Talk:2012

2012 Winter Youth Olympics

• I thought this was allowed in becuase it is the first Ifore2010 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall there being any discussion on the first being exempt, but that doesn't mean there was none! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

21 of January- The Selwyn College Prepratory School's main building burnt to the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerd123 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Cruise liner sinking

Is the sinking of Costa Concordia with a few casualties really important enough to merit inclusion on this page? I'm thinking no. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I also don't think it should be included, maybe 2012 in Italy. FFMG (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

INCLUDE: the last big ship with many passengers to go down with loss of life is the andrea dora some 60+ years ago so no this "IS" a notable event - it not like we will have to post one a year, let alone, one per ten years. hell, the image alone will be remembered for many years by a vast percentage of the planet--68.231.15.56 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Exclude. Only 5 confirmed deaths in the latest report. Hundreds of vessels sink each year with that number of deaths. Even if the death total gets to 20 there are still dozens of ship losses with that sort of total every year. Just because it's a reaaly big ship doesn't make it more notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How about we wait until everything's been finalized - the final death toll is announced, any aftermath situations are successfully completed (i.e. lawsuits, investigations), then we can begin to discuss this. Whenaxis about | talk 21:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I went and retracted the event from the 2012. Whenaxis about | talk 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Include: In my personal opinion, the fact that this is the largest passenger ship in history to sink, is notable in and of itself, the prolonged media attention from around the world has also made sure it will be one of the remembered events of the year. Most disasters don't get as much air time as this one is getting. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is stupid the way these pages are formatted. It is already halfway through January and not a single event is posted. Is the sinking notable? Hell yes it is. They've been talking about it for the whole friggin' week here in the US, on the BBC, everywhere. The cruise had an international passenger presence, so it affected every nation almost. Forgive my bluntness, but I can't stand how these year pages have become. We want so much neutrality that there is really nothing that merits inclusion anymore on them whether it's some major disaster or some earth-shattering discovery. Look at the older years like 2005 or 1994. They have some juice in them. The newer years have all bled dry. (Tigerghost (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC))

So, is cruft such as Shannon Faulkner becoming the first female cadet to attend The Citadel (January 1994) a major disaster or an earth-shattering discovery in your book? Since you're from the USA, this might be juicy for you, but for everyone that isn't, it's far from that. This page is WP:NOT#NEWS, what turns out to be important can always be added later. I really don't see anything wrong with how 2011 ended up. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

@Yerpo: The Costa Concordia disaster should still be included on this article. WP:IAR, sometimes discretion is needed. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the disaster element of the Costa Concordia disaster is being overplayed making inclusion more subjective than objective. A disaster is defined as "an event of substantial extent causing significant physical damage or destruction, loss of life, or drastic change to the environment. A disaster can be ostensively defined as any tragic event with great loss stemming from events such as earthquakes, floods, catastrophic accidents, fires, or explosions. It is a phenomenon that causes huge damage to life, property and destroys the economic, social and cultural life of people." 11 deaths (possibly up to 32 if all the missing are included) and US$600 million; 32 deaths while certainly tragic is not even in the hundreds or thousands usually associated with a disaster and a number which is exceeded by numerous events which are never proposed for inclusion, while most disasters which merit inclusion are of the order of US$billions rather than millions. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Derby. There are plenty of cruise ship expeditions that travel through the polar regions of the World that go unreported because it does not affect any country or known cruise line. If we were to document every single accident from airplanes to cruise ships, the entire page would be filled up. It's almost like including a car accident that had 11 deaths, notable? Whenaxis about | talk 23:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you, based on the fact you guys are comparing apples to oranges. How can you possibly expect a ship disaster to do billions of dollars in damage like a hurricane, if there aren't any ships worth that much. Notability, is not based off comparing ship disasters, to something horrible like the earthquake in Japan last year, it's about comparing it to similar events and it's impact within that scope. Because this disaster is the costliest passenger ship sinking in HISTORY that makes it notable for inclusion, it should also be mentioned that by your guys' argument the Space Shuttle Disaster's would not be notable simply because they only killed 7 people, and to that I would say psshaw. So keep disasters in context, don't go pulling stuff which is not comparable like hurricane disasters, and try to determine worthiness based on those criteria. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the amount of money involved is more important than the number of people who died? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of previous inclusion of a shipping disaster in previous years' pages? Costliest - nor deadliest - shipping disaster in history. See Titanic. As I said earlier in the discussion, we should wait until everything is finalized before making a decision for inclusion. At this time, it's a no. Whenaxis about | talk 01:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then let's take off Titanic from the 1912 page. Major ship disasters aren't notable afterall. (Tigerghost (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC))

