Talk:2012/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Bert Weedon

Although he has only two languages, I think he deserves a place as he was very influential in guitairing Ifore2012 (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he was well-known in music circles (amongst the somewhat older crowd perhaps), but that justifies hin inclusion in 2012 in music rather than here. The fact he had NO foreign artiles at his death suggests strongly that he is insufficiently notable for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Charles Colson

Only had 8 foreign langauge wiki articles before his death, and I would argue his significance is limited to the US. As it's quite close, I won't remove him again from deaths if someone else adds him, but there should be some discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that has significance was only limited to the US. FFMG (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
he appeared to me to warrant inclusion under the criteria - i thereby added him to the page - you now say that he did not meet the minimum and thus unless through "concensus" he is requested again i will not place him there without other additional independent editors--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2012

24.91.255.235 (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Anniversaries don't merit inclusion on this page, especially not such globally insignificant ones. Try 2012 in the United States. — Yerpo Eh? 10:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Dale Oen

He has enough non-English articles even at the time of his death. Wondering if he should be added in or not. 71.201.90.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC).

I would think so. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

French Election victory for Francois Hollande

Can someone add this as soon as possible. I am a junior user, so call on more experienced, senior users to add this important news event and milestone in European politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitronic (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Regular elections such as this are not included in Recent Years as per WP:RY. The appropriate place for this is Electoral calendar 2012. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Milestone in European politics"? I think it's much too early to call it that. Many people may speculate what will he change now that he is a president, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Yerpo Eh? 08:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

For some obscure reasons, only US elections are deemed important enough to be in the recent years articles, all other countries are "Regular elections" and don't have a place here. FFMG (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Does that not show American bias here? Ifore2012 (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much for removing American elections as well. — Yerpo Eh? 17:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I thought we had agreed to remove US elections, in WP:RY. I could be mistaken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no objective justification for exempting US elections from WP:RY. Unfortunately getting this concept through to some editors is exceptionally difficult. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Adam Yauch

I think Adam Yauch (MCA) should also be added. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yauch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.9.18.125 (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Only four foreign language articles at death. Previous consensus has been that in general members of notable bands that do not have substantial careers outside that band should not be included. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Beastie Boys may be famous as a band but how many people other than their fans were aware of the name Adam Yauch? Not the great majority I suspect. Ifore2012 (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Addition: Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee on June 5, 2012

Official date cited here, on the Jubilee website: http://www.thediamondjubilee.org/5-june-events-announced

Considering it's only the second ever celebrated in the UK, might be worth noting. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.1.249 (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes it notable in the UK, appropriate for 2012 in the United Kingdom, but as per WP:RY anniversaries are not normally included in Recent Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

dow down = nothing new

20% off the recent high would be 10200 or less (see talk archive) ... we are no where near that big of a decline as of today ... what is more significant has been the drop in the price lately of a barrel of oil due to a slowdown in the economy in China ... this if continues will probably warrant mention ...--68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

future on light sweet crude hit $US 110.55 Mar 1 2012 ... today $US 83.26 = (-) 25%!--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
$US 82.23/barrel today ... probably should be thinking about a notation--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Lockerbie Bomber

I think Abdelbaset al-Megrahi should be included. He was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing which was a huge international event. 71.201.90.109 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.90.109 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

although i think he should be included .... and clearly now he does have more ... he only had 8 non-English at time of death according to my count--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Prince Tomohito of Mikasa

I would like to ask other editors if his name could be listed on "Deaths" section, although only 5 non-English language articles are available, as he was a member of the Imperial House of Japan, as well as a first cousin of current-reigning Emperor Akihito.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. No notable achievements apart from being born in a royal family. — Yerpo Eh? 07:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
not enough non-English at death by a long shot--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rodney King

Not sure if he should be included in deaths, as he currently is. To be sure, in the US anyway, his name is almost synonymous with the 1992 Los Angeles riots (which, based on foreign-language articles at least, seem to be at least somewhat well-known internationally). However, even in the States hardly anyone knows anything about him biographically; his fame/infamy ultimately rests on his being in the right/wrong (depending on POV) place at the right/wrong time, rather than on anything substantial that he actively or individually did. Leaning towards exclusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

he has 19 non-english ... even if half of them are stubs, it still implies that most cultures think that it is a notable international death--68.231.15.56 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are some notable deaths more notable than others?

This article reports nine notable deaths in January 2012. The "official" Wikipedia article Deaths in January 2012 reports 495 notable deaths in the same month. On what basis are those nine deceased selected for this article? Is it really being asserted that a Czech ski jumper was one of the most notable deaths in January 2012? Should there not be more consistency in reporting between articles? (A similar difference occurs in every other month). WWGB (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion are at WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Leap second

Is this really necessary for this page?, the last one happened fairly recently in 2008 81.152.63.178 (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Something so minor and regular would seem to be too trivial for this article, perhaps 2012 in science? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Higgs boson

Should undoubtedly be something mentioned on it's purported discovery, no? --Kuzwa (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The only possible issue may be that this is just a small step in a long process (CERN announcing that it is likely that there is a new particle). Still a lot to be done before they will say for sure that it is the Higgs Bosom, right? So there may be several more announcements and steps taken in this process. I do think the criteria of WP:RY is met though. Forgiatura (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

June Picture

Wondering which picture should be uploaded for the month of June in deaths. The only ones that stand out are Eduard Khil, Ray Bradbury, and Nora Ephron. 71.201.90.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer Teofilo STevenson or Yitzak Shamir. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd say Stevenson or Bradbury, but Stevenson's picture would balance the set a bit better. — Yerpo Eh? 18:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Went for Shamir as we have not had any pictures of politicans this year Eagle2012a (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Should A Picture of Omar Suleiman be Added?

