Talk:2013

Edit request on 7 March 2013

Bonnie Franklin - American Actress; 1944-2013 72.211.132.51 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - local TV celebrity without any serious international notability (only 2 foreign-language links in the article), included in 2013 in the United States. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

War of 1812 anniversary

On November 5th of last year, I added The War of 1812 in the June portion of this page, but it was deleted. Why hasnt it been added at least to the "predicted and scheduled events" section??!! There's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to it for crying out loud!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812_Bicentennial WHY HASNT IT BEEN ADDED!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packinheat2u (talk • contribs) 05:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Anniversaries are normally insufficiently notable for inclusion. There is nothing in War of 1812 Bicentennial to indicate that an exception should be made in this case (despite the fact that the War started in June 1812 the article has been virtually static and is actually now outdated). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify a common confounding: the war was an important event, the anniversary by itself isn't. That's why an entry belongs to the page 1812, not this one. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense Yerpo, since the entire point of the anniversary is to commemorate that "important event".--Packinheat2u (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, what that means is that, if the anniversary is to be mentioned, it should be in 1812 or 1813, not in 2013. It has been the case for some time that anniversaries have not been listed unless the commemoration was independently notable, but it appears it hasn't been written in WP:YEARS or WP:RY. I've requested the addition in WP:YEARS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it makes sense. We're talking about two events here: the war and its commemoration. One is important, the other one isn't. Understandable now? — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"WHY HASNT IT BEEN ADDED!!!" - This CAPS lock structure is a little dramatic dont you think? Thus, instead it worries me that your arguement is not very sound and you are trying to scam us.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If we start including anniversaries of important events, we should decide which events and which anniversaries. If we include all anniversaries of all important events, there would be more anniversaries of past events in this article than actual events of this year. And that's not point of year articles, isn't it? If someone wants to know what happened 200 years ago, they can go and check from 1813 80.223.252.10 (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Cyprus rejects the bailout

I think this development is more important than the agreement itself, perhaps we should move information of this information to the 19th of March with some background. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

in my mind it was a transcient event - useless for inclusion - if and only if it had passed AND if and only if any other country in the world had followed with the same measure - yes, then i would argue for inclusion.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality of foreign articles for Chinua Achebe

This looks to be one of those articles with ALL foreign language articles auto-created (they exist from the first edit of the English article). This makes it difficult to assess whether he genuinely meets the WP:RY criteria. Thoughts? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

personal testamonial - but "Cry the Beloved Country" and "Things Fall Apart" are the only works from Africa i have read--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Quality of foreign articles for Richard Griffiths

• "This looks to be one of those articles with ALL foreign language articles auto-created (they exist from the first edit of the English article). This makes it difficult to assess whether he genuinely meets the WP:RY criteria."

The same issue with Richard Griffiths, though I suspect his association with Harry Potter would mean he would pass the WP:RY minimum anyway. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

should probably debate the merits of notability in separate sections--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Jean Marcel Honoré

Meets the WP:RY minimum criteria for non-English articles but English article and most others are stubs, even the longest is barely more. No indication of any international activity let alone notability, just another cardinal. I propose he be excluded. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I added him (because he met the number of foreign), but knew he was doomed - and this is the reason - the article is very short but even worse for notability, the language within has no superlatives - I see no wording in the article to heighten him as more than a "cardinal" = a special cardinal.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

i removed him per Derby's request--68.231.15.56 (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Annette Funicello

Does she meet the criteria for inclusion? GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Although she meets the WP:RY minimum the non-English articles are mostly stubs/clones of the English one with virtually no local citations and there is nothing in her bio which suggests she was particularly notable outside the US. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