1912 is not a Recent Year article. 1503 is considerably more notable than 11/35. WP:OTHERSTUFF. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

To reverse my opinion a bit, this event could potentially be added on the account of Costa Concordia being the largest passenger ship ever to sink. It would help if you mentioned things like that before dragging WP:IAR into this discussion (this goes to Kuzwa but applies to other previous and future discussions). As it was, it sounded just like an excuse to do it on a whim regardless of anything, which could only result in an edit war because the same argument could go both ways. Every other argument heard so far concerns mere trivialities - the number of casualties is comparable to a serious road accident. The number of inconvenienced or discomforted people is comparable to a decent snowstorm. The damage will probably be somewhere within the margin of statistical error for insurance companies, even if (or precisely because) they're multinational. Seriously, debates around here would be so much more constructive if people could focus on relevant stuff. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

@Derby, death tolls don't determine the notability of an event. @Yerpo, IAR is always relevant to any discussion. Regardless of if it is mentioned or not. I haven't edit warred with anyone, so don't come after me. --Kuzwa (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read my comment before replying to it. I didn't "come after you" in the slightest, especially not in connection with any edit warring. And I still think that IAR is not a synonym for "anything goes". It's a lot more subtle. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

@Yerpo, yes I realize that there are some unrealistic comparisons - however, my underlying thought at this time is not to include it until everything is finalized, when we have a final body count, when we have a final damage amount and so on and so forth. So that, we don't have inaccurate information on the page when the numbers are consistently changing. @All, what points go for this disaster to be included, and what points go for this disaster to be excluded? Perhaps, it's best if we weigh the reasons for inclusion versus the reasons for exclusion, to help us decide. Whenaxis about | talk 00:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

To me, adding an event before its consequences are completely finalized is not bad by itself, when relevance is established. People constantly monitor and update this page so any temporary number should simply be presented as such. As for Costa Concordia, it could be included as the largest passenger ship ever sinking, if that is true. Other facts are trivial. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We can always add it later, if it's notable. Whenaxis about | talk 21:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• January 13 – The passenger cruise ship Costa Concordia sinks off the coast of Italy. There are 12 deaths and 20 missing amongst the 4232 passengers and crew.

how many dead before it becomes notable? currently it looks like the final total will be 32.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Risking this debate to devolve into death-toll haggling, which isn't my intention, I'd say at least comparable to the Zanzibar ferry sinking (in 2011). But to focus on what I meant with my last comment, it would rather read:

• January 13 – The passenger cruise ship Costa Concordia sinks after running aground off the coast of Italy becoming the largest passenger ship (by tonnage) in history to sink.

— Yerpo ^Eh? 08:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• January 13 – The passenger cruise ship Costa Concordia sinks after running aground off the coast of Italy becoming the largest passenger ship (by tonnage) in history to sink. There are 12 deaths and 20 missing amongst the 4232 passengers and crew.

without mentioning the death toll, it would look silly --- anyone reading it would say, "wait, what was the death toll?".--68.231.15.56 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, because it doesn't add any information as to why the event is important enough to be mentioned here. Anyone interested in the death toll can look it up in the article. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Yerpo. The death toll is so low that it makes it seem less important, as sad as the deaths are, I think that the mention of the largest passenger cruiseship to sink is notable enough for inclusion. Whenaxis about | talk 20:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the one day downtime of Wikipedia be noted in the 2012 year article?

"The English Wikipedia will be shut down on Wednesday due to Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, being un-American.", a quote so dont get mad at me.

i think i can remember last year an issue where wiki was in the news and it was decided not to self-promote wiki by noting wiki activities--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