Should I add a picture of Omar Suleiman, to the deaths section? SuperHero2111 (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

as of today he is not my pick for the month--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Ernest Borgnine--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
We should strive for balance - there's Ben Gazzara representing American actors this year already, and overall, half of the pictures are Americans. Maybe it'd be good to wait 'til the end of the month and then decide. As of now, I'd go with Sixten Jernberg. — Yerpo Eh? 08:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree we should wait till the end of the month Pass a Method talk 15:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shooting

the ironic nature that one individual could affect (by shooting) 70 other lives so dramatically in a country where such a degree of violence is rare (as opposed to countries involved in the war on terrorism) is the reason i say INCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Such a degree of violence is rare"?! Are we talking about the same country? I say exclude - while tragic, it was a local event, and not particularly outstanding. — Yerpo Eh? 19:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Not a particularly outstanding event"?! What!? Your kidding right!? The Aurora shooting is the biggest thing in the United States right now (besides political stuff and severe drought). I say INCLUDE is was very tragic, nothing like this has ever occurred in Colorado that I know of. It would be an important thing to include. Plus, the guy that committed the crime had an intent to kill several people had an apartment full of explosives! That is something very serious, like he was planning some sort of terrorist attack in Aurora or something. INCLUDE! STO12 (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a particularly outstanding event. I mean, he's not the Unibomber. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, historically speaking, not a particularly outstanding event, and completely local. Biggest thing in the USA right now, so it belongs to 2012 in the United States. What you think the guy was planning is in the realm of WP:CRYSTAL and not a valid argument here. — Yerpo Eh? 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Exclude, This is a local event, and not a first time either. It is all too common in the US. FFMG (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Whitney Houston

Please, don't be evil. Be good. Add picture of Whitney Houston. Maybe, she had controversial life. But she was internationally famous. She had beautiful voice. And... Her songs are great! Nicolas Love (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

as before in the archive as if you had researched it - a doctor saves thousands of lives - does this mean he gets a free kill every nnow and again?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Port Said Stadium disaster

Should be this be included? It is unusual, but I'm not sure it's really internationally notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included, it is limited to Egypt, I think it made the news because of the general events that were happening in the area at the time. FFMG (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It is internationally notable because of the high number of injured and death. It was heavily covered by the international press due to it being possibly political motivated. Include Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The only objective reason for inclusion is the number of deaths, otherwise it belongs in 2012 in Egypt and 2012 in sports. If it is considered part of the general Egyptian political situation then perhaps it does not need to be included separately. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. — Yerpo Eh? 06:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible Additions

I think Carroll Shelby and Carlos Fuentes should be added to the death section as they both are notable for something. 71.201.90.109 —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

Agreed, they both clearly exceed the WP:RY criteria for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


For January the resignation of Yahoo co-founder, Jerry Young on January 17, 2012 can be added, furthermore two CEs(Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis) from Research in Motion (Producer of Balckberry) also resigned due to popularity decrement of Blackberry and the rise of Android. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakpj (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Company resignations are not rare and therefore not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Recent Year articles such as this one. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 August 2012

Else Holmelund Minarik author of the Little Bear (book) series died July 12th, 2012. Her name is missing on the list of deaths. LonelyTV (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Done Rivertorch (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Reverted, not enough foreign articles. FFMG (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 India blackouts

I'm not sure it should be reported here. Perhaps it's appropriate as the largest power failure, but how many of those 620 million actually had electricity? It's reporting the total population of the blacked out areas. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be an internationally notable event to me, just another transient superlative with minimal actual (international) impact. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
not sure what you mean Arthur by less effected - unless you had a portable generator you were without power and gas stations electric pumps work off the same power grid and thus cannot pump gas to provide to personal generators--68.231.15.56 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
as for Derby saying that seems local - the whole world is connected to China and India through business - when you call Microsoft for technical support who do you think you could not get on the phone?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
endless parts are manufactured in India - the loss of India production rippled through the international supply chain i am sure--68.231.15.56 (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
According to me, it should be included because it was the worst blackout in world history... – Plarem (User talk) 12:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Define "worst". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The most people were left without electricity – Plarem (User talk) 13:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Félix Miélli Venerado

  • More than 10 non-English articles during his lifetime, the main goalkeeper for a World Cup winning football squad and his article is still a stub, achievable enough for him to be in this page? 81.154.105.220 (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Jerry Nelson aka The Count

The WP:RY guidelines for deaths require articles in 10 different languages. For a performer like Nelson, whose work is in English, one would not expect to see articles in many other languages. The Count is certainly internationally famous to English-speaking people, and his 40-year career means he is known to multiple generations. Certainly exceptions have to be made for such performers. Consider that Jerry Nelson was not only The Count, but also Herry Monster, The Amazing Mumford, Sherlock Hemlock, and Frazzle of Sesame Street, plus Floyd Pepper, Lew Zealand, Robin the Frog, and Camilla the Chicken on the Muppet Show. He's got to be at least as important as Phyllis Diller.Freshmutt (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Many people have heard of the muppets, even the individual charaters mentioned but hardly anyone will know the name Jerry Nelson. No reason to over-rdie WP:RY in this case. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
i cannot for the life of me understand that editors are so enthraled with the world article - he clearly does make the United States article yet no one helps out there on such clearly warranted placement--68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2012

Deaths June 12- Dara Singh, Indian Wrestler and Actor (b.1928) June 18- Rajesh(Jatin) Khanna, India's First Superstar (b.1942) August 26- AK Hangal, Indian Actor (b.1914) Sndkumar1985 (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Declined, per WP:RY. Aside from the inability to link the names, none had 9 foreign interwikis at the time of death. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Rajesh Khanna did - [1]. Can you please re-add him? And don't come down too hard on newbies for technical stuff. — Yerpo Eh? 19:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Simple English doesn't count, per WP:RY. I do apologize for attacking a new user for technical problems, but the names would have to be linked in order to be added, and, it took me a few seconds to realize that the appropriate article for "Rajesh (Jatin) Khanna" doesn't contain or mention "Jatin". Links are helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
So Rajesh will never be included even if he gets a lot of non-English articles? I understand if it's just like 10-20 but he has over 20 now. That's kinda of unfair. 71.201.90.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Approximately half of the non-English articles are Indian languages, only 4 of the others existed before his death. Most are barely more than stubs with a filmography, cloned from the English or Indian articles. This strongly suggests that his notability outside India is insufficient for inclusion here. Unless someone can show that he is sufficiently internationally notable then there seems no justification for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Minimum requirement to list a death

Two editors have repeatedly reverted my addition of a death of a person (Doc Watson) who has an article in 13 languages on Wikipedia, claiming that it does not "seem" to meet the minimum requirement, even going so far as to refer to WP:RY. From WP:RY:

"Births
Births are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question.

Deaths
The same criteria apply to deaths as to births."

