Talk:2013/Archive 4

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

2013 Mandela

What is the problem with adding the (below) link around 'Nobel Peace laureate'? I don't understand what User:S-d_n_r's objection could be to that to add a mere link that User:S-d_n_r labels a change in formatting? User:S-d_n_r allowed the other change to stand on the correction from when another editor (after I previously did the same change that he subsequently undid) correctly changed the 'Nobel Activist Award' (because there was no such thing), why not mine? The original wording made no sense, as I pointed out. And then what is the problem with a little link directing a reader to that page and identifying the year he won that prestigious prize? Why you so obstinate in disallowing that link, and demanding a talk/consensus to be reached when you don't object to the link around the birth year? Why is one all right but not the other? "1st President of South Africa and 1993 Nobel Peace laureate" --Katydidit (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Links are NEVER included in the Deaths section of Year articles (except for the birth year). The reason for this is that any reader who wants to find more information on the deceased person can go to their article where they will find all the appropriate links. Otherwise Year articles get overloaded with superfluous links. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
no way to say it better--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Uruguay legalization of marijuana

I do believe as the first country to do so, this is internationally relevant. --Kuzwa (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it, and it's too trivial anyway. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
oh i say that it is relevant but only under WP:CRYSTAL if and only if others follow - BUT as for now EXCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Mikhail Kalashnikov

I think that Mikhail Kalashnikov's picture should be included for December in the Deaths section of this article (along with Mandela). He was the inventor of the AK-47 and its successor, the AKM, as well as the AK-74. The AK-47/AKM is probably the most popular gun in the world. Here's a startling statistic from Oxford economist Phillip Killicoat:

"There are somewhere around 500 million firearms worldwide. Around 100 million of those are some sort of Kalashnikov, with the AK-47 leading the way with roughly 75 million units in existence."

In other words, 1/5 of all the firearms in the world were invented by this man. His inventions have obviously had a huge impact on history, and therefore, I definitely think that his picture should be added to this article. SuperHero2111 (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter_O'Toole_--_LOA_trailer.jpg Peter O'Toole is your competitor for second pic. it seems doubtful that there will be enough room for a third with Mikhail Kalashnikov--68.231.15.56 (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that O'Toole is also very notable, but I personally think that Kalashnikov is even more notable, since his inventions have had such a huge impact on history. The AK-47 is the most popular gun in the world, and it is used in almost all countries. As I stated before, 1 out of every 5 guns in the world were invented by this guy. I think his picture should be added to the article. SuperHero2111 (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

For now, it doesn't look there's going to be enough entries to fit a second picture there. In any case, I'm against adding O'Toole as there's too many entertainers there already. The reasoning for Kalashnikov's inclusion also doesn't convince me - he didn't really make anything groundbreaking, just optimized a rifle design so it could be mass-produced at a humongous scale. — Yerpo Eh? 21:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2013

Please add Scott Miller of the college rock power pop bands Game Theory and The Loud Family to notable 2013 deaths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Miller_%28pop_musician%29

Additionally, a related artist, bassist Faye Hunter of the band Let's Active died this year. http://www.spin.com/articles/faye-hunter-lets-active-suicide/

173.49.198.226 (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Declined. Scott Miller fails the minimum requirement at WP:RY by a very long way. Faye Hunter has no article of her own and therefore fails even more. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2013

requesting adding 2013 information to support page.

Mike Means (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Taufaʻahau Manumataongo

I added this May 10 birth to the page and it was promptly deleted. Why? He is the second in line to the throne of Tonga, a sovereign state, and he has his own Wikipedia article. Is this not sufficiently notable? jesus_geek (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:RY the minimum criteria for inclusion of Births or Deaths is 10 wiki articles (i.e. English and 9 other languages). At the moment he only has 5 non-English articles. If/when he has 9 such articles he may be eligible for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I should add that the guidelines allow a present (or former) leader of a country to be added regardless of the article count, but not a future leader, even if that wasn't speculative. In this case, it would be a speculative future leader. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Death images inaccurately depicting years notable passings.

