Talk:2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 60 days

This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Page history

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2024. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

A news item involving 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 July 2024.

Wikipedia

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

No consensus, 19 July 2024, see discussion.
To be discussed more before holding a formal RM, 30 July 2024, to 2024 CrowdStrike-triggered IT system outages, see discussion.
Moved, 18 September 2024, to 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages, see discussion.

Computing: Software / Security High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as High-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Internet Top‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft: Windows High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (assessed as Top-importance).

Disaster management High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Y2K24 redirect

The page Y2K24 redirects here. Is this a name that's actually in common usage? I haven't seen anyone using "Y2K24" and maybe two news articles or blogs... 2A04:4A43:403F:D906:28DB:8DEC:4D9A:9D85 (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't commonly used for something else. Rguyr (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable quotation (with YouTube video source)

The following references only a YouTube video and doesn't state what "Fireship" is or why the speaker is relevant or an authority. Does it really belong?

Jeff Delaney of Fireship commented that "Giving one company kernel access to the computers of most Fortune 500 companies might actually be a bad idea." 2A04:4A43:424F:DC33:3D59:212C:8E0A:5594 (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed it. The video is informative and engaging but a minor YouTuber is not a reliable source, and his personal opinion shouldn't merit inclusion alongside industry professionals and security experts. GhostOfNoMeme 05:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 CrowdStrike incident → 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages – Been a few months since the last RM with consensus to move, but a flawed process resulting in no consensus on the new title. I am going to do a simpler RM, one that simply asks if the most popular title, that had an average score of 9/10 in the poll that was run, should be accepted. It seems clear to me the word "outage" needs to be in the title, "incident" is horribly vague an not the common name whatsoever. Its a little bit of a thorny one, since CrowdStrike caused the outage but CrowdStrike doesn't actually deliver the services themselves that crashed (Windows primarily but included other services). "2024 CrowdStrike-caused IT outages" might be more technically correct, however that seems awkward and unwieldy to me. If you don't like the current title but want a different one than proposed, please say what title you think is best and if many people want a different title we'll ping the involved editors to decide out of the main options presented. MarkiPoli (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Fine with me. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Clearly better than what we currently have as the title of this article. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 00:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per all the reasons stated in the previous discussions. That said, I think that MarkiPoli's final bolded sentence is a mistake, as asking for alternative titles is just inviting this conversations to break down into chaos just like the last one did — we need a simple up-or-down vote on a single title for any sort of consensus to form. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – it's the most fitting title. GhostOfNoMan 17:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, it is the most fitting title ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 14:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — I'm probably an outlier here, but I find cramming a bunch of terms into the title unnatural and unnecessary and think the current title identifies the topic fine. Per my last source analysis, there's not a single common name but there is a tendency for sources to 1) use the term "outage" and 2) use the term "CrowdStrike". I'd support "2024 CrowdStrike outage", though I don't really mind "incident". "CrowdStrike-related" seems less grounded in usage, though, and I honestly don't even think it means anything. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is going against me and I don't need to argue it, but since I was pinged: I understand the details and believe the current title is perfectly sufficient under WP:NDESC. "CrowdStrike" in the title implies relation to CrowdStrike. "CrowdStrike-related" adds a needless extra word. I don't see a reason to ensure CrowdStrike is distanced via prolixity from an event that is nearly universally linked to them in sources. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 13:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Most fitting title. TechyTommy 💬 22:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, most fitting title. pcuser42 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Concise title that accurately conveys all necessary information. I can’t support the alternative proposed by @Dylnuge for the reasons that have been expressed numerous times over the many RMs - it was not an outage of CrowdStrike but Windows systems, so this title conveys an inaccurate meaning that is avoided by the current proposal. Local Variable (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This title has emerged as the most accepted candidate among many in the prior discussions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Casualties?

Is there a source on related deaths? And would should this be part of this article? With hospitals and emergency numbers affected world wide, I'd assume that damages go beyond materialistic issues. But even if it was zero, it would be worth mentioning. Mikuszefski (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps surprisingly, I can't find any mention of deaths in any reliable sources. It would be a reasonable assumption that at least some deaths could possibly be attributed to the event—considering the many GP surgeries and hospitals that had to cancel non-urgent appointments, had trouble accessing patient records, had completely inaccessible IT systems, etc.—but I can't find any deaths reported amongst the disruption. GhostOfNoMan 18:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Request

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Would it be `appropiate to file a protection request for this article? Under the premise, there's a lot of misinformation spreading, there could be conspiracies about this, etc. Makerofepic (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's no ongoing disruption to the article, a protection request would be very unlikely to succeed at this time. For more information, see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Preemptive protection. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]