An Australian here. She was pretty popular among me and my peers back in the 1950s and 60s. Surely she would have been equally notable wherever The Mickey Mouse Club was shown. (At least the episodes where she was present.) Of course that would probably mostly be other English speaking countries, but I just thought it worth clarifying that point. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Boston Marathon bombings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think this recent "terrorist bombing attack" is in fact a national event? ApprenticeFan ^work 01:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a national event, belonging in 2013 in the United States, unless/until international involvement/repercussions are established. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the definition of international, the Boston Marathon is one of the most if not THE MOST important international marathon. Therefore any attack at it could be considered an international event. Notice all the flags during the video of the bombing... I think it's more important to see what the MOTIVE of the attack was because that would probably be more important in determining the overall notability of this particular event. Though I do think there would certainly already be grounds to include it before that is even said. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Should it be added? Yes, it's received significant coverage worldwide. Will it be? No. The recent year crew wants to keep their little kingdom to themselves. Hot Stop (Talk) 03:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I love your comment, and gets right to the point with what is wrong with all recent years articles. No wonder the media has been picking up on the bureaucratic restrictiveness that is ruining Wikipedia as the free encyclopedia these days as everything is subject to the high and mighty policy lovers who make policies for every god damn thing. We need a Conservative movement here within Wikipedia to get rid of many of these stupid restrictions. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a national event in a race with international competitors, bombings happen all too often around the world.

Sadly it happens so often that we cannot add every bombs that result in deaths. FFMG (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It can be added to both 2013 in the United States and, possibly, 2013 in sports. It should be added here, but it might be a few years before it is added. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

On the same day, in Iraq, over 30 bombs exploded resulting in over that number of people killed and over 200 injured. See here. We cannot possibly include the Boston bombing until well after this one. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That kind of stuff happens a lot more often in Iraq, though. Attacks on major sporting events such as this are a lot less common, which basically makes them more notable by default, in my opinion. --Mathnerd 101 _{(What I have done)} ^{(What have I done?)} 15:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the attack could be included if it turns out to be organized from abroad - that kind of thing still happens rarely enough in the States and, analogous to the 2011 Domodedovo bombing, it would be an international statement. But we should wait until more information becomes available. For all we know now, it could be some nutjob who found how to make bombs online. Coverage doesn't equal importance. This page isn't a news service, and the event features prominently enough in the news section of the main page to satisfy all the trigger-happy recentists. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I checked out 2013 in sports, and it seemed to basically be a list of sports competitions, and the results of said competition. Unless someone adds a seperate "incidents" section, I don't think it really belongs there.--Mathnerd 101 _{(What I have done)} ^{(What have I done?)} 15:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Too early to decide if it warrants a "World" encyclopedia entry--68.231.15.56 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The attack should be included for the very fact that the bombings took place at an international sporting event, and has indeed produced repercussions worldwide. Numerous world leaders have publicly condemned the bombings and offered their condolences to the victims, as well as stepping up security in their own countries and in preparation for future events. In addition, other terroristic events such as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 which did not necessarily have international implications, have been added to their respective "year pages". Although further information on the incident are yet to develop and be released as time progresses, I believe it is still appropriate to include the event at this stage due to the reaction and immediate implications of the event. --atakuzier (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Repercussions worldwide? Like what? News reports, yes, but here in Australia our news is already saturated with American trivia, often of the embarrassing "only in America" type. Politicians saying what is expected of them, yes, but that's meaningless. Anything else?

• Bombing of an international sporting event, in a region not currently in a state of war or civil war, with international coverage, where the target nation is currently fighting a war overseas which is itself a bombing target, with a large number of victims. Boston is not Iraq or Afghanistan, or Somalia, where ongoing violence, while much worse than this, is not as notable per instance. Seems like a no brainer to me to add it here. PS the bombing is not "trivia". Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was trivia. I despair over what's either deliberate misrepresentation, or incompetence, on behalf of so many here. It does your argument no good at all. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

They need to add this it is a major event I am shocked that they haven't already, It's bigger then the Russian Meteor. Three people died that day so I say add the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plzwork1122 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Three people dying is no biggie. You have to do better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

you're in te minority you pompous ass. Hot Stop (Talk) 01:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL. And learn to count, the majority in this discussion favour exclusion (at the moment). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