I feel the images depicted in the deaths section inaccurately represent the news of the year. An example includes Paul Walker dying in November. His death was a massive headline grabber and stands out as one of the years biggest news. Another editor feels Frederick Sanger accurately depicts that month, even though media coverage for his death is minimal. This is the case for alot of months, especially July, when Cory Monteith passed away. Major news coverage, so it makes sense his photo is the highlighter of July. So I've removed the images until we get it straightened out what qualifies for a photo being added. Allow me to put some some suggestions:

As it's not necessarily an argument of notability, it's more for me an argument of what the year in news was. For January, the most news making passings were Patti Page and Józef Glemp, so any one of those could depict that month. February. Ed Koch, famed former mayor of NYC Nd Mindy McCready, country singer. March. No disputing Hugo Chavez. April we saw Roger Ebert, Margaret Thatcher, Jonathan Winters, Richie Havens, you get my point. So without completely ignoring the notability of a person, if we are to feature images, which images correctly broadcast this years passings? Rusted AutoParts 03:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This page isn't supposed to reflect the most reported-about events, but the most important ones. Paul Walker's death is a good example. The event was "massive" for a week and half a year from now nobody will even remember him (by all standards, his career was relatively minor), while Sanger is one of the most prominent scientists of the century (two Nobel prizes!), despite him not being so known by the average news consumer. If you went through a few RY talk archives, you'd also have noticed that we care about balance - so even if the upper half of Hollywood died this year, we wouldn't just feature American entertainers. — Yerpo Eh? 13:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Name missing from deaths list

Noted musician Slim Whitman died on 19 June and should be added to the list. Given his longstanding notability worldwide over the last 60 years (primarily outside the US), I think he satisfies the notability discussed above. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but he only had 6 articles in other language Wikipedias at the time of his death, so he doesn't meet WP:RY. You could argue special circumstances support inclusion, and I might even agree with you, but it requires more analysis to establish his world-wide notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Obama's second term

Where is the event where Obama is inaugurated for a second term in January 20? --Plankton5165 (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

According to consensus, these pages don't list non-controversial changes of government. Obama's second inauguration was even less eventful than that, because the government didn't actually change. — Yerpo Eh? 06:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Giulio Andreotti image

Hi, what about insert in the images of the death people the one of Giulio Andreotti, long time Prime Minister of Italy? I think he was an important people of this second part of the century, a controversial man, but he dominated the Italian politics for 50 years, what do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely opposed to the change, but his importance was very similar to the man that is currently pictured - Jorge Rafael Videla (very controversial, but his actual influence was largely limited to his own country). All things the same, I think Videla should have the picture because people from the global south tend to be underrepresented here. — Yerpo Eh? 14:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes you are absolutely right. I just said that Andreotti, even if I don't appreciate him, was Prime Minister of Italy for seven times, eight times as Minister of Defense, five times as Minister of Foreign Affairs, two time as Minister of Finances and an important figure in the born of the European Union and of the EPP. Anyway he was also accused to be connected with Mafia and to be the instigator of the murder of an Italian journalist. Anyway you are right when you said the people form the global south are underrepresented. Shall we use both? -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Most of what you say points to his importance within Italy, not wider. Both pictures unfortunately won't fit because the section is too short, but you can definitely include it in 2013 in Italy (I'm surprised it isn't included already). As for this page, I'd like to see what other people think. — Yerpo Eh? 15:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes you are right, his importance was limited to Italy, even if he was an significant leader in NATO and a strong anti-communist. Anyway I will insert him in "2013 in Italy" and let's wait for other opinions whether include him or not. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Yerpo, for balance from both occupational and geographic perspectives there should be a reasonable range of images and in this case there is Videla would be more appropriate than Andreotti. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, no problem, if the choice of Videla is based on the fact that the South of the globe is often underrepresented, I am with you. I still think that Andreotti should be a insert in the images, anyway I agree with you. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Oldest people

Can someone please tell me when/where consensus was reached to not include people notable for longevity?

