Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:24, 19 April 2018 editJack Sebastian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,002 edits →To table or not to table, that is the question: cm← Previous edit Revision as of 22:34, 19 April 2018 edit undoAkld guy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,149 edits →To table or not to table, that is the questionNext edit →
Line 176: Line 176:


{{od}}Not that its a !vote or anything, but there appears to be a clear consensus for converting the article to table format. Now, how do we start the process of transferring the data from the article to the table woithout losing any entries? That was the problem with the prior table formatting; entries were removed during the process. We need to avoid that mistake this time. Thoughts? - ] (]) 18:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC) {{od}}Not that its a !vote or anything, but there appears to be a clear consensus for converting the article to table format. Now, how do we start the process of transferring the data from the article to the table woithout losing any entries? That was the problem with the prior table formatting; entries were removed during the process. We need to avoid that mistake this time. Thoughts? - ] (]) 18:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

*I've been through the history from the first conversion to table format on 23 March to the edit by Jack Sebastian which restored everything back to how it was. Many edits consisted of heavy changes to make the entries compatible with the table format, but there were very few deletions of entries. Here is a list. Unless otherwise stated, the following edits removed entries in their entirety:

*
*
*
* Restoration of Lord Bingham
*
*
*
* Solved cases split
*
*You can see that there are really only 7 cases of deletions, and those may not even be controversial. They can be re-entered on a one by one case, as per consensus. On the other hand, the table formatting met with approval and many edits were made this month to clean up typos, spelling mistakes and table formatting errors. It would be a tremendous amount of work to start the table formatting all over again, together with the loss of all the good fixes, simply for the sake of 7 deletions that are probably not going to be contentious.
*] (]) 22:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:34, 19 April 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of people who disappeared mysteriously redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
LowThis redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Break up list?

Thoughts on breaking up this list? It is quite long, and has over 850 references. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

As I have said in other discussions, at the very least we should have any fugitives from justice (Lord Lucan, David Durham etc.) on a separate list as their disappearances are, by definition, foul play. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Lord Lucan should not be on the list as his disappearance was not mysterious; he intended to disappear as did D.B. Cooper. However, I do believe the list should be split up, though I would prefer a country by country (or continental basis). Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
By definition all fugitives from justice intended to disappear; the police must actively seek them.

I certainly wouldn't quarrel with a country-by-country split either (along with a separate chronological split; entries could and should be on both); I think we are sort of headed that way.

I have also argued in the past for splitting off maritime disappearances, specifically those in which either a) someone disappeared while on board a ship, like Rebecca Coriam or Amy Lynn Bradley or b) the person or people disappeared but the boat was found (Kaz II, Mary Celeste etc.) Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: If there is any clear candidate for being split as it stands right now, it's the list of "solved cases" at the end, basically just because we wanted to keep them on this page. I think that could easily become List of formerly missing people, subdivided into "found dead" and "found alive", with maybe a subsection for people like Agatha Christie and that French lawyer who reappeared but never disclosed their whereabouts afterward. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The list could be split as the current list and then List of people who disappeared mysteriously in the 21st century including the solved cases. I set up a split page at my sandbox page and it would shrink the current page by 156,218 bytes. Shinerunner (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Marcelin & Francine Dumoulin, Switzerland, 1942

According to the Sunday Times (London), 'Home' supplement, p. 25, Jan 21,2018 the bodies these 2 Swiss people, having disappeared after going to milk their cows, were rediscovered in July 2017 after the melting of part of the Tsanfleuron glacier. These facts, perhsaps from a more detailed source, maybe worth adding to the article. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not simply a case of adding their disappearance and the fact that their remains have been found. An article about their disappearance must exist first, so that its notability can be established. Many, many people disappear but we don't write articles for them unless they were notable individuals or the disappearance was in some way unusual. You're welcome to go ahead and start an article on the disappearance of the Dumoulins, but at this stage it looks like the only thing interesting was that they remained undiscovered so long. Akld guy (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people who disappeared mysteriously. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Solved cases

Some of the recent solved cases have bodies discovered within the month, with at least one found within the week. Does this really constitute a "mysterious disappearance" as it is very close to the point where everyone abducted and murdered would qualify? Britmax (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The idea is that if they were formally reported missing, they can be included, since during that time between the report and the discovery of the body they had mysteriously disappeared.