68.231.15.56, this is not a blackout of just Wikipedia, this is an internet blackout. Sites like, Google, Facebook, eBay, PayPal, Twitter and Tumblr have supported this blackout by opposing SOPA/PIPA. Sites like, Wikipedia, Reddit, Boing Boing and many more are blacking themselves out on Dark Wednesday to protest it. As for the quote, it is NOT Jimmy Wales who decided that Wikipedia is going dark tomorrow. It is through a mass "referendum" by the Wikipedia community. What I wanted to add to the article is the fact that some parts of the internet are going black to protest against SOPA/PIPA on Dark Wednesday, 18 January 2012. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 16:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

the extent of the other organizations you have cited sounds like you are a proponent of noting the event in the year article--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added it into the article under 'Predicted and Scheduled events', revert by Derby. – Plarem ^{(User) I oppose SOPA!} 19:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's already detailed in length on the Stop Online Piracy Act here. Not particularly important here. Unless, you can provide some sort of overriding policy or previous event that was noted in the Recent Years project. Whenaxis about | talk 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be added, but only if you include a mention of all those other sites. It's clearly notable, being by far the largest online protest in the history of the Internet. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

On the Fence: From my own personal view, I'm not against the protest being mentioned, but I personally think we should see how the SOPA debate plays out, to see if it's worth inclusion. It's quite possible the protests could intensify, and this be a minor footnote in the battle over the internet this year. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to jump to conclusions, but even if we did wait to see if it's worth inclusion, what if it takes months or even years for SOPA/PIPA to finalize? Would we say for example "January 2011 to November 2011 - SOPA and PIPA protest take place"? SOPA/PIPA is just like any other controversial proposed law, where there is opposition and there is support. Whenaxis about | talk 23:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be added. If we continue to not add events at this rate, we will have nothing on the past events list at the end of the year. 98.209.18.176 (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis, the inclusion is not of the SOPA/PIPA propsed bill finalising date, but Dark Wednesday of the internet, 18 January. It is the largest blackout of the internet in history, and major websites like the Enwiki, Mozilla, Wordpress and more blacked out, with sites like Google, Icanhascheezburger and some more having information about the SOPA/PIPA bills. My proposition for the 2012 article is:

• January 18 – Various websites like Wordpress, Reddit, Mozilla and more participate in the Dark Wednesday of the internet against the U.S. bills SOPA and PIPA.

– Plarem ^{(User) I oppose SOPA!} 09:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Or, using the usual description of an Event in a Year article:

* January 18 – Various US-based websites participate in protests against the U.S. bills SOPA and PIPA.

Which looks appropriate for 2012 in the United States, but not 2012. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Derby. Y Whenaxis about | talk 20:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose the 2012 in the United States addition – The effect was more widespread. Have a look at these references:

• The Sopa blackout protest makes history - guardian.co.uk
• Internet wins: PIPA vote cancelled following web blackout - Death and Taxes
• SOPA 101: Your guide to the Internet blackout - CNN

I hope this convinces you... – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

my current count is 3 vs 3 on the vote for consensus.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How about a straw poll? – Anonymous Plarem ^{(User talk)} 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

For inclusion on 2012

• – Anonymous Plarem ^{(User talk)}

Against inclusion on 2012

• Whenaxis about | talk 21:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please sign on under the appropriate section, I would like to see where we are at now. – Anonymous Plarem ^{(User talk)} 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the Dark Wednesday of the Internet be included in 2012?

Maybe this heading would be a little more on-topic. I do not want an entry like this on the 2012 article:

• January 18 – One day downtime of the English Wikipedia in protest of the U.S. bills SOPA and PIPA.
  

But an entry like this:

• January 18 – Various websites participate in the largest blackout of the internet in protest against the U.S. bills SOPA and PIPA.
  

Which is referenced:

• The Sopa blackout protest makes history - guardian.co.uk
• Internet wins: PIPA vote cancelled following web blackout - Death and Taxes
• SOPA 101: Your guide to the Internet blackout - CNN
  

This is NOT a local event. The internet is worldwide.
This is also NOT a current event. The bills SOPA and PIPA were not passed. (Some faith in humanity has been restored) Reference:

• Internet wins: PIPA vote cancelled following web blackout - Death and Taxes
  

Any more doom and gloom from the opposition? – Anonymous Plarem ^{(User talk)} 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The SOPA/PIPA blackout pertain to U.S. driven bills and U.S. websites. The blackout itself is negligible to the survival of the Internet. We don’t know what would happen if the bills were to have been enacted, because SOPA/PIPA is a hypothetical at this time. Though, the blackouts received international attention, it did not affect internationally. Whenaxis about | talk 21:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It did have an international effect. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'international' as (quote):

"existing, occurring, or carried on between nations"

