll discuss those in due course.  Of course, now the RY "guideline" is an essay, we actually can be pretty flexible, BRD and all that, so anything added that's borderline will need a good discussion to remove it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * NoIt is obviously a garbage method of determining what we should have in the article and it's a telling pattern above - oppose any changes, then say "we haven't made any improvements so we should keep the status quo" Opposition to changes becomes the justification to oppose changes! And anyway we have a number of proposals above that while not perfect are at least rational - such as that the death is included in some reliable source as one of the most significant events of the year or that the death recieves significant independent news reporting from three continents or just providing a link to all notable deaths during the year. What we choose as a better definition can be determined in a subsequent RFC AlasdairEdits (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * An RfC gives two (or more) options. Here, the options appear to be "international notability" as defined above and anarchy. In light of that, yes to the original question. A better RfC would be formulated in the sense of "Should the inclusion criteria be changed to X?" where X is your proposed alternative. ~ Rob 13 Talk 10:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed - which is why I say we should keep the current criteria until a better suggestion is put forward. Jim Michael (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all, you fail to understand the purpose of referenda then. And to BU Rob13, let me just clarify, you think that the existence of unverified articles about a subject in nine non-English Wikipedias is equivalent to "international notability"?  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't abandon rules without implementing new ones first. If biography articles in other languages are unsourced, they should be reliably sourced or deleted. No-one is saying that the 9 + English guide is a hard and fast rule or proof. Jim Michael (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You completely misunderstand. This is a "fit for purpose" discussion, not an "abandon anything" discussion.  I would like a community-wide observation of this arcane approach to see if it's worth spending time creating a better way of doing it.  Stop scare-mongering. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This comment is absolutely contrary to WP:5P5. The RfC is trying to figure out if the rule in the RY essay is working. If we decide that the rule isn't working and is in fact preventing us from improving Wikipedia, then WP:IAR applies, and we shouldn't follow it anymore. agt x  18:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It says that content and interpretation evolve over time. It doesn't say to abandon a way of doing things. Jim Michael (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And there you go again. Two things, this project does not enable articles which evolve over time to be included, the instructions are clear on that.  Secondly, stop with the hyperbolic "abandon" claims.  We're not "abandoning" anything right now, we're just allowing the community as a whole to view the way in which RY is currently run and to give their opinions on whther it should continue in the same way, or be modified.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to add, I think alluding that somebody is socking, in an effort to derail the discussion away from the points made, is a far bigger crime than gentle bewilderment that people could defend using foreign wikipedia articles that lack any sort of quality control as a reliable source to confirm some subjective notion of superiority between deceased people. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No. This is, and has always been, an absurd test. Other wikipedias don't have the same inclusion criteria that we do, and some notoriously allow bot-created articles. also makes a good point above—we might not know how notable someone is at the time of their death. I am not convinced by the FUD of not having another absolutist policy like this in place immediately after this policy goes away. I agree "international notability" is a good goal for the deaths in the article, and I think there's a number of ways that can be proved. For example, obits (not just death announcements) in newspapers worldwide might be a good indication. If there's a dispute, then we can have a discussion about it (like we do on, as I may have mentioned before, literally every other page on this encyclopedia).  agt x  16:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No At the risk of being tautological, reliable sources are reliable sources. Not only are other wikis not RS, as others have said above, but this requirement is an attempt to substitute the editorial judgment of a group of editors in place of RS coverage.  It apparently needs to be said again: we as editors don't decide, either directly or through byzantine requirements such as this, who "deserves" and who doesn't "deserve" coverage.  We reflect the coverage that has occurred. If that results in devoting an entry in 2016 or whatever to a completely unaccomplished buffoon who has had massive RS coverage, than that's the entry we make. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but the RfC doesn't accurately represent the current consensus, and it's the wrong question.
 * This RfC misrepresents the status quo. The criterion is "international notability". The 9-Wikipedia criterion was intended as an objective proxy for the subjective term "international notability", subject to overrides by consensus on the individual year article talk page.
 * Even if point 1 were not understood, this is clearly the wrong question. If there is consensus in the negative, it doesn't reduce the number of steps required to change the (project) guideline. The argument
 * Something needs to be done.
 * The next RfC determines an alternative.
 * Therefore, what the next RfC determines should be done.
 * ... is one of the worst arguments imaginable.
 * If there were consensus in favor, this would show no further changes are needed. So, it would only be productive if TRM believed a positive consensus was possible.
 * See above for my attempt to explore the actual consensus (however weak) and options.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this RFC simply asks a question as to whether we should spend more time fighting the regulars who are staunchly defending their fifedom. And as it's an RFC it gets far more eyes on the problem area than before which can only be good for Wikipedia and our readers.  "One of the worst arguments imaginable"?  Be careful Rubin, you're about to be desysopped, I would hate to see you blocked for contiuing your ill behaviour.  The Rambling Man (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Criminally terrible determiner. Whoever came up with it as a 'test' should be sent to prison. Wikipedia IS NOT a reliable source. How an essay (let alone a guideline, which this sneakily became - an arbcom case in itself, if you ask me) can base itself on a breach of wider wikipedia guidelines is beyond me. I don't know how anyone of balanced mind can defend it. I understand what it is trying to do (identify a small pot of significant people from a large pot of deceased) - but I don't know WHY it wants to do that and this isn't the way to do it. In fact, I don't think this sort of subjective selection can really be automated, and that's the point. The PRESENCE of a terrible criterion and the ABSENCE of a good alternative, is a clear demonstration that we shouldn't be making this selection at all. Which brings us back to just linking to DEATHS and be done with it. Who cares if Jim Michaels or Arthur Rubin don't like most of the people on that page, this project is not for them alone. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from insulting other editors like that. Hiding behind an IP is not an excuse for ignoring WP:CIVIL. — Yerpo Eh? 16:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note, the IP has made a statement of fact ("Who cares if Jim Michaels or Arthur Rubin don't like most of the people on that page, this project is not for them alone."), this is not uncivil in any way. In fact, it perfect sums up one of the many problems here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you overlook "Whoever came up with it as a 'test' should be sent to prison" and "how anyone of balanced mind can defend it" on purpose or did you genuinely fail to notice those two insults? — Yerpo Eh? 19:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Those bits might be close to the bone, but considering the way admins (including some here) talk to regular editors and some users here, it's not really that troubling. I think you get the point.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuses, excuses... — Yerpo Eh? 20:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Reasons, reasons. And if you really cared, you'd go to AIV or some other venue to silence the opposition whose tone you disapprove.  But you don't.  Excuses, excuses. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Contrary to you, who keeps trying to intimidate people by shouting "IBAN!" every now and then, I have no interest in silencing constructive arguments. I just gave the IP a warning, the fact that you felt the need to provide excuses for him adds to my general feeling that there's a curious pattern here. — Yerpo Eh? 20:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm socking? That would be perfect for you, eh.  Go get that Checkuser request in before I hop onto another IP!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, it went quiet real quick there... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to reply, this was far from "gentle bewilderment", and, in the same manner as someone else, merely consisted of bashing (just a notch more aggressive), with complete absence of points on the basis of which any discussion across our gap could be started. Not necessarily socking in the narrow sense of the word, but at least blatant copycat behaviour. Completely unconstructive (beside being insulting), regardless of intent. — Yerpo Eh? 18:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How DARE you. A disgusting, despicable and untrue underhanded slur.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? Show me one point he/she made that you haven't at least once in the past two months. — Yerpo Eh? 10:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this isn't about me always having to prove anything to you. I couldn't care less what you think, your accusations or allusions are disgusting and baseless and you won't even have the decency to follow it up, just leave it hanging, because that's how you edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well if you never answer to any misgiving that anybody expresses about your ideas, how can you claim to be constructive? There's simply nothing to follow up. I'm sure you think that you're right, but that's not enough in relation with other people. — Yerpo Eh? 11:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Disgusting.  This is enough now, with sockpuppetry now being alluded to, I'll be requesting an IBAN. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I said I didn't necessarily mean sockpuppetry. — Yerpo Eh? 12:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever, tell it to Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Yerpo: I apologise for my comment. I thought the prison part was an obvious joke. Let the records reflect that I do not genuinely believe people who come up with bad guidelines on Wikipedia should be sent to prison. That put to bed, I disagree with your assertion that my post lacked any discussion points. I asked why we were trying to cherry-pick deaths, and I suggested that this sort of subjective selection could not be automated under a guideline/criteria. And I supported that conclusion with the fact that the ‘best’ you can come up with is at odds with Wikipedia standards and evidently problematic. I then went on to propose a solution, which was to stop trying to problematically cherry-pick deaths in the first place. So the content was there, it was your choice to ignore it in favour of faux-outrage at a blatantly silly remark. And my interest in this process and my agreement with anyone who is striving for a solution, is no more criticisable or evidence of socking/copycatting, than your duplication of Jim and Arthur’s ownership of this article and resistance to any sort of change. The point here is that the 9Wiki rule is nonsense and we are almost unanimous on this conclusion. You, Arthur and Jim do not get to dictate who should and who shouldn’t be included and can’t use this fraudulently established guideline anymore, as and when you chose, to rule for or against people you do or do not like. Surely you understand this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see now that you're capable of being a bit more reasonable than The Rambling Man, so I take back my insinuation of sockpuppetry. I also accept your apology, but please, please don't put words in my mouth. Your questions and suggestions have been made more than once already by The Rambling Man and answered, which is why I didn't felt the need to do it again in absence of new arguments for your solution. Please also keep in mind that I'm no less interested in a solution than you, having acknowledged that the current one is far from ideal and coming up with at least one alternative. Your (and The Rambling Man's) assertion that I'm resisting change and want to maintain ownership - just because I object to the method of changing which has achieved nothing constructive in >two months - is therefore really unfair. So I'm sorry, but I think my reaction was really not that surprising, seeing that your comment did little but amplify the summer-long campaign of repeating how the regulars are a disaster and should best go away. Sarcasm doesn't transmit well on text-based forums. — Yerpo Eh? 13:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Yerpo: To be fair, I think I've been reasonable throughout and have just been trying to help fix the problem. I don't believe the suggestion of linking to DEATH IN 20XX articles has been fairly acknowledged, and I think it is a far better solution than the 9wiki one. I still don't understand WHY we are trying to cherry-pick, especially when cherry-picking is so obviously contentious. The fundamental problem will always be "why do YOU think person X is more important than person Y" - and if we have no sound criteria in place, we have no reasoning to cover ourselves. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To repeat, I think removing deaths altogether and just linking to Deaths in 20xx is disingenious because selections of notable deaths are standard part of such lists (in other words, it's what readers expect here), because RY would then appear totally different from other year pages for no obvious reason, and because "Deaths in 20XX" are too big to find useful information there. It is these misgivings that haven't been fairly acknowledged. Moreover, solutions without the need for cherry-picking do exist (such as the cross-section of such lists in various RSs), and have been proposed in the discussion, but they drowned in this flurry of tearing down existing practices and belittling the regulars. That's why I continue to say that we need to start behaving constructively and cooperate to come up with various alternatives for the community to decide. — Yerpo Eh? 17:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, why do readers "expect" to find cherry-picked deaths in these articles? and why does it matter that RY appears different? You shouldn't resist change and improvement on the basis that pages before RY suffer(ed) from the same issue. I notice that Football World Cup / European Cup articles have been written differently year to year, following improvements and access to information, different ways of presenting information, improvement to style etc. Sure, you want consistency but not at the detriment to quality. Ever. Nobody is going to be bothered when years from 20XX stop cherry-picking deaths in the same way previous years did. And the baseless assumption that they will is not defence enough to keep a terrible system in place. And the absence of another system is not enough to keep it in place either. I again propose we simply link to deaths UNTIL a better selection is suggested. Problems with DEATHS articles <<<< problems with defective cherry-picking. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Events are also cherry-picked and nobody is saying that we should just erase everything and leave just a bunch of links to other pages. That certainly doesn't equate quality. And again, this is meant to stimulate people to come up with a better alternative, not jump at the most comfortable (and lazy) solution. — Yerpo Eh? 16:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the selection method for events is also deeply flawed and we'll get onto that in due course. Arguing to the contrary is a bit silly in the face of all the RFCs which have contradicted the status quo.  It may be that we do erase everything and leave links, but now we have a decent set of community eyes on the problems, not just the three or four regulars, we'll get a heap more better ideas than just "accept the current approach because it's all we have". The Rambling Man (ta Ulk) 17:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you bashing the straw man an repeating the same clichés again? I'm not defending the status quo but encouraging the search for better alternatives. Next time, please read my message before replying. — Yerpo Eh? 09:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did read your attack on others. You accused people of being "lazy" which is somewhat close to hilarious given you and your regular buddies lazy acceptance of a "it will do for now" inclusion criterion for years, and then actively defending it in clear opposition to the wishes of the community.  It's not strawman, it's fact.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I said it was the most lazy option. Or do you deny that deleting everything requires by far the least effort of all the options that have been brought up? And yes, it is a straw man, because I'm not so foolish to try to force my opinion on the community (which of course would be impossible). Explaining what I think are the merits of the status quo even when I know most people don't agree is something completely different, and, in case you missed it, I've even tried to come up with a different solution. But even bad solutions can contain some useful idea, it's not a black-and-white world. So don't oversimplify. — Yerpo Eh? 10:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Yerpo: Fair point, though I would question events too. However, the articles seem to suffer most regarding DEATHS and there isn't a clear method of linking to ALL events in the same way as there is for deaths. And you didn't answer my questions: why do readers "expect" to find cherry-picked deaths in these articles? And why does it matter that RY appear different? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I repeat: consistency. And it's what many RSs do (examples: 1, 2, 3). If we don't provide it, the readers will go elsewhere. — Yerpo Eh? 12:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your fist link is to an obituary. Of course that will document deaths. Your second link appears to list hundreds of deaths and doesn’t appear to be any more abridged than our own Deaths in XXXX articles. Your third link is another obituary and is actually titled “The great, the good and the lesser known”, also lists hundreds of deaths. So many in fact, it has a filter function. So these examples do not justify having a cherry-picked list of deaths in an article about a year. If anything they justify what I was proposing – a link to a separate page regarding deaths. They certainly don’t demonstrate that “readers expect to see a cherry-picked list in these articles”. And "consistency" isn't a justification for repeating mistakes. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your comment. What obituary? All three link to lists of notable deaths in a year. With the exception of the second one, they are exclusive enough to be easily navigable by month (as WP:RY deaths) and if we use a cross-section, they would be even shorter. — Yerpo Eh? 13:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My comment was pretty easy to understand mate. I asked you why you think readers expect to see cherry-picked deaths in a Year article, rather than an exhaustive separate list of all deaths in its own article. You’re arguing that its some kind of common procedure, and yet two of your examples are pure obituaries (as in a list of deaths) and not year compendiums, while the other is just as big as our own Deaths In articles. So they all fail to support your argument. If anything, they support mine! 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They don't. All three are cherry-picked, with even the largest one almost 20 times (!) shorter than our "Deaths In YYYY" lists (if you add all months together). True, two of them are stand-alone, but this difference becomes merely academic if neither RY nor "Deaths In YYYY" lists provide comparable overviews. Also, your comment was not easy to understand because the word "obituary" doesn't mean "a list of deaths", but "a notice of a person's death usually with a short biographical account" ref, which made me think that you weren't looking at the web pages I linked. — Yerpo Eh? 14:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why ARE you guys so frosty about this?! I know what an obituary is mate. And I still don't see how showing me webpages about deaths, are good examples of how cherry-picked deaths are expected in a Year review article. I also notice those articles you think shine a light on our process contain people who aren't internationally notable. I mean, I don't mind what examples you give - it's for your benefit really that you chose ones that are persuasive for your argument.