The oldest female and human ever, Jeanne Calment, is listed in the deaths section on the 1997 article. So she needs to be removed if Jiroemon Kimura, the oldest male in history, is not to be included in the deaths section of the 2013 article.

While I would not advocate the inclusion of people of people who were only ever the world's oldest LIVING people, Jiroemon Kimura and Jeanne Calment were the oldest male and female EVER respectively. That seems notable enough for inclusion to me (and both have articles in at least 10 languages).

Cheers,

Ollie231213 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with above, oldest recorded (proven) is notable.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
1997 is not a Recent Year article and does not come under the scope of WP:RY. WP:OTHERSTUFF also applies. This discussion includes links to previous discussions on the topic of oldest people and last survivors. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

But for what reason is Jeanne Calment included but Jiroemon Kimura not? - Ollie231213 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Because 1997 is not a Recent Year article and 2013 is. Different years. Different policies. HiLo48 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And what exactly is the policy for years that are not considered "recent"? - Ollie231213 (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

No mention of the Ghouta chemical attack

Is there a reason why this major event is not listed? Surely this was one of the most significant events of 2013. 137.44.100.1 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not included because it was a domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Murder of Lee Rigby

A while ago I added the Murder of Lee Rigby to this article and I note it has been removed on the grounds it was "not an international event". Having checked other similar articles, there are often numerous other murders listed as events which are either of equal or clearly lesser notability than Rigby's. For example, 1993 includes the murders of Stephen Lawrence, James Bulger, Brandon Teena and Euronymous. None of these murders were international events, none had terrorist links, none were in such prominent locations and carried out so publicly, none were as brutal, none had the same media coverage and in cases such as Lawrence's there isn't even a clear attempt to ensure the death of the victim. On top of all this, there actually slso are actuallyseveral international elements to the Rigby case. Firstly there'a a great deal of international coverage, the guilty pair were were of Nigerian origin, they were influenced by international terror groups, they cited foreign wars as justification for their actions, it appears to have inspired a copycat attack in France and even the COBRA committee was called in response to the attack. Now it may well be the case that some of the 1993 examples have been added in error and require removal, but seeing as the Rigby case easily matches every single one of them in terms on notability and international scope then it surely belongs in this article without any doubt.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the significance of Lee Rigby's death was probably far greater than it should have been because of sensationalised reporting, immediate assumptions of organised, international terrorist involvement, and the subsequent, fairly irrational, broad scale, anti-Muslim backlash. This was all long before anyone had been brought to trial. So it's not so much the murder that was in the news, but the reaction. I'm not quite sure how we should report that. As for the older events you mention, James Bulger's death certainly got international coverage. There have also been different standards applied to what goes in the articles for older years. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The Rigby murder was actually highly notable in itself for all the reasons I outlined above. Yes there's a great deal that followed it, but the Rigby murder is the key event to focus on for this article as it was the trigger for everything else. If the text I previously added needs improving then I'd be happy to work with others to come up with a more nuanced version. However, the event clearly needs including in some form rather than just being deleted, and it's significantly more notable than say Canada modifying its political stance on deserts.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
A number of WP:RY patrollers will keep an eye out and remove anything that does not fit the strict notability guidelines. If you want to see this in action, add he-who-shall-remain-off-the-list to the death list and watch it get deleted faster than a ClueBot reversion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Which guideline are you saying this case doesn't meet? Certainly the previous justification for removal has been debunked above and the consensus of this discussion seems to be in favour inclusion in some form.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Update, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. We're not suggesting to add Rigby to the death list, that would clearly not meet notability guidelines. Instead we're going to documenting his murder and the aftermath as an event.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

OK so I guess my original text failed to cover subsequent events sufficiently, my apologies for that. I'll use the following version instead:"Off duty British soldier Lee Rigby murdered by two Muslim converts in a terror attack in Woolwich, London. The event is believed to have inspired a copycat attack in France and also led to an anti-Muslim backlash in the UK. Rigby's murder resulted in the government setting up a task force for stemming the growth of Islamic extremism in Britain"