Instead of reverting, would someone care to explain what is going on here? Cresix (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there are 14 non-English language articles so far, but it was 9 at the time of his death. His articles in 5 different languages (Catalan , Czeck, Korean, Russian, and Polish) were created after his death, thus should not be included. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at the quotation above from WP:RY. There is nothing about how many articles there should be at the time of death. Now, it may be your opinion that there should be a certain number of articles at the time of death, but that's not in WP:RY. So it's within the guideline. Give a better explanation, please. Cresix (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the article only had 8 interwikis at the time of his death. The requirement represents consensus that has emerged on these talk pages recently, but hasn't been included in the guideline yet. Rationale for it being that if wikipedians around the world didn't bother to write articles about the person while he was still alive, then he/she mustn't have been that important to merit inclusion here. It often so happens that some semi-famous person's death gets widely reported, which then spurs creation of articles in new languages (in most cases, those are just little stubs), but that's more a form of WP:RECENTISM than a real indication of importance. In this specific case, we are talking about a musician who has really only been famous in the USA, because his musical style is so local. I agree that he isn't so important in the global sense that he should be included. — Yerpo Eh? 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
"The requirement represents consensus that has emerged on these talk pages recently, but hasn't been included in the guideline yet.": Sorry, but that falls flat on its face. I've looked over the history of the article and the history of WP:RY, and I don't see a consensus to make a change. Please link a discussion in which there is a clear consensus. Otherwise that is an opinion of a few self-appointed custodians of the article that they are trying to impose on the entire Wikipedia community. Until the actual guideline is changed at WP:RY, Doc Watson and others who meet the guideline stay in the article (I'm not just making a point about Watson; this applies to anyone who meets the guideline requirement), and I'll ask the few who are challenging this to stop removing it until they get the guideline changed. Cresix (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but that falls flat on its face Why? The vast majority of the people that frequent WP:RY pages and actually care about what they represent support this (FFMG, DerbyCountyinNZ, myself, and, according to their actions, Arthur Rubin and WCIDFS). Yes, I'm talking about this discussion that Derby linked for you here. Others usually just come once to add their favourite celebrity - like you (because it's obvious that you were, in fact, just making a point about Watson), and dislike it when we don't agree, so they obviously argue against any change. So even if there's, legalistically speaking, no clear consensus about changing the guideline, you still don't have consensus about including Doc Watson because I disagree - on the grounds that he was only famous within a very local musical style and not very important internationally. So until you have a better argument or gain a wider consensus, I suggest we abide by "Any entry may be contested by any editor who finds the entry undue; and, pending discussion, many names might not merit inclusion, even if they have enough non-English articles." — Yerpo Eh? 15:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
"favourite celebrity -like you (because it's obvious that you were, in fact, just making a point about Watson)": I'll ask you to assume good faith instead of assuming you can read my mind. I was talking about anyone who meets the guidelines. And I see no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Death inclusion criteria. If there is a consensus, then change the guidelines at WP:RY, but do that before you start enforcing a self-created rule rather than after you disagree with someone who abides by the guideline as it is. And of course "any entry may be contested by any editor who finds the entry undue"; almost anything can be challenged on Wikipedia. A couple of editors challenging something, however, does not constitute a consensus. Please provide a better argument. I think we may be headed for an RfC, which is often necessary when a handful of editors assume ownership of an article. Cresix (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I realize what I said may have sounded harsh, but your editing pattern suggested that. I provided a perfectly reasonable argument for why I don't think Doc Watson should be included, for which the number of interwikis at the time of his death is nothing more than a semi-useful numeric proxy. The underlying rationale being that this page should only list the most important deaths in a year to keep it from overflowing with local celebrities. Simply labeling it "ownership" and mentioning RfC is not even an argument, let alone a good enough one to make a difference in this discussion. But we should probably let somebody else speak their mind... — Yerpo Eh? 16:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
You may have provided what you consider a "perfectly reasonable argument" of your opinion. You have not provided a reasonable argument that a consensus for your opinion exists, or for enforcing a guideline that does not exist at WP:RY. I will agree, however, that we should let others speak their minds, which is why an RfC may be necessary. Cresix (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
...a reasonable argument that a consensus for your opinion exists. You mean apart from the actions and words of every other person that got involved? I'm not sure where would you draw a reasonable line between the imaginary groups of "a couple of editors challenging something" and the one large and single-minded enough to "represent consensus", but if you feel that RfC would clarify it, then please go ahead and open it. In the mean time, let me put it differently: why do you think Doc Watson merits inclusion among the most important people that died this year? — Yerpo Eh? 17:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The consensus exists from the edit history and archives of talk page discussions for the past 2 years. As per the guidelines, a minimum of 9 non-English articles is only one of the criteria but it is the most easily assessed. It can of course can be overridden by consensus, either for or against inclusion, through talk page discussion. That some regular editors have concluded that "...at the time of death" is a more accurate application of this particular criteria does not mean that there cannot be discussion. That there has been no disagreement with that usage in the vast majority of cases suggests that most editors do not find fault with it. Your argument so far seems to rest solely on the current application of this one criteria, you have as yet made no argument as to why he is sufficiently notable for inclusion. To put it another way, if this discussion had been on the basis that even though he did meet the minimum criteria he was actually insufficently notable for inclusion (as has happened in other cases) what would the argument for inclusion be? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Cresix - simply put you have no leg to stand on unless you can get concensus here now or in the future - i will show you how little you have towards consensus right now - as i am the major editor for the 2012 in the United States article i can tell you that i keep a list of all those obits that i still need to add and can tell you that right now doc watson barely warrants inclusion there from my observations - so as to in the world article - my vote is EXCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

i should justify my "barely" comment - at death he had 8 non-English that all appear to be stubs or translational copies of the English one--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
his one achievement i see that gets him into the US article is a lifetime grammy achievement award--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, Yerpo, stop assuming I am only talking about Watson (otherwise some people may begin to think that your only concern is excluding Watson) and start assuming the truth: my concern is that, if the guideline has changed, that needs to be reflected in WP:RY. So anyone who meets the guideline as currently stated should not be excluded only because there were insufficient non-English articles at the time of death. Now if people want to argue other issues related to inclusion, fine. But don't try argue that the minimum number of articles is different than it is stated in in WP:FY. If the number has changed, then how about if you change the way it's worded and then you go through all the relevant years and cull out those entries that do not meet the new guideline. Cresix (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not assuming you're only talking about Watson (and "some people" are invited to go through my edits on RY pages to see how childish that thought would be). What I am doing, is using him as a convenient example of the underlying issue here, which I explained previously. After all, the issue is composed of such examples. Now, kindly, you stop assuming that the number 9 is used as anything more than an arbitrary, but objective proxy related to a person's importance with the goal of keeping the deaths list useful by limiting it to really important people. This goal is compromised by the hoopla generated by press whenever a semi-famous celebrity dies, so we (those who maintain RY pages regularly) have started to apply a more specific objective proxy to contest entries we find dubious. It may be your opinion that we mechanically apply some randomly conjured rule, but such an opinion won't benefit this discussion in the slightest.
Again, you're welcome to start a RfC (I'm getting interested myself), but you have no right to expect me to do all the work myself. Of course I will help to find entries that we missed if we get a consensus to change the guideline that you would find sufficient, but you'd have as much right and duty to do that as I. — Yerpo Eh? 09:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Félix Miélli Venerando