considering hilo spends his days on Wikipedia insulting all things American, his opinion should carry zero weight. Hot Stop (Talk) 16:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"trivia" was implied. why bring up that trivia dominates the media unless it has some relevance to this argument, unless you place it as an informative aside. which, by the way, I did with my PS, which was merely a hint that we should show some decorum when discussing articles involving tragic deaths (again, "3 people dying is no biggie. you have to do better"-this is entirely unhelpful and inconsiderate. Would you say this in person to the families of the dead? that should be the standard here try: "while i mourn for the victims and their families, my reading of WP policy on inclusion here is ABC"). There was no deliberate misrepresentation, and i am not incompetent.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not say it was trivia, and I implied nothing of the sort. You are either deliberately misrepresenting what I said, or completely misunderstanding it, which indicates incompetence. I do not insult all things American. I think it's a great country. However, the behaviour of some American editors here makes it obvious why I condemn some of its paranoid, loud mouthed, ignorant, insulting, self appointed representatives for seriously damaging the country's image. I know they don't represent the majority. Now, please, read the words actually posted and comment on them, not a straw man. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, what is your problem? I'm Canadian and I tend to agree with these American issues on the point of it being a major event, which is worth discussion because of the venue in which the attack occurred. Your comment on 3 dead is no biggie is highly inappropriate, and one must wonder if you were intentionally trying to insinuate conflict on this page. If you want to say that I don't think it should be included because 3 dead pales in comparison in attacks to other events that go on and aren't included than you have every right too, however I will remind you that numbers alone do not always determine the significance or notoriety of an event, and you could certainly make your argument in a FAR more elegant way. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't find WP:ELEGANCE, and I really don't see the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hilo, you are commenting inappropriately and you should be brought to administrative attention. Please apologize for your rude and crass comments immediately. I dont care if you think some american editors are paranoid, loud mouthed, ignorant, insulting self appointed representatives for seriously damaging the country's image. I am none of those things (which again, you imply by placing those comments next to your denial of my concerns, skirting outright accusation again, which is not as clever as you think it is), and my suggestion to have this subject added to this page is entirely reasonable, and can be debated reasonably. saying "3 dead is no biggie" i will repeat, is completely insensitive and needs an apology. the fact that you see no problem is itself highly problematic. PS, I will no longer argue for adding this here, and will no longer discuss this issue, or any other matter where you are posting comments. If you have a concern about my presence here, bring it up with an administrator. goodbye.(Mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Either way, that was a major event in history, The first successful terrorist attack against America since the World Trade Centers fell is worth at least a small note. Also I was not advocating adding it to the page simply because of the three poor people who died that day, but if a deliberate attack on United States soil isn't worthy then what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plzwork1122 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

There is NO indication that it was an attack on the United States, yet. An attack "on" implies that it was by persons from another country for political reasons. The suspects were immigrants who lived in the US for 11 or 12 years and their motive is still unknown. At present the only apparent justification for inclusion appears to be that it was in the United States. That, on its own, is insufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, surely these Russian-born, ethnically Chechen men aren't foreigners at all. Anyway what's the reason for not including this? Not enough global coverage? Do I need links from Antarctica or the moon too? Whether or not you like it, people across the world pay attention to bombings in places like the U.S. where they don't happen. If this bombing happened at a global sporting event held in Australia, Canada, or someone else considered safe from bombings, they'd get the same amount of attention. Hot Stop (Talk) 22:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just (minutes ago) heard a statement from, I believe, the US State Department which said words to the effect that there was "no indication that this was an international incident" and that because of the Chechen background of the suspects it was "easy to jump to conclusions". Also news coverage is not representative of international importance, this is WP:NOTNEWS, news is covered in Wikinews and Portal:Current Events. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I added it. You're the only one fighting this. Please read WP:OWN. Hot Stop (Talk) 23:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please read WP:NOTNEWS, if in the next few weeks, further developments show an international connection, we can revisit this. In the meantime, this is clearly a national event.--McSly (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's an incredibly important event with plenty of international coverage. It should certainly be on here. It's about as "national" as Margaret Thatcher's death was. Ryan Vesey 23:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