I see nothing in the murder of lee Rigby that makes it a sufficiently notable event to merit inclusion. The claim that "Having checked other similar articles, there are often numerous other murders listed as events which are either of equal or clearly lesser notability than Rigby's." not only runs counter to WP:OTHERSTUFF but the example year of 1993 does not come under the scope of WP:RY. And as there is no consensus, yet, that this be included I'll remove it, again. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Well even ignoring the differing policies for pre-2002 material the Rigby case clearly passes WP:RY. Furthermore the previous justification for deletion has been shown to be incorrect and the new version addresses the points raised above. If anyone here actually against inclusion (as an event, not as a death) then please can they state what aspect of the criteria the case fails to meet. Alternatively, if editors are unhappy with the specific wording then please go ahead and suggest a better version. Thanks. --Shakehandsman (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It does not "clearly pass WP:RY". As stated this is "the minimum requirement for inclusion" is reportage on 3 continents. Any event which has no apparent impact outside a single country is not considered to be historically and internationally notable enough. That is clearly the case here. As a comparable event the 2011 Tucson shooting had considerable media coverage but no impact outside the US and has been excluded as a result of talk page consensus here, here and here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Well if the Tucson shooting had no impact outside the US then I agree with the decision there completely, a completely domestic incident such as that is no a valid comparison with the Rugby case which has so many international dimensions. One of the perpetrators was deported from Kenya after being suspected of terrorism related offences. There's also links to MI5 and Al-Shabaab, and the motivation for the attack was claimed to be in relation to international wars and British foreign policy. Most significantly of all, the murder is widely believed to have inspired a copycat attack in France, an event itself notable enough to even have its own article! The Rigby article itself certainly needs work to include more appropriate coverage of these international dimensions, but I don't think any such deficiencies in the article should impact on appropriate inclusion here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
When the "international dimensions" you speak of depend on qualified words like "believed to be" and "claimed", they don't seem to solid enough to justify this item. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Well those phrases only apply to the last item on the list, but at least your argument makes some sense for that one issue. I suppose ideally we need to go through the sources for that incident to asses the strength of the link, though unfortunately my French and knowledge of French news research resources isn't really strong enough to be able to carry out such a task. I still think this passes the criteria, it's undeniably international in its impact and scope, the only debate is on the extent of this.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Translational Research Institute

The Translational Research Institute opened on the 10th of October 2013. It is the world's first Translational research facility and is the largest medical research center in the Southern Hemisphere. I believe this is noteworthy and should be added. There are events in there such as the Bali meeting which are less important than this.--Empire of War (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it would need to have an article here. Translational Research Institute is a disambiguation page listing six existing organisations with that name around the world. Your claim of "world's first" is looking shaky. Then you would need to demonstrate international significance. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's website and media lists it as the world's first TRI, it's international significance is that it is the largest medical research facility in the Southern Hemisphere. Also why do you follow me Hi-Lo?--Empire of War (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Its website is not a reliable source for such statements. So, which media (apart from those that copied the institute's PR material) recognizes its importance? — Yerpo Eh? 09:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul Walker

Paul Walker is easily more recognized on a worldwide scale. If you need to keep your pretentious scales balanced, just switch out another person. Rusted AutoParts 16:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, unless by "worldwide scale" you refer to Western teenagers. Sanger is vastly more important, one of the very few double Nobel laureates and a person who has improved the livelihood of many with his discoveries. Replacing his picture with that of a short-term teen idol would be ridiculous in an encyclopedia. — Yerpo Eh? 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You slam my statement as an opinion, yet yours is too. Walker's been frequently mentioned in news and media before and after his death. Perhaps it's best if pictures just don't get added so squabbles don't erupt. Rusted AutoParts 17:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Google Trends clearly show that mainstream media interest in Paul Walker was and is virtually non-existent outside the peak caused by his unexpected death, while the baseline for Sanger is ~10 mentions per month, plus the peak at the time of his death. But that's just my opinion. If anybody deserves the designation "world's top scientist", Sanger was pretty close to it. I think we should celebrate people like that, not just entertainers. They are everywhere else. — Yerpo Eh? 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it considered uncivil to claim you're a hipster? "Fuck the mainstream!", am i rite? Rusted AutoParts 23:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, fuck the infantilizing anti-intelectualism of the Hollywood gossip machinery. But yes, I consider you comment uncivil. — Yerpo Eh? 06:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
There are too many entertainers in Recent Year articles, largely a result of media hype and recentism. An internationally recognised scientist is more worthy of inclusion than a "popular" actor who never won an international acting award. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who 50th anniversary special

Although an international event, I think it probably belongs only in 2013 in television; perhaps as the most notable event there, but not here. Comments?

