Victim lists

[CrowsNest]

Apparently not satisfied with the chaos caused by having a "case by case" approach to infoboxes, the Wikipedians are voting overwhelmingly to ratify the same approach to the ever present issue of what to do what someone adds/removes/rearranges a list of victims in a Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... (proposals)#WP:NOTMEMORIAL_Victim_lists_in_mass_tragedy_articles_-_Round_2

This is a pertinent comment.......

These local discussions are never about the characteristics of the case. They are regurgitations of the same general arguments about victim lists, over and over. The result depends merely on the mix of the editors involved in the local decision. And there are always many editors who !vote based largely on precedent, as if that showed a community consensus, when in fact it does not. If there were such a community consensus, it would be affirmed in discussions like this one. The status quo is a mess, and the only way to resolve it is to reach a community consensus for something other than status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Not-insane people will immediately recognise it applies to the infobox wars too. You could have literally cut and pasted it into the Evidence page for that Arbitration case, so that it could be ignored there like anything sensible that is ever said on Wikipedia by people who are just tired of wasting their time on repetitive pointless bullshit (as if any task on Wikipedia is not that!).

[CrowsNest]

Also, here's an interesting slice of Wikipedia history....

http://sep11.wikipedia.org

....anyone got any info?

I believe it was an attempt to head off the prospect someone might think "List of 9/11 victims" would be a perfectly valid Wikipedia article.

It might sound odd, but I think the current wording of policy certainy points to the conclusion it should exist as a Wikipedia page. It is sourceable, it is a discriminate list, size isn't an issue, not is privacy, and multiple independent sources have discussed 9/11 victims as a group in significant depth ("Casualties of the September 11 attacks" is a Wikiepdia article), and no, you do not need each and every person to be notable, to be allowed to list them. A fair few are notable, notably.

Happy for someone to try and convince me I have just temporarily gone mad and am missing something obvious (other than, dude, they'd simply never allow it, and would make up any old reason, maybe even IAR), but I don't believe I have......

[Flip Flopped]

Apparently not satisfied with the chaos caused by having a "case by case" approach to infoboxes, the Wikipedians are voting overwhelmingly to ratify the same approach to the ever present issue of what to do what someone adds/removes/rearranges a list of victims in a Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... (proposals)#WP:NOTMEMORIAL_Victim_lists_in_mass_tragedy_articles_-_Round_2

This is a pertinent comment.......

These local discussions are never about the characteristics of the case. They are regurgitations of the same general arguments about victim lists, over and over. The result depends merely on the mix of the editors involved in the local decision. And there are always many editors who !vote based largely on precedent, as if that showed a community consensus, when in fact it does not. If there were such a community consensus, it would be affirmed in discussions like this one. The status quo is a mess, and the only way to resolve it is to reach a community consensus for something other than status quo. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Not-insane people will immediately recognise it applies to the infobox wars too. You could have literally cut and pasted it into the Evidence page for that Arbitration case, so that it could be ignored there like anything sensible that is ever said on Wikipedia by people who are just tired of wasting their time on repetitive pointless bullshit (as if any task on Wikipedia is not that!).

Tried cutting and pasting the link, but it didn't lead to a discussion.

[CrowsNest]

It's on Village Pump/Policy.

Try this permalink, with url tag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=844462618#WP:NOTMEMORIAL_Victim_lists_in_mass_tragedy_articles_-_Round_2

[Flip Flopped]

That's going to close with the status quo. I shouldn't be surprised by how confusingly the "support" and "oppose" options were written.

Thanks for the link, Crows Nest.

[ericbarbour]

Also, here's an interesting slice of Wikipedia history....
http://sep11.wikipedia.org

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sep11wiki for explanation, it was originally a Cunctator project.

It might sound odd, but I think the current wording of policy certainy points to the conclusion it should exist as a Wikipedia page. It is sourceable, it is a discriminate list, size isn't an issue, not is privacy, and multiple independent sources have discussed 9/11 victims as a group in significant depth ("Casualties of the September 11 attacks" is a Wikiepdia article), and no, you do not need each and every person to be notable, to be allowed to list them. A fair few are notable, notably.

That article is typical of all 9/11 content--a perpetual nut magnet. And you can thank Katie Filbert for it.

[CrowsNest]

How does the patriotic US public possibly not know about this?

The In Memoriam wiki is a former Wikimedia project on the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was made read-only in September 2006[1]. It is no longer online on a Wikimedia site.

That meta page is so Wikipeda.......

I think that the page September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack could be one of the great accomplishments of Wikipedia.......I've put in a lot of effort because I live in New York City, and this is the small way I can do something in honor of the thousands of people who died, including the 350 firefighters who died because they rushed in to save people, and in respect for the thousands of people working until they drop, exhausted, after literally days without sleep, digging through the rubbish, cutting through the twisted steel, and getting this city back on its feet--so well that all over the city people can go back to their cafes, be fashionable, and chat merrily with their friends, as if nothing had happened. And it's important that we do get back to normal--but also that we don't forget what happened. And the only way to prevent that is through the preservation and dissemination of knowledge, the reason for something like Wikipedia.

Shut the fuck up. You were doing it because it made you feel good. The very idea that this is what a compassionate person horrified by 9/11 would do to "help", is laughable. As is the idea Wikipedia has any role to play in preventing terrorism. History and rather proven that it has either had no effect at all, or worse, has fueled intolerance, both within America, and between it and the rest of the globe.