This blackout affected the English-speaking countries (U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Ireland, New Zealand) by blocking some of the most-used websites of the internet (Enwiki, Reddit etc.). The blackout might be negligible to the survival of the internet, but the blackout was significant. It is estimated that over 115,000 websites joined in the blackout.The blackout made history. Opposition? – We are legion. We never forget. (Plarem) ^{(User talk)} 21:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's close but I still do not see this event as being of sufficient historical and international significance for inclusion in this article. It may be that in a few months the repercussions from this may make it more so, but a reassesment could wait until then. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just another point, think about it this way. Do you think users would look back in a year, 5 years or 10 years time and think about the SOPA/PIPA protests as memorable or noteworthy? Like Derby said, we can most definitely reconsider this in a few months time if visible repercussions occur. Whenaxis about | talk 22:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:Whenaxis. This event is comparable to the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. 2 billion people watched the wedding. In 10 years time, the Wikicommunity might think it as unnotable. In the news for a week. The anti-piracy acts news is still in the news from early January. I call the 'anti-piracy acts news' everthing from SOPA/PIPA protests, ACTA protests and Anonymous hacks in protest of ACTA/SOPA/PIPA. Over a billion people were affected by the SOPA/PIPA protest. – We are legion. We never forget. (Plarem) ^{(User talk)} 17:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:DerbyCountyinNZ. From 2011: "Occupy Wall Street protests begin in the United States. This develops into the Occupy movement which spreads to 82 countries by October." Over a billion people were affected by the SOPA/PIPA protest, 115,000 websites down. Internet giants supported this protest. – We are legion. We never forget. (Plarem) ^{(User talk)} 17:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you suppose we go about including everything you have described into the article? For example, the SOPA/PIPA blackout occurred on Wednesday January 18, but the after effects are still being felt. Whenaxis talk · contribs 19:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Alan Turing Year

The lede for Recent Year articles usually contains United Nations declared "Year of..." designations. The Alan Turing Year does not fall under this scope, in fact it looks to be little more than an anniversary. Should this be included? I think it probably shouldn't. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Whenaxis about | talk 20:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we need inclusion of the Turing Conference in June.. some editor added it. I'm thinking, no. Whenaxis about | talk 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards inclusion on this one. Yes, Turing was born 100 years ago, and the anniversary-ish nature of the reason for picking 2012 is glaring. But, for the sake of comparison, consider that the RMS Titanic sank a century ago as well. It is probably safe to assume that considerably more people have heard of the Titanic than of Turing. Even so, there is no RMS Titanic Year article to indicate that anyone has named 2012 after the Titanic, yet there has been an Alan Turing Year article sine 2009--and this article does indicate that international Turing-inspired events will occur throughout 2012. The year may not be significant (save trivially), vis-a-vis Turing, on account of his birth (which did not, after all, happen in 2012), but it does seem notablly Turing-related insofar as it has been designated internationally (regardless of the reason) as a year for recognizing Turing's life. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 January 2012

Please add the recent shipwreck that happened in Europe that cause many fatalities, the Costa Concordia disaster is an article on Wikipedia, but it should also be listed as an even of this year, because it was big and most certainly a notable event that happened so far in 2012.

Under discussion above at #Cruise liner sinking; consensus seems against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Shadycypher11 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Arthur Rubin, I see it is more for than against... – Anonymous Plarem ^{(User talk)} 17:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

From the discussion above I see 3 For and 4 Against. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I only read the end of it... – Anonymous Plarem ^{(User talk)} 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ben Gazzara and Angelo Dundee should be added

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.242.33 (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2012‎ (UTC)

I have added Ben Gazzara, but I'm on the fence regarding Angelo Dundee. Favonian (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sharada Dwivedi

Please add Sharada Dwivedi to the death list (just passed away d. 6-Feb-2012) 59.183.48.148 (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RY. He fails the crietria completely. Try 2012 in India. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Maldives political crisis

Please add that the maldives president Mohamed Nasheed resigned from power after ongoing protests against him in the country, and that the vice president Mohammed Waheed Hassan replaced him as president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.138.81 (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this is of sufficient international importance to be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Pics in Deaths section