An editor has added his name on Deaths because there are 14 non-English articles, but I would like to ask other editors if he should be included, because of the length of descriptions on each respective language is pretty short, only except Portuguese, official language of Brazil, and Italian ones. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably should be excluded on the grounds that the English language article doesn't indicate notability, but most of those stubs seem as good as the English language article. The only grounds for excluding a foreign language article from the count would be that it appears to be a machine-translation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It certainly looks like most of the foreign language articles are cloned from the English one which itself is barely more than a stub. I'd suggest the majority of these articles were added as part of Football wikiprojects to create articles on World Cup winners. I'd lean towards exclusion on the grounds that notability outside Brazil has not been sufficiently established. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This one is ambiguous. Almost all the articles are very stubby, but there's a lot of them, and being a member of the team that won the World Cup surely is an indication of international importance. — Yerpo Eh? 09:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 Agust: 9/11

I wanna write that September 11th 2012 is the 11th anniversary of 9/11 attacks in 2001. According to the theory of coincidences about number 11, there is the probability of a new attack. Time Traveller 1999 (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus that future anniversaries should not be listed unless there are notable, present, plans for observation or commemoration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See also WP:CRYSTAL. — Yerpo Eh? 07:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Death Pictures

I noticed the last two pictures are astronauts. While they're both notable should we switch one of the pictures to someone else? Probably switch Sally Ride to someone else. 71.201.90.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2012

Deaths July 

 •July 12- Dara Singh, Indian Wrestler/Actor (b. 1928)
 •July 18- Rajesh Khanna, Indian Actor (b. 1942)

August 

 •August 26- Avtar Kishan Hangal (A.K. Hangal), Indian Actor (b. 1917)

Sndkumar1985 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As per your previous request, answered above: they are not internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute

China / Japan island dispute as of today looks like might become a line in the world article if a whole lot of stuff were to occur - BUT, as of today, it is just crystal ball - EXCLUDE --68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Include - Just as I would say for the deletion discussion of this article, the incidents are a heightened escalation of the territorial dispute between China and Japan, starting since April this year. It is VERY widely reported (see CNN and BBC), is notable in the sense that they affect the relations between the two countries involved and causes economic impact (The Guardian). Does not fail WP:EVENT. It wonders me that, when violent mobs protest in the Middle East, the incidents are reported, yet when violent mobs protest in China, they aren't? And the saying that this is all WP:CRYSTAL. NoNews! 02:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The Middle East incidents involve multiple countries and numerous deaths, the Senkaku is nowhere near on the same scale. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

London 2012 Summer Paralympic Games

Needs the following adding: August 29 – September 9 – The 2012 Summer Paralympics are held in London, United Kingdom.[1] 2.24.60.203 (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:RY the only sports events included in Recent Year articles are the Olympics and the World Cup. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

EURO 2012

Why there is no mention of the UEFA European Championship of football at Poland and Ukraine during 11th June to 1st July?! (DJSurvivor (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)).

See one heading earlier. The championship is listed on 2012 in sports. — Yerpo Eh? 13:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do my edits on September 11-22, 2012 keep getting reverted?

I am not sure why what I added was wrong... We are still not sure of the definite cause of these attacks. There is suspicion that it was an organized terror plot, so I changed it to be an indirect statement.

I see your point' perhaps it shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice. However, you're still attributing the cause to the wrong agency. Perhaps, at the least, "some governments" (not just the US) and "people claiming credit for the attacks" say the attacks are due to the film. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I added a reference for clarification. There is no "nice" way of getting the point across, since we are still unsure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guphanti (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Death of Andy Williams

Should Andy Williams be included in the deaths list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.76.156 (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he should. I added him. — Yerpo Eh? 17:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hebe Camargo

Hebe Camargo: all non-English are stubs were robot added and therefore notation in the world article should be to exclude or you have not checked?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, didn't see the above before saving)I've removed her this from the Deaths section as there is something fishy about her non-English articles. Her English article was started in January 2010 and within a few months it appears that articles in EVERY other wiki language were created. This seems to be the work of a single Chilean editor using various IP addresses. The majority of the foreign language articles I looked at have only 1 or 2 lines of text and the same image. This makes it very difficult to assess any actual notability although I doubt there is sufficient for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
i looked at the 16 references listed in the article - none is from anywhere other than Brazil and many are dead links - the ones that exist appear to be from less significant quality sources--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Nice catch, the number of IW links misled me too, at first. I agree that her international notability is dubious at best. — Yerpo Eh? 09:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkish army launched an artillery strike on Syria in retaliation for a Syrian mortar attack

Turkish army launched an artillery strike on Syria in retaliation for a Syrian mortar attack

- too minor to include I think - if included this would then probably require "every" shelling across border of Isreal from Gaza to be also included--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, just one in a row of recent incidents between the countries. Would be good to monitor the situation, though. If this escalates, it will surely be eligible for inclusion. — Yerpo Eh? 09:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Skydiver

24miles dose not convert to 23km...24 miles is 38.64 kilometers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.33.10.155 (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a space where it says "24 miles(23 kilometers)" in the October section about the skydiver dude. Between 24 miles and (23 kilometers). - Kuzey457 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

United Sates?

In the October 14 part about Felix Baumgartner, they misspelled "United States" as "United Sates". Shouldn't that be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.111.86.106 (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. It's corrected.--McSly (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yash Chopra

I would like to ask other editors if he is notable enough and should be included in "Deaths" because

  • majority of non-English articles are written in languages used in India, and
  • articles in Italian and Korean seem to be copy-edit.

