I find the exhaustive lists not only excessive, but also potentially disrespectful to the relatives. ffman ( talk ) 01:00, (UTC) Oppose, in general for lack of notability and per WP:Memorial. Kierzek ( talk ) 19:54, (UTC) Oppose introduction of lists of non-notable victims as they are almost always un-encyclopedic and incompatible with the letter and spirit of notmemorial. I am fine with an external link to an appropriate memorial website or list of victims. But such lists don't belong in articles. ad Orientem ( talk ) 19:37, (UTC) Memorial:Alternatives edit Status quo continue deciding ona case-by-case basis. Beeblebrox ( talk ) 01:38, (UTC) Status quo one-size-fits-all policies are rarely useful at wikipedia. jayron 32 02:28, (UTC) Status quo, since apparently "oppose" doesn't actually mean, well, "oppose but i oppose making such a change.
Sponsorship, proposal, sponsorships Emirates nbd bank
It is either that or we have to decide where to draw the line. Does every soldier who died during a battle get listed akatsuki in an article about the battle? How about everyone killed by the nazis at Auschwitz in it's article? The list could. U zchrykng t c 05:39, (UTC) Oppose, if for no other reason then who gets to decide what is deserving of such memorials? Victims of Terror, mass shootings, collateral damage? Too much room for edit warring and pov pushing. Slatersteven ( talk ) 15:41, (UTC) General oppose including lists of nn individuals, as ( indiscriminate amount of information ). Victim lists should include those who are independently notable,. There may be a section in the articles on the victims - covered as a group / individually, depending on the depth of sources for specific individuals.
A list of 20 random names is just as useless as a list of 2,996 random names. Alsee ( talk ) 00:53, (UTC) Oppose - 2nd choice because there should be explicit provision for exceptions. Superior to status quo, however, per my comments elsewhere in this proposal. mandruss 01:25, (UTC) Oppose a list of the names of non-notable people who were killed in an event has no point other thesis than to memorialize the victims in question. While i feel for the people involved, that is not the point of an encyclopedia. Cataloging the victims of various of events is a noble pursuit, but is more suited to another venue. My conclusion would be to prohibit victim lists unless the victim meets general notability requirements.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edibobb ( talk contribs ) gender 02:08, (UTC) Oppose, with appropriate exceptions per Masem and Khajidha. The status quo, however attractive it may seem to!vote for, has not served as well, and provides a justification for battleground that is really unnecessary. The wording should at least strongly discourage the practice of inclusion. No such user ( talk ) 13:35, (UTC) Oppose. For the normal reader it is an utterly meaningless and worthless list of names randomly pulled out of the phonebook (with my apologies to the family and friends of the deceased). For the normal reader, biography it serves absolutely no encyclopedic purpose. Name(s) should only be included where it provides some identifiable and distinctive purpose for a generic reader. If it's a relative of the perpetrator, or a celebrity who gets individualized news coverage, or one of Khajidha 's examples, it makes sense to have a textual-discussion of those individuals. To make the point reducio ad absurdum, there's no reason we should treat the victims of a mass shooting any differently than the victims of 9/11.
For most victims of these tragedies the story would have been exactly the same if anyone else had been there and their names give us no real extra data. khajidha ( talk ) 11:58, (UTC) Oppose but with appropriate exceptions. We should encourage editors to avoid these, unless there are reasonable circumstances, notably that if discussing the event that it is impossible to do so without mention some of these people. masem ( t ) 02:30, (UTC) @ Masem : my understanding is that this is about complete lists of names and ages, not prose about selected notable victims. They are separate issues and I think most opponents of the former do not oppose the latter outright, although we might disagree on the meaning of "notable". In my opinion your!vote is the same as mine in the following subsection. mandruss 02:36, (UTC) Oppose, lack of notability.
Sponsorship - insurance from aig in the
Davey2116 ( talk ) 04:07, (UTC) Memorial:Oppose edit Oppose, policy is meant to be analysis descriptive, not prescriptive. As it stands, this type of information gains consensus to be included in some articles and fails to in others, so there is clearly no consensus that this should always or never be added. Therefore, case by case discussion, as is current practice, is the proper way to settle. Seraphimblade talk to me 22:17, (UTC) Seraphimblade, i'm not sure that your response matches the description above for what "oppose" is supposed to mean. WhatamIdoing ( talk ) 02:55, (UTC) Oppose, the victims of mass tragedies are (generally) not notable, they are simply the people who happen to be in the area when the event occurs.
Even in the case of mass shootings (where this debate keeps popping up most of the perpetrators are not targeting specific people, they are simply killing anyone in the way. Obviously there are some minor exceptions. The vulcanologist who was killed by the eruption of mount. Helens while collecting data, a newscaster who is blown away by a tornado while on air, a passenger on a jet who attempts to stop hijackers, a shooting victim who was called out by name in the perpetrator's manifesto. But notice that these are highly specific things.
