Talk:2013

125th IOC Session

This could be an international event? It could be like a part of global session for winning a host city of 2020 Summer Olympics/Games of the XXXII Olympiad. ApprenticeFan ^work 18:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It will be an exciting event for those involved at the time, especially for the winners, but in the long term it will fade into obscurity. The Games themselves are the notable event. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013

23rd November 2013- The long running British science fiction television show, Doctor Who, celebrates its 50th Anniversary on BBC 1 176.24.25.147 (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Exclude - this page is not for trivia, including various anniversaries. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Exlcude - not even suitable for "... in televsion" or "... in the UK". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: per above responses. Although it is unlikely, if later consensus contradicts these responses I will not object to addition of this information. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Holidays 2013: Immaculate Conception

A few days ago, I changed the date of Immaculate Conception from 8 December to 9 December, and gave a source to site it. The table of liturgical days (the source I provided) indicated that a Sunday of Advent takes precedence, and as 8 December 2013 is a Sunday it takes precedence over the Immaculate Conception, which therefore needs to be shifted to 9 December - this is what happens in 2013. This edit was reverted; although interestingly the source I provided was left there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.cats2004 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a celebration, not a holiday. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the differing usage of the word holiday around the world, one could argue that from the perspective of many people (certainly for me as an Australian where a holiday only means time away from work, school or other normal occupation) there are very few religious holidays. Most are more correctly called celebrations or commemorations. HiLo48 (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph

This is maybe (most probably) not specific to this page, but ... I think concerning the first words,

2013 (MMXIII) is a common year that started on a Tuesday and is the current year.

In the Gregorian calendar, it is the 2013th year ...

the "In the Gregorian..." applies in particular to " started on a Tuesday", and therefore should come earlier. — MFH:Talk 19:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where this should be mentioned, but 2013 is the first year since 1432 that is a permutation of four-consecutive integers. (0,1,2,3) in the case of 2013, and (1,2,3,4) in the case of 1432. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystykmoo (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How come there are no Events yet?

For all of the years from 2005 to 2013, every single year except for 2012 has at least 1 event listed by January 5. It is now January 5, and we still have NO events listed yet! I sure hope we don't have a repeat of what happened in 2012. Seriously! I mean, the 2012 article had the least events of any Recent Year article, and I feel that, sadly, 2013 will likely share the same fate. SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The criterion for populating this list is importance, not uniform distribution of events in time. How come there are no events yet? It's simple - nothing noteworthy happened yet. If you think that something did, then propose the inclusion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

NASA's Venus In-Situ Explorer mission to Venus

I've researched all that I could to source this entry, but have found none. NASA's website mentions it in their "New Frontiers" program on their website, but the year it will happen is not confirmed, only that the program itself began this year. I think it's safe for its removal. — ^Wylie_Coyote 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested January event

• January 1 – At least 60 people are killed and more than 200 injured in a stampede during a New Year's fireworks celebration near the Stade Félix Houphouët-Boigny in Abidjan, Ivory Coast.[1][2][3]

Suggest listing for the number killed and injured, the date and its celebratory tragedy, and its global coverage. If listed, I will fix the citations. — ^Wylie_Coyote 19:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

EXLUDE - minor local event--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Exclude - this event has no international notability. That it was reported my some media sources outside Cote D'Ivoire does not change the fact that it had no relevance to the rest of the world. 188.29.77.65 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mali

where is the Mali? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.7.30 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

2012#March 94.197.167.162 (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I also believe that the French intervention in Mali is notable enough for inclusion on this article. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Several countries are involved in the Northern Mali conflict. I don't think that we mention on year articles each time another country joins in. 92.40.210.188 (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

