Talk:2024 CrowdStrike incident

What infobox should we use?

I was thinking Template:Infobox bug, but I'm not sure what one would be the best. Lordseriouspig 07:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox event might be the most appropriate option, in the lack of any obvious alternative. The article at least right now is about the outages, not the specific bug (which is yet to be identified) that might be causing this. Gust Justice (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

We could use event for the article <top> and then use infobox bug for the "technical details" section ZalnaRs (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Impact section already too unwieldy

I know that it's very early days, but the Impact section is already getting out of hand. Is it too early to consider a spinoff? I'm not convinced that the readers are coming to this particular action for an exhaustive list of everyone impacted (a gargantuan list, evidently), and I think we should already start using the summary style, at least for the Impact section. Melmann 08:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree it is getting out of hand with just an inventory of geographic regions. It would seem to make more sense to go sector by sector, as an "IT outage" is more relevant to certain economnic/social impacts, rather than geographic regions. I'd favor of going with headings like "Transportation," "Banking and economics," "Broadcast and communications." Those three alone might account for 50-70% of all entries. - Fuzheado | Talk 09:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be done by sector instead of country. For example, a paragraph on aviation, one on banking, one on TV/media, etc. 2A00:23C8:308D:9E00:7588:FB7E:2907:414F (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Jinx. Great minds think alike. - Fuzheado | Talk 09:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Should be split off by Sector Wolfstorm94 (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. This means we can summarise it all better. For example we can say how airlines were affected (and list major ones) which means we aren't duplicating content when listing every country. ―Panamitsu (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've started with a new "Air transport" section and will be moving things there. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I will just add that I'm not sure sectors is necessarily cleaner, it is a bit more confusing to assess impact by country for example with some responses and impacts could being different. Now that some information has moved the impact on Germany or the USA is harder to understand than the yet to be touched Australia section to me.MyacEight (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, seems like a more logical way to split it in this context. Benpiano800 (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to provide a counterpoint: I came here specifically for a regional itemization of issues, so the current format was great for my needs. ―Rob Frawley 2nd (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I preferred regional itemisation as well. I can understand both arguments. GhostOfNoMeme 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. :-) ―Rob Frawley 2nd (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Crowdstrike has nearly 24,000 clients as per its last earnings report. That's customers, not devices. kencf0618 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kencf0618 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am in the middle of implementing this sectioning. Are you sure it is an improvement?

If we don't trim stuff down, it will become a wall of text for each sector. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be a shame to have to trim significantly. Divided by sector, I feel that there isn't much room to comfortably go into sufficient detail. I would have kept the "Impact by country" with detailed descriptions, and reserved "Impact by sector" for something more akin to "Hospitals were affected in Australia, Brazil, Canada ..." and "Flights were delayed or cancelled in Australia, France, Germany ..." and so on. Maybe that would lead to a cumbersome article with an overwhelming amount of information and repetition, though...

Either way, there seems to be support for itemising by sector so I think it's worth sticking with it now. GhostOfNoMeme 15:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutral. Please do not delete information about the impact. Users will skim to the section that interests them. -- Dandv 22:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Response

Should Response be listed by country? Currently only has Australian governmental response. TirFarThoinnExpora (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Either by country or by sector, I reckon, going by a previous conversation above. Procyon117 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

One initial appraisal is that the travel sector seems to be the hardest hit. https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/19/banks-airlines-brokerage-houses-report-widespread-outages-across-the-globe/ kencf0618 (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Um, I removed it in [1] without seeing this. Most other editors seemed to disregard the section distinction anyway. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Too, this is occurring by time zone. We'll need a sortable list... kencf0618 (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's very sensible to have this section. Every W10 corporate and public sector computer which received the CrowdStrike update will now be unbootable until the botched driver update is rolled back. IT departments are going to be very, very busy this weekend, and somebody at CrowdStrike will be looking for a new job. --Ef80 (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree - if it's typical "we're fixing it" type of responses, there's no need to include it. Only unusual or novel examples of responses would seem relevant to a special section. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would advocate for public official responses, but maybe in one specific response section. Yes, an industry saying "we're working on it" isn't much of anything, but if a world leader or some major political figure starts talking shit about CrowdStrike, calls for better oversight, or erroneously jumps to blame foreign powers, it should get a mention. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 15:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Cyber

Is any reliable source calling it a "cyber outage"? The only footnote using such a term is a CBC article which uses the term "IT outage" in the title. Nemo 10:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I know Reuters and DW are calling it a cyber outage. But with that being said quite a number of outlets are calling it an IT outage too. Is there any huge differences between these 2 terms? S5A-0043^Talk 10:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The page was originally called "July 2024 global IT outages" but was moved without any explanation. ―Panamitsu (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The term "IT" in titles is not a great practice – it relies on jargon and as an acronym, it is too English-centric and does not lend itself to ready translation. Cyber or computer outage has its advantages. I do agree moves like these should be discussed. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to read the talk page before moving the page, but I would say that the current '2024 CrowdStrike incident' is a fine title. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It's really bad form to unilaterally move the page without getting some form of consensus. Please don't do that. - Fuzheado | Talk 11:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

AP is calling it a Global IT outage, but I think global cyber outage would be better. JoseMoranUrena (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"Cyber" is deprecated; "IT" is universally understood, and as such hardly jargon. kencf0618 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you may overestimate how much the average reader would know what "IT" means when seen in isolation, especially since it is an English acronym which even further narrows its understandability. It would be useful to find out what other Wikipedia articles have the term "IT" in its title, as I cannot easily think of any. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Driver or Content Update?

The president of Crowd Strike has just posted to Twitter/X that the issue was a faulty content update. Would this not be different to a driver update as written in the article? Should we change to content update? BeigeTeleprinter (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Are those two statements contradictory though? A driver is just a more specific description of the "content." - Fuzheado | Talk 10:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"Content" is just management PR bullshit. They rolled out a kernel driver update without testing it properly on W10. --Ef80 (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

And none of the end users checked it before rolling it out either? 2A0A:EF40:10B2:D801:4960:9247:5147:8900 (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The updates install automatically without user intervention. Most Windows updates happen like that now, particularly in the corporate world. --Ef80 (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The files in question are not drivers. They are rather more configuration files that are loaded by the CrowdStrike sensor driver and controls it's behavior.

The format of those files is proprietary but it's easily possible to verify that they are not valid drivers. 2003:DE:9727:7A1E:E9AB:32B4:B808:A188 (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Per Ef80, I don't understand "content update". Perhaps "Configuration update"? 174.92.25.207 (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources (MS, CS) are calling it a "channel file" Does anyone know what a channel file is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.159.91.86 (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Which Windows OS?