62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the question where to put the cherry-picked list is secondary. Some of the choices may seem trivial by our standards, but that's because a publication's editors will pick those deemed to be of interest to that publication's readers. Seeing that we're a general encyclopedia, we can be more selective and construct a cross-section of those sources to exclude people not of general interest (Britannica does it too, in a way). PS: it wasn't my intention to come across frosty, I just wanted to avoid misunderstanding from the outset. — Yerpo Eh? 16:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No - Why would there be a criteria which measures notability by the quantity of Wikipedia articles? At what point was it decided Wikipedia can accurately gauge a subject's notability but only for these types of articles? Perhaps we need a quick refresher: we are here to reflect upon the coverage a subject receives, not decide whether they deserve that said coverage. Compound this issue with editors who hold a firm ethnocentric view on notability and we have an ideal environment for editorial partisanship.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No Per everyone else above. AIR corn (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Who on here is ethnocentric? Jim Michael (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So that's the only bit of TGS's summary you disagree with? That's good. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No – Ad hoc criteria do not reflect mainstream notability of deaths as reported by sources. Editor judgment is subjective, even when cloaked in elitist arguments such as "Scientist S is more important than politician P or celebrity C". If that's what we want, then notability and sourcing criteria must be challenged across the board, not in a walled garden of RY articles. — JFG talk 08:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - What's the point of this RFC? I don't think anyone particularly likes the current system for determining which names to include in RY articles, but the question as posed is misleading (no one defines international notability as "the existence of nine or more non-English Wikpiedia articles about a subject at the time of death") and serves no clear purpose, especially given that you've asked respondents to ignore the context and treat the question as some sort of stand-alone inquiry. Where is this going to get us? Knocking over the strawman you've created isn't going to improve RY in any way; it isn't even a first step in that direction. -- Irn (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm, I don't know if you've read this project page's own definitions: Births are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in English and at least nine non-English languages about the individual in question. ...The same criteria apply to deaths as to births... They were put into place and have been strenuously defended so saying that "...no one defines international notability as..." is flat-out incorrect.  The RfC proposer didn't make it up out of whole cloth to make another group of editors look bad (which is what "strawman" actually means). Rather, it's the actual definition of what was, until recently, a policy guideline that we're now being requested to comment on.  This RFC is designed to decide if those definitions are useful, which your comment seems to imply you think they aren't. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As Arthur Rubin explained above, the 9-Wikipedia criterion is a proxy; no one thinks that it defines notability. The RFC is only asking if we agree with that definition. But since no one (other than TRM in this RFC) has put that forth as a definition, it's a strawman. If the question were, "Do we think that it works as an appropriate proxy or can we come up with something better?", that could be productive, but that question is explicitly excluded in the formulation of this RFC. -- Irn (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll explain as clearly as I can. This nine-Wikipedia rule was somehow indoctrinated into full Wikipedia guideline status following a "vote" of around six people, some of whom didn't even really agree with it.  Since then it has been used to summarily reject individuals who are clearly notable given the volume of international coverage their deaths have received.  The RFC has been formulated in such a way as to get as much "outside RY" commentary as possible.  This used to be a closed shop, the regulars running the place and rejecting anything that didn't meet their expectations.  Now, at least, we're getting more eyes on the pages, and this is step one, nothing to do with a strawman.  Is any criterion that relies on unreliable sources a useful barometer of anything?  Unequivocally no.  In my opinion, but this RFC aims to get full consensus for that.  Then we can spend (probably a lot of) time coming up with a solution.  Mine is to link to Deaths in 2017 which is comprehensive and doesn't cherry-pick based on unreliable sources.  Or use an ITNC model where people are included based on a community consensus and a minimum quality threshold.  Both are superior to this unreliable source method of cherry picking.  But until we establish the current methodology is duff, there's no point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Don't fall into the Jim Michael trap, this isn't "abandoning" anything.  This changes nothing, other than opening the door for an RFC which will result in a change to the criteria.  And a much wider audience to assist in that process.  This isn't about users, this is about readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


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

Do we need "Recent Years"?
Following some debate over the scope of the "Recent years" mini-project, it's become apparent that there seems no real clear reason, especially from our reader's perspective, why we have WP:YEARS and WP:RY. The arbitrary decision to select 2002 as the crossover point also appears to relate to the invention of Wikipedia. But why would our readers be interested in that? Why do year articles from 2002 onwards need to be treated any differently to year articles from 2001 back? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the foundation of Wikipedia has no bearing on whether we should consider a year "recent". To me, the "recentism" of a year is a slow continuum between "news" and "history", hence my proposal to include the last 20 years, after which everything is history. See above at . — JFG talk 20:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've started a formal RFC on this below. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria / motives of editors

 * Most of the people who object to the inclusion criteria are people who want one particular event or person included and don't know that international notability is required. They usually don't come back, because they only wanted to include one particular event that happened in their country or one particular entertainer/sportsperson included - most don't care about the article or project in general. Jim Michael (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on the comments Jim. You got more folks commenting because they were RFCs and not just limited to your little group of oversighters. Times are changing and so is this mini project. Many of us are here to stay. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be better if there were far more regular editors - but few stick around. Jim Michael (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm here for the longhaul. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Jim, are you saying that everyone here who thinks the inclusion criteria is problematic, are just butthurt about not having their favourite star included?? Christ. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but most of the people who've disagreed with the RY criteria over the past few years do merely want one particular event or person included. Jim Michael (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see it that way. People come to include an event or a person, fall afoul of the criteria (either stated in RY or implied per local habit), start discussing with the "regulars", cannot convince them of anything, and give up. Status quo is effectively perpetuated. — JFG talk 19:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But most of them only want to include one particular domestic event or a particular entertainer/sportsperson etc. whom they're a fan of. Most aren't interested in improving the article, the criteria or being consistent. Jim Michael (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And with that assumption, you reject each and every person who may want to improve the articles beyond a single entry… Even when other editors agree that their rules are arbitrary, they won't change a thing. I remember pointing out that the International Year of the Potato was perhaps not a notable event, or that tracking atmospheric carbon levels was perhaps out of scope, but well nobody moved a finger. — JFG talk 23:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not an assumption - most of the objectors over the past few years have been centred on merely adding one event or person - with no other interest in the article or project. Jim Michael (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:ABF, and please, [citation needed]. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's not an assumption - I know it to be true. There's no doubt - I've followed the history of RY articles and their talk pages for years. Typically, a person who disagrees wants only to add one domestic event or a person whom (s)he's a fan of who's not internationally notable. This has happened many times. Jim Michael (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, WP:ABF, [citation needed] and actually, once again WP:OWN. Let's see what evidence you have and why it would be so damaging for this article.  It's getting to the point where all you and the other regulars do is revert other good faith editors.  And nothing more.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How many times do I need to tell you? I'm not assuming - I know from years of experience on RY articles. You can see it from the history of RY articles and their talk pages.
 * Why what would be damaging for the article?
 * We do a lot of reverting the additions of non-eligible additions. Whether they're good-faith or not, they don't belong here, so they're rightfully removed.
 * Jim Michael (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You assume bad faith, that's clear from what you write. The history of RY tells the same story: you and the regular three or four object to anything outside your enclave's internal acceptance criteria.  Your group's assumption of bad faith on all other editors is clear.  Your "right to remove" will soon disappear, as the "guideline" will soon become an "essay", the next step will be to remove the arcane regulations (primarily) you impose on additions, so we can expect an article for English readers that genuinely represents what they would expect to see.  You may not be around to help with that journey, but rest assured, it's going to happen.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not true - that's merely what you infer. We remove unjustified additions regardless of whether they are in good or bad faith. The current guideline was established and modified over a period of years by several regulars, some of whom are no longer editing. It's not about what the largest number of people would expect to see - it's about internationally historically notable events and internationally notable people only. We're not a tabloid or a popularity contest. We aren't aiming to beat rivals to gain the most readers or praise. Jim Michael (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