I personally think it's time to spin that off into a separate list. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No references, no inclusion

Just a reminder to not add a person to this article without a reference that explicitly speaks to the mysterious nature of their disappearance. Uncited entries will be removed (and re-removed, if necessary). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Scope

With 7 billion people on the planet, the number of unsolved disappearances is going to be large. For example, how many people disappear intentionally on a path to suicide, or escape from a domestic situation? This list represents only a fraction, but it's still too long. The list might be more manageable, and useful, if it was limited to genuinely curious disappearances, where there is no primary theory what happened (or is otherwise highly notable). A genuine mystery, not to be confused with lack of certainty. Most of these cases appear to have reasonable theories (stated or implied) and tend to be kind of banal. -- GreenC 05:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This article isn't about "unsolved disappearances". Read the title. The fact that the disappearance was mysterious confers the idea that people considered and wondered about the absence. The person disappearing was more widely known than, say, a little kid going k=missing in the favelas of Sao Paolo. Both are heart-breaking, but the scope is limited accordingly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

people considered and wondered about the absence would be the case for unsolved disappearance, by definition. It's unsolved because they considered and wondered about the disappearance. The favela example is pretty extreme and misses the point that, oh, 80% of the world is not of that type. There will be local news sources in most cases. The scope is way too broad, the only reason the article isn't much bigger is it's random, with no systematic attempt to find all such cases. Usually developed Western nations get attention due to the inherit systemic bias of what sources editors/readers are exposed to. But even there, many are still missing from the list. -- GreenC 15:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I cannot disagree with you more, GreenC. What you call "systemic bias", I (and likely most of the rest of the Western World) consider to be an openness to all stories that one rarely finds in non-Western countries. For example: booksellers in Hong Kong began to systematically go missing which was reported by the western media outlets, and completely nothing was heard from within China. Likewise, Indonesian, Thai and Pinay female hosekeepers and nannies in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and elsewhere in the Middle East are constantly abused, both sexually and overworked, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any media coverage from a Middle-Eastern-based news media (al Jazeera as always, being the notable exception). Also consider that people probably go missing in these non-Western countries just as often as citizens in their western counterparts, but the disappearances are balanced against some of the notoriously violent (and often repressive) condictions of these countries. Thus, the favela example; people go missing everywhere with depressing frwequency. If someone known or popular (pre- or post-disappearance) goes missing, it draws more attention.
I'd also suggest that you consider the possibility that the demographic backgrounds of our frequent contributors - privy to comparatively open societies - instead of some nebulous 'systemic bias'. Indeed, Misplaced Pages takes an inordiante nubmer of steps to counter any such bias that occurs, so maybe slow your roll on making an accusation which is only going to get you trout-slapped. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I respect your right to think that the topic is "too broad", but it seems to have worked thus far. The editors working here have managed to calve off those articles or disappearances that don't fulfill the criteria for inclusion to this article. If you are unsure of those criteria, just ask. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I think your over-reacting to a single sentence (supported by WP:SYSTEMIC and any number of academic studies on Misplaced Pages) - no bad faith intended but it looks like a derail from the central point that this list is way too broad in scope, it could be orders of magnitude bigger based on the current criteria for inclusion. And it's already too big. -- GreenC 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
129,000 missing person reports within a few states in India (not the whole country). What percentage of these have reliable sources in newspapers? 5% seems low, but even that would be 6,500 new entries in this list. -- GreenC 19:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
"An average of 4,818 people are reported missing every year in Hong Kong". If 5% of those cases make the news, that would be 240 new entries. Every year. From Hong Kong. Example cases. -- GreenC 19:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you suggesting sister articles that are country specific, under an umbrella article about those disappearances that are transnational in nature? If so, I find that an intriguing idea. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Those articles would also be too big. The numbers are huge. Look I understand how these lists get started, at some point Misplaced Pages needed a place to track it, probably split off from the main article missing person years ago. Over time many editors put a lot of work into it. But clearly it's not working when the list is so incomplete, and would require a full-time staff to keep the database up to date globally. The solution is simple: tighten inclusion criteria. -- GreenC 20:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Excellent points Green C that the list will never be complete or accurate. I'm sure that the editors that are/have worked on articles like the List of stars, List of galaxies and Lists of comets (along with the related sub lists) also realize that the task is too large and never will be complete. My thought is that this is the English Misplaced Pages, not the Complete Worldwide Misplaced Pages nor the Encyclopedia Galactica, and many of the world's cases of mysterious disappearance won't be found here but may be found on one of the other 300+ language Wiki's. Also, one of the existing entries may pique interest in shipwrecks, glacial motion or any number of subjects that are sometimes connected to a disappearance. Since you brought up India I took a look at the numbers for missing persons in the United States "which had roughly averaged 750,000 cases per year between 2004-2014" and have possibly 1-2 entries per year on the list currently. I agree with you that notability or unique circumstances, such as multiple persons disappearing at the same time, should be the primary reason for inclusion but I think that you would be had pressed to find a case in which there is "no primary theory what happened" in a modern case of a missing person. Getting off my soapbox now.Shinerunner (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Well thank you for recognizing the scope problem, and giving a reasonable perspective on it. I can certainly understand English vs. non-English weighting, it's a systemic bias but not in a negative or positive sense, just reality of Enwiki. Perhaps rather than the "no primary theory" approach, another way is to require a higher degree of sourcing eg. no local-sources only, multiple national or international sources, etc.. this can be codified in the article itself, or as a guideline on the talk page. It doesn't have to be a hard line, just a local guideline, if people really want to add something anyway they can. Then go through the current list and move any that fail into the talk page with a note why, and if someone thinks it should be added back then discuss. Then going forward the list will be shorter, fewer entries being added, and more in-line with Misplaced Pages's conceptual core of "notable" information. -- GreenC 15:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me that the list could use some cleaning. I eliminated a number of entries while converting the list to a sortable table, thought about removing some others, and rewrote some entries to make them more coherent or added background information to give understanding for the entry. Splitting the entries of explained disappearances, after looking back through the archives and seeing most agreed with such a split, is one way to try to make the list more manageable. Personally, I think the list should be split again, similar to the split we did at List of maritime disasters, to List of people who disappeared mysteriously in the 21st century. Amusingly, someone, in a removed response here, accused me of engaging in "official vandalism". Sometimes it feels like a Catch-22 situation. Shinerunner (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are going to have to reinstate those entries you removed while creating the table; any entries you disagree with deserve discussion before removal. The alternative is going back through the history and undoing the entire table and reinstating the old format before putting the table back in with ALL of the entries. While I am fairly certain that no discussion was had regarding the addition of a table format, I am not as opposed to that as I am to the wholesale removal of entries (like that of Lord Lucan, who has been the subject of no less than two sections here in discussion) under the apparent 'noise' of reformatting. I am hoping that such was not the intent, and am hoping that it was done under the mistaken belief that it was efficient.
