From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Years (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa[edit]

2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A local event, belongs to 2014 in Canada in my opinion. — Yerpo Eh? 06:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Just my opinion, but I feel you're going about the entry filtering the wrong way. I believe it will be better to let the year run its course and then do the filtering next year. Some events tend to escalate and have further consequences over time and by doing the filtering as things occur, events that turn out to be deserving of mention may get omitted. Terrorism, no matter where it occurs, is always of international concern. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. It's better to discuss immediately and apply the filter according to known facts, people will be more offended if they've spent a lot of time polishing an entry just to have it duly thrown out six months later. On the other hand, many users keep re-adding removed events or proposing re-inclusion on the talk page for quite some time after they occurred, so if there's suddenly an escalation, it will surely be noticed sooner or later. Terrorism by itself is of international concern for sure, but that doesn't necessarily extend to every individual act that's labelled as such. — Yerpo Eh? 12:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The shootings are considered as terrorist attacks as the way of the Boston Marathon bombing last year. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Sadly these shootings have been used by our Australian government to increase security in Canberra, and toughen anti-terror laws. This has led to an improvement in public approval of the government. (Beats me too.) The Ottawa event SHOULD have only local impact, but opportunistic pollies elsewhere are spreading its impact. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Any reference for the anti-terror laws? Temporary increase of security measures in a few places isn't really that significant. — Yerpo Eh? 13:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Simply making the point that the impact was wider than just in Canada. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and if you provide any reference for an actual change of national legislation on the other side of the world (as you claim), I will agree with you. — Yerpo Eh? 07:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Menino[edit]

Just makes the WP:RY minimum criteria but there's nothing in his profile to indicate any international notability. All the non-English wikis are stubs/clones and the only reference not from the English article is the Japanese NFL website (which I suspect is merely a translation of a US site). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree should not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
he was the mayor of Boston that's a big city its notable if it was a small town then I'd say remove him but because he was mayor of a big city I say keep him also I want to point out that saying "All the non-English wikis are stubs/clones" is not a good argument everyone else on the list have the same problem all the wiki articles will have the same information about that person, its not gonna have any different information in a different language. so please come up with a better argument. Dman41689 (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually you need to come up with a better argument! The fact that the non-English articles are stubs/clones is a strong indication that they were merely copied from the English. That, plus the content of his English wiki, is a strong indication that he is NOT internationally notable, as required for inclusion here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dman41689 A better argument would be that he not notable because as a politician, he's only served in Boston. he didn't hold a higher political position in Massachusetts or anywhere else in the United States. Redsky89 (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


I understand that only people who are "internationally" known are listed although the determination of who is notable is a bit vague (a few listed are still only locally notable), would it be easier to ditch the death section and just rely on the link to Deaths in 2014 ? MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The basis of determination is objective and precise (number of interwiki links at the time of death), but can be overruled by consensus which sometimes happens in borderline cases. The system isn't perfect, but it works reasonably well and the deaths section is, at least in my opinion, a "natural" part of a list of events in a given year. Furthermore, "Deaths in XXXX" redirects to Lists of deaths by year which is less useful if the reader wants an overview (which he/she obviously does if visiting a page such as 2014). — Yerpo Eh? 10:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
OK but I am not sure that the number of interwiki links is a sign of notability but I can see it being used as a rough filter. A few entries dont look that notable, Howard Baker an American diplomat and Thomas Menino a local American mayor are the two examples that stand out. MilborneOne (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly the reason why Menino is being discussed above. Sometimes, the state of other-language articles will indicate that the person isn't really as notable as it looks from the simple number of interwikis. Baker, on the other hand, is notable for his involvement in the Watergate scandal which is one of the most widely recognized events in modern US history. He's not much above the threshold, but many of those articles are quite sizeable, which means that people from very different cultures considered him important enough to merit a decent biography. But feel free to start a discussion about him, too, if you're not convinced. — Yerpo Eh? 20:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks for the explantion Yerpo. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Howard Baker - Death entry[edit]

Appears his entry is based on being notable as he was involved in "one of the most widely recognized events in modern US history" but this is not Usapedia. He appears to have been a member of a committee but to the rest of the world he appears if at all as just another foreign politician. Perhaps we should consider removing the entry, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree on removal, for the same reasons as Menino above. I couldn't find any non-English citation in any of the non-English wikis I looked at. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree he was a diplomat, diplomats deal with international relations, he was also a Cabinet minister being the White House Chief of Staff, and he also ran for president in 1980, he dropped out eventually but he still ran. Redsky89 (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • He was a significant figure in American politics including serving as a Senate Majority Leader and Chief of Staff to the most powerful man in the world.