---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

INCLUDE - has has an extensive article on IMDB - so i dont think he is overrated--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
He is an almost marginal case going by WP:RY. He only had 7 non-English/non-Indian articles at death and those were almost entirely stubs/clones. He does however have a number of international awards which would seem to indicate sufficient international notability. Include. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

J. Bernlef

Removed as although he now has more than 9 non-English articles they all appear to be stub/clones of the English article which itself is barely more than a stub and a list of works and prizes (which appear to all be Dutch). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

EXCLUDE - does not meet WP:RY--68.231.15.56 (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 November 2012

Request deletion of the solar maximum scheduled for December 2012, already flagged as citation required - Nasa puts it at July 2013 [2]

110.139.185.200 (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Alan Turing Year

2012 is the Alan Turing Year. Is this significant enough to mention on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximalIdeal (talk • contribs) 17:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been brought up before; consensus was probably not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
In the previous discussion the only editor in favour of inclusion pointed out that numerous events were planned for this year. NONE have been reported as actually happening. Presumably they did but if no-one has bothered to inlcude reports/reviews of them in the article (after they happened) then I take that as an indication that it is insufficiently notable for inclusion here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic

Why isnt this in the April section of 2012?? At least a short mention of the anniversary and then a link to the 100th anniversary section in the main page. --Packinheat2u (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There are many anniversaries in many countries every year, far too many to list in every Year article. The commemorations for the Titanic do not appear to have been substantial enough to be regarded as historically important in their own right and therefore do not merit inclusion here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be mentioned in WP:RY in some way? --illythr (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri Bb

I believe the discovery of the closest ever exo-planet to Earth is a notable event, no? --Kuzwa (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. There will probably be another one along in a minute...DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

President election

I was surprised not to see any reference to Obamas victory in the american president election. Clearly this must be a notable (if yet predictable) event..82.183.224.73 (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Other than the 2008 election - this election should not be added to this year list, per Recent Years guideline, as there is no "significant change in the country" - Obama has been re-elected, that's all. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 09:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
That's because this is not 2012 in the United States. Nor is it Electoral calendar 2012, which is where straightforward elections such as this belong, not here. In fact, the same goes for the 2008 US election. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Like it or not, but take a look at the role the USA has played in international politics. As a superpower, the USA electing president gets attention from all over the entire Earth. Emilia Sweden (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Several other countries play a major role in the world, but we don't usually include elections on this article. Otherwise, why not include elections in Japan, the UK, Germany, France etc? Jim Michael (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
They aren't really superpowers the same way (especially not Germany and Japan, who aren't even great powers today, but rather just major economies). And I see no problem with including France and the UK, who at least play a major role in military, politics and economics. Emilia Sweden (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
If any elections in "superpowers" should be included even if the head of the state would not be replaced, we also have to include upcoming National Congress of the Communist Party of China, which will replace General Secretary of the Communist Party of China for sure at this time. The hardest thing is, definition of "superpowers", which you mentioned. Permanent members of UN Security Council? Military power? GDP? Unless we reach the clear definition of "superpower", none of those should be automatically included. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Emilia Sweden. Obama's election was broadly covered in international media and I believe it has a lot of international significance. In fact, I had already added the event to the article, before I read this discussion. I have deleted it, because there is no consensus though. Jennes83 (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Making the news does not automatically make something important. In what way is the re-election of any country's leader historically significant? Unless Obama declares himself King or proclaims the USA a communist state this is just another election. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
No one said it "making the news" is what makes this important. What was said is that it was "broadly covered in international news". This was an event of massive international interest and importance. By contrast, no one outside Europe (aside from freaks like me, I guess) really notices the results of a European (or Japanese or Australian) election. As for "historically significant", that just came out of your imagination. It is not the criterion for inclusion. Here is the text of the actual measuring stick: "The event must have a demonstrated, international significance." That has already been discussed. As for the comment about China, I would argue that it should be included. The selection of a new Chinese leader is also hugely important right across the globe. -Rrius (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I should add that the election coverage from non-US media outlets is not just of a "oh, look, they're having an election" flavour. Rather, it is often of the "what does this election mean for our country/region" type. There may be a general exception for elections, but there is just something different about American presidential elections—especially in the current climate. -Rrius (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
EXCLUDE - It is preposterous to say that the US is the only superpower and thereby automatically should be election included ... 320 million citizens = just 4% of the world population ... let us know when Obama declares himself world king --68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(reset indent) In my opinion, by chronicling the regular political process of a country (even if a "superpower"), we'd make the same mistake than the Nobel committee who awarded Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for no particular achievement. I understand the argument about election coverage from abroad, but whatever the commentators say is just speculation at this point. As I said before on one of these talk pages, WP:RY is not a news outlet. We can always include such events later if they turn out to be landmark. — Yerpo Eh? 06:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Exclude I see no real reason to include this. As mentioned, it is a very predictable event, (I don't even know why he made it to 2008). Elections in one country affects many other countries, (mostly neighbours). Elections in France/UK/Germany affect all of Europe, (and in turn the world), elections in China affect all of Asia, (and in turn the world). Elections in Australia also affect Asia, what about Russian elections? One could even argue that policies/laws are far more important than merely (re)electing a president. The fact that he got re-elected hardly changed the life of 99% of the world population. FFMG (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Perhaps one of the biggest stories of January was the Costa Concordia shipwreck...Wondering how it didn't get here. 67eldorado (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed here. There was no consensus to include it. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

November 14 - Operation Pillar of Cloud

After continued rocket shooting from the Gaza Strip by Hamas and other terror organisations, Israel initiates Operation Pillar of Cloud, Beginning with the assassination of Ahmed Jabari, chief of Hamas's military wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by סער בריטניה (talk • contribs) 19:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

November 14 section

The sentence for November 14 says "Israel and Palestine abruptly...." "Palestine" links to Palestine, the geographical area, not the area that the Palestinians currently hold. I would fix this myself but I am not an "established registered user." 216.137.192.89 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The whole entry needed rewriting, which I have done although it will need updating regularly while it continues. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Ajmal Kasab

Removed due to apparent lack of notability. He had 12 non-English articles but 5 of these were Indian which means that despite his claim to notabilty having happened 4 years ago only 6 countires apart from the 2 directly involved deemed him worthy of an article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I still think that "international" could refer to ethnicities, not necessarily countries, so interwikis as a criterion are valid here. Remember, India has almost twice the population of Europe, so it's slightly inappropriate to regard them the same as, for example, dialect groups within a country that is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller. — Yerpo Eh? 08:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that is that someone could have 10 non-English articles and all of them be Indian (or sub-continent) dialects. That would hardly make them internationally notable. This situation (or very close to it) has happened a few times with actors in the last year. As for Kasab the fact that only 5 Indian dialects found him notable indicates he wasn't even that notable in India (comparativly speaking). Looking at the non-English articles only 1 is substantial, the rest are stubs and look to be cloned from the English one (judging by the citations). After 4 years I would have expected more for someone who was genuinely notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that those are not just dialects, but languages with own writing systems spoken collectively by over a billion people who are culturally quite diverse, but happen to share the same political boundaries. The argument about stub and/or clone status is a different one, and a lot more relevant in this case, which will almost certainly eliminate the problem you mention. If a person is so universally famous in India to merit decent articles in 9 languages or more, he will surely have plenty non-Indian articles as well (on account of the diaspora, if nothing else). Kasab apparently isn't, so I agree that he shouldn't be included. — Yerpo Eh? 09:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