We did for Libya in 2011. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

David R. Ellis

He meets the WP:RY minimum guideline but his English article is not substantial and all the non-English ones are stubs/clones. His notability seems to rest on one film (Snakes on a Plane) as his article wasn't created until after that. I think he should be Excluded as insufficient;y notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

already argued for Harry Carey, Jr. and got shot down (rediculous) - Ellis article at IMDB is substantial i say INCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet again Derby continues his dictatorship upon RY articles. There was not even time for discussion before it was removed, in complete violation of WP:AGF. Your argument that he was notable only for Snakes on a Plane is ridiculous, if you actually looked at the article, he was involved in several fairly well known movies such as the Final Destination franchise. He obviously meets international notability and his removal is just silly, as are most decisions on this page undertaken by a certain collective of obstructive editors. Include --MarcZimmer (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he should be included. He meets the WP:RY minimum guideline, he has a substantial entry on IMDb, and he is the director of several well-known films. So, I do think that he should be included. SuperHero2111 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no consensus. I would lean again inclusion, but I'm not going to !vote here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

He directed Cellular, Snakes on a Plane and two Final Destination films. I think that makes him sufficiently internationally notable to be included. 188.29.77.65 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Include - 16 other translations, no matter their size. Stop the lording! — ^Wylie_Coyote 21:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Winner

Currently has 12 non-English articles, but two of those (Latin and Ukrainian) were created after his death, and Swedish one has only one line. I would like to ask other editors if his name should be included on "Deaths". Thanks ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that his career is clearly more notable than that of David R. Ellis, and the quality of non-English articles in general reflects this, it would seem obvious that he is should be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Winner is easily important enough to include. He made many notable films in the UK and the US. 92.41.102.207 (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Kiss nightclub fire

• January 27 – The Kiss nightclub fire in Santa Maria, Brazil kills 233.

INCLUDE 3rd worst (by number of lives lost) nightclub fire in world history List of nightclub fires--68.231.15.56 (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Leaning towards exclude. It was a local event and not the worst of its kind. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

INCLUDE in agreement with user 68.231.15.56. Newone2012 (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Exclude - domestic event. A high death toll and/or how it compares to other disasters does not make it eligible for inclusion. Year articles are for internationally notable events. Jim Michael (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

you are flat out wrong - it is eligible by the process you have just voted on - which is "consensus"--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

also again you are in error to say it is a local event - i ask again (as i have done on previous preventable accidents) here on these "year in" talk page - You dont think other countries have sent fire department type inspectors to make sure this never occurs in their countries?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide reliable sources stating that authorities in other countries have taken action as a result of this fire, then it is nothing more than speculation. It is quite common for a government to change a law or bring in a new law in response to events in its own country, but rare for them to do so in response to events in another country.

here is the flaw in your arguement about no coverage = no response - one of the biggest problems with the liberal biased news is "bling" (if you have not figurered out yet that holloywood-types run the news just like any other entertainment, i feel sorry for you) - when a fire happens it could be the smallest thing on the face of the earth, but if they have video footage of it, and on the same day 3 physicans discover a better survival rate drug for prostate cancer - which one gets shown on the news ... which one gets the coverage ... why of course the showy one! things like bureacratic international fire inpsectors having conferences to discuss ways to prevent further loss of life - are you kidding me to thing the "bling" news will cover that? - does that mean that it never happened just cause you cannot find a USA today webnews page proving it exists?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that not only does USA Today coverage not exist, neither does (apparently) any other kind of coverage. You can easily prove "bureacratic international fire inpsectors having conferences" by providing links to their websites or reports, so speculating that they "must have taken place somewhere" and pointing fingers at biased media is really not going to cut it. Not in the age of instant accessibility of all kinds of information over the internet.

So I still lean towards exclusion - being a purely domestic event is not the only criteria for exclusion/inclusion, but this one is also not exceptional by any other criteria. It's close, though, so I will understand if there's a decision to include at the end, especially since not much has happened in january this year. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Every time people are killed in a fire, flood, earthquake, shooting or bombing - someone adds it to the current Year article. There is no evidence that this fire has had any effect on any country other than Brazil - hence it is a domestic event. Compare this to In Aménas hostage crisis - that is a notable international event. As with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Brazil fire has had no effect on the laws/policy outside the country in which it occured - it has not yet even had any effect on the laws of the country in which it did occur. Jim Michael (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

since it is 3rd worst, not the worst-ever, and unlikely a kind of terrorist attack, should be considered as a local event, thus exclude.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Include being a purely domestic event is only one criteria for possible exclusion/inclusion. The scale of this event is historically significant in international terms. If being a purely domestic event meant automatic exclusion it would need to be applied to every Recent Year article, and probably every Year article. Try that and see what happens! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ed Koch

