Jim Michael (talk | contribs) |
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) →Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul: terrible mishmash resulting in junk |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
::::::::::::::::Got it, that's why it gets so few page views, a bizarre mixture of criteria leading to a page which is full of barely interesting and pisspoor BLPs, but bereft of actual news stories or quality articles. I understand, I'm happy to leave you this, I may well suggest we completely overhaul the contents in the future because right now it's a bugger's muddle and doesn't serve our readership ''at all''. Imagine wanting to know what's happened in 2017 to be confronted with ONE EVENT IN FEBRUARY GLOBALLY (!) yet the death of a Japanese manga artist and a stub about a Papua New Guinean politician feature in no fewer than 44 deaths. Do you really believe that's the right balance? Would Britannica have a single entry globally for all of Feb 2017 while having 44 "notable" deaths? Think again. And no, not at all, ITN does not have "article quality as its most important factor for inclusion", that's a completely false assertion. Quality is a requirement, consensus for suitability is the most important factor. Please don't make such false assertions. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
::::::::::::::::Got it, that's why it gets so few page views, a bizarre mixture of criteria leading to a page which is full of barely interesting and pisspoor BLPs, but bereft of actual news stories or quality articles. I understand, I'm happy to leave you this, I may well suggest we completely overhaul the contents in the future because right now it's a bugger's muddle and doesn't serve our readership ''at all''. Imagine wanting to know what's happened in 2017 to be confronted with ONE EVENT IN FEBRUARY GLOBALLY (!) yet the death of a Japanese manga artist and a stub about a Papua New Guinean politician feature in no fewer than 44 deaths. Do you really believe that's the right balance? Would Britannica have a single entry globally for all of Feb 2017 while having 44 "notable" deaths? Think again. And no, not at all, ITN does not have "article quality as its most important factor for inclusion", that's a completely false assertion. Quality is a requirement, consensus for suitability is the most important factor. Please don't make such false assertions. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::::::::It's not bizarre. Events have to be internationally notable. Deaths have to be of internationally notable people. Some death of people who lack international notability are added because they have many articles, making them seem internationally notable. Many of those are poorly-referenced stubs, sometimes created in order to have them included here. Heads of state and heads of government are automatically included, which is why [[Michael Ogio]] is there. [[User:Jim Michael|Jim Michael]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael|talk]]) 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::::::It's not bizarre. Events have to be internationally notable. Deaths have to be of internationally notable people. Some death of people who lack international notability are added because they have many articles, making them seem internationally notable. Many of those are poorly-referenced stubs, sometimes created in order to have them included here. Heads of state and heads of government are automatically included, which is why [[Michael Ogio]] is there. [[User:Jim Michael|Jim Michael]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael|talk]]) 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::::::::It's completely bizarre, a subset of the list of deaths which is covered elsewhere (e.g. [[Deaths in 2017]]), but a sprinkling of so-called internationally notable events, excluding most of those the encyclopedia deemed notable enough for main page inclusion which would have millions of pageviews and would be of interest to our readers. This page should be getting a million hits a day. Instead, 5000? Something's wrong here. Still, you all seem well happy with the awful muddle you've created, so good luck to you. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:57, 22 June 2017
Years List‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Even though had eleven articles at the time of his death, I don't think he should be included, just like how Charlie Murphy is not included. I guess, leave him out. Gar (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, considering that practically all the non-English articles are clones and have no local references, AND several of which (including the Udmurt one) do not seem to have noticed that he died, it seems he was not particularly notable. Exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- @DerbyCountyinNZ Exclude is right. Gar (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, we'll add individuals notable enough for articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @DerbyCountyinNZ Exclude is right. Gar (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's not how things work on recent year articles - we have a much higher bar for inclusion here. If they're not internationally notable, they should be excluded. Jim Michael (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Policy, guideline, project inclusion criteria please, or else it stays. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- WP:RY#Deaths. A person has to have international notability to be included. For years, we've excluded people who lack international notability even if they have enough articles. Jim Michael (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Policy, guideline, project inclusion criteria please, or else it stays. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's not how things work on recent year articles - we have a much higher bar for inclusion here. If they're not internationally notable, they should be excluded. Jim Michael (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The only international notability to this is Ariana Grande stopping her concert tour. Jim Michael (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. User should stop edit warring and come discuss Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- If this is what your saying, then your saying that the Orlando shooting shouldn't be included on the 2016 page. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- A perfectly logical assessment. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree - and the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting isn't on 2016. Jim Michael (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- A perfectly logical assessment. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- If this is what your saying, then your saying that the Orlando shooting shouldn't be included on the 2016 page. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- As I was expecting this discussion to eventuate, I started this discussion at WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Glenne Headly
