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.

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)
He was mayor during the terrorist bombing and was in charge of the response and apprehension of one suspect, this is notable internationally due to the ongoing investigation and possible ties to foreign terror organizations -- (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
No, far too much of a stretch. — Yerpo Eh? 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ferguson unrest[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)

2014 Peshawar school attack[edit]

This domestic event has been repeatedly added by the same editor with the claim that it's an exception to the inclusion criteria because it's received international attention. However, many domestic events receive international media coverage - it doesn't make them internationally notable. Terror attacks are common in NW Pakistan, which isn't surprising as there's a war going on there. Death toll does not make a domestic event eligible for inclusion here. It's rightful place is on 2014 in Pakistan, where it already is. We went through a similar dispute two years ago with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, whose place it was decided is 2012 in the United States, not 2012. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Death toll does not make a domestic event eligible for inclusion here." This has NEVER been part of the WP:RY. AFAIK the only user who has ever insisted on this is you (but happy to be shown wrong if you can point me to a discussion where such a consensus was reached). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The Peshawar school attack was not carried out by a school kid misfit, but by the Taliban, an international terrorist organisation that is active in multiple countries. A comparison of this atrocity with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is comparing apples to potatoes. All acts of terrorism have international consequences and should therefore be included. You may disagree with this view on terrorism, but then please explain why, for example, the USA is taking action against ISIS. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It was carried out by Tehrik-i-Taliban, a Pakistani terror group allied to the Taliban, which is why its place is 2014 in Pakistan, not here. Islamic State are international, but even then, we don't list every attack they've carried out this year in this article. We have articles such as Timeline of events related to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for that purpose. Recent Year criteria states that death toll does not make an event eligible. The Disasters, assassinations and other crimes section states that. It is only Derby who claims that a high death toll automatically makes an event eligible. Saying that this is eligible because all acts of terrorism have international consequences is false, because this attack only affects Pakistan. Saying all terror attacks should be included would mean that we would have to add hundreds of terror attacks to every Year article. The Events section is for international events only, not for every event in which many people die. We don't include domestic events and there is no 'except if many people die' get-out clause. Saying that this attack should be included because of the media coverage is not reasonable, as international media coverage does not prove international notability. The 2014 Sydney hostage crisis received a huge amount of mainstream media coverage in many countries (more than this attack did), but that doesn't make it internationally notable - hence it's place is 2014 in Australia, not here. Jim Michael (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. Again. On multiple counts. Firstly, I have never stated that a high death toll automatically merits inclusion, mainly because there has never been consensus as to the definition of "high" and how to apply it/them to different cases. Secondly, WP:RY does not state that "death toll does not make an event eligible" what it actually states is that "High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion". Note that the word "necessarily" is included. I would think that, as I have pointed out numerous times previously, this indicates that a high death toll may in fact indicate that inclusion is merited. Thirdly, as I did not write of this it must be concluded that numerous other editors share this viewpoint. That there have been numerous discussions in the past 6 years about whether a death toll for an event has been high enough, or not, to merit inclusion, clearly indictes that many other editors also share this viewpoint. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You're saying that domestic events, including this one, and various others, should be included purely because of their death toll, despite you knowing that that doesn't necessarily make them eligible - why do you claim it does necessarily make them eligible? There has never been a rule that any type of event should be included because of a high death toll. No discussion has ever reached a consensus that a high death toll makes any type of event automatically notable and your attempts to make such a rule have failed. You keep to all of the other policies and guidelines on here, yet you repeatedly falsely claim that there is an exception to the exclusion of domestic events when there is a high death toll. This is a domestic event that is nothing to do with the rest of the world. You haven't tried to reply to any of the other points I raised. If we included every event with a high death toll, then every year article would be dominated by them. Lists of disasters and its sub-lists exist for the purpose of documenting them; the events sections of Year articles are for internationally notable events only. A high death toll is your only 'justification' for including this, and various other attacks, fires, floods, earthquakes etc, despite the fact that you know that a high death toll does not make such an event automatically notable. If far fewer people had been killed in this attack, neither you nor anyone else would be arguing for its inclusion. That shows that the only reason you or anyone else wants it included - 'many people died, so forget the rules and include it'. The 'lots of media coverage' argument would include many events, including the Sydney siege and saying that an event is the worst of its kind in its country makes it nationally notable, not internationally notable - that's why this event is on 2014 in Pakistan. Well over twice as many people were killed in the Beslan school hostage crisis, so this is not close to being the most deadly or most notable school attack. Therefore you can't argue for notability on that ground. I know that you think that any event above a particular number of deaths should always be included, but, as you know, no such rule has ever existed. Jim Michael (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You still don't get it! What I have argued, more than once, is that some events are of a sufficiently high death toll to be historically notable and that what that the level at which the toll becomes significant depends on the type of event. If a terrorist attack killed 3000 people it would be notable even if it was entirely domestic, but a (purely domestic) tropical cyclone would not. As for the other arguments, the media coverage is only a minimum and a lack of coverage is a reason to exclude while a profundity of coverage is insufficient on its own for inclusion. As for the event under discussion here, I have not made any edit anywhere in favour of its inclusion. If there were a consensus that any such attack which killed 100+ people should be included then it would be in, at 200+ it would not. Personally I prefer a "top 10% in the last 10 years" for all disasters, which in this case would mean exclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I know you've argued that, but policy/guidelines do not back your assertion. There's no minimum death toll that makes domestic events eligible. It's bizarre that you're arguing against me in this section when you now say you want it excluded. Therefore there is not a consensus to include this domestic event; hence I'm removing it again. Jim Michael (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Historic elections in India - the largest number of people ever to have voted in a free and fair election.[edit]

A significant historical event in 2014 was the general election in India where 814.5 million people were eligible to vote - the largest in history. The election was held in several phases with a turnout of over 65%. The Bharatiya Janata Party, the BJP [translates into Indian Peoples' party] won an absolute majority in parliament based on mass appeal that shattered all religious and ethnic barriers. The new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi took office in May 2014. <</> — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim that it should have an entry. Do we include each new election in India? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Consensus of One, and it's gone? Wham, bam, thank you ma'm! -- André Kritzinger (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Try WP:BRD, specfically BRD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Not significant as per WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely shocked Derby that you did not support me[edit]

as per WP:Recent years the format is EXACTLY as follows "January 1 – Name, Nationality and very brief description ... etc" the template guidelines says that for the "Year in" article for obit give the name of the person and "their nationality" - thus THE PEOPLE are from the nation called The United Kingdom - there is no such nation at the UN called England - England has not been a nation since renassiance times (Acts of Union 1707) - those from the "Nation" of The United Kingdom are refered to as "British"--Wik20150113 (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It does NOT state that "British should be used instead of English, Scottish, etc" as your edit summary falsely in implyies. You have merely put your interpretation on what it actually says. Other Recent Years have a mix of "British" and "English". On the other hand Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Changing an existing UK nationality states that

Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities—is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained.

Note that it says "strongly discouraged".DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)