What notability does he have outside the United States? 94.197.97.212 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently enough that there are articles about him in 20 non-English-language Wikipedias. Favonian (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And that was before his death.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't show notability outside the US, nor does the content of his article. Him being of interest to millions of Americans, including German-Americans, Italian-Americans etc is the probable reason for the otherwise inexplicably large number of Wikipedia articles about him. Many people with articles in many languages have been excluded from the Deaths section because they were notable in only one country. 94.197.171.78 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hardly hear that German Americans speak, read, write German language, so as Italian Americans, or any other Americans with different race origins. Or even some people do, such people are not really concerned whatever or whoever popular among English-speaking Americans, such as him. If you think as you stated, you need to prove that he was not notable outside of US at all with reliable sources.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines at WP:RY were established to avoid this kind of subjective versus objective argument. The guidelines, agreed by consensus, are that a minimum of 9 non-English wiki articles is usually enough to establish international notability. That Koch had 20 such articles before his death indicates that his international notability is considerably greater than the majority of deaths included in recent year articles. To claim that such articles were created by Americans using foreign languages is highly subjective and unless you can WP:PROVEIT you are wasting peoples time with this argument. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nine non-English language articles is merely a guideline. It isn't set in stone as the line between exclusion and inclusion. Likewise some internationally notable people have been included despite them not having 'enough' articles. Although, for example, Italian-Americans usually speak English most of the time, many of them speak Italian to their grandparents etc. It's not rare for Americans to know the language of their ancestors. Many languages does not prove notability outside the US. The vast majority of people outside the US have never heard of Koch and his death is not on the front pages of newspapers around the world. A person has to be internationally notable to be included in the Deaths section. If Koch is notable outside the US, that should be shown in his article. If he isn't, he should not be included. He was very notable in the US, but appears to have no notability outside the US. Try finding non-Americans elsewhere than Wikipedia who have heard of Koch. Try telling non-Americans in Europe, Africa, Asia etc that Ed Koch has died and see the blank/puzzled look on their faces and their replies of "who"? When you tell them who he was, they still won't be interested. 94.197.171.78 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It is common for influential American politicians to get noted by interested foreigners, even if they're not known to wide masses. His outspoken stance towards Israel, for example, would fall neatly under international notability for a person of his position.

As for criteria themselves, you're welcome to suggest better (=more objective ones) if you disagree with interwikis. Guesswork about Americans of foreign origin won't cut it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

His pro-Israel views would be internationally notable only if they had an actual effect on Israel, the US Government's relations with Israel or on a third country's relations with Israel. If they did, that should be stated in the article. All there is the article about his pro-Israel stance is that he was 'hawkish', opposed Jesse Jackson and said that Barack Obama would be bad for US-Israel relations. 92.41.168.213 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

His influence is recognized by the Israeli ([4]). — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

More mayan prophesy

• March 31 - The final (20th) day (Ahau) of the final (13th) Tzolk'in calendar cycle (13 Ahau). It is a Mayan prophesy that "at the time of the 13th b'ak'tun and 13 Ahau will be the return of our Ancestors - the return of the men of wisdom." The closing of the Long Count Calendar on December 21st 2012 was 4 Ahau.

someone tried to add this, can i get a vote to EXCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a vote. We don't vote here. But a post of very strong agreement. It's unsourced, tabloid nonsense. It will provide filler for some shallow current affairs programs and trashy magazines. It doesn't belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Zhuang Zedong

I reverted edits by multiple editors to add his name on Deaths, because he has 9 non-English articles as of now, and 3 out of those (Spanish, Vietnamese, and Welsh) were created after his death. I checked if his name could be added right after his death was reported, but found out that there were insufficient numbers of non-English articles available back then, and did not do so.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, although I do feel that he could be included anyway because of his role in relations between superpowers - at least judging by the article itself, I don't know how important he actually was. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 Russian meteor event and 2012 DA14

The meteor is probably the most significant such event since the 1908 Tunguska event. (I haven't found that in the news, but I believe it to be the case.)