International coverage is not by itself a sufficient argument for inclusion. The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting had plenty of coverage but is not included in 2012. So are presidential elections, which are also not included.--McSly (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion; it's an unfortunate event, but it still doesn't seem to have any international effect. The Boston Marathon isn't exactly an "international" sporting event; it's more like an "open" sporting event. Unless someone wants to claim that the bombers were supported by the (pre-Soviet breakup) KGB...? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Totally disagree Arthur, the Boston Marathon is one of the 6 Majors of International Running which includes marathons in Japan, the UK, Germany, and the U.S.. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• No vote in either direction towards inclusion; As i said above it is probably too early to make any decision yet - wiki year article is not a newspaper/TV - we need to first see if the chechen angle blossoms or withers.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - national and internationally historic in scope. The Boston marathon is truly an international sporting event, one of the most prestigious running events in the world, attracting many elite runners. A great world-class city, Boston, was shut down for a week. Russians and the Chechnyan insurganecy has been implicated. If that's not historic, we ought to shut down the whole of Wikipedia and go back to counting trains. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Boston Marathon attracts a lot of international runners, a Chinese national was killed, and a city was completely shut down. --98.209.192.206 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - How is this not already included in the article? First, it was a terrorist attack at the oldest annual marathon race in the world. Secondly, Interpol issued a global warrant for the now-captured suspect after Boston police initially lifted the lockdown, making it an international event, even if he was only a block and a half away from them. Thirdly, the event has garnered international interest and reactions, as shown in the article. It should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleshty (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - International sporting event, Boston shut down, international interest. The bombing and massive reaction to it are significant enough to include in the article, in my view. Jusdafax 23:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose including. It is also not advisable to add confusion by combining two events, the bombing and the marathon. While the bombing itself was not worth noting, the shutting down of Boston on April 19, which we do not even specifically have an article about, is notable enough to be included.[1][2] I would remove the entry on April 15, and add "April 19, Boston shut down during manhunt for bombers. All public transit stopped." Apteva (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Shutting down Boston is not internationally significant. As for the Boston Marathon being an "international event" that definition is open to debate. The runners in Boston were not representing their countries (i.e. they weren't representing their Athletic Federation). they were competing as individuals, albeit from many countries. This is not the same as a multisport or multinational event such as the Olympic Games or a Football (Soccer) international. At the moment we do not know (and may never know) the motivation for the bombing or why the marathon was the target. It may have been because people of various nationalities were present, on the other hand it may just have been because it was a large crowd in an easily accessible place. If it was determined that it was the former I would be more in favour of inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Marathon was an international event, as it is one of only half a dozen World marathons, and the joke is if you are not Kenyan don't bother thinking about winning (or a nearby country such as Ethiopia!), but if we look over the last ten years my guess is it is never mentioned. The fact that one of the victims of the bombing was Chinese does not make that an international event. I am 100% certain that many, many people around the globe were directly affected by Boston being shut down, making it preeminently an international event. Apteva (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It's a relatively low bar for year-article inclusion, and this incident obviously exceeds it. Shadowjams (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A "relatively low bar"? Not for recent years it isn't. The Recent Year guidelines were specifically created because there was no bar at all. Many more internationally significant events than this have been excluded in other recent years, but then, most of them weren't in the US. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"weren't in the US" is not a valid discriminatory classification. Whatever criteria we use for one country we need to apply to all. Apteva (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Including events just because they are in the US is discriminatory. Unfortunately this has occurred frequently in the past despite the efforts of a few editors to be impartial and to follow the guidelines at WP:RY where possible. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Currently here we are at 13 for vs 9 against and now HotStop has openned an incident at WP:AN#2013 and Boston Marathon bombing has been begun--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, this seems to me to be a no-brainer, even as an Australian. StAnselm (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - This was a huge, extended disaster that resulted in an unprecedented lockdown of one of the USA's biggest cities and hundreds were injured. It involved other nations, and was a huge topic internationally, as well. It definitely should be included in the 2013 article. Not to mention that there is probably more to the story coming, should the suspect give information. TDI19 (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Great ... (doesnt care one way or the other) ... now we have to decide if there needs to be a second sentence describing the resolution to the conflict - such as "Two brothers seeking Muslim takeover of Chechnya are implicated - one is killed, the other captured."--68.231.15.56 (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't. Even if the bombing is deemed internationally notable the closing down of a US city and the death/capture of the suspects is not. At most there could be mention of the death/capture under the original entry. Other details are available in the link to the bombing and do not need detailing here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is laughable. Shutting down a city of over half a million people for a day is far more important than the death of three people. Apteva (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