And that, exactly, is not what our community or readers want. Thanks for expressing it so clearly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You, TRM, are probably the first person objecting to WP:RY, since it was first proposed, whose stated goal was not to add a specific person or event which was excluded by the guideline/essay. I don't see your proposals as an improvement, but, at least your stated goal doesn't involve specific people.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Come again? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I initially proposed the insertion of a particular event, I ended up questioning the relevance of many other entries, contradictions in the rules, and I made proposals to create a process that would result in recent-year articles more reflective of the zeitgeist of each year as reported by WP:RS. See Talk:2016/Archive 2, Talk:2016/Archive 2 and particularly my comment here, to which a "regular" even agreed. — JFG talk 09:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is, does it really matter what the motives of prior editors were? All that matters is that it has drawn our attention to a problem. The fact that there has been so many issues regarding what event/person is included, merely reinforces the notion that the selection criteria is vague, subjective and inconsistent. You wouldn't have arguments if the criteria was understandable and quantitative. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the year range for WP:RY (2002–2017) be changed?
I'm not sure whether years like 2002, 2003, etc should be considered to be "recent years" any more. The "2002 to present" rule has been in place since 2012, and there's no process by which this 2002 start point will be changed in the future. I would suggest that a new policy should be that WP:RY applies from [ten years ago] to [the current year]. So, as the current year is 2017, WP:RY would apply to the years between 2007 and 2017, inclusive. Next year, in 2018, WP:RY will apply from the years between 2008 and 2018 inclusive. And so on. What do you think? Good idea or bad idea? Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 12:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The reason for 2002 to be the year it that the stricter criteria start is that it was the first full year of Wikipedia's existence. Also, if the start year of RY were moved forwards, those years no longer in its scope would be flooded with domestic and insufficiently significant events. Jim Michael (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't think it matters that much. WP:RY is just an essay, so it's ok if it's a little bit fuzzy what years it applies to. Regardless of what the essay says, a discussion of what's important to include in 2002 will necessarily be different than 2016 because of the types of sources that will be available. We should not based any content decisions on on when Wikipedia started (completely irrelevant) or the hypothetical possiblity that the articles will be flooded (FUD). agt x  19:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would we want to do this? That is, what is there to be gained by making this change? As Jim alluded to, RY was created in response to a need: because of the nature of the Internet and the nature of Wikipedia, articles covering years after the creation of Wikipedia need to be treated differently than those for years prior. You're correct that 2002 isn't so "recent" anymore, but if that's really a problem, the solution shouldn't be to change the scope of RY but rather to rename RY to better describe its scope. -- irn (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It could be renamed, but I can't think of a better name. Years 2002 onwards? Years 2002 - present? Jim Michael (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for the responses all. So, WP:RY isn't really about recent years at all, but it's actually about years in the internet era when there's more available information. In which case, I would suggest renaming "Recent years" to "21st century years". It's the most concise name. (That name would also include the year 2001, though; I don't know whether that would be an issue). Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 07:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles were flooded before WP:RY was implemented, and some are becoming flooded again.
 * As for 2002, it was selected, in part, because of the 9-Wikipedia rule. Before that, (in 2007-2009), the coverage start changed between 10 years back, 1990, and 2000.  With no 9-Wikipedia rule, there's no reason not to go back to 2001.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would keep the "recent years" name but extend its scope to the last 20 years. This would mitigate the "fear of flooding" with less-relevant events if we only go 10 years back. After a generation (20 years), news become history, and significance is much easier to assess. — JFG talk 03:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


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

Comment this raises an important point, why should we have so-called "recent years" at all? Just because Wikipedia came into existence 15 years ago, why should that mark the beginning of some new "recent years" epoch? The world very much doesn't revolve around Wikipedia, far from it, so there seems like a reasonable argument to get rid of "Recent years" altogether and just stick with WP:YEARS. After all, in 2037 time, who would actually consider 2003 to be a "recent year"? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, RY was created in response to a need: because of the nature of the Internet and the nature of Wikipedia, articles covering years after the creation of Wikipedia need to be treated differently than those for years prior. -- irn (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think that misses points on two counts. Firstly recent years aren't recent if they're decades ago.  Secondly, there is no reason to treat 2002 as some kind of watershed year.  We have tons of reliable sources that could be used and applied to decades and decades of year articles.  This is an artificial construct which does not serve our readers at all.  What makes you think articles about things that happened aftern2002 "need to be treated differently"?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the foundation of Wikipedia has no bearing on whether we should consider a year "recent". To me, the "recentism" of a year is a slow continuum between "news" and "history", hence my proposal to include the last 20 years, after which everything is history., would you support that range? — JFG talk 20:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that this has fundamentally highlighted that we don't actually need a concept of "Recent years" because it's meaningless to our readers, and certainly muddies the water when it comes to applying different inclusion criteria to recent and non-recent years. Why should our readers be subjected to that absurdity? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Recent years" criteria may not be needed if there were criteria for inclusion in year articles in WP:YEARS. The criteria could become more strict as years go forward, representing the fact that more information is available about more recent years than less recent years, and 150K lists are generally unreadable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the point is being missed. Why would our readers expect there to be some mysterious cut-off point beyond which different inclusion criteria apply? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The idiot that I am, could someone explain to me in plain English why years 2002+ need to be treated differently? I'm missing something here. I get that's when Wikipedia was born but what actual difference does that make again? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because 2002 was the first year article that was compiled at the time, rather than retrospectively. Jim Michael (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No reason at all 62.255, the claim that the "birth of Wikipedia" should somehow define an epoch-marking moment in history is patently absurd and an insult to our readers. They couldn't and shouldn't care less when Wikipedia's first "year" article was created, that's pure navel-gazing at its worst, and perpetuated by this odd "mini-project".  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 20 years seems like a good range, as JFG suggested.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hidden comments
I have noticed a trend by which editors add a hidden comment to recent years articles when they believe that an event or a death shouldn't be on this list, like this and this. This happens without any discussion on the talk page. In the case of the second comment re the Las Vegas shooting, the consensus on the talk page (after a real discussion) was to include the event. I'm not opposed to hidden comments where there's been a discussion that's come to a consensus, but simply putting it there because one editor thinks an event/death shouldn't be on the page violates WP:HIDDEN and prevents the discussion from happening in the first place. I'm going to start removing such comments on sight, unless there's actual consensus on the talk page to keep the event/death off the page. agt x 14:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, but an invisible comment that something should not be added unless consensus is obtained seems appropriate. There being no standard for inclusion, WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN suggests that disputed material, or even material with disputed significance, be excluded until there is consensus for inclusion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hidden notes that claim some kind of authority on what should and what should not be included should be discouraged. Authority on what to include comes from consensus, not individual opinion, even if apparently backed by some hidden consensus or an essay. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My God, this whole thing just gets worse and worse. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that violates WP:HIDDEN. That guideline says "When it is a mere local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus." If the recent RFCs have made anything clear, it's that WP:RY is exactly the definition of mere local consensus. Citing WP:BRD also doesn't make sense because it literally ignores the first step by telling people not to make the bold edit. If something is being re-added frequently enough that there's a need for a hidden comment telling people not to do it, what that really shows is that there's a need for a discussion. Not having one is unacceptable. agt x  18:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

There are three key ways forward:


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

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

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

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

This could also work for events in exactly the same way. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The community was not asked "whether international notability could be established by the weird 9 Wikipedia rule". The RFC only established that "international notability ≠ existence of nine or more non-English Wikipedia articles". No one ever made the opposite claim, namely that “international notability = existence of nine or more non-English Wikipedia articles”. As Arthur Rubin explained: "The criterion is "international notability". The 9-Wikipedia criterion was intended as an objective proxy for the subjective term "international notability"". The 9-Wikipedia criterion is a tool. If we want to debate the usefulness of that tool or see if we can come up with a better tool or process, let's do that. But to point to the RFC as proof that “there is no need to even refer to this disgraced rule.” is simply mistaken. -- irn (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be 's understanding of the "9 wiki" rule, but I don't see evidence which supports that as being the actual intent. From what I can tell, this essay was  by the apparently-departed editor .  This first draft contained both the 9 wiki rule and the three-continent rule and had no explanaiton of how those rules were chosen.  Actually, Wrad started with a 10 wiki rule but neither at that time nor when it was reduced to nine did anyone say "this is an objective proxy".  At most, it seems that, as soon as Wrad started it, it was used because the only alternative suggested was .  The RFC did establish that the 9 wiki rule is problematic and no longer as widely accepted.  The IP editor is right to suggest that we need to establish a rule that has better support.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not easy to find specific diffs, but it seemed obvious to me at the time that the criteria was international notability, with a modification for deaths that the person's life was notable during xer lifetime, and later modified per discussion at WT:RY and at WT:YEARS that, for deaths, xe must be notable for something xe did, not for something that happened to xer. I'm not sure it would be constructive to look for diffs, as this criteria would require an objective proxy, which would be difficult to find.
 * I agree we need to establish an objective set of criteria, but the RfC was written badly, and there is little agreement as to the meaning of the close.  Certainly, WP:RY is the only set of criteria which ever had even a limited agreement.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The intention doesn't matter. You can just mentally strike that part out of my comment so that it reads "The criterion is "international notability". The 9-Wikipedia criterion is an objective proxy for the subjective term "international notability"", and the point still stands. -- irn (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

My goodness, that's pedantic. There is literally nothing different between what you and I said the RFC established. Out trots the usual "oooh, I agree we should discuss a way forward!" followed by a digressive bawl defending the 9 Wiki rule without actually saying anything of value. You and Arthur need to let it go. Everyone thinks its ubershit. It was utterly annihilated in two (soundly and clearly written) RFC's which saw it downgraded and then completely dismissed as a useful method of assessment. Why are we still talking about it? And Christ Arthur is now actually going to argue that 'there is no consensus as to what the consensus means'? Oh dear. Move on guys, it's just sounding sour and a little embarrassing now. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to think I’m splitting hairs, but as far as I can tell, no one thinks the 9-wiki rule adequately defines international notability; some people, however, support it as the best option at the moment (that is, it works as a proxy in lieu of a better solution). By asking only if "Is the definition of "international notability" the existence of nine or more non-English Wikpedia articles about a subject at the time of death?", the RFC missed the mark completely because that's not the issue.
 * You think I'm being pedantic, but the difference between our interpretations of the RFC has really important consequences: my interpretation renders it essentially meaningless and yours would throw out the 9-wiki rule entirely, replacing it with nothing. Neither you nor I can speak for how every single !vote in that RFC interpreted the question – whether they would agree with you and Eggishorn or with me and Arthur. That right there is the problem. -- irn (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. You have to try pretty hard to interpret the RFC in any other way than a complete dismissal of the current selection criteria. It doesn't matter if it's "better than nothing". It's not good enough. It's not good at all. People think its awful. And that's a meaningful result (for those willing to accept meaning). And you are being disingenuous by making out the fall back is nothing. The fall back, as it is currently, is debate. You mistakenly think the wishy-washy, non-binding, deregulated and now disgraced essay still has a role to play in selection. It quite clearly doesn't. Even Arthur Rubin has said so in the last discussion where he admitted in absence of any consensus otherwise, a person would not be included according to the essay. Which means if a few people wanted the person included regardless of what the disfavoured essay says, they would be included. So with little confidence in the essay, this renders it completely redundant. So rather than continue this futile argument over a dead essay, or pretending an RFC result that was not in your favour is for some reason "meaningless" (uh huh), lets spend our time productively discussing a new essay that can guide future discussion on individual inclusion. Because as it stands, the current essay is NOT guiding anything. I just don't understand why you, Arthur and Jim want to spend all your time looping the same argument - let go, mate. It's nothing personal, its just a stupid essay. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any rational person can interpret the RfC as meaning anything other than what it says &mdash; the 9-Wikipedia rule is not the definition of international importance. Many (but not all) comments indicate the 9-Wikipedia rule is absurd, or should not be used (but not necessarily both).  There are few comments on the rest of WP:RY.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever Arthur, the RFC has drawn a line through your awful rule, which shouldn't have been a rule and now isn't one. Talk about something else, this is a waste of time. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