I leave the choice up to you; I will only wait a day or so (to keep the resulting mess at a minimum) before undoing the entire table to uncover the entries removed. I really wish you had discussed this idea of the table before implementation. Being Bold isn't a great idea when moving through contentious edits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The article is improved by the table. Recovering some lost entries is not worth the loss of the table (plus many new entries only exist in the table). I would suggest working with Shinerunner to uncover lost entries, and/or checking the diffs yourself, but making threats of removing the table and giving a 24hr deadline -- I couldn't support that. -- GreenC 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Not to be overly contentious, but commenting that the article is "improved by the table" is a subjective opinion; as per BRD, its a bold move, and is subject to reversion and subsequent discussion. Had we discussed it beforehand, we might have made to provisions to avoid the clusterfuckery of missing entries now. I don't see why I or anyone other than the person making the change should sort through to find out which entries were removed on the sly. If I am forced to go over DIFFs, you can bet that the table is going to go away to find them.
In the alternative, I would suggest that we:
  1. discuss how the table improves the article. I for one disagree with this assessment, as it makes it more difficult for those unfamiliar with table design to add new entrants to the article.
  2. go back and undo the addition of the table, the recreate the table (assuming there is consensus for the table) and add ALL of the entries into said table. Those entries that people disagree with gets discussed here, not accomplished by fiat.
That's how we move forward from here. If you perceived my previous comment as a threat, consider that adding the table and simultaneously (and subjectively) removing entries was a recipe for a stupid edit-war. It should have been discussed. I think the two options above are completely agreeable, considering the alternative BRD removal of the bold change to a table. In any case, Lord Lucan - who was surrepticiously removed during the en-tabling of the article - goes back into the article. There has been a shit-ton of discussion about this, and if you wish to challenge existing consensus about it, feel free.
I know that some will take exception to both my language and my bold use of a semi-ultimatum here; I apologize for that. I am likely taking extreme exception to the removal of entries by undiscussed fiat. This admittedly cynical observation is reinforced by the complete lack of apology by the acting editors for having done so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Changing to table format began on 23 March, more than three weeks ago, in this edit, which put the "Before 1800" cases in table format. Other sections were later converted. The solved cases were split off into a separate article. Not a single editor has complained or reverted the changes. In my opinion, the changes are an improvement. In the original format, some of the entries were overly wordy with too much detail. The table format now encourages editors to be more concise. The reader's eye can now scan down columns for a date, name, age, or circumstances without being distracted by the other information, which is now in another column. Much clearer and neater. It was certainly a mistake to remove entries at the same time as tabulating, and that is most unfortunate. However, it would be a mistake to revert the tabling and seek consensus for it. Because no editor has complained over the past hree and a half weeks, the table format has by default already achieved consensus, and the onus is on the objecting editor to seek consensus for reversion. Akld guy (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
That's an interesting opinion; it is also the wrong one, Akld guy. The regular contributors to this article's structure don't visit here every day, and it isn't unusual for some of us to not visit the article in a month, esp. if we are simultaneously involved in RL activities and other articles here. As far as I can see, there were about three editors working in tandem to repopulate data after the article was restructured. Three folks do not a consensus make (you will recall in other articles from the past where you have argued precisely this point).
Note that I am not necessarily opposed to the restructuring (apart from the problem of new entries being added by those who are unfamiliar with tables) as much as I am with the undiscussed removal of entries.
I made my position pretty dang clear: reinstate all of the entries removed during the table-making process, or we have to go back to before the table was created, achieve a spoken consensus that the table format is better and THEN populate the table with ALL of the entries, not just cherry-picked ones. I have noted that no such effort has been made by the editors creating the table to reinstate the entries they removed. That suggests that they don't want to, and you know me well enough to know that that is a problem. The clock is ticking. I'm urging the editors who unilaterally removed content to reinstate it. Or I will. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I made no claim that three editors working to repopulate consisted of a consensus. There must be many, including myself, who have this article in their watchlist. According to this statistic page, there are 646 people watching the article. Not one of them has objected to, or reverted, the table format first introduced on 23 March. Akld guy (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you seem to be taking my patience in explaining the point to you as wavering in my statement. Had the table been inserted without the rampant and unexplained removal of entries, that would be a simple matter or revert and discussion. Since the en-tabling was not a pure move (ie, the sole conversion of text into a table), the entire action is malformed. Therefore, it must be undone and - if upon consensus - redone - retaining all of the entries. Entries can then be retained or dispensed with via discussion. Using Lucan as but a single example, there are megabytes of discussion about his entry, and yet, it was removed without a single sentence of explanation. That's just begging for a fight, and corrosive to the point of article discussion.
I've removed the table. I am not opposed to the recreation fo the table, and the entries ported over. I will not allow the table to be reverted back in, as the missing entries would stll be missing. We add the entries, or the table stays out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You have been unable to establish consensus via informal talk page discussions. Multiple people disagree with your proposal and multiple people have reverted your proposed changes. The next step is you would start a formal consensus process such as an RfC. -- GreenC 06:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: I am sorry, but you seem to be misapprehending how BRD works. You added the table without discussion. That's called a BOLD change. It was REVERTED. As per WP:BRD, the point is to now DISCUSS. If you aren't interested in BRD, please feel free to initiate an RfC; after all, you want to add the table, and you are encountering dissent for its inclusion of the table in its current form