And how does the shutting down of a city affect the rest of the world? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at other incidents of a similar nature, the 2002 article has "Terrorists detonate bombs in 2 nightclubs in Kuta, Bali, killing 202 and injuring over 300" for the 2002 Bali bombings, so it looks like we have about the right weight of detail here. StAnselm (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Derby, get over it. Consensus is that you have been overruled. It is not going to kill the article. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

i think that was uncalled for - we are discussing a second "closing" sentence for the item Derby has made a logical arguement that there should not be one - you need to make a cohessive arguement for whatever you are interested in - and NOT attack the editor--68.231.15.56 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This is just speculation, all we really know is that 2 bombs exploded in Boston, the reader is then redirected to the main article where they can get more information about their motive and what happened.

(IMO), This entry should not really be here in the first place, lets not make it worse by writing an essay about it. As with other entries, we just say what happened on the day and redirect the users to the main article. FFMG (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The same number of people were also killed in the Melbourne Wall collapse, will that make it to the world encyclopaedia as well? Oh wait I forgot only America matters.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Boston bombings are included because they are internationally notable. The attacks were carried out at an international event, apparently by immigrants with an international Islamist ideology. It's not because of the number of deaths or because it happened in the US. Jim Michael (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Savar building collapse

• April 24 – An eight-story commercial building collapses in Savar Upazila near the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka, resulting in at least 401 people dead, one thousand injured and scores more trapped. (AP via ABC News), (Reuters via Sydney Morning Herald), (Daily Mail)

not much hope but INCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• BETTER QUESTION - WHY BOTHER to formulate a cohessive arguement in favor given the recent track record of dismissive behavior against large loss of life as other than "LOCAL EVENT" = WHO CARES? --68.231.15.56 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Include But I agree with others, as it did not happen in the US, it does not have much chance to be included. Somehow one event is deemed 'international' but this one is not. FFMG (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  Include Same sentiments as FFMG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  Include Let's remember Wikipedia Five_pillars. New worl (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

huh? Hot Stop (Talk) 00:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Include It's a major disaster, and it is garnering press coverage all over the world. It should most definitely be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleshty (talk • contribs) 04:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Exclude Domestic event. A high death toll and coverage in the media of other countries does not make the event internationally notable. 31.68.199.157 (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

31.68.199.157 = sockpuppet??? this account has exactly one edit to its entire existance.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This debate is pointless. See my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Extending criteria for importance of events. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Turina

• Does he make the criteria for inclusion or was he just another goalkeeper? Football2013a (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

He meets the minimum WP:RY criteria and many of the non-English articles are better than stubs BUT, he played only half a game in a minor international match and I suspect the only reason he has so many non-English articles is because football is the world's most international sport and there are more likely to be enough fans to create articles on minor players than would be the case for other sports. I don't think he is notable enough for inclusion so would exclude him. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

you are saying that percentage of total population intested in this sport would skew the results thereby gain inclusion - sounds highly likely to me EXCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Reyhanlı bombings

Seen that we now include terrorist attacks, I would like to add the 2013 Reyhanlı bombings, (11th Of May).
It is international as it raises tensions between the Turkey and Syria, (even further than already), (see also the various reactions).
The bombing itself caused 43 Deaths and 140 injured and there are ongoing fights between Turkish locals and Syrian refugees.
As for coverage the 3 continent coverage, there is a few, even 2 days after the event, UK, US, Japan. FFMG (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Too much of the event relies on guesswork for now to consider it important, IMO. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean by guesswork?

• A bomb exploded
• ~40 people died, 140 got injured.
• The Turkish government is blaming the Syrian government, (as per the article.
• There was some international response.
• There is international coverage of the event, (3 continent rules).

How is that different from other terrorist events listed in the year page(s)? FFMG (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

if and when tanks start rolling across the border in either direction i would think it would be notable - until then crystal ball = EXCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Who is talking about tanks rolling across the border? What has it got to do with adding it to 2013?

It is just an international event that should be added here, because of the 3x continent rule, because of the number of dead, and because of the international reaction. FFMG (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Suggestions

2013 Lushan Earthquake April 20, 2013 Maps9000 (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

article says 193 dead which would probably not get included but it also says 11,000 injured which to my mind = INCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)