As pointed out in the article, 2012 DA14 is the "closest approach for a known object of such size". Now, since size is a variable, this might not be a notable fact, but there's something there.

I lean toward inclusion of both. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I say INCLUDE but only because the amount of people injured was so great - how often can anyone say over 1000 people are injured by broken glass - not because the event rivals 1908 - they are light years apart in that aspect - it only "seems" because it also happened in Russia - the magnitudes are vastly different - most such event take place over the 3/4 of the earth that is covered by the sea and never even witnessed - thus not reported - you say that you believe something well I believe this that such events probably take place every couple of years and over water and thus no one sees them - as for the other event it is notable because it is the closest severe damage causer recorded in history - there may have been others in the last 5000 years but without telescopic observation no one knew so thus it is the worst in recorded history--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

An asteroid missing earth by over 17,000 miles should certainly not be included. It did not do anything to Earth. There was no damage caused, there were no evacuations and nothing was cancelled because of it. It was many times too far away to affect air traffic, let alone anything on the ground. 94.196.169.138 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

this goes to show you have absolutely no knowledge of science -17,000 miles means your heart should have stopped at how close that is too earth in matters of life and death--68.231.15.56 (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

IP User 94.196.169.138, you apparently do not have any information or background on this asteroid as you have created a very false statement. As stated in WP:YEARS, world records and other worldly events CAN be added to articles such as these. To tell you straight forward, this is the closest asteroid fly-by in modern history, 17,000 miles from the Earth's surface is a world record. So tell me exactly, how is an extraterrestrial body that created a WORLD record and has the power to destroy life on Earth, not an internationally based thing? Of course there was no evacuations or airline delays, if it was that close, it would strike Earth. Also, NASA and other space programs would have been monitoring this thing for several months or even years if it had the high possibility to strike Earth. So, your statement basically states that a world record holder cannot be added to this article, which isn't true. ST✪12 20:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

World records can be added if they are notable enough, something is not automatically eligible for inclusion here merely because it is a record. Its distance from Earth was over twice the diameter of Earth. This article is about world events that have had had a major effect on the world. This asteroid had no effect whatsoever. It is on 2013 in science, where it belongs. 94.197.200.103 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

INCLUDE - Russian meteor only - I think that it would be safe to say that the Russian meteor event could be added to the article based on how it did have an impact, especally in Russia, in addition to how rare a natural disaster similar to it has occurred, about 100 years ago since something similar happened. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

February events

There are 3 events posted, but all deleted by Arthur RubinUser:DerbyCountyinNZ, requesting consensus and proof of "historic notability".

• 2013 North Korean nuclear test - proved to be conducted first time in 4 years, which was detected by several different international organizations, followed by the immediate reactions by surrounding nations, urgent security meeting of United Nations Security Council, and condemnations by dozens of different nations.

• 2013 Russian meteor event - as noted on the article, it is the largest recorded object encountered by Earth since the 1908 Tunguska event and the only known such event to result in a large number of casualties.

• 2012 DA14 - also noted on the article, it was a record close approach for a known object of this size. It is unrelated to the Russian meteor.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Add: Um, how is the closest asteroid fly-by in modern history not internationally important if it affected the entire world? This shouldn't need to be brought on to the talk page to reach a consensus as it is a WORLD record holder. We need to be a little more practical about these events and when they should be added to the article. The Russian Meteor event was a rare event that happened, but it's not the first time that has happened in Russia or anywhere in the world. The 2013 North Korean nuclear test is a "?" for me. But the 2012 DA14 asteroid world record approach needs to be added. ST✪12 17:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It didn't "affect the entire world". The opposite is true - it had no effect on the world whatsoever. 94.197.200.103 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Readd: Arthur Rubin clearly violated WP:AGF, there is plenty of case for adding the North Korean nuclear test, and 2013 Russian meteor event especially. The meteor one has an especially strong case as it is the largest confirmed meteorite ever observed to have collided with Earth, outside the still unclear Tunguska event. --MarcZimmer (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