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

Rewrite to reflect essay status
This no longer being a guideline (and questionably ever really being one, per the RfC above), is wording needs to be rewritten in an advisory not commanding tone. I've started at the top (series of tweaks, plus a fix by TRM, compressed into a single diff: ), and hope this will inspire some others to reshape it into a properly advisory essay. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made some edits to this end as well. agt x  16:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it might have been better to just mark it as historic and start again. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye. It doesn't need a rewrite, it needs deleting. There isn't any part of the essay that is relevant or worth keeping. Better to start again clean, with honest language and concise guidance, rather than mock-authority, cloaked language set up as a trump card for the tiny RY clique. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think you can write a better RY essay/guideline, you're welcome do so in your sandbox - and see if many other people agree with you. Jim Michael (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like we should wait for the RFC to close, since the way it's going now, it's not at all clear there's consensus to have an RY standard at all. agt x  18:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


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

Might I make a suggestion or two? 's position is obviously fixed and not likely not change, as is his right. It is equally obviously a very minority position and has been thoroughly disputed. No passing neutral reader is going to slog through the kilobytes that have been spilled (including by me) defending or disputing it at this point so we may as well get back to the RfC. The RFC is itself overlong and I've placed it at WP:ANRFC. Once that's over, there seems to be a developing sentiment that this should be put out of everyone's misery so it should probably just be taken out behind the sheds at MfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have denied the request and would like to see the RFC run for it's entire course.Echo your first two lines, except the fact that a behaviour (I percieve as intentional disruption) is Jim's right. And, obviously, the best way to avoid these boring long threads is linked with a good understanding of the first law at WP:CGTW.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 06:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you could say that holding a position strongly is a right, intentional disruption is not, and we have admins who get to decide when the former becomes the latter. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC: International notability - All sections

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I know there is another RFC still open but it does not seem to be going anywhere meaningful. I propose to replace the section "Inclusion and exclusion criteria" with the following:


 * "Recent years pages are intended to provide an overview of events of international and lasting notability that occur during that year:
 * In general, events meeting this criterion should recieve significant independent news reporting from at least three continents or should recieve coverage by multiple reliable sources as one of the most significant global events to have occured during that year. (For example in a year in review article in a major newspaper).
 * Births or Deaths which recieve significant independent news reporting from three continents or recieve coverage by multiple reliable sources as one of the most important global events to have occured during that year are included in this criterion.
 * Some categories of reccuring events often recieve significant international coverage but are still not usually of lasting notability. We have special additional rules to deal with these categories. If such events recieve coverage by multiple reliable sources as one of the most significant global events to have occured during that year this may be evidence that they are of unusual importance and should be included.

Then, we would retain the other sub-sections - with the exception of the three continent rule, births and deaths which would be subsumed above.

I think that this change would improve the balance of recent years articles. Dramatically reduce squabbling over dumb things and give a more balanced overall picture. There might be a lag with a few things until reliable sources start to round up a year but I think that is emmiently preferable to the current arbitrary standards which manage to be both too flexible (to allow random dead musicians and athletes who happen to be WP:BIAS beneficiaries) and too inflexible (not allowing election of Donald Trump on 2016 even though we can now clearly see it was one of the most significant events of the year.)

I am not a wiki policy wonk and I am sure there are some flaws in what i have put above, but we can correct small things later. I hope this would be a positive change that would fix a lot of the big issues we nearly all seem to acknowledge. AlasdairEdits (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose your proposal just gives more latitude to hidden rules and subversive "we don't do that" approaches, because something like "... significant independent news reporting ..." needs objective criteria to assess against. We need something concrete that can't be over-ruled by regulars who claim some kind of provenance, e.g. "the death is reported in at least two reliable sources in at least two continents".  As for events, similar applies.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * PS, the other RFC is perfectly meaningful, it's enabling a much wider audience to comment on the current situation and therefore hopefully bringing more views to the next phase: the solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think editors understand words like significant, independent and reliable - these are concepts that are enshrined within wikipedia that we have to deal with every day, they are not totally objective of course but they are also not at all arbitrary. This is my attempt at a solution. I am trying to strike a balance between now and "just an article of links to other X in RY articles" neither of which serve our readers. AlasdairEdits (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what you're trying to do, it fails, but it's good to make a effort. My approach was to gather together as many interested individuals as possible and then get a brainstorm on how to fix it all up.  To each their own. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This resembles one of my suggestioms above.  It would be constructive even if the other active RfC were constructive.  (NOTE: I'm not saying the other RfC was not intended to be constructive, just that it could not be constructive.)  I think "significant" coverage is good phrasing. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ironic, isn't it, that the other RFC is getting so much discussion and support in favour of finding an alternative solution. It's done exactly what it intended to do, i.e. get many more eyes on the problem rather than just the regulars who keep stonewalling.  This "one-size-fits-all" suggestion is well-intended, but not adequate.  We need to work with the community to come up with more precisely and objectively defined criteria, not the current bizarre carnival of oddities that currently consitutes the essay for inclusion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a proposed alternative solution. Why are you opposed to any proposed solutions?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to "any" proposed solution, that's a lie. I'm opposed to this proposal.  Please don't make false assertions yet again.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You have opposed all proposed solutions or specific changes (and most insufficiently specfic changes) which have been presented other than by yourself.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Arthur, are we going to have to bring this up at Arbcom? Diffs that prove I have "opposed all proposed solutions or specific changes " right now or a redaction and retraction of your accusation is needed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's impossible very difficult to prove a negative. However, if there is a specific proposal at WT:RY, other than those you proposed, which you did not oppose, and you can provide a diff, I'll admit my error.  I can provide many diffs where you opposed proposals, but it wouldn't prove anything.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be impossible to demonstrate in the space available. I would have to list each formal proposal (and I could not prove I caught all of them), and point to one of your diffs opposing each one.  If you believe the statement to be false, you could easily point to a specific proposal which you did not oppose; it would be easy enough for me to verify you didn't oppose the proposal, although I obviously couldn't provide proof.
 * Before you bring up the proposal to eliminate the #Deaths sections from RY articles, you made the proposal before it was formally asked as a question requesting response, so it doesn't count as a proposal you didn't make. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Rubin, you don't have many options here, either provide diffs that support your unsubstantiated claim or remove the claim. You're already about to be desyssoped for making false and unsubstantiated claims, continued abuse like this will result in you being blocked. I'm sure you don't want that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for those diffs. The onus is absolutely 100% on you to prove your assertion. You know that, or at least you should know that as you are currently still an admin and that kind of thing is like Admin 101.  You can't just level an unfounded accusation at someone and then state they need to defend it.  I'm sure you don't want to be blocked, but continuing to edit like this will ultimately result in you being banned from Wikipedia.  If you don't redact your latest unfounded accusations, I'll ask Arbcom to add it to the ongoing case as further evidence that not only can you not be trusted with the admin tools, but you can't be trusted here at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I can provide diffs that you have opposed many proposals; but diffs are not necessary – the presence of your "Oppose" !vote is sufficient evidence. Diffs would be insufficient to prove my statement, as I might have missed a proposal.  The onus is on you to point to a proposal, which was not originally made by you, which you failed to oppose.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop making unfounded accusations about me. I won't ask again, I will simply report you to Arbcom for each and every single infraction where you make an accusation and then refuse to back it up without any evidence whatsoever.  The presence of my oppose vote here does not equate to your claim that I am "opposed to any proposed solutions".  That is a pure lie and you need to redact it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