Most commenters in this rfc agree that victim lists are appropriate in some articles but not others; the main dispute here is over the proportion of articles in which victim lists are appropriate, not whether they are appropriate period. I think this rfc would have been more helpful if it proposed a default rule that could be overruled with local consensus instead of a mandatory rule that must be obeyed even in illogical situations. Spirit of Eagle ( talk ) 20:47, (UTC) Support — if already in place, would have avoided so much drama in Troubles -related articles over the years. There is nothing to prevent inclusion of relevant lists, in collapsible boxes if necessary, and a list of names included on a wp:notpaper wp article is not a "memorial." Bastun Ėáḍβáśŭń! 08:55, (UTC) Support/Comment/Reject as Malformed - this looks like a dirty trick.
I think most people are reading this to think that "support" means they have to include a victim list, and balking at that excessive outreach, when in reality "support misleadingly, seems to have the effect of "allow. Maintain the status quo. I insist that a change in policy should not be accomplished by getting a majority of Oppose votes on a "proposal" - otherwise every wikilobbyist will be doing. And for what it's worth, i "support" allowing the list of victims every time. I think wikipedia made a mistake back in 2001 when it invented WP:not and abandoned the idea of hosting an enduring 911 memorial that tried to collect what was known about all the victims. Wnt ( talk ) 21:25, (UTC) Support since, as stated above, "support" means "allow while "oppose" means a blanket prohibition.
Timeshare, promotions deals, timeshare, promotions as low
mandruss 23:06, (UTC) Support as 2nd choice. A mandatory rule that overrides local consensus and write past precedent is a horrible idea that will require absurd and illogical outcomes. However, if the community decides to create a mandatory rule, id prefer for it to be inclusion for two reasons. First, this is more in-line with common practice on wikipedia (particularly with school shootings) and will require less clean-up. Second, many tragedies are notable because of the specific victims (such as the 1943 Gibraltar B-24 crash, which killed many leaders of the polish government in Exile). In these cases, it is incredibly important to know the names of at least some of the victims. Further, many notable people (particular those from non-English speaking countries) do not have articles, so wed have to hold a pre-emptive online afD for many entries into the victim list. Spirit of Eagle ( talk ) 19:40, (UTC) I realized that a mandatory inclusion rule would require victim lists for pandemics such as the 1918 flu pandemic (50 million deaths, minimum natural disasters such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (230,000 deaths, minimum.
Opponent: i oppose per WP:memorial. Proponent: memorial says we can have the list if it serves pain an encyclopedic purpose, appears in reliable sources, and is compliant with other wikipedia policies. Opponent: I disagree that the list serves an encyclopedic purpose. Uninvolved closer: no consensus. (or the closer counts votes and calls it a consensus) mandruss 17:58, (UTC) I think the revised conversation is better, since the opponent has to explain how it serves no encyclopedic purpose. Of course there will still be disagreements but there is room for compromise and consideration of the page at hand.- carwil ( talk ) 22:53, (UTC) It it easy to "explain how it serves no encyclopedic purpose" convincingly enough for your argument to count. Many editors have done exactly that. There is no clear wikipedia definition of encyclopedic purpose. Therefore your suggestion would change nothing.
expect adding a line to wp:memorial stating this will end all disputes over victim lists. However, right now these disputes often boil down to Proponent : I think we should have a victim list due to x, y, and. Opponent : I don't think we should have victim lists because of WP:memorial proponent : That's not my reading of WP:memorial. Admin closer : no consensus. This is simply not a helpful pattern. If WP:memorial included something like the following it would help: "This policy does not prohibit the inclusion of lists of victims of tragic events, if they serve an encyclopedic purpose, appear in reliable sources, and are compliant with other wikipedia policies. These lists should be written to provide relevant information, rather than memorialize the lives of the victims."- carwil ( talk ) 18:46, (UTC) Proponent: I think we should have a victim list due to x, y, and.
Current Rfc current language of WP:notmemorial : Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the pdf place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. I propose that we add a line to wp:notmemorial that would either allow or prohibit listing individual victims of mass tragedies if they do not meet our notability guidelines and/or WP:blp and they are covered in the media as part of the story of the. This proposal, if approved, would also override any local consensus and precedents. Long lists containing more than 20 names should be contained in a collapsed section. Support will allow inclusion Oppose will prohibit inclusion Cheers, - bohbye ( talk ) 21:52, (UTC) Memorial:Support edit support as nominator. bohbye ( talk ) 21:53, (UTC) Support - i continue to say that the victims are notable in the context of the given event.
Fo atp synthase foF 1-complex home site
Discussion page for new ideas and proposals. New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting : « Older discussions, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, contents, wP:notmemorial, victim lists in mass tragedy articles - round 2 edit The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The issue of victim lists in mass tragedy articles was adressed lined before and the consensus was that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis. I believe the issue needs to be addressed again to finally reach global consensus due to the fact that each mass tragedy articles become a constant struggle amongst editors supporting or opposing the inclusion of a victim list. There is also another issue where outcomes of a consensus on a specific article does not count as consensus for later articles, so the back and forth edits and fights never end.