The article doesn't specify which Windows versions. Are the versions 10 and 11? Unsure whether CrowdStrike still offers updates for its software on Windows 7. George Ho (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be W10 systems that are affected. Presumably CS developed the update on W11 and didn't test it on properly on W10. --Ef80 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

According to Cyber Security News it is at least Windows 10 and 11, although I don’t know where they have this information from. BeigeTeleprinter (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

From Cyberstrikes own blog It is stated as being Windows 7.11 and above. I changed this already based on this source, but I'm not experienced here so please let me know if I've made a mistake.MeshBlair (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"Windows 7.11"? Is there such a thing? (Not to be confused with iCloud for Windows version 7.11, superseded by version 7.12 and later ver 14.1.) George Ho (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@MeshBlair, you're misunderstanding the source. When it says, "Customers running Falcon sensor for Windows version 7.11 and above [...] may be impacted," that version number is not referring to Windows, but to "Falcon sensor for Windows". That is, that 7.11 version number is referring to the Falcon sensor, not to Windows. —Lowellian (reply) 01:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, you're definitely right now after a re-read. Sorry about that! MeshBlair (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

On a personal note, in my workplace only the windows machines with a TPM were affected, the older windows machines without a TPM were unaffected. This has some interesting security risks for the future. 124.170.217.121 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Lack of images

This is a huge outage that affects a lot of places in the world but there is little to no images showcassing it ? i added one image of a self checkout being affected by the outage on wikimedia but on twitter i'm seeing a tonne of images of entire airport being shutdown its kind of bizare that none have made their way here no ? should i go to the airport to take more pictures ? Kou~ (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

ive also seen images by social media users showing handwritten boarding passes, i think this could be a good addition to the above suggestion 197.240.106.98 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Koupip: You may have forgotten to save your "one image". In Special:Contributions/Koupip, you didn't edit the article. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

i edited the french one not the english one as i try to not interfere too much with wikipedia since i suck at it as much as id like to help out lol, french wikipedia is kind of abandoned so i edit it on occassions. should i add the image to the english wiki page too ? the page seems really bloated and still under construction so i feel like it would caus more trouble then its worth no ? Kou~ (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Please just WP:BOLDly add the image to English Wikipedia. I think you adding the image is beautiful. Don't worry about causing trouble while the page just because the page is under construction, until you are reverted.

I doubt "french wikipedia ... so i edit it on occassions" after seeing fr:Spécial:Contributions/Koupip. There was a grammatical error (affecter) corrected later. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah i'm not too good with grammar which is why i don't edit wikipedia at all i just add pictures very rarely when it can help Kou~ (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Nvm, I will boldly add it instead. My edit got blocked by WP:EF 174.92.25.207 (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've successfully asked someone on Xiaohongshu to give permission to upload an image of the crowd at an airport during the outage. They haven't put the permissions yet, so once they do it I'll upload the pic. S5A-0043^Talk 13:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Windows activation servers down

People from the massgrave project reported that activation was not possible from 0:44 to 0:53 (azure vms started to fail). possibly only US servers? ZalnaRs (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@ZalnaRs I believe this was part of a separate Azure outage before the crowdstrike incident. This is not relevant to this article. Aveaoz (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Consistency with Time Zones

Most times in the article reference UTC, there is a single use of IST, and 2 rather unhelpful uses of "10:00" and "7:00 a.m".

Is there reason to warrant changing all times to UTC? TirFarThoinnExpora (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

about the IST one, MOS:TIMEZONE allows it. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you! I'm a rather new editor, so thanks for the link. Kind regards, TirFarThoinnExpora (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the sources for the uses of 10:00 and 7:00. They appear to be from sources within UTC+2 timezones, so I've added '(UTC+2)' to them. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 14:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Google Cloud and Azure detections

Google Cloud and Azure started reporting bootlooping windows VMs. I think it should be included in the article. ZalnaRs (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Both are now included. I note the Azure status page gets the date wrong; it says 04:09 UTC on the 18th, but it should say the 19th. GhostOfNoMeme 17:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

References

DMY dates and American English?

This combination seems inconsistent with MOS:TIES. Using MDY dates seems more appropriate. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It was originally written with tag {{Use New Zealand English}} and dmy dates [2]. We should not be defaulting to American English and date formats for a worldwide event. MOS:TIES does not demand use of American English, since it is a worldwide event, and the fact that it's a US company is trivial in comparison to the worldwide nature of the event. If anything, it should be switched back to New Zealand English (or similar Commonwealth English) as per MOS:RETAIN. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It currently says to use American English. It's about a faulty patch released by an American company for computers running an operating system from another American company. It was first observed in virtual computers running on a cloud computing system of an American company, and the source of the problem was identified about three hours later by another American company. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The impact is worldwide, but I don't believe it's fair to say the US connection is "trivial". CrowdStrike and Microsoft are American companies. GhostOfNoMeme 15:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

And so is Google, which was who identified the source of the problem. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's about a worldwide outage that affected many companies and countries, not just the US. That's enough reason not to default to one countries' spellings/date formats, and apply MOS:RETAIN instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

But if it's going to use DMY dates, it shouldn't be using American English. If it's going to use American English, it shouldn't be using DMY dates. The current combination doesn't make sense. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy with a switch to {{Use New Zealand English}} or {{Use British English}}, then, especially in light of the article's use of {{Use dmy dates}}. I have no strong opinion. But the current mismatch between dates and variety of English is worth addressing. GhostOfNoMeme 15:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It is a worldwide event, and the very first revision is clear in using {{Use New Zealand English}}. Per MOS:RETAIN, it should be used in this article. MOS:TIES does not apply since CrowdStrike is not the subject of the article, and the event itself is worldwide. You could just as easily say that MOS:TIES should be with Australia/New Zealand since the majority of early impact/reporting was in those timezones. Melmann 16:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The logic is that it happens worldwide, and especially in Australia/New Zealand. Why not use {{engvarb}} instead, and dmy dates. It should not use American English. Toadette^Edit! 16:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Not "especially" in NZ, AUS -- but due to timing of the update, NZ/AUS noticed it before USA. 1.159.91.86 (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with BarrelProof that we should be using American English, given that the companies involved are all American and the impact seems to be spread pretty evenly worldwide. I don't see that it's especially bad in Australia/NZ, that impression may just be because of the time that it started (2PM AEST vs midnight EST) leading to it being noticed earlier there, or also customized search/news results based on user location. Kdroo (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

At this stage (and considering MOS:RETAIN per the above) I think it's best left with New Zealand English (and dmy dates). GhostOfNoMeme 18:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There is insufficient justification for enforcing NZ English here. We have American companies on both counts - Microsoft as the main platform, and CrowdStrike as the one that caused the error. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN is settled policy and therefore plenty of justification. If you wish to argue for MOS:TIES then you need to build a broad consensus for the change. Melmann 08:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion on which variety of English should be used, but as to your comment MOS:RETAIN is settled policy, the top of that page actually says that it's a guideline, not a policy. Thus, if there is consensus on this talk page to use American English here, I think MOS:RETAIN can be overridden in this specific case. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly concur with User:Epicgenius. We're talking about an American company and the largest impacts of its error were felt by American companies, especially airports and airlines. MOS:TIES should control here. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a very single-minded, America-centric view of the issue. If you want to see the article abandon one region, the move should be towards something standards based, not another region, regardless of economy size. BlakJakNZ (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur with retaining NZ English, or some form of worldwide English - this is a worldwide event, not specific to the US. pcuser42 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

NZ English is not worldwide English, is it? The most common and established English variants are American and British. Out of the two, American seems to make more sense due to reasons stated above Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 23:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Per other reasons stated above, effects of this incident were felt worldwide, not just in the US. I don't think the ties are strong enough to justify US English given the massive scale of what happened. pcuser42 (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily saying this article should use it, but the closest thing to worldwide English is Oxford English, corresponding to {{Use Oxford spelling}}. It is used by the United Nations, the International Organization for Standardization, the WTO, NATO, the ICRC, and many other international organizations (see the Oxford English article for further detail). It is also very close to Canadian English. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

For this particular article, there is a clear and close connection to the United States, and I think it would be best to use American spelling and MDY dates. (I didn't directly say that before, although my comments may have leaned in that direction.) CrowdStrike is a U.S. company that makes a product built to work in the context of an operating system made by another U.S. company. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN justifies keeping UK English over US English. There is no basis to go through changing s -> z, etc. However, I don’t think we should keep it as NZ English - that’s an odd, niche choice which leaves editors wondering if there are any peculiarities about that regional variant. There is no geographical or political nexus to NZ here. Local Variable (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN says to keep the variety of first significant contribution, in this case NZ English. No English variety is more justified than another, as there is no objectively correct way to write English. The only other valid argument for WP:ENGVAR change is MOS:TIES, but it does not apply since this was a worldwide event.

