Talk:2016

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

Can you remove Frank Kelly as per WP:RY? He had a total of seven languages at the time of his death.

206.45.9.182 (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Done GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Umberto Eco's image

Now, why do you don't want Umberto Eco's image in here? There was nothing wrong with it, and WP:RY doesn't say anything about not allowing double or triple image templates. I think you have proven yourself wrong and think about what you have done. I only wanted a double image template because in the 1963 article, there is a triple image template, which has Aldous Huxley, C. S. Lewis and John F. Kennedy's images in there. The only reason there's a triple image template in that year is because they died the same day, November 22. 206.45.9.182 (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It indents the months section, making it look out of sync with the rest of the section, Lee's picture is smaller than Eco's and frankly defeats the purpose of picking unique individual's throughout the month. Why select varied individuals when we can just double up on when they die the same day? Not everyone can be showcased. Rusted AutoParts 02:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that. But here's a thing. One time, I added Vicco von Bülow's image in the deaths section in the 2011 article and it broke the layout. And then I placed it in September, which is clearly misleading, since he died on August 22. So what I did is that I had to use a double image template, like this. It worked like a charm. Otherwise, I would have removed Bülow's image in the 1923 article. Do you see what I'm getting to? 206.45.9.182 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What I don't get is where does it say that the image must be both in the birth and the death years' lists. There's absolutely nothing mandating it. And I agree, the pictures will overwhelm the reader if we start adding multiple images templates. Because you know people will start using it more and more. And why stop there, why not triple image? Or a full gallery of everybody's tiny little picture for every month? Do you see what I'm getting to? — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The only reason why the image of the departed must be both in the birth and the death years' lists is something I made up. I'm trying to even the year-articles out. But an image gallery would be interesting, but it would be hard to choose the image, but it needs to be not copyrighted (e.g. Fair use). Oh, and some of them I don't add in because I sometimes forget to. Other times I'm busy. 206.45.9.182 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the year articles are not for "evening out", but for showcasing diversity and importance - without making it hard to follow. The latter of course means including too many images is a bad idea. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I just find that insane. Because sometimes I think which image should I choose, especially since it's very hard to choose the right one. I don't know much about Umberto Eco, but I knew about Harper Lee, especially since I one time recall her second book "Go Set a Watchman" at the book stores. Adding images can be fun, but it can be a pain to choose the right one, especially with IP address 124.106.250.6, who vandalized most of the year articles. At least I was able to clean up the article. And then suddenly, it happened again. 124.106.250.6 got blocked for disruptive editing, in which I'm happy for. Until, then came along 124.106.252.186, who did the same thing. I was mad. I would them to stop and they wouldn't listen. so I'm glad that IP address got blocked for Block evasion. At least I don't have to deal with them for a week. 206.45.9.182 (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

José Fernández

Just recently, José Fernández died. And there is a problem. So far, he has been added in like more than four times and I found it surprising that he doesn't meet WP:RY. I'm not a big fan of baseball, but I think Fernandez should not be here and so I decided to make a talk page about him. 206.45.9.182 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

He's not internationally notable. Hence is death should be on 2016 in the United States, but not here. Jim Michael (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what I said. He should not be here since he did not set forward WP:RY at the time of his death. Then again, I could add Fernández here, but I added a hidden in case somebody adds him again and I would leave somebody a warning that could lead the person blocked from editing. I am going to clean up WP:RY with the 2007 article maybe next week, since WP:RY wasn't established until late 2008, according to the recent year's talk page. 206.45.9.182 (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Herschell Gordon Lewis

What international notability does he have? Jim Michael (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

He meets WP:RY. The guideline says "nine non-English Wikipedias" 142.160.89.57 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a guideline rather than a rule. We make exceptions depending on whether or not a person has international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160212224729/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-35565085 to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-35565085

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Bad grammar in October picture caption?

There's an image in the #Deaths#October section. The caption is "Rama IX and Dario Fo died October 13".

This clearly isn't correct grammar, and I fixed it to "Rama IX and Dario Fo died on October 13".

@Arthur Rubin: reverted my edits with a single word "No."

Which is obviously not a helpful explanation.