you say that the meteor is unrelated I say the jury is out on that one - masses in space have gravity and they move about with shepards in the Lagrangian points around them - thus it could have been a shepard--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Readd all; we could discuss long-term importance of this particular nuclear test (although it unquestionably contributed quite some tension to international relations), but the meteorite events are both one-in-a-hundred-years-type events (hopefully). — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Please check the logs. I didn't delete the astromonical ones. I don't think I deleted North Korea, although I don't think it is notable. I argued in favor of inclusion of the astronomical ones (but not any alleged connection) in the section above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My apology, it was my mistake, thus amended.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Why these events can be considered WP:NEWS rather than historically significant:

1. North Korea conducts a nuclear test (even if it has been 4 years since the last one this is not unusual in itself), leading to a UN Security Council meeting (again) and condemnation by various nations (again) which so far have achieved precisely nothing (again). IF North Korea decides on the basis of the response to this test to stop further testing that would be historically notable as would a more active response by the Security Council or some other nation.
2. Russian meteor event. No deaths, no major damage, effect limited to a single country. In short a notable astronomical event suitable for 2013 in science (or some more specific Year in Astronomy type article). IF there had been a large number of deaths or deaths in multiple countries or widespread damage (similar to, say, an earthquake) in multiple countries then it would be historically notable.
3. 2012 DA14. A near miss with no effect whatsoever on anybody. No satellites taken out, no atmospheric or terrestrial effects, no widespread panic. A rare astronomical event appropriate for 2013 in science as above. As a sidenote I have heard a news report stating explicitly that this event was NOT connected in any way with the Russian meteor shower.

DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Derby is full of crap as usual. The largest ever verified meteroid impact on Earth is a little more than simple news trivia. Doesn't have to kill people to be notable. Just goes to show you lack the ability to judge context on anything. --MarcZimmer (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet more proof that any idiot can edit wikipedia! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The June section on 1908 already has a previous event about a meteor "hitting" Russia already included which had less of an impact than this. While that does not count as an inclusion due to OtherStuff, I believe that this is notable enough due to the numerous casualties and damage done by a natural disaster, along with a response to try to prevent meteoroids from hitting the Earth in the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1908 isn't a recent year, hence the inclusion criteria are different. 188.29.75.21 (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I believe the astronomical events are notable enough due to their rarity, even if they caused no casualties. This year will undoubtedly be remembered as the one in which we had a close encounter with a potential city killer and the second event which is the first of its kind ever to cause widespread injury. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Outside of the scientific community, there is no way that this year will be remembered as the year of these asteroids. The Pope's resignation has received far more media coverage and is being talked about far more. Can you think of any year which is best known for an asteroid/meteor hitting or missing Earth? 188.29.26.104 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The only way that a nuclear test should be included is if it results in an official international trade embargo or military action. The usual condemnation by politicians and it being mentioned at conferences is not sufficient. 188.29.13.109 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

These articles don't provide good information anymore

I can't stand these articles anymore. The rules for inclusion are so strict now that they no longer provide good information. Only one entry for the entire year thus far? There were a lot more notable events in the year than just that hostage situation. These articles and their rules are no longer encyclopedic, informative, or notable. (Tigerghost (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC))

I completely agree with you. These articles are starting to become worthless. Information is present only on the rarest of occasions. More information needs to be added or it'll get marked as a "stub article" and people will visit this less and less. They will most likely look at the specific country articles to find the information they need. It should be okay to add tragedies and disasters if it's becoming more and more well known. If we exclude it, we're excluding people that need that information. ST✪12 20:15, 16 February 2013

Recent year articles are for internationally notable events, not for listing disasters, which are at: List of floods, Lists of earthquakes, List of fires etc. People who are looking for nation-specific events can finds the relevant articles via the box towards the top-right of the article. 188.29.75.21 (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to take this page back we should start a discussion on the recent years page protesting it as a useless and obstructive policy and force it to be rewritten. --99.251.252.217 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 meat adulteration scandal

Is the horse meat scandal notable enough to be placed in this article or is it too centred in the British Isles to be included? Pro66 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)