The usual format for Recent Years is one pic per month for Deaths unless room permits more. Currently there are 2 pics, which exceeds the available space. With the death of Whiitney Houston there is the additional problem of who should be selected, with Etta james for January we already have one singer, should there some balance/variety as to who is included? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The photo of Ben Gazzara should be not included, but has no exceed with fewer space. Gazzara has fewer non-English Wikipedia articles than Whitney Houston. Don't worry Derby, replace Etta James picture to Theodoros Angelopoulos on January death section, as for Ben Gazzara, it will be replace to Whitney Houston pic that should save. ApprenticeFan ^work 05:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

anatomy of a murder = 7 oscar nominations... Gazarra second male lead after Jimmy Stewart ... Theodoros Angelopoulos no film he was involved in a single oscar ... a doctor saves hundreds of lives then gets a free pass to kill 1 person? houston killed herself in a premature death ... it is the same as the doctor kills someone .... a number of good works does not equal one heinous free pass--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Redundant solar maximum info

I removed the text below regarding the "upcoming" solar cycle, because I think the remaining part is sufficient, such as already stating the 11 year cycle length:

... and the previous solar maximum of Solar Cycle 23 occurred in 2000–2002. During the solar maximum the Sun's magnetic poles will reverse. The period between successive solar maxima averages 11 years (the Schwabe cycle).

Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole entry is insufficienlty notable for this article (ditto the "Transit of Venus" entry. They belongs in a sub-article, maybe 2012 in science or 2012 in astronomy (if that existed). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? Transits of Venus are one of the rarest predictable astronomical events. The occur only twice a century, eight years apart. Before they were discovered people had pretty much no freaking idea how large the solar system was. The fact that the first transit-enabled estimate was 64% the real value and still managed to beat every suggestion ever made before is telling. And that it was brought down to plus or minus 0.2% as the sole result of 4 more transits is testament to how much they have helped scientific knowledge. This is not just visible from a small area either, it can be seen from about 3/4ths of the globe and is the only time you can see any planet in front of the sun with the naked eye. As for the solar maximum, I don't know, they happen every 11 years, it's a weak one, and might not even happen till next year. I don't care much either way. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(also, don't look at the sun with the naked eye unless you're using an approved solar filter or it's right at sunrise/sunset. (or the clouds are so thick you can barely see the outline))

And it is at 2012 in science. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Nigeria attacks

These were a domestic event and should not be included. A high death toll does not mean a domestic event should be included. There are terror attacks with similar and higher death tolls in other countries, eg. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, which are not included on year articles. 89.194.8.3 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

you are wrong about comparable totals in other countries - that attack is one of the largest in the last decade--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

of the three countries you just named i can only remember one attack being even over 100 deaths in the last decade--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

these two are the largest i can remeber and both are less - 2007 Tal Afar bombings and massacre and 3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

this is the only one i know of that is larger and it is over a decade ago - 1998 United States embassy bombings--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The 2007 Yazidi communities bombings on 14 August 2007 caused 796 deaths, the highest death toll of a terror attack in Iraq. I don't see why 2007 mentions them. They were also a domestic event and there is no rule to include events merely because of a high death toll; an international involvement is a criteria of inclusion on years articles. The 1998 US embassy bombings are rightly included on 1998 because they were an international event - an international terror group attacking US buildings in Kenya and Tanzania. The Nigeria attacks were carried out by a Nigerian group against Nigerians in Nigeria, hence no international involvement. If 2012 in Nigeria existed, the attacks should be listed on that article. 109.249.234.128 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

i found nothing in archive for 2007 and also looked at the logs of entries for the days just after the 2007 Yazidi communities bombings ... it appears to just have been accepted as an "other"-type event that if "talk" had discussed it would just have been included as an "other" event that would have been included upon consensus ... thus, i say this event, January 2012 Nigeria attacks, is another "other" event which i am guessing that if put up to a consensus would also pass under WP:RY#Consensus --68.231.15.56 (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been consensus regarding several previous events that they should not be included if they are domestic events; a high death toll has been rejected as a reason to include it. For example, there have been long discussions about the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, which caused many times more damage and whose death toll is similar to that of the Nigeria attacks. What justification is there for including the Nigeria attacks? 109.249.124.9 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

natural=accident vs. man-made=murder ... natural threashold is running around 100 to 200 minimum from what i have seen ... from what i have seen NZ would have been included if, sad to say, 50 more people had died--68.231.15.56 (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Aspects of WP:RY that need to be discussed are:

• Three-continent rule of Inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Disasters, assasinations, and other crimes of Inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Lead: The event must have a demonstrated, international significance.

OR

• Consensus

– Plarem ^{(User talk)} 21:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)