You might have missed how I created a section to discuss this very matter at the bottom of the page. Maybe contribute there, to keep all comments about the same subject int he same place. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BRD-NOT: BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. -- GreenC 06:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
First of all, it isn't a Good Faith effort if you conceal removals of entries during the table's population process. If anything, that's considered bad faith, in that you populated a version of the article within the table. Maybe you should address that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, I know you might be blind with rage at having your pet version reverted, but I will point out - yet again, that there is a section set up to discuss this very topic. Maybe, you know, use it.
But in case you are still raging away, allow me to point out a few things:
  1. You didn't have any consensus for adding the table. Strike one.
  2. You removed entries from the article while making aforementioned unilateral table. Strike two.
  3. You were given the option - several times - to re-add all of the removed entries to the table, knowing full well that failing to do so would cause the table to be removed. Strike three, buddy.
This ain't Burger King; you don't get it your way. You find a consensus for a change you want to make. If you don't get consensus and make the change anyway, anyone can come along and undo the change. BRD isn't there as some humpty-dumpty acronym for you to spout off at a dinner party. Its there to provide you a framework for editing the right way and avoiding the shit-storm you've managed to create here. BRD allows people to discuss changes before they are implemented; so its pretty fucking omportant. You failed to do that; this is what happens when you try to end-run the process. And removing entries willy-nilly? You are just begging for an editorial curb-stomp when you do that. And when you conceal them in a table creation under the guise of making things better? That's blockable territory there, sport.
So, you are starting off in the hole here. Maybe addressing the points I've brought up, and maybe explain why you removed entries while creating the table. Explain why you are edit-warring when there is a reasonable alternative on the table that doesn't end up with your getting trout-slapped. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Jack, you claimed that "Lord Lucan - who was surrepticiously removed during the en-tabling of the article" and "Using Lucan as but a single example, there are megabytes of discussion about his entry, and yet, it was removed without a single sentence of explanation". Lord Lucan was removed by you . Edward321 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