Could I have an explanation of why my edits were reverted? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Chessrat: It is not incorrect grammar, and changing the size of the pictures is not how we adjust caption placement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: With all due respect, it is clearly incorrect grammar. One cannot die a date; one can only die, with "on <date>" clarifying the mode of death. To die is, in almost all cases, an intransitive verb; the sole exception is in the construction "to die a <specific type> death" (e.g. "do die a painful death). There are no other cases in which "to die" is a transitive verb. See wikt:die#Etymology 1 (definitions 1 and 2).
I'd never seen the construction "to die <a date>" before and it seemed clearly wrong; Wiktionary backs me up on this point. If you can find a source pointing to the construction "to die <date>" being grammatically correct, I'd be interested in seeing it.
As for changing pixel sizes, I only altered them by a few pixels (110 pixels to 114 and 111 pixels respectively); this had the side-effect of lining up the pictures by vertical height more neatly. I fail to see why this is such a problem? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Climate change & 400 ppm CO2 emission threshold crossed 28 September 2016

Whilst everyone has their own views on the importance of climate change, I note that Adam Rutherford, the former Nature editor, speaking in the 1st minute on BBC Radio4 InsideScience for 27th October described 2016 as having passed a major threshold in the World's changing climate . At 09:20 he spoke to the UK Met office who pointed out that the CO2 levels are at the highest for several million years i.e predating human evolution. The BBC is accepted as a WP:RS as is The Guardian. I'm not sure whether DerbyCountyinNZ eschews climate change science and hence we are figuratively as well as literally poles apart or whether (much more likely) he had inadequate information about its importance. I'm certain that most people with a good science education will find it both informative and significant and hence it should be in the 2016 article. Having explained the reason, I'll do a second and final unchanged revert shortly and see whether DCiNZ accepts it. Of course I'd also welcome comments from other editors. Regards JRPG (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond fully to this now, but I am disappointed to note the failure of JRPG to follow Wiki procedure, specifically BRD, by repeatedly adding disputed content and then trying to gain consensus rather than starting the discussion after the first revert. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in JRPG also, but I lean toward inclusion. However, there are two points against inclusion: "400" is an arbitrary number, and more significant dates would be when it first exceeded 400 (November 10, 2015?) and when it first remains over 400 for a year (and probably indefinitely.) The entry doesn't explain why it is important. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, I was going to ask about 300 ppm and link to the organization which used to be called "300", but I can't find it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings DerbyCountyinNZ From previous work with my New Zealand colleagues, I thought you'd still be in bed in now! Anyway, be assured no offence whatsoever was intended, I did invited you to make changes but such is my respect for Adam Rutherford, I expected the item to be accepted in principle once I showed the InsideScience link. I've been also trying to find a non-audio source for his statement that levels are the highest since human evolution began -which I regard as the most important point. Arthur, your words are noted, own wrist slapped & I'll try & find a source showing the significance. Could I ask you to confirm you can get the audio link? Regards JRPG (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I've spent quite some time on this and have now added the best source I can find giving the real significance of the 400ppm. There is no shortage of prestigious organisations emphasising that its a milestone. Regards JRPG (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's correct the obvious here: The correct terminology should be "human-induced global warming". "Climate change" is a fact, "human-induced global warming" is a theory, one which is not universally accepted. My position on this is irrelevant, the issue here is whether a statement that a certain, arbitrary as noted by Arthur Rubin, level of CO2 has been reached is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article. Note that there is no Wikilink to this event (the event being the statement itself, or even the subject of the statement). As per WP:RY "Events which are not cited at all, or are not Wikilinked to an article devoted to the event, may be removed." The subject here, that 400ppm is significant, is mentioned once in Global warming and not at all in Global warming controversy. There being no appropriate wikilink for this "event" it fails WP:RY and should therefore be excluded. Note that this exclusion is not set in concrete, if at some point in the future it is deemed to be historically notable, e.g. the point at which it be a fait accompli or the point at which humanity decided to "do something about it" then it could be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not to be taking sides yet, but just to be completely precise, "a universally accepted theory" is an oxymoron. I think we can safely disregard public (lay) opinion on this one. Otherwise we'll have to start adding disclaimers that evolution is "just a theory" whenever we report on a new fossil find. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Yerpo. I hadn't realised 2 days ago that this was so contentious. Whilst the 400 ppm is reliably sourced, to be mathematically sure levels don't decrease, we have to wait not just a geologically significant time -say a few million years -but till the earth ceases to exist -see Statistical proof. Obviously that's not useful. My suggestion is therefore that we just leave the statement as it as it is and leave it to the reader to work out his own views on the climate change connection. I believe those who accept the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature will want to see this as a 2016 event. I don't know if Arthur Rubin wants to add a comment. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The BBC quote figures from the World Meteorological Organisation, have subsequently linked 400 ppm to climate change and say "2016 will likely be the first full year to exceed the mark." JRPG (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ: I think you're misinterpreting RY. "Events which are not cited at all, or are not Wikilinked to an article devoted to the event, may be removed." doesn't equate to "There being no appropriate wikilink for this "event" it fails WP:RY". A quick look at the article shows that numerous events have no appropriate wikilink for the event itself, but they still pass RY because it's just not that simple. I'm not personally convinced that this arbitrary number does pass RY, but I think you need a stronger argument against it. -- Irn (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Perhaps I should clarify, the link does not have to be specifically for the event, but it must at least link to someone or something linked in the entry which mentions the the event. Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFF, any event which does not have such a link should be removed (I haven't checked so don't know if there are any that fall into this category). And I don't think I'm misinterpreting RY; one of the reasons it was instituted was to avoid people adding events simply because they were in the news. That appears to be the case here. 400ppm is "the highest in human history". Big deal, human history is small fraction of the earth's history. Of that small fraction only a small fraction has had measured CO2 levels, anything earlier is an estimate. In fact 350ppm might have been the highest, while 450ppm or 500ppm may be reached "soon" and then they will be the highest. And still no-one has explained why 400 is a significant milestone. As such it doesn't even qualify as a transient superlative (e.g. most expensive paining, highest building etc), and even whether those entries should be included is debatable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