George McGovern

George McGovern's image should be repersenting the october death section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? There are plenty of political figures represented by images in the Deaths section. For balance there should be a sportsperson. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
i looked at the soccer player's bio - he barely is notable enough to be included on the page (FIFA cup = "zero" wins) - and yet, unless there is a better death from here to the end of the month as it stands i either vote for him (as derby says out of balance) or there should be no one--68.231.15.56 (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I, too, don't believe that Helmut Haller is really that notable. I also think that George McGovern's picture should represent the October deaths section. SuperHero2111 (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I. K. Gujral

Is he notable enough to be included in the Deaths section? Mnbvcxz09876 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

State leaders such as Prime Ministers are normally included in Recent Year articles. So, yes. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Deaths of November 2012

The death list of November 2012 is NOT enough! It will include more info of people who died on November 2012!

--Qmaghreb (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RY. I believe you had a rant deleted earlier. Please do not repeat yourself, or re-insert comments deemed inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Miguel Calero

Undecided if he should make the list even though he had 10 languages before he had the stroke, notable enough? 217.43.209.98 (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the non-English articles are cloned from the English or Spanish and I suspect most of these exist due to wiki football projects creating articles for as many international football players as posible. However his professional and international career does seem sufficently notable. I would lean towards inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
from the article "... he played 23 tournaments with Club Pachuca and won 10 cups with the team ..." - implies to me the necessary notablity - INCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Besse Cooper

Besse Cooper was the last surviving person documented as born in 1896! 71.250.242.24 (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So? As per previous consensus Oldest Persons are not considered notable enough for inclusion in Recent Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
i disagree, but i will table this one until if and when i have something to say--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Downing of Turkish jet

I cannot understand the constant unexplained reverts of this section. The incident is notable because it involves 2+ countries and had coverage on 6 continents and had reactions by multiple countries and international organizations. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So people do not bother to check the talk page while are willing to be quick to revert practically anything... -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This event is part of the Syrian crisis and had no major effect on that event, therefore it does not merit its only entry here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
It did have a major impact as it had world-wide coverage. It is not part of the Syrian conflict since Turkey is not part of the Syrian civil war. It changed the diplomatic relations (rules of engagement) between Syria and Turkey significantly as any Syrian military unit since then is being treated a hostile unit and will be fired up on. Later Turkey closed her airspace to all Syrian aircraft including civilian. EU had a similar ruling as well in about the same time period.. In any review of the coverage of diplomatic relationships between Turkey and Syria reporters mention this incident and the deaths of the 5 civilians. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
as of today, any larger ramifications of this event are just crystal ball and thus it does not warrant inclusion... turkey got missle defence and syria got missle defence (**Russia arms Syria with Iskander missiles in response to NATO's stationing of Patriot missile defense systems in Turkey. [http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/russia-arms-syria-with-powerful-ballistic-missiles/ (WND)]) - if and when they start to shoot at each other "AND" other countires get drawn-in with tangible physical actions, then this event will warrant inclusion--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
We do not only list physical actions now do we? As mentioned in the article, Canada shuts down its Embassy in Iran, that is considered report worthy. Severing of diplomatic ties merely means Canadians aren't talking to Iranians anymore and Iranians would have to go some place else to get visas. Significance-wise Canada will not shoot down Syrian aircraft, attack at Syrian ships or ground units should their units encounter them.
Turkey had severed diplomatic ties with Syria in 2012 along with other countries but none of that hasn't been deemed worthy to be mentioned. Over this incident Turkey has changed their stance towards Syria. Turkish armed forces will fire on any Syrian military unit up on the slightest violation. Armed Turkish F-16 jets patrol the border now which wasn't the case prior to the downing. Scores of military units were moved to the border as a response to this incident. That is a significant deterioration of relations. This is border-lining (literally) on a physical war.
Since we are talking about later events... The killing of 5 Turkish civilians a few months later resulted in cross-border shelling of Syria from Turkey per the change of stance. As you mentioned up on the request of Turkey, NATO agreed to place patriot batteries against Syrian missiles. US sent an aircraft carrier in the vicinity of Syria possibly to strike if Syria uses chemical weapons. Russia halted an aircraft carrier in the Aegean sea possibly in response. France has sent their Aircraft carrier possibly as a response to the response. You have recent recognition of Syrian opposition by a few countries including the US (to a degree).
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I quote you here "bord(ering) on a physical war..." = crystal ball--68.231.15.56 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you at least quote correctly? I said border-lining as in lining up armed military units at the border which is as close as you can get to a war without starting one. Especially if the said units have orders to open fire in the slightest violation. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 02:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of a remark for over two weeks I will re-include that line today. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Basically it's a significant event, as it resulted in the escalation of the conflict, NATO emergency meeting, and approval of NATO for deployment of missile shield for Turkey. Other missing events, Syrian Prime Minister defects, Kofi Annan resigns as special envoy etc...

Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Gerry Anderson

Is he notable enough to include? He's very notable in the UK, but is he significant internationally? 94.197.231.186 (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Only 8 non-English articles, not meeting the criteria even as of now, thus should be excluded.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet et al all had worldwide popularity so I think he deserves a place in this page Eagle2012a (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Even Thunderbirds has only (I should say) 13 non-English articles, and Captain Scarlet has only 4. And even Thunderbirds has more than 10 articles, it proves popularity of Thunderbirds, but not Anderson himself.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Eric Sykes

I reverted edits by one user to include Eric Sykes's name on "Death". Although he has more than 10 non-English articles now, I've found out that 6 out of those articles (Catalan, Dutch, Finnish, Korean, Malayalam, Portuguese) were created after his death, and most of those are copy-edit ones. Although I assume that I am doing right, but I would like to ask other editors' opinions for just in case. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your revert and the reasons for it. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Following procedure. An editor added the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that had more than 20 people killed, mostly children (the addition). I have removed it, pending a discussion as to whether or not it should be added into the 2012 article - as it happened only in the US (not a globally). Should it be added to the 2012 article? -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 03:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