How about deaths of (former) heads of state/government? Many of them aren't widely reported by the media. Jim Michael (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Deaths of individual of international and lasting significance like Nelson Mandela or Fidel Castro they are. minor heads of state of random  small nations not so much. I don't propose to keep any special categories for inclusionAlasdairEdits (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Where would you draw the line in regard to heads of state/government? Jim Michael (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just don't draw any line, to do so encourages systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How would we decide which (former) heads of state should be included and which should not? The guide of including all of them made sense - a leader of a nation is by definition of significant international notability. To include some but not others will be deemed as bias towards some parts of the world and bias against others. Jim Michael (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Include them all. ITNR has a good stab at this.  Then there is no bias, simply reporting everyone.  It's very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN doesn't include all or nearly all of them. We have been including them all on RY articles for years - so we agree on the matter of including all (former) heads of state/government. Jim Michael (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Only because ITN insists on a minimum quality threshold and no BLP violations, unlike this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting dead people under BLP rules is factually wrong. Excluding internationally notable people from Year articles - just because their articles don't meet a particular standard - would mean that some of the most notable people would be missing. That doesn't help anyone. Jim Michael (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you may need to read WP:BLP Jim. You are factually wrong (again).  And many individuals are missing from your cherry-picked list.  That doesn't help anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not my personal list - it was formed by following RY criteria which had been written by the regulars over a period of years. I'm not aware of any internationally notable people who died this year who are missing from 2017. Jim Michael (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So redact your BLP violations, and of course you're not aware of any missing people because you have your own version of "internationally notable" which is not commensurate with the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What BLP vios? I'm not responsible for vios of any kind which were added by other people to articles which I've linked to - whether on RY articles or elsewhere. As far as I'm aware, all of the people who have significant international notability and died this year are currently in this article. Jim Michael (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The statements you yourself have made. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Generally support. I think this proposal takes the best of the current policy while removing the worst of it. The key point is that the proposal frames international notability in terms of the coverage of the event as opposed to the event itself. An event can be "domestic" in nature while still being internationally notable, and I think that a number of those have gotten lost previously. I do still think it needs some fine-tuning. The biggest hole I see in the "three continent" rule is that it automatically creates a systemic bias because Australia is its own continent and is culturally similar to the US/Canada (North America) and the UK (Europe). I don't want to make a kind of rule where Australia doesn't "count," but I'm not sure how else to resolve the issue. agt x  15:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why the three-continent rule wasn't enough by itself to demonstrate international notability. It was merely one of the requirements. Jim Michael (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, a requirement that the regulars on these pages invoked when it was something they wanted to have on the page and pooh-poohed when it wasn't. Consider such absurd discussions as this one on the Charlie Hebdo shooting and this one on the US same-sex marriage decision. Under the proposal above, both of these events would be listed in the article (as I think is proper, and as Charlie Hebdo eventually was). I agree that there is no need for a bright-line rule here, but I think that reference to coverage in reliable sources is way better than discussions about "international impact" without citation to any sources. agt x  15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – This is a really good start. The biggest problem we currently have is determining what is and what is not "internationally significant". I don't think this proposal adequately addresses that problem, but it is better than our current system. I particularly like the addition regarding reliable sources assessing events as the most significant events of the year, although that does have the potential to create a system where the page is relatively bare for most of the year with a flurry of additions at the end of the year/beginning of the following year. I don't like the emphasis on the coverage of deaths; I think the emphasis should be on the person, not their death. Someone's death could go relatively unnoticed when their life was very significant. But I don't think the converse is true: if someone's death does receive the requisite coverage, then that does some indicative of significance. -- Irn (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - someone can have a long, successful career but their death still receives little attention. That's the case with most of the important scientists (because most people aren't interested in them) and with many sportspeople who retired many years before their deaths and vanished from the public eye. It can even be the case with entertainers - for example, Lauren Bacall's death received little media coverage. However, it's not true to say that a high-profile death proves (s)he had an internationally (or even nationally) important career. A death can receive a large amount of coverage due to there being legal action, campaigning etc. involved (such as Terri Schiavo and Charlie Gard) - or due having been the victim of a high-profile murder (such as Rachel Nickell). Jim Michael (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I agree with everything you wrote in that comment. I apologize for the apparent contradiction in my comment as a result of not expressing myself clearly. While I think the focus should be on the person's life, I also think that people whose deaths were notable internationally ought to be considered as well. (Neither Rachel Nickell, Terri Schiavo, nor Charlie Gard has their own article, so those aren't the best examples. I was thinking someone more along the lines of Berta Cáceres.) I expect you to still disagree with that, and I don't hope to convince you otherwise. I just wanted to make sure I was expressing myself clearly. -- Irn (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Caceres was little-known outside her country during her lifetime. The circumstances of her death is the main thing that brought media coverage of her. This often happens with victims of murder who were of fairly low notability during their lifetimes, such as Sharon Tate and Rebecca Schaeffer. Jim Michael (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. If those deaths received the requisite coverage, then that would seem indicative of significance to me, but not to you. Like I said, I expect you to disagree with me, and I don't hope to convince you otherwise. -- Irn (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Couldn't we find one or more reliable, international sources which provide annual reviews including obituaries, where they have already identified notability, and use these sources as the determiner? Example: say the BBC, Guardian, New York Times, Reuters, and Sky have such articles, if individual X appears in 3 of those 5, they are deemed internationally notable? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes! That's what I've been mentioning for months now. Except perhaps a non-Western one or two would be useful to avoid bias and the problem is that we can't use them for the current year. But a good idea about the subsetting, if the requirement that the individual notice to appear in all of them proves to be too harsh. — Yerpo Eh? 16:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure; if we are seeking to define international notability it would be good to include a non-western source in the list of annual review publications. But essentially, if the source is international, then their selection by default would be international too. I think it's good to be inclusive but it's also worth remembering that this is the English Wikipedia, at to some extent it is to be expected to carry some bias towards the nationality of its audience and editors, according to what sources we can find, translate and understand. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the solution for the events. Sorry, but the key requirement is too vague - what is "lasting" notability and how do you prove it if editors disagree? For this reason, I think that this proposal is not a significant improvement over the existing system. — Yerpo Eh? 18:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is far too woolly, and I'm more in favour of what has been discussed a few comments up with Yerpo - using annual review articles from reliable international sources to establish evidence of international notability; i.e. if the individual is notable enough to be included in 1/2/3/4/5 other annual review articles (from the BBC, Guardian, New York Times or whichever publications are decided to be internationally representative), then they are good enough to be included here. Simple, logical and nonsubjective. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What do we do during the current year? agt x  13:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We can use one of the other options, such as three-continent obituaries, then cleanup after the lists are published. — Yerpo Eh? 20:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Assume you mean news articles rather than obits (since we're talking about events). I think the "year in review" type pieces should be considered a preferred source for RY articles. That's a reliable source saying "here's the most important things that happened this year," which is exactly what we're looking for. I'm not convinced it should be a requirement, but it's a good indication that something should be on the page. agt x  21:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support proposal by : follow RS to compile the most influential events of each year. We could break it down by categories, using a couple sources for science, a couple others for politics, some more for entertainment, etc. — JFG talk 02:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was talking about obituaries for compiling the deaths section. As for events, we could use the same approach, of course, but I'm not sure yet what to do in the current year, because the three continent rule hasn't proven to be an effective filter. — Yerpo Eh? 05:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we have to have anything for current year? Yerpo, earlier you were championing the inclusion of cherry-picked deaths in RY articles "because its what others do". Well, if others DON'T do current year annual reviews until the end of the year, why don't we follow suit? That leaves the current year either blank, or a set of links to all encyclopaedic-worthy deaths/events. We then correlate that list, 'cherry pick' according to criteria (ie. presence in alternative obit/annual review articles) and produce our own finished annual review article just as everyone else does. Without needing weird rules fraudulently promoted to guideline status by those currently lacking credibility. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We do need a list of deaths on 2017, because many people view it each day. Many organisations have lists of notable people who've died this year so far. Jim Michael (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * many people view it each day - Links please. Many organisations have lists of notable people who've died this year so far. - Links please. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - Jim: many people view it each day - Links please. Many organisations have lists of notable people who've died this year so far. - Links please. You've been editing so you are aware of my request. If you don't have the evidence to back up your claims, no problem - simply strike them from the record. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:Pageview statistics, where you can search whichever timeframe you like, which will show you that this article receives thousands of views per day. Examples of RS which have published lists of deaths so far this year include the Daily Express People who died in 2017 and CNN People we've lost in 2017. Jim Michael (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that's great news, if we can find Reliable Sources such as these which cherry-pick in real time rather than end of year, the objection to the Annual Review/obit Reliable Source method in terms of making Current Year articles untenable, is completely overturned, wouldn't you agree? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is which sources to use. Even if we exclude tabloid sources, they will still be entertainer-centric, Americentric etc. Jim Michael (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Come on man, work with me here. For one, you can't just dismiss every RS as entertainer-centric. For two, this is Wikipedia. We aren't trying to outdo every other information source out there. If its good enough for Time magazine, or Forbes, or Reuters, or The Guardian, or the BBC, or Al Jazera, or Sky, or the New York Times etc etc. For three, a list slightly biased though its aggregation of a set of proffesional, international media group obits/annual reviews, is far far far far far superior to what you are fighting so desperately to uphold - a list biased by you and a weird, proves-nothing, principle breaching 9Wiki rule. You want to stick with something because its the best option available? Then let go of the 9wiki, cos best it certainly isn't. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for several of the above reasons. This page is not a guideline, so it shouldn't be trying to make "rules" any longer anyway. There's a germ of truth in the proposal, and a compressed version of it would probably be useful as broad advice. Take the tactic used by subject-specific notability guidelines, and address this a probability matter: "An addition to a year article is more likely to be accepted by consensus, if it has one or more of the following going for it: [bullet list here]". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Do we need to differentiate between "recent years" and other years?
The WP:RY "sub-project" (of WP:YEARS) mandates a unique set of inclusion criteria for years 2002 onwards. These criteria are not applied to years prior to 2002. Do we need to apply different inclusion criteria to year articles? Does our readership understand the reason for such differences in articles between 2001 and 2002? Or should our readers expect consistent formats across all year articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there an actual problem to address? I get the feeling that we don't bother with stricter inclusion criteria on older year articles due to reduced tendency to add trivia to them.  I'm not sure why 2002 in particular was picked. Is it just a 15-year boundary that migrates as time goes on, or set permanently at 2002?  (Never mind; discussions above answer this.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  05:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC), rev'd. 05:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC) I support the notion in a thread above to set the mark at 20 years (approx. 1 generation), which as JFG says is generally time enough for something to have transitioned from news to history and thus for its lasting importance to be more certain. However, this page is not a guideline, so anything it says should be framed as general advice, about the kind of list addition that is likely or not likely to be accepted.  We can't actually impose any rule here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, as noted, why should our readers inherently understand that articles from 2001 backward have different inclusion criteria from 2002 onward? How does this approach help our readers?  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion above indicates this date was chosen based on when WP started, and has a connection to the apparently now-rejected "seven Wikipedias rule" (which would no longer actually be a rule even if it hadn't been rejected, since this is no longer a guideline). The 2002 date is based on a string of assumptions that don't hold.  It makes more sense to set this at 20 years or so, and have the boundary auto-update. Some might prefer 10 years.  Regardless, this can be done with simple parser functions right in the page itself, so it auto-updates on its own. If the ultimate question is "should there be any difference between the 2017 and 1980 articles", I would say yes, for reasons JFG already outlined in two threads above, and which boil down the difference between well-analyzed history versus reactionarily-covered news. The closer in time to an event that seemingly secondary-source material about the event is, the more primary-source in nature that material really is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you're answering the question, why should a reader expect to see a difference between 2001 and 2002 articles? And when this "recent" window expires on an article, as the inclusion criteria no longer applies, we would expect to see a load of edits... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of the ambiguity appears to be rooted in an underlying assumption that has not been demonstrated. The original author and some other prominent editors appear to have believed that a RY guideline, and its admittedly arbitrary time cut-offs, are necessary to prevent the mass additions of spurious and frivolous entries into the 2002+ articles. This "assumes facts not in evidence," to use the legal phrase. The hypothesis that this essay  guideline essay reduced the number of entries that had to be reverted after 2010 should be testable.  I haven't seen that evidence brought forward in recent discussions here, or in the original discussions surrounding the creation of this piece.  In the absence of evidence of those problems, having any time cut-off seems needlessly arbitrary. The lede could just as easily say: "Recent year articles are among the most heavily edited..." and be done with it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "most edited" is actually factually inaccurate... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Would "...among the most-viewed..." be accurate? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, then there's no reason for the sentence to exist at all. There may not even be a reason for the essay to exist if there's no evidence of large-scale disruption and if the pages are not among the most edited or most viewed.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No. We do not need a differentiation. It's an attempted 'fix' for a problem that doesn't exist, and just convolutes our records and confuses our readers. Bin it. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. We should use the same inclusion criteria for all years, regardless of recency. Events/births/deaths of international importance as supported by reliable sources should be included. WP:YEARS is an appropriate place to centralize that effort, not this essay. The arguments I've seen to the contrary largely involve concerns about the growth of Wikipedia and of the internet, but I fail to see how that problem is unique to a handful of year pages. All this recent years business has gotten us is WP:OWN behavior and poor guidelines.  agt x  05:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, we would need a guideline for what is eligible for inclusion in any year article, whether it be in the distant past, the recent past, the present or the future. Jim Michael (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought we already had such guidelines for the entire project. What's so special about any year article, recent, ancient, or otherwise? That said, such standards are already in place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't have guidelines for what should or should not be in Year articles, but we need them. Jim Michael (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "...but we need them," um, why? Please provide some concrete evidence that year articles, especially recent ones, have created an actual (as opposed to perceived) problem to support this necessity. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The evidence is that, prior to the implementation of the RY guideline, the articles in question were flooded with insufficiently notable events and deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's extremely unconvincing to me. The attempts to curate these pages have largely failed. The recent years articles are not particularly useful right now. agt x 02:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - The growth of Wikipedia and the internet are relevant because we now have far more information compiled across Wikipedia with each passing year. I think everyone is aware of WP:RECENTISM, but I don't think everyone quite sees how that affects these articles. To try to break it down, for the year 1517, we can easily list every single person we have an article for who died in that year in the 1517 article itself. For 2017, we simply can't – the article would just get too long. The same applies to events. Consequently, we need to have a different standard for the events, births, and deaths of 2017 than we do for 1517. 2002 is an arbitrarily chosen year where this line has been drawn. If we look at the amount of information available and the number of biographical articles and articles on events, it makes sense to go with somewhere near 2001 or 2002 because that coincides with the birth of Wikipedia and the explosion of the internet, because as things happen, they are added to the encyclopedia. -- irn (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict This argument still pre-supposes that there is a problem with these articles being made "too long" and does not show any evidence of such a problem. To pick some examples at a random set of ten-year intervals, 1978 is 87,993bytes and has been viewed 7,954 times in the last 30 days, 1988 is 97,555bytes and has been viewed 12,943 times in the last 30 days, 1998 is 65,047bytes and has been viewed 15,152 times in the last 30 days while 2008 is 42,027bytes and has been viewed 13,267 times in the last 30 days. That sample, at least, shows that post-2002 articles are shorter and there is no relationship between length of the page and whether readers are likely to use the page.  There is no evidence that the essay provides any necessary selectivity. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand your point. You ask for proof that the pages have gotten too long, but RY has effectively prevented that, so it's impossible to prove. 2008 is shorter because of RY. The problem with page length isn't about how many visits a particular article may receive, but rather about readability and technical issues like load times. I readily concede that 2002 is arbitrary. Perhaps a better date would be 1990 (the invention of the World Wide Web) or 1950 (roughly the onset of the digital revolution) or even something like 1920 (to cover the lifespans of most people affected by the changes noted in my previous comment). (Regarding post-2002 articles being shorter than other year articles, I see that as a problem with the implementation/interpretation of RY and reason to change either the way it's written or interpreted, but I don't think that's reason to discard RY entirely.) -- irn (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 2008 is (was?, may be?, should have been?) covered by the essay but is a year that pre-dates the creation of the essay. If the hypothesis that this essay is necessary to prevent issues for readers is true, it should either show evidence of such a length so as to cause those problems you mention or show evidence that large post-2010 deletions were necessary and justified by the essay to remove such problems.  As shown above, the length is obviously not a problem in comparison to other year articles not covered by the policy and the edit history of the page does not show any such large efforts were undertaken to bring it in line with the essay.  In other words, this sample at least does not support the hypothesis that is basal to the need for this essay and I have seen no-one providing any positive evidence for the hypothesis.  In the absence of such evidence, we should consider the hypothesis unproven and the essay not needed.
 * tl;dr version: We don't have any reason to believe that such readability issues exist or that the essay solves any concrete problem. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So the condition of the 2008 article is what led to the creation of RY. By the end of June 2008, the 2008 article was already over 90,000 bytes. With six more months to go in the year, it was already in "probably should be divided" territory and clearly on a path to exceeding "almost certainly should be divided" territory, and the efforts that went into trimming it back are ultimately what led to the creation of RY (see the section above ). -- irn (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being the first to provide some version of the evidence I've been stating has been lacking throughout these multiple discussions, . I obviously didn't go back far enough in the edit history.  That said, I don't agree that the page history shows good evidence that the article was getting too long and would have created difficulties even if allowed to grow unchecked.  There are literally 10,000 pages that are currently longer than 2008 at it greatest extent.  Even on my 5-year-old Android phone, I have zero problems loading or reading Raymond Burr (119,842bytes).  It didn't even choke on 1944 Birthday Honours (500,083 bytes).  Admittedly, List of members of the Lok Sabha 1952-2017 at 1,113,541bytes does crash my phone's app, but that's an order of magnitude bigger than any post-2002 year article I looked at.  Unless or until recent year articles start breaking the >500,000byte level, I still don't see that there's an issue justifying the essay. If we look at all the years articles between 2002 (the earliest covered by the policy) and 2009 (the latest covered for a year before the essay was created), none reached anything like that at their greatest extents:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Year article !! Greatest extent (bytes) !! Peaked in year
 * 2002 || 52.238 || 2006
 * 2003 || 56,349 || 2007
 * 2004 || 67,614 || 2007
 * 2005 || 75,328 || 2008
 * 2006 || 112,995 || 2009
 * 2007 || 122,508|| 2007
 * 2008 || 108,851 || 2012
 * 2009 || 78,038 || 2016
 * }
 * The more I look for concrete evidence and statistics supporting the hypothesis that this essay is necessary (rather than anecdotes or armchair theorizing), the less I find supporting it and the more I find support for countervailing arguments. Most of them had gotten smaller even before the earliest efforts at a policy on exclusivity of year articles.  The other two of those articles got bigger after this essay was created and one reached its greatest length when it had gotten elevated to guideline status.  These are exactly the opposite effects we'd expect if the hypothesis was true.  That suggests that not only is this essay not creating smaller articles but also that it isn't having even the selectivity effects that its proponents envisioned. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * First, just some minor nit-picking: Xtools doesn't track article size perfectly. I think it just gives the size at the end of the year. So, for example, the largest that 2007 ever got was actually 128,324 bytes on August 18, 2008. Ultimately, I don't know how much of a difference that makes, and I don't feel like going through and checking all of them; I think your general point still stands.
 * Your argument that the recommendations of WP:AS should be ignored is an interesting one, and I hadn't thought about that. I had just kind of assumed that the people who created WP:AS created those recommendations for good reason, but that is merely an assumption.
 * However, accepting that the general recommendations of WP:AS are still valid, your greater argument (that you don't see the need) strikes me as flawed. There was a problem (as seen in 2008); RY was created to address that problem. The fact that there has been no problem since then is as much proof that this has been working as it is that there's no need for it.
 * You can also compare the growth of year articles over time. Whereas most non-RY but still relatively recent year articles have grown over time as little by little people add births, deaths, and events (especially those from the late 80s into the 90s), RY articles have generally held pretty stable, which I see as evidence that RY is working. -- irn (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 2009 || 78,038 || 2016
 * }
 * The more I look for concrete evidence and statistics supporting the hypothesis that this essay is necessary (rather than anecdotes or armchair theorizing), the less I find supporting it and the more I find support for countervailing arguments. Most of them had gotten smaller even before the earliest efforts at a policy on exclusivity of year articles.  The other two of those articles got bigger after this essay was created and one reached its greatest length when it had gotten elevated to guideline status.  These are exactly the opposite effects we'd expect if the hypothesis was true.  That suggests that not only is this essay not creating smaller articles but also that it isn't having even the selectivity effects that its proponents envisioned. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * First, just some minor nit-picking: Xtools doesn't track article size perfectly. I think it just gives the size at the end of the year. So, for example, the largest that 2007 ever got was actually 128,324 bytes on August 18, 2008. Ultimately, I don't know how much of a difference that makes, and I don't feel like going through and checking all of them; I think your general point still stands.
 * Your argument that the recommendations of WP:AS should be ignored is an interesting one, and I hadn't thought about that. I had just kind of assumed that the people who created WP:AS created those recommendations for good reason, but that is merely an assumption.
 * However, accepting that the general recommendations of WP:AS are still valid, your greater argument (that you don't see the need) strikes me as flawed. There was a problem (as seen in 2008); RY was created to address that problem. The fact that there has been no problem since then is as much proof that this has been working as it is that there's no need for it.
 * You can also compare the growth of year articles over time. Whereas most non-RY but still relatively recent year articles have grown over time as little by little people add births, deaths, and events (especially those from the late 80s into the 90s), RY articles have generally held pretty stable, which I see as evidence that RY is working. -- irn (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You can also compare the growth of year articles over time. Whereas most non-RY but still relatively recent year articles have grown over time as little by little people add births, deaths, and events (especially those from the late 80s into the 90s), RY articles have generally held pretty stable, which I see as evidence that RY is working. -- irn (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No this "birth of the internet" or "Birth of Wikipedia" is a red herring, and a really unhelpful one, especially to our readers who are not aware (nor should they be) of the arcane machinations of project selection criteria. Books and encyclopedias were printed before, during and after the internet boom, and no-one is talking about listing everyone who died in any year in the year article, that's already covered elsewhere.  The delineation is completely fake and totally unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The RY guideline was created to counter the flood of insufficiently notable events and deaths which were being added to recent year articles. In the absence of restriction on entries, the more recent a Year article is, the longer it tends to be. Media coverage has increased massively during the last few decades. Jim Michael (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Adequately and evidentially disproven above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No per The Rambling Man. Double sharp (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that, during the 2010s, year articles covering the 80s and 90s have been greatly expanded - whilst RY articles haven't - is proof that the RY guideline is necessary and was effective. If anything, it should cover more years. Jim Michael (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Like...... all years!!!!!!! Checkmate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No The fact that, even at their largest extents, no year article of any recency shows up anywhere on LongPages proves that the repeated argument that the guideline is "necessary" is either personal preference of a tiny handful of editors or outdated information. The project is more than capable of handling year article pages of unrestrained length. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Year articles which have been most expanded are those which are the most recent not to be covered by RY. If the RY guideline hadn't been implemented, the years covered by RY would be the longest of all the Year articles. Very long articles full of events and deaths that aren't internationally notable would dilute the value of the articles and would reduce the number of people reading the sub-articles such as 2017 in science and 2017 in the United States. Jim Michael (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Prove your assertion, and even if you could, that's a problem because.... ? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, so-called "very long articles full of ... deaths which aren't inernationally notable" such as Deaths in 2017 receive an average of 105,000 views per day, while the curated and heavily managed 2017 gets around 5,500. Why are you working so hard to ensure our readers avoid these cherry-picked pages and head straight for the comprehensive versions?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No-one is suggesting that Deaths in 2017 and similar articles be deleted or reduced in length. They're so long that they're divided by month. The deaths list for the current year is always one of the most frequently viewed pages because it's where readers who are looking for information about people who died recently. All those deaths can't be and shouldn't be on the relevant year article.
 * You appear to be implying that RY articles would be read more often if they were longer. That's almost certainly true, but it would also almost certainly significantly reduce the number of people who would read the subarticles, such as 2017 in music and 2017 in the United Kingdom. Many people go directly to either one of the subarticles, or to the articles of the people or events which they want to read. I disagree with your assertion that lengthening RY articles is in the interests of our readers. Jim Michael (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your continued assertions of what should be testable facts without any evidence to back it up. How do we know that longer year articles would "...almost certainly significantly reduce..." readership of any articles?  Did we test that previously? Are there readership trends that can be linked to? Is it anecdotal memory or personal supposition?  Where is the evidence to support these conclusions? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's tiring to combat the continual reiteration of the "Kim Kardashian" argument or the "unpopular around a watercooler" claims. These are absolutely not what our readers believe, and absolutely not what our community believes.  One could conjure up 100 arguments in an attempt to claim some kind of RY boundary exists, but the simple fact of the matter is that it really doesn't.  Apply a common approach to all year articles.  Some will have more than others.  A good comparison is taking a look at the content in The Boat Races 2016 and The Boat Race 1963 for example.  Both are comprehensive, for the available material, and that's what our readers expect.  They don't suddenly expect a cut-off point at which some items are mysteriously (to them, because they don't and shouldn't need to read the essay at RY) aren't allowed.  That's not serving our readers well at all.  And honestly, this is 2017, all this talk of "long pages" relating to >100KB, give me strength, I have a <1MB/s connection at home and I can cope with just about every page Wikipedia throws at me.  It only actually gets a little worse when rendering pages with tons of transcluded templates, and articles such as 2017 don't have that all.  So, time to get with the present people.   TL;dr: we may need some criteria, but they should apply to all year articles and we shouldn't be scared of large articles!!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I think a really important point is being missed here. Irn and Jim - why are we working so hard to create weird, inexplicably cherry-picked annual summaries of incomplete information, based on POV and suffering problems with bias and arguments regarding criteria, when the supposedly more bloated and horrible articles of complete information receive 20 times the daily hits? Sounds like people aren't liking your annual summaries. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I noted above, the RY articles seem to get a readership about equivalent to a weak DYK while the main "Deaths in..." articles receive nearly as much interest as the Main Page. So in any language, that would seem to imply that readers prefer the comprehensive list to the cherry-picked list, by about 20 to 1.  Ironically, we have some of the regulars here "maintaining" articles like 2010s which (despite it being three years from completion) is already at >370KB.  What a terrible mishmash of ideas, doctrine, implementation and enforcement.  Pity our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the big post: This is actually what brought me to this ol’ mess to begin with. I was in the office discussing the spate of deaths to have occurred in the last year and ventured onto Wikipedia for a ballpark figure – I went in via the year and noticed several deaths were missing.