Marion Barry[edit]

  • I proposed Marion Barry in the deaths but it was removed. He was the mayor of a significant city for a number of years and his arrest made news around the world. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
How many other mayors have ever made it to a Year article? HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson Riots[edit]

I think a city burning down is pretty important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plzwork1122 (talkcontribs) 02:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no international repercussions from this event, as required for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, no importance whatsoever outside USA, so it belongs to 2014 in the United States. Plus, "a city burning down" is a gross exaggeration. Inclusion will make sense if and when the riots spread and start influencing international affairs. — Yerpo Eh? 10:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Royal births in Sweden & Monaco[edit]

The birth of a Swedish princess who's fifth in-line to a throne, is more notable then the birth of a Monaco prince & princess who are first & second in-line to a throne? GoodDay (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The minimum criteria for inclusion is 9 non-English wiki articles. The Monaco twins did not meet that minimum at the time of my second revert. Now they meet that minimum so I have added them back in. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Quantify "notable enough"[edit]

An event can be notable or not notable, but I fail to see how it can be semi-notable. Regarding the reversion of the entry on the crowning of Miss World 2014 by User:Wjfox2005 on the grounds of it being "not notable enough", in spite of the facts that contestants from world-wide officially represented their respective countries and that the top five finalists were from four continents and one significant island, could someone please quantify or define "notable enough"? -- André Kritzinger (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:RY states that

Events which usually do not merit inclusion:

  1. Annual championships such as the World Series, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, or NBA Championship
  2. Annual world or continental championships in any sport, such as European or African football tournaments
  3. Any other annual contest, such as Eurovision Song Contest or American Idol
  4. World records (unless especially notable, something akin to Roger Bannister breaking the four-minute mile)
Any event not covered above must gain a consensus for inclusion on the talk page before being added and may be better placed in the year's sports article.
As the Miss World contest falls under this category it does not qualify for inclusion in any year covered by WP:RY (namely 2001 ff.) DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Miss World contest does not fit into this category.
1. All these annual championships mentioned are local North American events with local North American participants.
2. Both tournaments mentioned are local continental events.
3. Both annual contents mentioned are local continental events.
4. The Miss World contest is not about world records and it is also not a sporting event.

WP:RY states in the opening paragraph that "This is the central guideline for recent year articles." The defining word here is "guideline".

Further it states that "The event must have a demonstrated, international significance." And according to the Three-continent rule: "New events added must receive independent news reporting from three continents on the event. This is a minimum requirement for inclusion." With 122 countries participating, the Miss World contest qualifies.

Objectivity does not seem to feature in the application of WP:RY and is, in fact, not even addressed by it. The treatment of guidelines by some editors as if they are rules cast in stone is, in my opinion, often highly subjective.

"Notable enough" is not yet quantified or defined, and is about as logical a concept as "somewhat pregnant". -- André Kritzinger (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be harsh, but... who cares about this stupid Miss World contest? It's a meaningless competition, hardly a major/historical event and will be forgotten about soon. Other news and events carry far more relevance. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
More people care about this stupid Miss World contest than you may think, actually, to make it worthwhile for worldwide live television coverage, front page headlines in newspapers in participating countries around the globe, audiences with statesmen around the globe for the winner during her term of service, and more. Agreed, it's not an earth-shattering event, but it is notable. And Wikipedia caters for users from all walks of life, or so I understand.
The fact that you describe the subject as "this stupid Miss World contest" serve well to prove my point about the lack of objectivity about the application of WP:RY by yourself and several other Guardians of the Years. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a better term than "internationally notable" is "internationally important". In practice, all annual competitions included are the most famous sporting events in the world, such as the Olympic Games, FIFA World Cups and such. If nothing else, they are important for the sheer amount of money that's funneled their way. Miss World cannot compare. In my opinion, professional sport is largely meaningless, but professional "beauty" contests are even more so. Guidelines simply represent consensus and there is no point in ignoring it if there is not a good reason - which there isn't in this case. — Yerpo Eh? 13:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)