EXCLUDE-A local event which fails WP:RY--68.231.15.56 (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • exclude There have been far more deadly shootings this year not mentioned. Pass a Method talk 14:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude, just another one in a row, sadly. Might become important later if this one finally triggers any action towards gun control in the USA, but that's not very likely. — Yerpo Eh? 15:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • exclude Sadly happens far too often, (in the US and around the world). And strictly speaking this is a domestic event. FFMG (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Include - Really? We're going to deny the historical significance of this event? The 1999 article mentions the Columbine massacre, just as the 2007 article discusses Virginis Tech. I know we're trying to enforce WP:RY but this is currently one of the sparsest year articles I've seen. I feel like not including this event is the other extreme: we're trying so hard to limit excess entries that we're excluding very notable events. User:Saget53 09:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Include All incidients of this type are "local" events, but that is not the only criteria that applies. The question of notability therefore rests on whether the scale of this particular event is suffiient to make it historically notable. The List of rampage killers, though incomplete, lists approximately 9 similar events (taking a reasonably broad context of what might be considered similar), of which only 2 fall within the last 10 years (the scope of Recent Year articles). As such this seems to be sufficiently rare in scale to make it notable. From a purely objective standpoint I think any similar event involving 20+ deaths should be considered sufficiently notable for any Recent Year. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Include – As President Obama announced a new panel to review gun control laws by January 2013 will mean a renewed debate on gun politics in the United States once again due to this massacre. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
you just said "us" thus not world debate and how so useful for the world article?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Inlude - Yeah. With an outrage like this it needs to be included in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.192.206 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Include Just because it happened "in the U.S." isn't a reason to exclude it. It has been covered by many international media sources. Canuck89 (chat with me) 06:36, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Just a note, nobody said that "just because it happened in the U.S." was the reason for exclusion, so please spare us this misleading. The argument is that, while tragic, it is not so special (which is a tragedy by itself). Columbine was special because it was the first such event to get a worldwide recognition as a symptom of American obsession with firearms (largely due to M. Moore's documentary), while Virginia Tech was the deadliest. I still don't know what is so special about Sandy Hook/Newtown, but if people favour inclusion, then so be it. I just hope that it's not merely because of the short-lived and self-serving "outrage" that already got drowned by other daily news (at least outside of the USA). — Yerpo Eh? 08:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I see that this event has now been added, is that right? With 5 excludes and 5 includes this seems a bit borderline to me. In any case, does that mean that, from now on, any domestic shootings/mass killings now gets included? Or only certain countries? While this event is tragic, it is not a first or 'worse' one, even in the US, and, to be fair, will probably not even have much domestic impact in the long run, so do we now need to include other mass shootings around the world? FFMG (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Exclude - we do not include domestic events, hence this should not be included. It is true that it received a great deal of media coverage in many countries, but that is because of the proliferation of the US media, the fact that many children were killed and that in many countries which do not suffer a similar rate of gun crime, there is a puzzled dismay at the high rate of gun ownership and gun crime in the US. For similar reasons, the Virginia Tech massacre should be removed from 2007. There would not be many people wanting to add these events if they had occurred in Brazil, Mexico or Iraq. Events should not be considered more important because they happened in the US. I cannot understand the suggestions from some editors that domestic events should be incuded if the death toll is above a certain level. A massacre (whether at a school or not) could be an international event if it is committed as part of a war or by an international terrorist organisation. The massacres in Virignia and Connecticut were committed by lone gunmen, driven by personal resentment and hatred. 92.40.96.215 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Include - I am puzzled as to how Wikipedia can ignore the impact that this event is having on the US political scene and on international discussions about gun control, gun ownership and other associated subjects. By the way, does anyone think that Wikipedia's general readership will come to this article and not expect to see the Sandy Hook shootings mentioned on the timeline? Shearonink (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
We are not ignoring the effect of the massacre on the US; it is included on 2012 in the United States. If this event causes changes in gun laws in any other countries, then it could be eligible for inclusion. This article is about world events; that should be made clearer on the article so that readers do not expect to see domestic events. Far more people are killed in events in other countries every month; this is not more important because it happened in the US. 92.40.96.215 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The guideline at Recent years consensus states that
"Any of the standards set below can be overruled by a consensus to ignore those standards in a given case."
So, if the editorial consensus is to include an event or to not include an event (any event, not just this one), then the editorial consensus should stand. Shearonink (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
There is not a consensus for this mass shooting to be an exception to usual recent years practice. There is no way in which this was different to other shootings of its kind. Although this is one of the most publicised events of the year, it has not significantly changed the life of anyone outside the US. 94.196.63.95 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Either way it goes in this particular instance, include or exclude?, per the complete Recent year guidelines I have no problem with whatever the consensus might eventually be. Shearonink (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The argument about international discussion about gun control is often raised with no sources, in reality it is not the case, I cannot think of a single country that is even thinking of changing any of its laws because of this tragedy. There is no, international discussion about gun control at a government level and I doubt there is any discussion at any other level, (I cannot find any source directly linking this massacre to any ongoing discussions).
Even in the US the political outrage has died down very quickly, (as far as I can tell from my country).
Currently, there does not seem to be a consensus to include this shooting, (5 vs 5 so far) FFMG (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Israel bias

Novemeber has a bulletpoint about Israel. What makes that particular conflict more important than the dozens of other ones going on? Pass a Method talk 20:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Which ones, for example? — Yerpo Eh? 22:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Operation Linda Nchi, Battle of Dofas Pass a Method talk 00:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
And what comparable in scale and importance to the Israel's offensive did happen in connection with those two in 2012? I'm sorry, but it isn't obvious from the articles. In other words, a constructive thing to do here would be to suggest an entry instead of throwing emotionally loaded words around and making other people guess what you think should be done. — Yerpo Eh? 08:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Should Operation Pillar of Defense be included or excluded? Pass a Method talk 09:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Exclude because there is nothing thatmakes it stand out from the other conflicts. Pass a Method talk 09:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Include Clearly of more international notability than others mentioned above as there is an entire article devoted to the international reaction. I would also note that as per WP:OTHERSTUFF the absence of other entries is not a sufficient reason to exclude one that has been included. I also wonder at the motives in requesting the deletion of this event rather than advocating the inclusion of the others. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Include It is of international significance. As Yerpo pointed out before this RfC, instead of calling its inclusion 'biased', Pass a Method should have included other equally significant events like Operation Linda Nchi, which is also of international significance. I consider the Battle of Dofas as an internal affair of Yemen, and of no such international significance. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing events

There are a lot of events missing from this , example historical event First Female President for South Korea. Syrian Prime Minister Defects........ Kofi Annan resigns as Syria special envoy, and the new Syrian Envoy appointed by UN and other events such as Bangladesh Fire at garment factory killing 100+ Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