Also, American English is niche as well, only 17% of English speakers use it. Melmann 11:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with other editors that MOS:TIES applies here. Consider the WannaCry ransomware attack article: the attack used American NSA tools and targeted Microsoft Windows machines. Both the NSA and Microsoft are American, and yet the article uses British English and dmy dates (with the only talk page discussion explicitly invoking MOS:RETAIN). This event may have been caused by CrowdStrike, a US company, but the article is dedicated to the incident and outages that resulted; a truly global affair, just like the WannaCry attack. I don't think there are particularly "strong national ties", here, so MOS:RETAIN applies. GhostOfNoMeme 12:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you call the first contributions significant? Also, it results in confusion. I don’t consider RETAIN binds us to it. Unlike a change to US English, it doesn’t require overhauling the article. It is simply a recognition than NZ English is not appropriate. I think it’s also important to hear in mind why retain exists - it’s fundamentally to stop wars between contested variants where two might arguably apply, and disputes between US and UK English causing big edit wars. Neither applies here. Local Variable (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to using {{Engvarb}} instead of NZ English. pcuser42 (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The standard ISO 8601 for dates is YYYY-MM, YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD and should be used in all articles whose expected viewership is more than regional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:aa00:151f::193b (talk • contribs) 19:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline MOS:BADDATE does not consider that date format acceptable for Wikipedia. It says to use it "Only in limited situations where brevity is helpful". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSTIES this article should be in American English: both Crowdstrike and Microsoft are U.S. companies and this event originated in the United States. TIES supersedes RETAIN when there are clear national-ties to a subject as there is when the two companies most involved are from one country, and the company which identified the cause is also from that country. Avgeekamfot (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t agree with this application. It’s a worldwide incident. Local Variable (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That reasoning hasn't necessarily held in the past. The WannaCry ransomware attack involved two American entities, the NSA and Microsoft, and yet the article uses British English per MOS:RETAIN. Both were global incidents; the source of the incident being an American company doesn't make for a "strong national tie" in my opinion, otherwise we'd use British English for the BP oil spill. ;) GhostOfNoMeme 12:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Focus on the big picture. We're talking about an cybersecurity incident where the majority of the impact was sustained in the United States, in terms of the number of people affected and potential monetary damages incurred.

For three days, the Delta subreddit on the Reddit site has been full of horror stories from traumatized Delta passengers, crew and other personnel dealing with the airline's worst meltdown since 2017. YouTube has plenty of videos too. Thousands of people spent the weekend living rough in Hartsfield-Jackson because Metro Atlanta doesn't have enough hotel rooms for an emergency like this. Smaller numbers have been reported at other airports like Minneapolis and Salt Lake City. And the end of the mess is still nowhere in sight, with 500 more flights cancelled by Delta this morning. With about 5,000 flights cancelled by Delta to date, we're talking about several hundred thousand people who are now stuck waiting for days for seats on later flights, or having to spend several thousand dollars for last-minute tickets on other airlines or other modes of transport to salvage their travel plans. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Title should be more specific

There was a similar incident where crowdstrike pinned CPUs to 100% until devices were updated and restarted just 3 weeks ago at end of June, which was less impactful.

• https://twitter.com/BushidoToken/status/1806630671051378868
• https://old.reddit.com/r/crowdstrike/comments/1dqckk5/cs_messed_up_cpu/

The title should probably be more specific with this in mind. "July 2024 CrowdStrike incident" perhaps? Or perhaps we can include a section to also mention this. Aveaoz (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we should make the title more specific.

I don't think it's appropriate to include a section on this article that mentions a separate (unrelated) incident. Jtbwikiman (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a contested request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests by Luminism to move the article to July 2024 global IT outages. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

But since that incident doesn't have an article or even a mention at CrowdStrike, that is no reason to change the article title. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the June incident probably fails WP:N. Unlike today's incident. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 16:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The title needs to be more specific. Many sources say it is an outrage, while the title implies that it is an incident. Maybe start a requested move? Toadette^Edit! 16:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Or wait a few days. This article is like 10h old. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, "outrage" is rather tabloid in the circumstances. It's certainly a massive corporate screwup by CS though, and we'll have to see what's left of the company after the many, many lawsuits have beed settled. --Ef80 (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe Toadette means "outage", instead of "outrage". GhostOfNoMeme 17:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

We could do a topbar. and say not to be confused with this ZalnaRs (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

When we have a "not to be confused with", that usually refers to another WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the disparity between the notoriety of these two events, this feels unnecessary to me. It's like saying Barack Obama is not to be confused with my friend Barack, who works at McDonald's. Jtbwikiman (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 19 July 2024