El tunante

I thought it would be interesting to add the story of a boat with 4 Argentinians that capsized off the coast of Brazil. There was another boat 400 meters away that was going to help but that due to visibility couldn't.

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/1787277-tunante-la-historia-de-un-naufragio

That sounds like they died by drowning, so whilst sad, not mysterious. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

To table or not to table, that is the question

I returned to the article and noticed that someone had added a nifty little table to the article. I also noticed that quite a few entries that had been int he pre=table version were missing from tho post-table version. One of the missing entries in particular was one for which there was a fairly strong consensus for inclusion.
I am concerned that the folks who created the table did so without discussing what is a fairly major change to the article. In any case, as per WP:BRD, it was a Bold edit, which I have Reverted; now, Discussion takes place.
Additionally, I am extremely concerned that entries went "missing" during the conversion. Maybe it was all a big oopsie, but, judging from the talk here, it was no mistake. Creating a table has a lot of moving parts, and people might miss an entry that doesn't get added. After the creation of a table, its hard to revert it back in without messing up the table formatting. I'm trying to maintain AGF, but I cannot help but wonder if that was in fact the tablemaker's intent. Or, alternatively, if the tablemaker thought that it might be easier to chop this article into a number of subsidiary artivle.
So, I think we need to actually find a consensus for the table's inclusion (there are significant arguments for anf against). If we find that there is a consensus for a table, every entry must be entabled, not just what the tablemaker thinks should be in the artile. Editing in Misplaced Pages is by consensus, not by fiat.
Whatever we decide, the table cannot be reverted back in; too many entres were whimsically removed without discussion, and its pretty difficult to sift through the DIFFs to find the orphaned entries. If we decide to re-create a table, then I am cool with that, so long as the entire article is converted over to the table - not just the tablemaker's preferred entries. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit that converted the article into a table, and requested that GimliGlider and GreenC address these issues on this page. I'd suggest that separating the issue of reformatting the article as a table from discussions about content inclusion might be a way to start to resolve this in an amicable way. In principle, reformatting the article as a table seems fine to me, but making contentious content changes hidden within that reformatting, without engaging in discussion, seem to me to be against policy. -- The Anome (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, The Anome. Now, can we discuss the pros and cons to replacing the current format with a table? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
You said in the ANI you don't mind the table. Now you want to discuss the pros and cons of having a table. Which is it? I get the impression you don't want the table is the real underlying issue. -- GreenC 14:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: GreenC, let's not make this personal; you shouldn't impart intentions to my actions when you have proven you don't listen when i clearly tell you what they are.
I am in support of a table, despite the fact that doing so will make it more difficult for the average user to add content - they are likely unfamiliar with table formatting, and will create a series of headaches every time a new entry is added. And there will be additions. As people keep disappearing mysteriously.
As for those deleted entries, mankind doesn't have the instruments that can accurately measure how strongly I object to that. To be blunt, it was precisely that shit that created this whole kerfuffle. If you had just done the table, and imported all the content in, chances are, I and everyone else would have been okay with it. To be frank, I am not sure what your intent was, but removing entries while populating the table comes across as pretty shady. You keep talking about how you had consensus for the table (as if 3 editors out of hundreds would ever constitute such), but yet want to deny that consensus existed for every single one of the entries that you removed on the sly. You don't get it both ways.
So, to sum up:
yes to the table, and
hell-effing-no to the undiscussed removal of entries.
You can recreate the table and then populate the table with every single entry - which is what I have proposed since the beginning of this entire discussion. Then you can discuss the removal of entries. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Please get a spell checker, your posts often have blaring spelling errors ("I ogject"). Lay off the swearing and cursing see WP:CIVIL. Third, try not to post walls of oddly formatted text. Post indented text following the person your replying to (me) and not someone else (Guy). Get your facts straight I had nothing to do with creating the table or removing entries - in fact the only edit I ever made to this article has now been deleted by your revert. Do you plan on restoring it? -- GreenC 14:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I mentioned before how you should probably make your comments about the edits, and not the editor, right? :Since you were able to figure out the gist of my post, maybe be a grown-up and move on past the occasional misspelling. My formatting is just dandy, so either get used to it, or get gone. I have no time to spare on snippy little comments masquerading as commentary. And by the by, the word you probably meant to use in place of 'blaring' was 'glaring'. But that's okay; everybody makes mistakes.
Lastly, I did not blame you specifically for the removal of entries during the table substitution. I do hold you responsible for your endorsement of undiscussed reverting of entries, which is still pretty bad.