There was no explanation as to why they were not included, no explanation that the year article was a cherry picked summary, how this cherry picking was undertaken, by who and why. It just appeared like an article inexplicably missing information.

I then came across the ‘deaths in’ article and found a comprehensive list. It occurred to me that I would never use the Year article from that point forward, because it would be missing information and perhaps I wouldn’t know what was missing or why - the article would basically be erroneous and redundant.

Realising this would be true of all year articles, I thought I’d see what was going on ‘under the hood’. At first I thought a better criteria for inclusion should be established which helped make it clear to readers (like me) what the situation was. I must say I’ve been pretty shocked by the behaviour of Arthur Rubin, an admin, and a handful of others, most notably Jim Michael, who have been so difficult and averse to change. The regulars here have taken things personally, shown incredible ownership issues, even resorting to lying to discredit another editor, talk page harassment, warnings and general roadblocking to keep the status quo, which considering the mess, seemed utterly irrational and in no way putting the readers and the project first.

That aside, and having learnt more about the Recent Years differential, I find the whole thing to be an even bigger, convoluted and confusing mess – especially when looking through the eyes of a reader.

We don’t need Recent Years. Nobody outside of Wikipedia understands. It’s only defence seems to be to ensure Year articles don’t become comprehensive accounts of what happened that year. Read that back and tell me you don’t instantly recoil and think WHAT? And WHY? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It should be showing comprehensive and complete information. It’s not Heat magazine, providing tasty snippets of favourite deaths and events. We don’t have the means to justify cherry-picking – we aren’t a source that is supposed to operate under a bias, or for a target audience. We are supposed to be an impartial, factual record. We shouldn’t be writing articles with the mentality of “Hey! We are Wikipedia and these are the deaths and events we think are most important!” So Year articles very much should be what the core ‘owners’ are fighting against – a comprehensive record of events and deaths that year.

Or they shouldn’t exist at all and we should stop duplicating information in an unclear, misleading manner that readers have zero clue about. As how would anyone know that the list of deaths they found in 2017 (or any year) was missing important information? If it was Arthur and Jim’s article, in 2017 major earthquakes and shootings would not have happened and famous people like Bruce Forsyth, Sean Hughes and the co-founder of an international seminal rock band would not have died. Is this really what we want to be showcasing?

In my mind, scrap Recent Years entirely. Year articles can provide links to the more comprehensive lists at country-based year articles, and the complete ‘Deaths in’ articles. There is zero need to duplicate information, especially incomplete information, with no explanation to the reader and no clear rationale for doing so. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sean Hughes and Scott Putesky aren't among the most important people to have died this year - they're not even among the most important in their respective countries.
 * Information being duplicated is inevitable. Articles such as 2017 in music, 2017 in film and 2017 in science will include some of the info that's on 2017 in the United States, 2017 in the United Kingdom etc. Jim Michael (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be much easier for our readers, and much more comprehensive, to point at Deaths in 2017. Burying each notable death or omitting it entirely because of a personal preference or arcane selection criterion should be discouraged, the pageviews clearly make a case for the comprehensive WP:GNG list, rather than this rather opaquely selected group of "super notable" individuals.  Page length is not an issue by the way, this is 2017 now, not 2002 when most of us dreamed of free dial-up accounts at Compuserve. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So why duplicate it further unnecessarily in a clandestine, confusing and incomplete manner? 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At the end of each year, many mainstream media sources produce lists of people who died during the year; some produce lists much earlier of those who've died during the year so far. Those lists don't usually include people of marginal notability - they're shorter lists of the more important people. We should do likewise - and we do. No-one's claiming that RY articles would be so long that they would take a long time to load or would crash. We're providing a concise review of the events & deaths of each year. Jim Michael (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what's being provided at all, as evidenced by page views. If readers genuinely felt they were getting something positive from these RY articles, they'd received more than an average DYK's worth of hits per day.  The current approach may serve the needs and wishes of the established users here, but that is in direct contradiction of all the evidence suggesting that the current approach does not serve the general community of editors well, nor, most importantly, our readers.  Take an example.  2005 received an average of 440 page views per day over the past month.  Thats only twice as many page views as my own talk page.  No-one is interested in these RY articles, they contain (to our readers) a bizarrely selected set of events and a group of "super notable" deaths, the criteria for which is completely undetermined.  Little wonder no-one outside the users here are really interested in such articles.  Concise (in this situation) is the enemy of the reader.  This is not a paper encyclopedia.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mainstream media sources have a target demographic they shape their content for. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic database of information. We shouldn't be cultivating POV lists, especially when doing so is highly contentious and barely worth doing in terms of readership. Encyclopaedias should strive to provide complete information. Not half the information with no explanation or warning that what we are presenting is missing so much. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No - There should be the same format and consistency throughout, The whole "before 2002 this applies and after 2002 this applies" makes no sense, Apply one consistent format or whatever throughout all years. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Then we need to establish a set of inclusion criteria for all year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree Jim, By all means start another RFC to establish a criteria (I'm only saying you because you're the most knowledgable with all this), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 17:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. The "non-RY" articles, i.e. everything from 2001 backwards, have had no inclusion criteria applied whatsoever.  Why do we have literally hundreds of articles about year events without any criteria and yet around 16 with criteria, most of which have been deemed patently unsuitable?  We could just rely on our community to decide what is in and what is out, that's a perfectly Wikipedian manner of inclusion, and presumably how every single article from 2001 backwards has operated for some time now.  We have GNG and community consensus, that's all we need! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They should all have criteria, but writing and establishing them has been neglected. Older years haven't had as much added to them, so the problem of insufficiently notable additions is less severe there. The RY criteria were established to stem the flow to the worst-affected year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If the thousands of pre-2001 articles have been fine for time immemorial then there's no logic in trying to apply any kind of RY at all. And we have plenty of consensus here agreeing with that position, so we will simply mark RY as historical and move on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not since time immemorial; WP was created in 2001. They aren't fine - they need inclusion criteria because insufficently notable events, births and deaths are frequently added to them.
 * Another reason for having a higher entry bar for recent years compared to older ones is that recent years have far more subarticles to accommodate the many more entries. Jim Michael (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. They're just fine.  Check |2000|2002|2003 this out, it demonstrates that the two years before the RY boundary get 50% more pageviews than the two years after RY!  And even extending that search range demonstrates that RY adds nothing at all to the readership of the recent articles.  Our readers seem to think that articles outside the remit of the RY criteria are just fine and that's what we're here to do, provide our readers with what they want. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That supports my assertion to a degree. The articles that weren't under RY are longer, so they receive more views - but there are fewer sub-articles than there are for recent years. The RY criteria had the effect of diverting many readers from the main page to its subarticles for more in-depth coverage devoted to its topic/country. Jim Michael (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it directly contradicts what you've just said. The years prior to RY are more popular than the RY ones, and the years prior to RY have no guidelines.  This is all about serving our readers, and the RY articles, per the evidence, clearly do not.  Readers are not diverted elsewhere, those articles are seldom viewed.  Anyway, we have a clear consensus here to remove RY altogether, so I think we're done for now! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They're viewed less often because many readers go directly to the sub-article(s) which they are interested in. Jim Michael (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * . The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The more recent a year article is, the more sub-articles it has. The total number of views of all sub-articles for a year increase the more recent it is. That proves that more readers are going to the sub-articles for recent years. Jim Michael (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No Jim, that's not true. There are hundreds of articles prior to RY which are sub-articles of years.  RY doesn't have exclusive rights over sub-articles.  Please don't continue to make false assertions.  WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim that RY has exclusive rights over sub-articles. I said that the older the year, the fewer sub-articles it has. The larger number of sub-articles for recent years means that many readers go to those sub-articles - decreasing the viewership for the main articles for recent years. Jim Michael (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what you believe to be the case, we have a clearcut consensus that RY is no longer required. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No per TRM. If there is going to be a set criteria at all, which might itself be overly bureaucratic as opposed to just the normal BRD cycle, they should be standardized across all years. Looking at recent discussions on this topic, it seems that this guideline is used to artificially relocate items that would've made into pre-RY articles on the basis of arbitrary criteria. Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment no comments have been made on this discussion for nearly four weeks so I suggest it is closed according to the consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Kind of? 2002 is very arbitrary, but I can see applying a different set of standards to the current year (and perhaps the previous year) to prevent issues with WP:RECENTISM. On the other hand, I see no reason to distinguish between 2001 and 2008. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think our readers expect such an arbitrary delineation? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment time to close this discussion and end the debate. There's a clear consensus against this arbitrary delineation between the format of so-called "recent year" articles, there's been no substantive addition to this debate for several weeks, so it's time to finally resolve this. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral – Special guidelines for recent years may not be required at all. If we do keep any, they should be drawn out from wide community input, instead of the walled garden approach that has been prevalent since this guideline was established. — JFG talk 12:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – Close requested. — JFG talk 12:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

New Format Year Articles Solution
We should always favour the most simple, clear and logical way to present our information.

It’s my opinion that there is no logical need to differentiate recent years from non-recent years, as discussed above.

Wikipedia is NOT a media company with a POV tailored to a target demographic. We are an encyclopaedic source of complete information. We should always strive to avoid creating content according to bias. Cultivating discriminate lists IS creating content according to bias. The criteria by which we are trying to cultivate these lists, is controversial in itself, as the notion of notability is subjective and we as editors cannot even agree what it is, or on a way to measure it.

The simplest, clearest and most logical step forward would be to simply stop doing it. There is no coherent argument as to why we should be doing it. “Other media sources do it” – well, we aren’t a media source. “It’s helpful to our readers” – our readers don’t seem to visit these cherry-picked articles at all, and much favour the comprehensive lists RY link to. “It presents information in a clearer way” – well, it doesn’t because the reader is completely in the dark; nowhere in these articles is it explained that the events/deaths listed are incomplete, why they are incomplete, why specific information may be missing or how the process works.

So I propose a completely simple resolution, that avoids POV, conflict, controversy, argument, duplication and confusion. Just YEAR articles, formatted thus:

20XX

--Lede--

Events

By Topic: By Place:
 * Events by topic links
 * Events by place Links

Births

Deaths
 * Link to Deaths in 20XX

Job done. Minimal admin, minimal conflict, just a clean source of links to complete, comprehensive information and no need for these redundant, meaningless, unused, time sink POV lists. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a very reasonable and logical argument. Thank you for proposing it! However, I think it misses a key point: these are articles about years. There's no reason that 2017 as a year can't have an article explaining what happened that year just like 2017 in India exists as an article explaining what happened in India that year. Just because we're having a hard time reaching consensus doesn't mean we should give up entirely. Also, what would go in the lead? And how would we write the lead while avoiding all of the pitfalls you've enumerated?
 * Also, Cultivating discriminate lists IS creating content according to bias. This is a bit more philosophical, but literally every decision that is made by an editor is subjective and is, therefore, affected by bias. Every edit is the result of someone's opinion. We can't get rid of that; we can only try to create systems to minimize its effect (see, for example, WP:SYSTEMICBIAS). But even looking at your solution, 2017 in India is subject to the same bias problems as 2017, only on a smaller scale: instead of asking which events are of international importance, the question becomes which events are of national importance. You can't avoid that sort of subjectivity; it's present in literally everything we do here. It's just that in this situation, it's more obvious than in others. But the solution shouldn't be to gut the article, but rather to come up with a system to handle these differences of opinion. RY was an attempt at that. It wasn't perfect – the 9 wiki rule is arbitrary and the “international significance” requirement is vague and was interpreted by the most active users in a very restrictive sense, both of which seem to have frustrated many users – but it's better than ditching the year articles all together.
 * And there seems to be this idea that because RY is no longer a guideline, it should be disregarded entirely, but I would like to point to the closing decision, which stated editors are advised to try to follow by the essay as far as possible, while working in the subject area. -- irn (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * What happened in India in 2017 is not up for the same level of debate. It happened in 2017. It happened in India. There is very little cherry-picking, as the objective is clearer and events are fewer. As it is sourced at 2017 in India, we would simply just have to link to it from the 2017 year article, under ‘by country’. The data would be recorded, and would be filed correctly and logically.