2024 CrowdStrike incident → ? – Two reasons: the first is that the lede of this article is straightforward; it instead say that there is an outrage, before saying how, where the title is derived from. Second, most reliable sources often refer this event as an outrage. The title should at least be moved to a title containing "outrage". Toadette^Edit! 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• You mean "outage", not "outrage", right? :)
  Oppose move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage. My concern is that the title may be misleading: this was not an outage at CrowdStrike, rather it was a global outage of systems caused by CrowdStrike. The incident led to the outages. I do see many articles using "CrowdStrike outage" nevertheless. GhostOfNoMeme 17:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support a move to 2024 worldwide IT outages or 2024 global IT outages. My preference is the former. Per my above reasoning, I still strongly oppose any move that includes "CrowdStrike outage" or "CrowdStrike outages" due to the misleading nature. GhostOfNoMeme 09:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage as "incident" is vague. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• 2024 CrowdStrike outage makes more sense within the framework of WP:COMMONNAME (as much as such a thing exists for something that's hours old), almost every news article I can see uses the wording "outage": "CrowdStrike outage", "Microsoft outage", "global IT outage", etc. Kdroo (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage — it's more concise. LOOKSQUARE ♂ (👤️·💬) talk 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage as more precise. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral, I think it was an outage caused by an incident. However I see that many news websites report "It was not a cyber incident" so the term "incident" may be confusing for readers, making the Wikipedia article sound like it's describing an attack. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 18:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: "2024 CrowdStrike Outage", at first read, seems to imply that the CrowdStrike service itself went down, not that it caused an outage to other services. This is misleading instead of vague - pick your poison? 40.139.55.99 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that that title seems to imply that. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 18:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I get your point, but there's functionally no difference. CrowdStrike stopped working by BSOD-ing the computer it's on. Also, none of the news headlines seem to care about the distinction either, so I don't see why we would. Kdroo (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  CrowdStrike indeed stopped itself from functioning on computers with the update, but this is a broader IT outage because it stops any other tasks from being performed on these computers. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 18:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage as per above. Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• It's not a good name, because it's not just the CrowdStrike "company" who was effected. Everyone was effected who was at airports etc... ZalnaRs (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage as per above. FloridaMan21 (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support move to 2024 global information technology outages^{[plurality changed per subsequent comments]} (or a similar title): As the outage affects more than CrowdStrike, I think that this title would be less misleading than "2024 CrowdStrike outage" while still being more specific than the current title.–Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 18:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC); edited 23:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose mildly because of the issue raised above – CrowdStrike did not experience an outage, it pushed out software that caused an outage. This is a distinction that does seem to make a difference. If we look at Category:Software_bugs, related incidents might be "problem" or "bug" or "disruption." See 2008 submarine cable disruption, 2022 Rogers Communications outage or 2021 Facebook outage to see the contrast. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose suggestion, CrowdStrike outage makes it sound very small. I think 2024 worldwide IT outage would be good, BBC have it as 'Worldwide IT Outage', CNN has 'Global Tech outage', CBC have 'Worldwide Tech Outage' etc. Personally I think 'Worldwide' is better as it shows a wide spread, whereas global implies everything was down. Honestly think it's a bit soon to worry about a name and wait to see what the world ends up calling it. (It might be 'The start of the Event' by the end of the week!) JeffUK 19:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Worldwide is not correct as world refers to the universe and this outage is not evrywhere in the universe 46.189.188.162 (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Technically this is one way to interpret it but it's clear that this statement refers to the Earth. Wikipedia doesn't have to be technically correct. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  "world" can be defined that way but in practice it usually refers to Earth, as it does with the context here. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 22:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - CrowdStrike did not experience an outage themselves. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• I mean outage nor Incident are the right words. AidenT06 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. As AidenT06 said, they didn't experience the outage, the incident was caused by a bad update sent by them to Windows computers which had their software. Karol739 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: "2024 CrowdStrike outage", like others have said, sounds a bit like the company itself went down - the incident was the result of a faulty driver update from CrowdStrike. A more broad name like some have suggested could work but then it may be a little too vague - again, the incident was directly caused by CrowdStrike.
  Support move to 2024 worldwide IT outages or similar; after thinking for a while and seeing others' reasoning, I think it makes sense, when you consider the sheer spread of the incident and the mention in reliable sources. Still oppose "2024 CrowdStrike outage". TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 19:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with 2024 worldwide IT outages – the article's original title was July 2024 global cyber outages and I honestly don't think it ever should have been moved (except maybe to remove 'July'). GhostOfNoMeme 09:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is that so? Never thought to check the move log, didn't know that. July 2024 global cyber outages is serviceable at the least but I'm sticking to my !vote (having "July" is irrelevant anyway). TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 16:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Crowdstrike did not experience an outage, nor is a service running locally that’s failed called an outage. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose 2024 CrowdStrike outage per Fuzheado and others as CloudStrike didn't have an outage. I'm fine with the current title until the dust has settled and a WP:COMMONNAME emerges, and I would only support 2024 worldwide IT outages or similar if it uses the plural "outages" as it is not a single system that is down. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to any move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage: the proposed title is highly misleading, it just does not describe what the article is about — a worldwide outage that affected not only CrowdStrike but many more organizations and places such as airports, banks, hospitals, etc. It is not any more concise either. And per WP:COMMONNAME "2024 global tech outage" is a more appropriate title than "2024 CrowdStrike outage", and is much more consistent with other articles whose titles end with "outage" (see: 2023 FAA system outage, 2021 Facebook outage, 2011 PlayStation Network outage and Google services outages for example). 0xC0000005 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would say "IT" is much more prevalent than "tech" in media coverage of the event. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. 0xC0000005 (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• 2024 worldwide IT outages or similar per JeffUK and Ahect. It's more precise since the article is about the impact of worldwide outages not necessarily just CrowdStrike's role. It's also more neutral because it doesn't single out one company over others in the title, when the effect is arguably more central than the company that caused it. Oppose "CrowdStrike outage" or variants per others. — Wug·a·po·des 20:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose 2024 CrowdStrike outage and similar - CrowdStrike didn't have an outage - they caused many outages. My main concern is this title could mislead readers. Support moving to 2024 worldwide IT outages or a similar title. Encoded  Talk 💬 20:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Alt to 2024 worldwide IT outage or similar to be WP:TITLECON with other outages, but oppose 2024 Crowdstrike outage - Like other people have been saying, this isn't an outage at Crowdstrike, it's an incident caused by Crowdstrike. The current title is also too vague, I would oppose keeping it at the current title. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 20:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral. I do agree the page needs moving, but 2024 CrowdStrike outage is slightly misleading, but I feel the name should involve CrowdStrike in some way. Lordseriouspig 20:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Since the outage specifically affects Microsoft Windows products and is not an outage "at" CrowdStrike, maybe the title should reference both? e.g. 2024 Windows—CrowdStrike Outages or similar. Corporal (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  I dont think its right to include Windows as the blame isnt at their door. Having their name in the title would imply blame. AidenT06 (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose. No, the incident specifically affected users of CrowdStrike products who happened to be using said products on Windows. Windows was not the cause for it - CrowdStrike was. Hence there's very little justification to mention Windows in the article title. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 21:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  But the outages are only on Windows. I don't think it's a matter of assigning blame but rather just being precise in the naming, especially since there is evidently no consensus on what an accurate name for this incident should be. "2024 CrowdStrike-related Global IT Outages on Windows" is unwieldy but accurate I'd say.

  I think the lack of a consensus and the apparent inability to come up with a name for the incident that is truly accurate and descriptive means we'll have to either stick with the existing vague title or just hope that a journalist or cybersecurity expert somewhere comes up with a catchy name for it. For example, it was not the "2017 Cloudflare security incident" but rather Cloudbleed. So has anyone happened to see any nicknames for this debacle catch on? :) --Corporal (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. "CrowdStrike outage" is not correct - the software wasnt "out" at all it just broke any PC it was installed on. "incident" works best, so keep status quo.  Nixinova   T   C   21:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral. I do think the article needs a stronger word than "incident," but I don't think "2024 CrowdStrike outage" would be a good term. Maybe something like "2024 worldwide IT outage" like @MetropolitanIC suggested. Benpiano800 (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the term 'CrowdStrike Outage'. It wasn't a CrowdStrike outage, as there was no outage on behalf of CrowdStrike (unlike the 2021 Facebook outage or the 2023 Optus outage or the various Google services outages). Yes, there were many outages as a result of this incident caused by the CrowdStrike oopsie - but like CrowdStrike itself didn't have an outage, so saying they had an outage in the article name would be a bit misleading.
• On that note, weak propose the title 2024 CrowdStrike Oopsie /s 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Crowdstrike outage: CrowdStrike did not suffer an outage; rather, their customers did; change is ambiguous, also per above. Silikonz💬 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• If you read the article, what's it about? 2024 Global Microsoft Systems Outage. 2600:1700:5B80:3CA0:90B5:61D6:789C:AA33 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I'm ambivalent about whether the word "outage" or "incident" should be used, but, in either case, I don't see any need for "2024" in the title. Wikipedia doesn't have articles about any other CrowdStrike outages/incidents, so, per WP:PRECISION, either "CrowdStrike outage" or "CrowdStrike incident" is sufficient. There was a similar discussion last June about whether the title of the article on the Titan submersible implosion should include the year, and the consensus reached was that it should not – personally, I think the arguments mentioned there also apply to this article. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  The only argument I saw in that discussion was that "because no other submersible named Titan has ever sunk/disappeared/whatever, so "2023" is completely superfluous", and I don't think it applies here. Also there is WP:NOYEAR and other precedents: for example 2021 Facebook outage (to which Facebook outage was a redirect until 9 March 2024) and 2022 Rogers Communications outage. Proposals to move the article to "2024 worldwide IT outages" or similar, where removing the year would make the title ambiguous, should also be considered. 0xC0000005 (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  • According to WP:NCWWW, it looks like this title format is fine, so forget what I said. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title "2024 Crowdstrike outage" strongly implies that Crowdstrike had an outage. While Crowdstrike themselves were likely also affected by their mistakes, this incident is notable because of other outages, not any outage of Crowdstrike services. iczero (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Weak oppose any move, strong oppose move to "2024 CrowdStrike outage. I don't think there's a clear WP:COMMONNAME of this yet, so for now the title should just describe what the event is about. I wouldn't be opposed to a more detailed description than "incident" if one is found but I don't see any compelling reason to move the page before a WP:COMMONNAME is settled on. However I do very much oppose a move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage, because that name makes it sound like CrowdStrike itself went down, when that's not what happened. Maybe 2024 outage caused by CrowdStrike, but if we were going to do that I'd still just prefer the current name. Loki (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as 2024 CrowdStrike outage is misleading readers into believing that the outage was with CrowdStrike itself (which it wasn't) rather than with each individual company whose computers installed the faulty update. Rather I'd be inclined to support 2024 global technology outage or something similar as it gets to the point. I think incident in this case is too light of a word given the billions (or even trillions) of dollars in lost revenue between the affected companies and other services (such as 911 in North America). Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