She had nine non English wikis before death but I feel that an exception could be made for her. Rusted AutoParts 16:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- In what way? Looks notable enough to me. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- in what way do you mean "what way"? I'm supporting her inclusion here, but policy is that individuals must have 10+ non wikis in order to be considered notable for inclusion. She had nine prior to death, so that's why i'm suggesting perhaps an exception could be made for her to remain. But if it's determined she shouldn't, I'll abide by that decision. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, thought you meant an exception to WP:RYD and that you wanted her excluded. (It still says that you just need nine, not more, so I'm not sure where 9+ comes from?) Nohomersryan (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, where's the 10+ coming from? WP:RY says "at least nine" not "more than nine". -- Irn (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- 9+ non-English Wikis (i.e. 10+ in total but excluding Simple English). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, right, that's my understanding, but the first comment in this section advocates making an exception to include someone with "nine non English" articles. That's just a mistake, then, right? In other words, this discussion is kind of backwards: even though Glenne Headly meets the minimum requirement, it's been proposed that she not be included. -- Irn (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- 9+ non-English Wikis (i.e. 10+ in total but excluding Simple English). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, where's the 10+ coming from? WP:RY says "at least nine" not "more than nine". -- Irn (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not in favor of inclusion. Being a second-tier actress with no major awards simply doesn't justify making exceptions, in my opinion. — Yerpo Eh? 19:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. The 9+ non-English Wiki requirement is already becoming too low so I don't see that an exception is justified. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- And FWIW, her non-English articles are clearly cloned from the English, consist of a very brief biography and a list of films/tv series and contain almost no local citations. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- In what way is she internationally notable? She's one of an increasingly large number of people who lack international notability, but has stub articles in several languages - some of which are insufficiently referenced and/or badly written/translated. We need additional guidelines for inclusion, such as having won major awards. Jim Michael (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- And FWIW, her non-English articles are clearly cloned from the English, consist of a very brief biography and a list of films/tv series and contain almost no local citations. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. The 9+ non-English Wiki requirement is already becoming too low so I don't see that an exception is justified. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Technically, he had 9 non-English articles before his death, but two of them were added a day before when such an outcome was imminent. I suggest exclusion, the event was tragic, but this person wasn't notable for any real achievement, so WP:NOTNEWS would apply. — Yerpo Eh? 09:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking along the same lines. People who gain notability through circumstance rather than achievement are subject to exclusion per WP:RYD. Unless his death results in some tangible international reaction then he should be excluded. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2017
Add the destruction of the Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul under the "events" section Debartolo2717 (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Debartolo2717:/@Eggishorn: If you don't mind me asking, why exactly is this event so important to deserve a place in the yearly list? A number of cultural monuments was destroyed in this conflict, what makes this mosque so special (aside from the structural glitch)? — Yerpo Eh? 05:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I won't attempt to speak for Debartolo2717, but possibly because it was supposed to be IS's capital? I fulfilled the edit request because it was verifiable, there wasn't any general policy reason to not add it, and nothing on this page appears to forbid it. Other year articles include major cultural crimes, such as the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in the 2001 article. If a consensus develops her after discussion that it should not belong (perhaps per WP:NOTNEWS), I won't object. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, as per WP:RY it "... must have a demonstrated, international significance". Although it has often been argued that "international significance" is undefined this is one of many cases where there appears to be no (or at least insufficient) international significance. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Gnews search for "mosul mosque destruction" gets ~41,000 results in the last 24 hours, from most major US and UK outlets, as well as major RS from Israel, Hong Kong, Al-Arabiya and Al Jazeera, etc. with officials from the US, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Indonesia expressing condemnation of various sorts. That seemed like demonstrating international significance to me and so I didn't think RY was a barrier. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- A common misconception: Merely being mentioned in numerous news outlets, and even the "expressing (of) condemnation" does not demonstrate "significance" as this happens for every disaster or similar; there is no actual international effect. This is a common area of dispute in Recent Year pages and has, despite the efforts of a few editors, has never been adequately resolved. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed it. There's no reason to include this one, but not the destruction of other buildings. Media reports and condemnation from public figures is standard - this isn't unusual. Jim Michael (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- As it was actually featured on the main page, I've restored it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed it. There's no reason to include this one, but not the destruction of other buildings. Media reports and condemnation from public figures is standard - this isn't unusual. Jim Michael (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- A common misconception: Merely being mentioned in numerous news outlets, and even the "expressing (of) condemnation" does not demonstrate "significance" as this happens for every disaster or similar; there is no actual international effect. This is a common area of dispute in Recent Year pages and has, despite the efforts of a few editors, has never been adequately resolved. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Gnews search for "mosul mosque destruction" gets ~41,000 results in the last 24 hours, from most major US and UK outlets, as well as major RS from Israel, Hong Kong, Al-Arabiya and Al Jazeera, etc. with officials from the US, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Indonesia expressing condemnation of various sorts. That seemed like demonstrating international significance to me and so I didn't think RY was a barrier. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, as per WP:RY it "... must have a demonstrated, international significance". Although it has often been argued that "international significance" is undefined this is one of many cases where there appears to be no (or at least insufficient) international significance. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I won't attempt to speak for Debartolo2717, but possibly because it was supposed to be IS's capital? I fulfilled the edit request because it was verifiable, there wasn't any general policy reason to not add it, and nothing on this page appears to forbid it. Other year articles include major cultural crimes, such as the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in the 2001 article. If a consensus develops her after discussion that it should not belong (perhaps per WP:NOTNEWS), I won't object. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, since WP:OTHERSTUFF was invoked, the Buddhas of Bamiyan were a UNESCO World Heritage monument, so not really comparable, no. — Yerpo Eh? 19:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul
This appears to be controversial. Is it notable enough to be included? Power~enwiki (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: @The Rambling Man:
- Support
- as nom. It's a major event in the war against ISIS.
- as nom. It may be an important historical landmark.
- Oppose
- as nom. It's one of many news events in the war against ISIS.
- as nom. It may not be an important historical landmark.
- Notable enough to be included in the ITN section of the main page of Wikipedia, I'd say this is pretty bloody obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- ITN has a much lower bar for inclusion than RY. I don't know why you're falsely asserting that being important enough for ITN means that it's important enough to be here. This is one of many similar destructions in the Middle East's wars and terror attacks - we'd be swamped with them if were to include all of them. Jim Michael (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is that why the 2017 article is basically empty? You would not be swamped if you included all the ITN stories about destructions of prominent buildings in the Middle East. That assertion is absolutely false. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's nothing like empty. Many important buildings are destroyed in wars - our articles would be dominated by these details if we included them. Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- You didn't read what I wrote. You would not be swamped if you included all the ITN stories about destructions of prominent buildings in the Middle East. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- We'd have far too many. Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL lists many, and too many of them are put on ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- How many of them have been put on ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know, but it's too many. This one's on ITN now, but shouldn't be on here. Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- If it's appropriate for main page inclusion, it's appropriate for inclusion here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Why do you wrongly believe that? We have different inclusion criteria here. Note, for example, that we haven't included any of the attacks in London. Jim Michael (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yet you include Prodigy, a rapper whose article is so inadequate that it's been given short shrift at ITN? Is it that you include unreferenced junk here and exclude quality articles that have millions of hits? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've just removed him due to a lack of international notability. Number of page views isn't part of the inclusion criteria here. Jim Michael (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- So just an indiscriminate collection of poor articles which bear no resemblance to items that our readers would be interested in learning about? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Not indiscriminate - they have to be of international notability, a criteria that isn't used at ITN. Domestic events are on articles such as 2017 in the United States and 2017 in the United Kingdom. ITN has article quality as its most important factor for inclusion, whereas here it's international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- So just an indiscriminate collection of poor articles which bear no resemblance to items that our readers would be interested in learning about? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've just removed him due to a lack of international notability. Number of page views isn't part of the inclusion criteria here. Jim Michael (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yet you include Prodigy, a rapper whose article is so inadequate that it's been given short shrift at ITN? Is it that you include unreferenced junk here and exclude quality articles that have millions of hits? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Why do you wrongly believe that? We have different inclusion criteria here. Note, for example, that we haven't included any of the attacks in London. Jim Michael (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- If it's appropriate for main page inclusion, it's appropriate for inclusion here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know, but it's too many. This one's on ITN now, but shouldn't be on here. Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- How many of them have been put on ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- We'd have far too many. Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL lists many, and too many of them are put on ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- You didn't read what I wrote. You would not be swamped if you included all the ITN stories about destructions of prominent buildings in the Middle East. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's nothing like empty. Many important buildings are destroyed in wars - our articles would be dominated by these details if we included them. Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is that why the 2017 article is basically empty? You would not be swamped if you included all the ITN stories about destructions of prominent buildings in the Middle East. That assertion is absolutely false. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- ITN has a much lower bar for inclusion than RY. I don't know why you're falsely asserting that being important enough for ITN means that it's important enough to be here. This is one of many similar destructions in the Middle East's wars and terror attacks - we'd be swamped with them if were to include all of them. Jim Michael (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Got it, that's why it gets so few page views, a bizarre mixture of criteria leading to a page which is full of barely interesting and pisspoor BLPs, but bereft of actual news stories or quality articles. I understand, I'm happy to leave you this, I may well suggest we completely overhaul the contents in the future because right now it's a bugger's muddle and doesn't serve our readership at all. Imagine wanting to know what's happened in 2017 to be confronted with ONE EVENT IN FEBRUARY GLOBALLY (!) yet the death of a Japanese manga artist and a stub about a Papua New Guinean politician feature in no fewer than 44 deaths. Do you really believe that's the right balance? Would Britannica have a single entry globally for all of Feb 2017 while having 44 "notable" deaths? Think again. And no, not at all, ITN does not have "article quality as its most important factor for inclusion", that's a completely false assertion. Quality is a requirement, consensus for suitability is the most important factor. Please don't make such false assertions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's not bizarre. Events have to be internationally notable. Deaths have to be of internationally notable people. Some death of people who lack international notability are added because they have many articles, making them seem internationally notable. Many of those are poorly-referenced stubs, sometimes created in order to have them included here. Heads of state and heads of government are automatically included, which is why Michael Ogio is there. Jim Michael (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's completely bizarre, a subset of the list of deaths which is covered elsewhere (e.g. Deaths in 2017), but a sprinkling of so-called internationally notable events, excluding most of those the encyclopedia deemed notable enough for main page inclusion which would have millions of pageviews and would be of interest to our readers. This page should be getting a million hits a day. Instead, 5000? Something's wrong here. Still, you all seem well happy with the awful muddle you've created, so good luck to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- It's not bizarre. Events have to be internationally notable. Deaths have to be of internationally notable people. Some death of people who lack international notability are added because they have many articles, making them seem internationally notable. Many of those are poorly-referenced stubs, sometimes created in order to have them included here. Heads of state and heads of government are automatically included, which is why Michael Ogio is there. Jim Michael (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Got it, that's why it gets so few page views, a bizarre mixture of criteria leading to a page which is full of barely interesting and pisspoor BLPs, but bereft of actual news stories or quality articles. I understand, I'm happy to leave you this, I may well suggest we completely overhaul the contents in the future because right now it's a bugger's muddle and doesn't serve our readership at all. Imagine wanting to know what's happened in 2017 to be confronted with ONE EVENT IN FEBRUARY GLOBALLY (!) yet the death of a Japanese manga artist and a stub about a Papua New Guinean politician feature in no fewer than 44 deaths. Do you really believe that's the right balance? Would Britannica have a single entry globally for all of Feb 2017 while having 44 "notable" deaths? Think again. And no, not at all, ITN does not have "article quality as its most important factor for inclusion", that's a completely false assertion. Quality is a requirement, consensus for suitability is the most important factor. Please don't make such false assertions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)