 * On the other hand, what happened in ‘the world’ in 2017, is entirely up for debate. We don’t have any idea what constitutes as internationally significant. We have different nationalities, with different POV’s, arguing with different ideas of whether something is important or not. Instead of a national gauge of impact we have a varying degrees of crystal balling and conjecture. Cherry-picking what ‘domestic events’ (every event is domestic) is significant to the world incurs offence, exclusion, accusation and argument – which occurs far less under a shared nationality. If we record everything that happened, we may as well just link to the sub-articles and avoid duplication. If we present an abridged list, it is entirely subject to POV/bias as I outlined above. And we would need a reason to do this, and a way of doing so. We don’t have either.


 * I’m not arguing that, because RY is no longer a guideline, we should abandon it. I’m arguing that there is actually no logical reason for RY and no sound way of doing it anyway. Pointing out the country sub-articles as a reason for RY is an erroneous argument. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While what is "national" may not be up for the same level of debate, it's still very much up for debate, and I see no reason to believe that any list aggregating national events won't run into the problems with aggregating a list of international events. Just as some events appear "international" to some and merely "national" to others, within a country, you can just as easily have events that appear to be "national" to some and merely "local" to others. (I do agree with you that I would expect there to be less disagreement and less conflict, but, as you've stated, forcing all events off the main year page will draw more attention to the year-in-country articles, which will increase that level of debate.) Essentially, your proposal doesn't solve the problem of a cherry-picked list because the national lists are also inherently cherry-picked. If the cherry-picking is your main concern, the only way I can see around this would be to mandate that the lower-level articles include everything that happens within the borders of a given country – every notable event, every notable birth, and every notable death. If that is your argument, I think that needs to be made explicit. I also think it's untenable.
 * That said, systemic bias is my main concern here, and I think this proposal does address systemic bias in a constructive way. I'd like to find a better solution because I think that having an article about each year that actually offers an overview of what happened in that year is useful. But if we can't come up with anything that adequately addresses systemic bias, I'd be willing to support this proposal.
 * tl;dr I disagree with the logic behind your proposal, but I could get behind it if we can't come up with a better way to address systemic bias. -- irn (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Lolz, it amuses me that you are disagreeing with my proposal because it fails to address the possible bias and conflict that exists on the national articles. I’ve clicked through ten random national articles and found a grand total of two comments!


 * Even if there were heated debate, conflict and bias being thrown around at national level, its completely illogical to suggest we carry on doing something preposterous, because the same preposterousness is happening on sub-articles. That’s close to the ludicrous stuff Jim and Arthur were coming out with in defence of the RY essay (my favourites: “this is the way it’s always been done” and “its better than nothing”).


 * It’s a shame you also ignore my point that national impact and national notability is infinitely more measurable than international impact and notability. I shouldn’t really need to spell it out but a great national sportsman doesn’t incite an argument about the popularity of the sport. A national celebrity doesn’t incite a fight between people with drastically different awareness of them. An event that made the news in a country undoubtedly had justifiable notability for inclusion, and doesn’t incite a row about how many countries it was reported in, or how many nations it may directly or indirectly effect, immediately or in the future. People will be working from a shared consciousness and bias, even regional, is far far far less hypersensitive and fervent than national, if it is exists at all in some countries.


 * So no, what is “national” is not anywhere near the same level of debate and does not suffer from any of the hazards found in the cherry-picking at international level. Your argument doesn't have any weight to it. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I’ve clicked through ten random national articles and found a grand total of two comments! That's because those sub-lists receive almost zero attention. Take India, for example. A country with a billion citizens, yet over 90% of content of 2016 in India was added by four (4) users. The sub-pages for smaller countries border on uselesness. The page 2017 in Sweden, as another example, list half as many notable deaths of Swedes than 2017, and its events section is a joke! How would delegating the responsibility to those benefit our readers, exactly? — Yerpo Eh? 14:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect example of the ownership issues here at RY. We aren't responsible for 2017, just as India with their billion citizens aren't responsible for India in 2017. We as editors are collectively responsible for all projects. Instead of some Norwegian chap trying to add a recently deceased skier to RY and getting embroiled in a timesink argument born of the subjectivity of notability or international impact or whatever the clandestine criteria buzz-word of the week is, he would add it to Norway. Hey! My idea not only rescues the omnishambles of RY, it also directs content towards and improves the national sub-articles! Thanks for pointing that out, Yerp XXX 62.255.118.6 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So now you're trying to force editors to start editing pages they're not interested in? What exactly you're hoping to achieve by that? — Yerpo Eh? 17:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you so rattled by this, Yerpo? I've proposed a helpful solution to a problem, and expressed exactly what I hope to achieve. I've not forced anybody to do anything, and neither would my proposal. If someone is interested enough in an event to add it to a year article, why would they "not be interested in" adding it to the country the event occurred in? Getting all hot and bothered about it is kinda weird. Why aren't you interested in finding a solution? It sometimes feels that RY exists more for the enjoyment of the regulars than for the actual readers we are supposed to be creating content for. Wikipedia isn't a space provider for pet projects. If you want to create a pointless annual review site that nobody visits, strewn with you own personal idea of who and what is important to you, why don't you sign up to a free blogging service or webhost? You could do what you liked then. I don't understand why you insist on doing it here, on an online encyclopaedia. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because annual reviews are encyclopedically relevant and, like any other page, they will require some sort of editorial selection. The only question is what kind. You may not remember, but I proposed at least one solution before, and explained why I don't think the laziest solution is good (IIRC, others weren't so enthusiastic about it either). If your personal opinion and feeling is that annual reviews are useless, why don't you just leave RY alone? What's here is certainly better than no content which is what you're proposing. Strawman arguments about my motives/emotions and false accusations about me not wanting to find a solution certainly aren't constructive, they only beg the question what is your real game here.
 * If someone is interested enough in an event to add it to a year article, why would they "not be interested in" adding it to the country the event occurred in? I don't know, but the fact is that they aren't. The state of sub-pages speaks for itself, eventhough nothing is preventing editors from adding events to both places (or to a sub-page alone if an event gets rejected here). So the logical conclusion is that your solution would diminish informational value of this encyclopedia - which is something I'm definitely opposed to. If that earns me a "rattled" label from you, well, let's just say that I won't lose any sleep over it. — Yerpo Eh? 16:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The state of the sub pages is due to people posting stuff on RY. So that’s a circular argument. If Year articles became a constructive and useful link set to sub-pages, content would obviously be directed there. Meh, I’m just trying to help – you regulars need to stop acting like I’ve walked up and kicked over your sandcastle. In my opinion, annual reviews belong on news sites, not places which are supposed to offer complete information without bias. You are welcome to defend RY articles to the death, but nobody reads them. Which begs the question of whether they are indeed relevant, helpful or worth the time. Clicking on a year, and seeing a list of sub-categories relevant to that year which are home to comprehensive information, is an entirely logical process. You, Jim and Arthur lolling about making your own personal list of favourite celebs and topics you’ve nattered about with your mates isn’t, and doesn’t seem to be what editors or readers want. Sorry, bud. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The state of the sub pages is due to people posting stuff on RY. So that’s a circular argument. Any evidence that this is actually happening? Even if it were, this would, ironically, disprove your fixed idea that RY lists are irrelevant. Also, thousands of daily views is far from "nobody reads them". So in the light of actual facts and logic, I will take the liberty of ignoring your arrogant description of what people you don't agree with are doing. Don't bother to reply if you're not willing to start contributing more constructively to this discussion. — Yerpo Eh? 12:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear I've contributed quite a lot constructively to this. I've presented a solution and I'm merely addressing your frostily delivered criticisms of it, that I don't find logical at all. Cool, I get it - you aren't on board. When the time comes, just !vote no. But nothing you have said here has really discredited the idea. you know I was speaking comparatively re: viewing figures, it's pretty explicit in my posts. And you surely you don't really believe the state of the sub-articles is a sound defence for retaining RY. But yeah, we've gone as far as we can here - until you are less rattled by the whole thing, there isn't much point chatting anything through with you further. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see the value in repackaging the same idea after it hasn't received support on more than one occasion earlier. Which is why I may have sounded annoyed, but my comments should be understood in this wider context. Anyway, yes, I do believe the state of the sub-articles is a sound defence for retaining RY - that approach to organizing content is not functioning and I've already said what I think about diminishing informational value of this encyclopedia. — Yerpo Eh? 10:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This idea has been proposed and rejected before. (Even before WP:RY was proposed.)  As it's a style guide as well as a content guide, more than two or three editors need to be in favor for it to be reconsidered.  And the subarticles get more hits because they are allowed to be linked, while the year articles are not, per WP:YEARLINK.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So what? This micro-project now has a much wider audience and as such it's clear that "the way it's always been" is actually not in keeping with the community or the readers.  So anything, even previously rejected by the tiny microcosm voting here previously, is perfectly allowable for suggestion.  Plus, your claim that As it's a style guide as well as a content guide, more than two or three editors need to be in favor for it to be reconsidered. needs verifiable evidence.  Please provide links to the relevant policies which say "more than two or three editors" need to ratify this suggestion.  If not, I'd suggest you stop claiming some kind of authority over this, and other such discussions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As a style guide, it is subject to voting, so it needs more votes in favor now than it had votes against then. There really are no "arguments" to be weighed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you completely failed to answer my request. Please do so, i.e. cite the policy that is backing your continued claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , you didn't respond to this, could you now please provide evidence to back you original claim or redact it, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, this feels like giving up. I understand this debate has been contentious, but I still think it's possible to make these articles—particularly the events sections—work properly. As far as the births/deaths, I have no problem keeping them out of the year articles and moving them to sub articles only. That seems reasonable. But we ought to be able to come up with a listing of events for the year. With births/deaths gone, I don't think there would be a problem with having 15-20 events per month. The page would still be manageable, and it would give readers a pretty good idea of what happened worldwide in a given year. agt x  13:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * What's logical for deaths is also logical for events. The only arguments against that so far seems to be Yerpo conjuring up weird notions that people will refuse to populate national event pages, and Arthur's whacko "we need a vote to allow this suggestion to be voted on". Both sound quite desperate to me. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, deaths are the easier problem to solve, using a combination of RS after the year has passed, as proposed earlier. Events could also work that way, but my idea was to solve deaths first, then talk about events. By the way, ignoring the facts that support the opposing argument and claiming that the argument "weird" is far more desperate than anything I've said. — Yerpo Eh? 13:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Must be pretty rattled to resort to "no, you are!" repertoire. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So, there is clearly not a consensus for this approach. Shall we close it and move on?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an RfC, though - it was an open discussion to see if a way forward could be fleshed out. Not many people running in from other rooms high-fiving me for the idea but still, it's rather colourful to describe "Arthur Rubin and Yerpo don't like it" as "clearly not a consensus" and kinda weird to insist it be "closed"62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)