  Endorse this reasoning. This alternative name is unworkable. Local Variable (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the reasons stated above, I have changed my mind. FloridaMan21 (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• I’m rather surprised the media hasn’t come up with a clever name for it yet. CrowdOut? BlueStrike? FalconPunch? Scoott2016 (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's almost like us Wikipedians decide the fate. We are the Senators and Representatives of the world! FloridaMan21 (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I suggest StrikeOut. Or CrowdCover. CloudStruck! GhostOfNoMeme 04:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  The media has come up with a name—the term "digital pandemic". I don't suggest using this term in the title of the article. Obankston (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose For reasons other editors have stated above. Viatori (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The word "outage" is redirecting to "downtime". The servers/computers are crashing and not working due to the drivers not working.

• It's more like a system crash, so the article could be renamed to something along the lines of that. Tonkarooson (discuss). 01:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose because it doesn't matter. Crowdstruck has become a verb already, the title could just be "2024 Crowdstrike" and there would be no mystery as to what it was about. Also, although I see outage used a lot (alongside other terms like failure and chaos), the distinction may matter, legally, since Crowdstrike may have obligations to maintain their service - which they did - carrying contractual penalties if they have downtime, and "outage" would be relevant to those obligations, but not relevant to refraining from releasing files with epic bugs in.  Card Zero  (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Crowdstruck has become a verb already, the title could just be "2024 Crowdstrike" and there would be no mystery as to what it was about.
  Where have you seen it "Crowdstrike" used as a verb like that? This title makes little distinction as to what happened. If I had just came across this article, I'd imagine I would be very confused by that name. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 03:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Nowhere very notable, but since you ask: Hacker News, and again, somebody's newsletter, Reddit. Of course I don't seriously suggest "2024 Crowdstrike", but I maintain that the choice of next word barely matters as a clarification due to being overshadowed by the first one.  Card Zero  (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  ah, that's fair. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 03:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:COMMONNAME, the event described in this article should be called an "outage", the term used widely in the media, and not an "incident" which is vague. Based on historical outages like the 2021 Facebook outage, Google services outages and others described above, these outages are attributed to the systems/platforms affected; following this format, the article could then be titled 2024 Microsoft outage or 2024 Microsoft Windows outage, as it's Microsoft's systems that became directly unavailable for users worldwide. If we want to depict the outage more accurately, because CrowdStrike was also unavailable due to the faulty patch which caused Microsoft Windows to crash, we could alternatively name this article 2024 Microsoft outage caused by CrowdStrike or 2024 CrowdStrike-Microsoft outage. Polo (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  None of the titles are about the subject of the article though. The first proposal has exactly the same problems as "2024 CrowdStrike outage", and the latter two do not respect WP:CONSISTENT. 0xC0000005 (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. The fact is that Microsoft’s systems crashed and had an outage so the proposed 2024 Microsoft outage or 2024 Microsoft Windows outage is appropriate. The latter two are also quite consistent with similar articles. I am more inclined to 2024 CrowdStrike-Microsoft outage which I believe accurately and concisely describes the outage’s cause and scope (it’s Microsoft computers with CrowdStrike that went out and disrupted services). Polo (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  2021 Facebook outage is named after a company whose major product offerings were affected by the outage. Google services outages's title reflect the findings that multiple Google services were affected by different outages. Both titles reflect accurately the scope of their subjects.

  This one is not only about CrowdStrike, Microsoft or Microsoft Windows, and computers running Windows are not Microsoft computers per se. "2024 Microsoft outage" is unnecessarily restrictive compared to the article's subject. There is very little backing for the title "2024 Microsoft Windows outage" — except that only Windows PCs were affected, and I don't think there was a previous outage that was or has been named after an operating system. "2024 CrowdStrike-Microsoft outage" combines all the disavatanges: it is not concise, it does not accurately describe the outage's scope and it is not very widely used in the press (compared to "Microsoft outage" or other proposals). 0xC0000005 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  There are numerous published reports in the press that refer to this event as a Windows outage, CrowdStrike-Microsoft outage, CrowdStrike, Microsoft outage, CrowdStrike and Microsoft outage.