There being no argument that this "event" passes WP:RY (as detailed above), I propose that this be deleted until such time as it satisfies the relevant criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with removing it. This is a significant world event readily understood by the public and widely quoted by scientific sources. Would it help you, DerbyCountyinNZ, if I edited Global warming and/or Global warming controversy to add at least one of the sources I've mentioned? I hesitated to do this earlier as my previous indiscretion might have made it appear deliberately provocative. FWIW I'm fully aware that hominids have only been around 5 million years and homo artefacts around 1.8 million years but don't you think most readers would regard that time period as rather special:) Regards JRPG (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I too support its inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016

Chicago Cubs? World Series? 2016? Yes? First time in 108 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajgbrown (talk • contribs) 05:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No. As per WP:RY, this is not of sufficient international significance. Belongs in 2016 in sports, 2016 in the United States. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. This is local sports trivia, no use for that here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016

Can you please remove the Chicago Cubs winning? It should be in 2016 in sports, not here.

Thanks.

142.160.89.57 (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Andy W. (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Angus Scrimm

Although he had 11 other-language Wikipedia articles at death, I don't see international significance or importance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The non-English articles are all clones of the English one with no local content except for the odd death notice. No indication he was internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice, France - terror attack

My addition of this was reverted with a comment to see prior discussion. However I don't see any discussion of the event on this page or on the archived talk page. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, I could've sworn we talked about this. In any case, it has been removed several times because it was a local event that, even months later, hasn't had any tangible consequence outside Nice, and the attention around it pretty much vaned along with the news cycle. And that, according to consensus, isn't enough to merit inclusion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

• November 8 - Donald Trump is elected the next President of the United States.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:a25f:fb9a:bcf3:3332:ef8b:1c7b (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2016‎ (UTC)

Not done per HTML comment on the page: Do not add the US elections here. As per WP:RY local elections are not included in Recent Year articles. — Andy W. (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

Can you please change Leonard Cohen's image into a double image template? Like this

Thank you.

206.45.9.182 (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done, no double imaging. RAP (talk) 21:41 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

Can you please change Leonard Cohen's image into a double image template because he died the same day as Janet Reno?

Thank you. NOTE: Rusted AutoParts, DO NOT answer this one because I want someone better than them (e.g. someone who's been on Wikipedia for over seven years)!!

142.160.89.57 (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)