During recent years, many countries have had their first woman leader - how are any of those instances world-notable events? A resignation and/or appointment of an envoy - worldwide notable in what way? The Bangladesh fire is of no relevance outside Bangladesh; we don't include domestic events. 188.29.211.148 (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not agree with the sentiment posted immediately above that the Dhaka fire is ONLY a domestic event. It seems to me that an industrial accident that kills 100+ people, is the worst industrial accident in an individual country's history and that also causes ongoing political/business changes across the world is notable on an international scale no matter where it occurs. If the Dhaka fire is not included, then what justification can there be for including in "2012" the February 1st Egyptian football riot, the February 15th fire that killed 360 in Honduras, the March 4 explosion that killed 250 and so on? If Wikipedia doesn't include the 2012 Dhaka fire article in the 2012 List, then perhaps Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire should be deleted from 1911 as well. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
September 11 – Garment factory fires in the Pakistani cities of Karachi and Lahore kill 315 and seriously injure more than 250.[38][39][40] look again, and its significant worldwide so is Bangladesh, and why is the US shooting significant world wide then ? isn't that domestic violence? Syrian Prime Minister is significant worldwide, and Kofi Annan resigning as special envoy to Syria is as well, Historical speaking South Korea having it's first Female President is too. I find your argument illogical, sorry.

Danger^Mouse (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

more evens The Mayan calendar reaches the end of its current cycle that's significant too, and some good majority of people worldwide thought it's the end of the world. Danger^Mouse (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
See the discussion above. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I have, doesn't make sense Danger^Mouse (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You claim that fires in Pakistan and Bangladesh are significant worldwide, but you have not said why you think that is the case.
A first female leader may be relevant to the history of an individual country, but it has nothing to do with the rest of the world. A country's leader's power and influence is not different because of the leader's gender. Margaret Thatcher's policies were nothing to do with her being a woman, nor are Julia Gillard's. That they are women is of little relevance to their what has happened in their careers or the countries they govern. Even if they implemented 'female friendly' domestic policies (which they have not) it would have no effect on the rest of the world.
Nothing like the "good majority of people worldwide" believed that the world would end this month. The vast majority of people in every country rightly dismissed it as paranoid/attention-seeking nonsense. Harold Camping said a similar thing, and only a tiny minority took it seriously. Year articles are about actual events, not baseless predictions. 92.40.96.215 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Your argument is still lacking material, DOMESTIC violence 20 people killed because its US and is more relevant than Pakistan, and Bangladesh where 100+ people die? First female President in S. Korea is significant because of the strategic location and the relations with N. Korea, and Kofi Annan former Arab League envoy/ UN special envoy is quiet significant, so is the escalating situation of Syria, about the Mayans calender its significant because their calender finished simple... a part of history is finished. 182.178.106.128 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The death toll is irrelevant. Domestic events, whether they be shootings, fires, or of any other type, do not belong on year articles. Location of a country does not mean that it is world notable that the leader is a woman. South Koreans' lives are no different due to having elected a leader who happens to be a woman. No other world leaders have refused to meet her because of her gender - why do you think it relevant? The Mayan calendar ending is of no real importance; nothing happened because of it and the world is no different because of it. Year articles are about events which are of significant global notability. 92.40.96.215 (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, the death toll IS relevant. Throughout history largescale disasters are recognised as historically notable even when only one country (or other ruling body) was affected (e.g Great Fire of London, Chicago Fire). As applies to Recent Year articles there has already been consensus (though barely) that a minimum death toll of 200 is required for the inclusion of earthquakes. There was also no disagreement whatsoever that the 2011 Norway attacks be included, despite this being purely a domestic event. As 2 of the events in this section are covered by 2 others already and further discussion of all these topics here is only going to make discussion even harder to follow I'll create separate discussion for the remaining events and STRONGLY suggest that if users have issues with the WP:RY guidelines they take it up at Wikipedia talk:Recent years rather than here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Where is this 200 death toll consensus that you speak of? Please provide a link to it. Even if 200 was agreed as a threshold, that has nothing to do with including a shooting with a much smaller death toll. The Great Fire of London is not a fair comparison because a) that was an important historical event and b) it is not covered by recent years policy. A school shooting does not become an important event in world history that is well-known across the globe hundreds of years later. 94.196.63.95 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
At the time of the 2011 Norway attacks, Anders Behring Breivik was suspected of having links with international terrorism and he claimed to be part of a terrorist cell with other members about to launch similar attacks elsewhere. 94.196.63.95 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

First female President of South Korea

Exclude - Not internationally notable, there have been many female state leaders, one more is not exceptional except in that country. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

EXCLUDE - not even sure why this low level event is even remotely under discussion--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Exclude - of no global notability; it hasn't even affected South Korea. 92.41.211.133 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 Pakistan garment factory fires

Include - The third largest fire (although it's actually 2 fires) by death toll since 2001 (excluding 9/11). The Comayagua prison fire is larger and has been included in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Exclude - how are the fires in Pakistan or the fire in Honduras of any notability outside their respective countries? The difference between these events and the Great Fire of London is that the vast majority of people have never heard of the factory fires or prison fire, whereas the Great Fire of London destroyed a significant proportion of one of the world's most important cities and is known about by millions of people across the world over three centuries later. There is no chance that decades in the future, the general public will remember 2012 as the year of the factory fires and prison fire. Domestic events being included because people died would lead to year articles being dominated by the likes of the 2011 M5 motorway crash and the Allenton house fire. Lists of disasters is there for people who want to know about them; this article is meant to be only for world-notable events. 94.196.63.95 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
INCLUDE - death toll alone is massive and will go down as one of the worst ever industrial accidents of all time - laughable not to include this event in world article - you ask how it effects other nations? - you dont think that other nations will study how to prevent this in the future in their own countries?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe they will, but unless they change laws on the basis of that, it is not relevant outside the country of occurrence. Do you think that years in the future you will have a conversation with someone about 2012, and they will say "I remember 2012 very well, that was the year of the prison fire in Honduras and the factory fires in Pakistan"? Can you find even one person (in real life rather than on Wikipedia) who is not Honduran, who has heard of the prison fire? Likewise with the Pakistan fires. These are not world events. The only people outside the respective countries concerned who are interested are fire/disaster experts. 92.40.123.182 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "London 2012 Paralympics". Retrieved September 23, 2012.
  2. ^ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/20jul_tasteofsolarmax/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012/Archive_4&oldid=1142434915"