  I understand that this Wikipedia article also talks about the IT outage in different industries, which is an impact of what happened to Microsoft Windows and CrowdStrike. Ultimately, they're all about the outage of Microsoft Windows PCs with CrowdStrike. Polo (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, since most of the news reported that it was Windows PC that was affected but not for the Apple nor Linux PC, I think 2024 CrowdStrike-Microsoft outage was more suitable for this headline. VernardoLau (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposal (edit: i.e., the proposal to rename to “2024 CrowdStrike outage”) is not correct. CrowdStrike didn't have an outage, it was their customers who went down. A better title might be “2024 CrowdStrike global crash”. McDutchie (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  "The" proposal? To clarify, there are multiple proposals. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 02:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Move to 2024 Microsoft outage in lieu of other – I agree that maybe CrowdStrike outage isn’t appropriate. But a lot of the news media has said this is a “Microsoft outage”, as such, move to 2024 Microsoft outage instead. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  That is not correct either. Microsoft did not have an outage, nor did Microsoft have anything to do with causing the global crash. McDutchie (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  And herein lies the problem, there should have been a proposed title as part of the move request to (1) focus discussion and (2) determine if a move was actually required. This move request was unnecessary because the current title is perfectly workable. I should add, there’s no criticism of OP here, it’s unfortunately common for move requests to be lodged as soon as a new article is created even when there’s no obvious deficiency with the title requiring rectification. Local Variable (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and close Why did this get nominated when no alternative name was supplied? We don’t need to have a requested move template on the top of every new high traffic article. They should be avoided if possible. Local Variable (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think the open-ended proposal is fair, there's definitely room for discussion on a more fitting title, as this thread has already proven thus far. And I don't think traffic should have anything to do with requesting moves. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 03:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  We shouldn’t be having move discussions for the sake of having move discussion. At bare minimum, a problem with the existing title should be identified. This is a recurring theme with breaking news articles - someone rushes in with a move request, meaning a maintenance tag. Almost always, it can wait. Local Variable (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think the proposal brought forward some fair starting points about the wording. and what's the problem with the tag? why hold back on starting a discussion just because it would mean putting a template at the top of the page? TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 05:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support to move to 2024 CrowdStrike Outage per WP:COMMONNAME. Typing "CrowdStrike" into Google News gives me an aggregate of various ways the event is being referred to in headlines. I'm definitely seeing the term "CrowdStrike Outage" showing up fairly often, but I'm also seeing some articles call it a CrowdStrike-Microsoft outage, or even just a Microsoft outage, etc. Nobody's calling it an "incident" though, so a move is merited. Nominator should've provided an alternative name at the start, but that they didn't doesn't mean editors can't voice support for suggestions already made in this discussion. As far as the idea that "CrowdStrike Outage" isn't valid because it sounds like CrowdStrike itself has experienced an outage... if the most common way of referring to the incident ends up being "CrowdStrike Outage" or something along those lines, I think the fact the name could be read by some as a little ambiguous or misleading would be something you'd have to find sources clarifying so as to tackle in the body of the article. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  The proposed title is misleading because CrowdStrike at no time had an outage. It was a bug in their software which causes other IT systems to have outages. This name is not workable. Local Variable (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't want to bring up specific examples because all that seems to invite is opportunities to cite WP:WHATABOUT or WP:STRAWMAN, but this would hardly be unique. I recognize Wikipedia editors are probably biased towards being more technologically literate and more aware of the nuanced reality of what is going on, but there are other topic areas with less nuanced titles because that is the most common name by which the event is referred to by reputable sources, and the matter of explaining the actuality of what happened (rather than what the common name might implicitly suggest to some) is tackled in the article itself. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  What is wrong with the current title? Local Variable (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  It is not the WP:COMMONNAME and does not meet the criteria for an article title (WP:TITLE). AVNOJ1989 (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  The first point is debatable and the alternative is no better (and outage is factually incorrect), the second is circular reasoning (the title is wrong because it is wrong). Local Variable (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  The second is not circular reasoning. ATITLE defines the criteria for what makes a good article title, and the current title does not meet those criteria. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as it's not an outage in the same sense. Keeping the existing title or going with something like "2024 CrowdStrike computer crashes" would be better E1b40d38d9c0b718 (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  "2024 CrowdStrike computer crashes" has a similar problem: the article not only about the crashes of CrowdStrike's computers but about the crashes of Windows systems from numerous organisations that use CrowdStrike's software. 0xC0000005 (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support to change the name, strongly oppose 2024 CrowdStrike outage. Something like 2024 global IT outages as put forward by @Wugapodes is far more clear and conveys the scope of the incident far better than "CrowdStrike outage", plus it accurately reflects reporting on this event. Pave Paws (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Way better to change the name to something like "2024 Worldwide tech outage". SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  This title is too informal. Local Variable (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Outage or MS in title, neutral to name change — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycosys (talk • contribs) 10:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose It wasn't really an outage of CrowdStrike, just a computer glitch. The proposed title would be overly confusing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support to change the name as it is ridiculously vague (I originally thought someone at CrowdStrike created it to downplay the severity of the incident); strongly oppose 2024 CrowdStrike outage as CrowdStrike wasn't out. 2A00:1028:8390:E032:30E4:92B5:A007:6E9B (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Move to 2024 Global Outage or 2024 Global CrowdStrike Outage. "Incident" sounds like a small local event. David Crayford ☎ 12:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the suggestion to move the title to 2024 CrowdStrike Outage. The issue was not a outage of CrowdStrike, but the systems that CrowdStrike was monitoring. The suggested title is wholly inaccurate. - Skipple ☎ 12:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support to change to something like ' 2024 Worldwide tech outage. "outage" is definitely better than "incident", "global" or "worldwide" should be here to emphasize that many countries were affected, and mention of CrowdStrike is useful but not absolutely needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.205.143 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps technological crisis? That's one of the items on the list that incident links to.  Card Zero  (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to see something similar to "2024 global technology outage" as it did affect a significant amount of businesses globally and caused a lot of financial losses as a result. Urbanracer34 (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support → Given that CrowdStrike itself didn't experience an outage, but rather, its faulty update caused global disruptions, a more accurate title would be: 2024 CrowdStrike faulty update incident. This title clarifies that the issue was caused by a faulty update from CrowdStrike, which, in turn, led to widespread outages across various sectors globally. Sources like SiliconANGLE provide detailed coverage on this incident, noting the disruptions caused by the faulty Falcon update and its widespread impact. → Deutscher, Maria (July 19, 2024). "Faulty CrowdStrike Update Causes One of the Largest-Ever IT Outages". SiliconANGLE. Palo Alto: SiliconANGLE Media Inc. Retrieved July 20, 2024. – Eurodog (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Faulty update", to me, doesn't sound very encyclopaedic. GhostOfNoMeme 16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  How about:

  1. “Inaccurate Update”

  2. “Erroneous Revision”

  3. “Incorrect Modification”

  4. “Misleading Edit”

  5. “Incorrect Update” Eurodog (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I like the idea, though it might make the title seem a tad too long. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 03:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  None of those terms are appropriate. The issue was a faulty software update. Not an 'inaccurate update' or an 'incorrect update', and certainly not any variety of 'revision', 'modification', or 'edit'. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 15:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• support the proposal Ved548 (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  "the" proposal? –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 17:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage. CrowdStrike caused outages on systems running it, but it didn't experience outages. TechyTommy💬 18:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support for a rename. July 2024 Global Computer Outage is my suggestion. It clearly defines what the outage was and when it happened. The articl itself, in particular the lead can describe it was caused by a Crowdstrike software update and its global effects. Truthanado (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Disagree with this on multiple fronts. It shouldn't be in title case and it's not correct (not all computers were affected, just Windows computers). "July" is too specific too; nothing else similar happened yet in the year. If something does happen later this year then something like "July" can be added. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose outage, but support rename, if incident is too vague maybe failure? Something like 2024 CrowdStrike software/driver failure would keep CrowdStrike in the title and still be accurate. ThePikachin (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage. "Incident" is too vague. Oppose variations without CrowdStrike like "2024 worldwide computer/IT/tech outage" or "2024 global computer/IT/tech outage" because they are too non-specific by not mentioning CrowdStrike and could refer to any widespread tech outage and would also incorrectly imply that computers without CrowdStrike were directly bricked. —Lowellian (reply) 00:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support 2024 CrowdStrike outage. "Incident" is too vague, "outage" is more specific. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  It may be specific but it’s factually incorrect. Even if there was local consensus in this move request to move to outage, the discussion closer is unlikely to move it because such a title is so plainly incorrect and therefore contrary to policy. Local Variable (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move to 2024 CrowdStrike outage because this is a worldwide outage, not an outage limited to CrowdStrike. Suggest 2024 worldwide IT outage for the same reason that "2024 rock concert power outage" makes more sense than "2024 rock concert electrician incident". Obankston (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• The Great IT Outage Of 2024 I just saw this as a title to a YouTube video and think it makes a grand name! David Crayford ☎ 03:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  now here's a name i can truly get behind!.. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 03:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Strong oppose this. It is not the WP:COMMONNAME. It's also excessively flowery; the floweriness could be ok if that's the name everyone used (like Alexander the Great), but it isn't. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oppose as ambiguous — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Windows BSOD IT outage 2024. It only affected Windows, it caused BSODs, a loop which caused outages, and was from Cloudstrike. Alternatively July 2024 Cloudstrike IT update causing worldwide Windows BSOD outages I realise this will not pass, but it is more descriptive - the problem is that we can make lots of redirect pages for people who are searching, we do not need the title of this page to be descriptive. We need it to be the most common used name, or close to it. It only affected larger systems, servers, cloud providers and data centres. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  The first is not in comformance with the convention for naming articles (the year comes first if included: WP:NCWWW), the second is too verbose and is not the common name. Also, it suggests the cause was Windows, but it was CrowdStrike that caused it - and that is what most reliable sources are referring to. Local Variable (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move to "2024 CrowdStrike outage" per reasons above. However, moving to 2024 Windows outage does seem viable IMO. Otherwise, keep as is. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Move to 2024 CrowdStrike update outage or CrowdStrike update outage because I think that it will be somewhat obvious that an update cannot go down in the same way that a computer or website can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• oppose move to "2024 CrowdStrike outage". CrowdStrike itself did not suffer an outage, but did cause an incident — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Suggesting to have it renamed as 2024 Microsoft BSOD Global Outage. It is Microsoft which shown BSOD where Crowdstrike is the root cause. Adithyak1997 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  strongly oppose: Microsoft did not suffer an outage, nor were they the cause. By the same logic, you could argue this should be called "2024 Global Airport Outage". Alex Rosenberg (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• strongly oppose move to "2024 CrowdStrike outage". Incident itself is vague but the usage of the term 'outage' is worse, as when it placed immediately after the company's name, it reads as though the entire company suffered a blackout instead. Have words like 'global Windows outage' or some form of description would help. Yienshawn (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