(And, yes, I am a Doctor Who fan. I just don't think the event belongs in the year article.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong here as anniversaries are excluded from RY articles unless they are sufficiently notable to have an article of their own. And I have watched my fair share of episodes as well, mostly the first 5 Doctors. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is (probably) the first Doctor Who episode to be shown on "the big screen" (through Fathom events). but I don't see that as sufficiently notable, either. If it were the first TV episode to be shown on "the big screen", that might be worthy of some note, but I doubt that it is the case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Technically it does have an article. I would find it more notable if it were an actual 50 years of continuous (as in uninterrupted) time.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Flash crash

I added:

This was deleted by DerbyCountry who refers me to the criteria for inclusion. Well, this was certainly reported on more than two continents! Standard and Poor 500 is not restricted to Americans after all, nor is Associated Press only read in North America. (It also caused a drop in the Dow Jones.)

In general I think DerbyCountry is applying the criteria too restrictively. Now I understand why there are so few events in this 2013 article. I (and probably most people) want an article with events almost every day of the year – things that make the world news.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

DerbyCounty's reversion reflects what has been the local consensus on these pages for a long time regarding the interpretation of the RY guidelines. There have been numerous discussions around issues people have with this (see, for example, last year's debate regarding same sex marriage in the US). In order to change that, I think there would need to be an RFC or something over at WT:RY (see my comment regarding "international significance" at the bottom of the RFC on same sex marriage). -- Irn (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:RY was put in place to reduce the plethora of trivial events which are often introduced to these articles which have negligible international impact and belong in the appropriate Topic in Year and/or Country in Year page. News items are covered by Portal:Current events. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, as I say, the one I want to add was international in scope. And there are many, many things that happened in 2013 that made the world news (such as BBC World Service), and hardly any of them are here! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
International, yes, but with no lasting significance. A stock market hiccup, essentially, that was over in three minutes. I.e. too trivial. Besides, the WP:RY page explicitly states that an event should have its own article. — Yerpo Eh? 12:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

US Presidential inauguration

We've got the US presidential inaugurations mentioned up to the 2001 article. Why can't we have them listed here? GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Recent Years#US inaugurations for a centralized discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Years prior to 2001 do not come under the scope of WP:RY. As noted above by Arthur Rubin, the consensus is that ANY election in ANY country does not merit inclusion except under exceptional circumstances. Inaugurations are even less notable. As to whether 2001 should be included under the scope of WP:RY is debatable; however any US inauguration (except George Washington's) would seem to lack any international notability and should be excluded from Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Older year articles include huge amounts of trivia like that, but most of the editors focus on current events and there's not enough people to do a cleanup. WP:OTHERSTUFF is a particularly bad argument in this case. — Yerpo Eh? 07:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Abdications

@GoodDay: I still don't think abdications are notable/important enough to be listed under WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Disagree: It's rare for 3 abdications to occur in the same year. We've got Benedict XVI's listed, why not Beatrix & Albert II? GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
"Abdication"s of a pope are rare; IIRC, there have been only two. Abdications of a monarch are not so rare. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Eclipses

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hogsbane

It looks as if Hogsbane was a recent addition to "new words of 2013". I think, perhaps it wasn't really there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Flor María Chalbaud

@Matt Campbell: Hi! May I ask why Flor María Chalbaud isn't notable, given that she was a First Lady? Many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Didn't have enough languages that's why. Matt Campbell (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
She has no international notability; 2013 in Venezuela, not here. Jim Michael (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013/Archive_4&oldid=1191617126"