Now, do you want to focus on the content, or do you want to complain about something else I've done to personally upset you? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
You don't want the table is the underlying issue, everything else is a derail to prevent it from being implemented. -- GreenC 18:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. I think I've noted on at least a half-dozen occasions that I'm not opposed to the table. What I don't want is a table where someone slyly removed entries before they were transposed from the previous article format to the table. So add the table, and add every single entry from the article into it. That's it. No extra hoop-jumping, no storming the castle, no illuminati secret handshakes required. Just create a table that's an honest translation of the article format from before.
I am not sure how to make that *any* clearer to you, short of charades or the invention of a silly walk. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't create the table, so that will be up to someone else. You have noted a number of times why the table is not a good idea. So you are inconsistent. You have also not made a !vote, in this discussion, why, what are you keeping back if you support the table? -- GreenC 18:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not blaming you for the table, GreenC, but you seem to be jumping to its defense, so you are who I'm replying to. Belly up to the bar, or go away. I personally don't think the table is a good idea, but some editors want it, and collaborative editing means you don't always get what you want. But hiding deletions while formatting is not a good faith action. If you need to, re-read my previous posts. Stop focusing on the table format; it isn't the problem here (you know, apart from the whole BRD thing). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support conversion to the table format, but for that conversion process to be content-neutral by preserving all entries, including those whose removal Jack Sebastian finds concerning. Subsequent addition and removal of material can then be done as a separate series of edits, subject to discussion at this talk page, as per normal editing processes. -- The Anome (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Precisely. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Table is a vast improvement. It is much more readable, which should be a high objective of any article. The trimming is good to and could probably go further. The editors who did this should be commended as making tables here is a arduous process at the best of times. AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Yes, as long as the formatting and trimming are two separate operations. When you mix the two together, you conceal changes to the article that might deserve discussion. But as for the trimming before the formatting, David Goodheart and I and several others thank you very much. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Nothing is "concealed" it's all in the diffs. You sound like a motivated intelligent user, why don't you re-add the missing entries? You have a bad faith attitude about intentional "concealment". We don't punish editors and degrade the article over suspicions of bad actions. Why don't you help out. Making tables is a huge job anyway this is supposed to be joint effort. Build on what they started. -- GreenC 23:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
This might come as a shock to you, but sometimes editors aren't always that specific in their edit summaries. No one should have to pore over dozens of DIFFs to uncover skullduggery. You are wasting time, GreenC. Focus on the task of a table conversion that creates a true copy of the article that existed before the formatting. If people object to an entry, it can be done when the table is complete. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Aww it's not so hard. Compare the lists side by side, fill in the missing entries. Helping out isn't wasting time. Improve the article rather than accuse editors of skullduggery. All editors believe they are improving the article. -- GreenC 01:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so it shouldn't be all that much trouble to repopulate the table without errant entry removals. That doesn't seem all tha thard, either. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Not that its a !vote or anything, but there appears to be a clear consensus for converting the article to table format. Now, how do we start the process of transferring the data from the article to the table woithout losing any entries? That was the problem with the prior table formatting; entries were removed during the process. We need to avoid that mistake this time. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I've been through the history from the first conversion to table format on 23 March to the edit by Jack Sebastian which restored everything back to how it was. Many edits consisted of heavy changes to make the entries compatible with the table format, but there were very few deletions of entries. Here is a list. Unless otherwise stated, the following edits removed entries in their entirety:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4 Restoration of Lord Bingham
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8 Solved cases split
  • 9
  • You can see that there are really only 7 cases of deletions, and those may not even be controversial. They can be re-entered on a one by one case, as per consensus. On the other hand, the table formatting met with approval and many edits were made this month to clean up typos, spelling mistakes and table formatting errors. It would be a tremendous amount of work to start the table formatting all over again, together with the loss of all the good fixes, simply for the sake of 7 deletions that are probably not going to be contentious.
  • Akld guy (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously: Difference between revisions Add topic