oppose: "CrowdStrike outage" is incorrect - CrowdStrike did not suffer an outage, their customers did. Alex Rosenberg (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support 2024 Crowdstrike outage. It's the WP:COMMONNAME, and it could be read to mean "the outage caused by Crowdstrike". — Gestrid (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

But not everyone will read it like that, and it would certainly be misleading. Incident seems best in that regard. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It could be, but I strongly feel that an unfamiliar reader would read it as "an outage at CrowdStrike". That would be the plain interpretation. Why introduce ambiguity when we have the opportunity to avoid it? GhostOfNoMeme 19:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Impact on the Government of the United States

I'm a civilian employee of the US government and noticed that the impact on us has yet to be mentioned. I know my agency was hit due to the BSOD on my government-issued laptop referencing csagent.sys; OPM was presumably hit as well, the operating status hasn't been updated since yesterday morning.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I started a section on this. Atubofsilverware (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I see a COI tag got added. Nonetheless, the effects on the US gov are important, so they should stay on the page. Atubofsilverware (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Melmann 18:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It was done; see the bottom of the Social services section. It's a rough start but it's generally what they requested. Atubofsilverware (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Displaying text as images

I'm concerned that the images of text such as KFC app notice and Vanden Borre website, except the BSOD screenshot itself, may not meet MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. At least for BSOD, it shows us what nearly every person affected saw, and BSODs themselves may have a sort of visceral impact that purely text could not, thus it, in my view, brings a value beyond just the textual content of the image. The other two, however, could be transcribed into one of the divbox templates if the text itself is seen to be of value, so at least the accessibility concerns raised by MOS:TEXTASIMAGES are resolved. Melmann 19:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

English Grammar

Can we follow American English by saying "July 19, 2024" instead of "19 July 2024"? Please. 2601:40A:8400:1820:41C7:7591:2AE9:2851 (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

See the above discussion. GhostOfNoMeme 19:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawal of race car?

In the Response section, how is the withdrawal of a car from a race part of a response to the company's faulty software update? The cited source does not explain this. —Finell 19:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The driver, Sponsor was Crowdstrike and their CEO.

the car was withdrew in the aftermath of the outage. AidenT06 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Is the Southwest Airlines, bit necessary?

Firstly, Is it needed? Do we need to list the companies that weren't effected? Also the article linked is very speculatory. "Some are attributing that to Windows 3.1. Major portions of Southwest’s systems are reportedly built on Windows 95 and Windows 3.1" AidenT06 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@AidenT06 Doesn't add to anything of value to the article, agreed. PipitSweet16 (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Windows 3.1 is thirty years old. This is nonsense. 24.40.254.80 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly a weirdly specific (and perhaps embarrassing) reason for not being a CrowdStrike customer. 3df (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@AidenT06 I also agree. While humorous, the Digital Trends article links to another article written by a Forbes.com contributor, which is generally unreliable. The Forbes article itself then links to The Dallas Morning News which quotes someone saying Southwest's systems look like they were designed on Windows 95, without really confirming anything. Limmidy (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact remains that Southwest and FedEx remained operational, and for the same reason. kencf0618 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

But it’s not relevant. I could list thousands of companies that had no issues AidenT06 (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

List thousands of global airlines.kencf0618 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Only one expert?

Doesn't it seem a bit reactionary putting the opinion of a single expert (Troy Hunt) about the magnitude of the outage in the beginning of the article? Besides, I think he should at least be named to keep it less vague on who this expert is. Iofr (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

They'll be more. Global in impact? Sure. As such, comparable to what? The end of the article basically says that it's the Y2K that happened. Nice bookends. kencf0618 (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The section needs to be expanded with the commentary published by reliable sources. I've added a section notice to this effect. Melmann 12:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Calling a finite and countable number of clients "innumerable"

made me stop reading this entry right after the first sentence. Unscientific, hyperbolic, and unfactual. 50.46.244.66 (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the definitions of "innumerable" is "too many to be counted". You're just arguing over semantics here. 0xC0000005 (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Entry: the sky is red

I: that's factually incorrect

You: it is factually incorrect but you're arguing over semantics

lol 50.46.244.66 (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"Innumerable" in English means more than whatever narrow definition you're giving it. It fits. GhostOfNoMeme 03:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hyperbolic??? Perhaps, a bit; but it's hard to count while the full extent is currently unknown. "Innumerable" in the vernacular sense does not mean "uncountable" in the mathematical sense. DWIII (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a real problem. Wikipedia articles should generally avoid hyperbolic language. I see this as a definition of innumerable: "too many to be counted (often used hyperbolically)". You admit the usage in the article doesn't follow the mathematical sense, so it is hyperbolic and that's unnecessary and just bad. The idea that the crashes can't be counted is also stupid. CrowdStrike knows exactly how many computers received the bad update. Not all of them crashed, but this is a strict upper bound. Using "innumerable" in an encyclopedia article when there is a known upper bound and reasonable estimates on the lower side is simply a very poor choice. 165.189.255.50 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"A large number of", perhaps? It seems very difficult to quantify right now. GhostOfNoMeme 06:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We now have the opposite problem – "caused a large number of" understates the impact. Trying better middle path wording: "caused widespread problems as computers and virtual machines running Microsoft Windows crashed and were unable to properly restart." - Fuzheado | Talk 12:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That's good, I like that. Hopefully we get hard statistics (e.g. "$x devices impacted") in reliable sources, at some stage. I've searched but, unsurprisingly, I see nothing yet beyond guesstimation. GhostOfNoMeme 13:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Numbers are starting to come through now - approx. 8.5 million devices [3] pcuser42 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

They were innumerable because they hadn't been counted. It took a while to estimate... kencf0618 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Innumerable means cannot be counted not too lazy to be arsed.

BTW, the $ damage was already being estimated while we discuss whether the number of clients impacted can be determined. 50.46.244.66 (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You might want to check your definitions. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/innumerable - "Of a very high number; extremely numerous" pcuser42 (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Links in lead

Do we really need to wikilink "computer", "cybersecurity", "software", "crash", etc. in the lead? I really don't think so. We should be able to have an opening sentence or two without linking every other word. GhostOfNoMeme 03:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking much better. GhostOfNoMeme 13:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

screencaps of various TV channels that went down?

Perhaps there should be screenshots of the notices broadcast when a number of TV networks went down -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@65.92.247.96 I think they are copyrighted in a way we can't use it ZalnaRs (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I had considered this early on, e.g. Sky News or CBBC in the UK, but as ZalnaRs mentioned I was unsure of the copyright implications. GhostOfNoMeme 13:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:TOO should be able to cover some of them. A simple message would not be covered under copyright. And if they are all above the threshold, then WP:NFCC should allow use of one of them under a WP:FUR, as a representative of all of them, if none of them fall below WP:TOO. -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 04:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@65.92.247.96: Nope, these are covered by TOO because they are based in the UK (where the TOO is extremely low compared in the US, see COM:TOO UK and Typographical copyright). I'll leave the determination if there are fair-use rationale to more experienced people, but I also think that it will not pass the treshold either. 2001:4453:59F:A200:F961:EA9:D4F3:54A7 (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Why <code> is used for a file name and a directory

Help:Wikitext says "Small chunks of source code within a line of normal text. Code is displayed in a monospace font." However are a file name and a directory small chunks of source code?

"deleting any .sys file beginning with C-00000291- in the %windir%\System32\drivers\CrowdStrike\ directory." is wierd.

"deleting any .sys file beginning with C-00000291- in the %windir%\System32\drivers\CrowdStrike\ directory."

or

"deleting any ".sys" file beginning with "C-00000291-" in the "%windir%\System32\drivers\CrowdStrike\" directory." is better.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Endorse using monospaced font – it's useful to see filenames and commands from that Microsoft DOS context distinct from the Wikipedia article prose. It's a standard practice in technical documentation and writing to do this in service to the reader. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly what Fuzheado said. This is not a standard prose, rather a computing related technical terminology. It is required to distinguish it from normal prose. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 12:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I would leave it in monospace. This is how I would write docs for work, too. They aren't quite source code, true, but I think it suits the article well and benefits the reader to clearly distinguish these parts in a technical context. GhostOfNoMeme 13:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Why take down paragraph on Amazon's issues?

@Valereee:, why did you delete the paragraph on the disruptions that were suffered by Amazon? The contents were clearly referenced including quotes and were from a published source i.e. CNBC, the American business news channel. You didn't even put a reason, just a straight delete. Microsoft-CrowdStrike issue causes ‘largest IT outage in history’

On WP:Blogs it says: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" and following on "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story."

The deleted paragraph was taken from a CNBC blog, but the subject seems to justify its inclusion. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like that was an edit conflict. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I've added it back, please check my work! Valereee (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, thankyou for your help with this matter. Richard Nowell (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Dulles Airport Photo

The photo taken of the BSOD in Dulles Airport appears to be edited. It does not display the entire message. In addition, the message encroaches on the physical border of the display in the lower-right edge. Obviously edited photos like these affect the reputation of Wikipedia and its legitimacy as a source. 2601:703:4180:22C0:A935:B53F:B5E9:215B (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

No one has edited the picture, it’s a resolution mismatch between the computer and the monitor, along with a borderless display and JPEG image compression artifacting. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Impact of the 2024 CrowdStrike incident

An editor has created a draft about the impact. Thoughts? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

As it exists now, it is an improper wholesale copy/paste of the "Impact" section of this article and could be considered a copyright violation. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

From how unwieldy the section has become, I think moving it to a separate article and shortening this section with more concise information would be would be better. 187.0.175.230 (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It really isn't that long compared to other articles of this type. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Silly question, but why wasn't a WP:SPLIT proposal made? Limmidy (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I also shared that concern here: Draft talk:Impact of the 2024 CrowdStrike incident. - Fuzheado | Talk 06:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, SafariScribe moved it from draft to main space, and I have reverted it, moving it back to draft over concerns about improper WP:SPLIT and copyright. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-correlatable information from NoypiGeeks

I've been trying to find another source that would confirm that "telecommunications, radio and TV broadcasts were affected in the Philippines" and "Supermarkets in the Philippines were affected due to crashed POS systems." as asserted in the NoypiGeeks citation (https://www.noypigeeks.com/computers/windows-outage-affecting-workers-industries/) but the other sources only stated disruptions in some government agencies, local airlines and banking services, but none in relating to telecommunications nor broadcasting. - 2001:4453:59F:A200:DD0D:5C5D:B60F:C71 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that telecommunications are not affected in the Philippines, so I have deleted the statement about telecommunications. AnimMouse (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Remedy - no mention of Bitlocker as a complicating factor

Under Remedy, the basic solution is mentioned. The difficulty of performing the remedial actions is mentioned. However, a significant complication in the process is the reality that a large proportion of the affected machines are corporate machines that utilise Bitlocker, and there are additional complicating steps that this incurs. There have been reports that people have not been able to obtain their Bitlocker keys because of the systems storing them being compromised. I know of an affected individual following the instructions from an IT dept as to now to obtain the Bitlocker key for the affected machine discovering that the system was not able to report a Bitlocker key for the machine. It seems to me that the Remedy section should probably at least mention the possibility/probability of the additional work involved when Bitlocker was used, and the additional impacts experienced by IT ops as a result.

MS instructions including Bitlocker path: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/kb5042421-crowdstrike-issue-impacting-windows-endpoints-causing-an-0x50-or-0x7e-error-message-on-a-blue-screen-b1c700e0-7317-4e95-aeee-5d67dd35b92f

Crowdstrike document on attempting a fix without Bitlocker keys: https://www.crowdstrike.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Bitlocker-recovery-without-recovery-keys.pdf Fivey (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

paid citation

the citation for elon musk removing crowdstrike requires paying or signing up for an account. is this allowed? 81.100.136.25 (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@81.100.136.25 Yes, see WP:PAYWALL. I marked that source as needing subscription just now also. Aveaoz (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

yes but it’s not a hard to access source, just linking the tweet would be better? 81.100.136.25 (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Patch management

Given the topical updates on the cause of the incident, note there is currently a draft awaiting review for Patch management. Tule-hog (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Publish and be damned! It looks well referenced and written... Copy the contents of the draft onto a new page template... 92.8.77.232 (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

🫡 Tule-hog (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

XKCD

Randall is being nicely topical — see XKCD 2961 published on Friday. Is it too soon for an "In popular culture" section? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, citing a third party work can only be justified if WP:RS commentary uses it as a point of reference. Us just choosing to feature a single webcomic over any other (I'm sure many hundreds were made on the topic) seems arbitrary. Melmann 11:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Name change to 2024 global outage?

In my reasoning, I believe that since most people will recognise this as a significant outage with large damages and huge consequences, and it is likely to be historic with not many knowing the backstory, it would make sense to change the name to “2024 Global Outage.” JulesTheKilla (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Rather than starting a new thread, please see the existing discussion above in #Requested move 19 July 2024. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Frownie face

QR-code BSoD

We have File:CrowdStrike blue screen of death.png (QR-code BSoD), but another common BSoD shown on the news was the unhappy-face emoticon version. That should be made available either in a gallery here, or on COMMONS, if someone has it to upload -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)