Jump to content

Talk:2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WikiLangley (talk | contribs) at 21:10, 2 January 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconYears List‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016

Can you remove one of the following images in November?

Janet Reno or Konstantinos Stephanopoulos. Reason: There's no room for a forth image. Thank you. 206.45.11.108 (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - the current 4 images fit, even on the widest screen setting. Arjayay (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Drummond

Removed as lacking notability. Just makes the minimum of non-English articles, but all articles are stubs and/or clones of the English article with no local content and consist largely of a list of film appearances. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2016

Can you remove two things? Gisela May as per WP:RY, And the hidden note that says, "Per Wikipedia:Recent years, please add in people with nine non-English articles at the time of their death. Other people can be listed in Deaths in November 2016." Thank you. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Gisela May removed. Hidden note modified. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harambe

I would like to update the deaths section of the article and add Harambe on may 28, 2016 2601:84:8900:414B:B536:9BFF:CA80:FDA7 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

In Deaths Section, please add:

 Not done He clearly fails the minimum criteria at WP:RY and there is nothing in his article to suggest he is sufficiently notable for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure he has pages in six languages versus nine, but he was still a very significant person. His article says he was 'one of the "World's Most Influential Muslims"' and news of his death is still dominating the media in South Asia. Further, he in fact is a leader of the Tablighi Jamaat movement which is a school of thought within Sunni Islam and is said to currently have 150 million followers (see him mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablighi_Jamaat#Notable_members). His 1987 hit song from his former musical career is said to be "the unofficial national anthem of Pakistan" by the BBC World Service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dil_Dil_Pakistan). He was a South Asian icon known across the Indian Subcontinent; and India has the largest population diaspora in the world while Pakistan has the sixth largest. Google Trends also proves him to be consistently more popular than even many of the other people on this list (you can use the 'compare' feature on Google Trends). Furthermore, hundreds of thousands are expected at his funeral. So he was indeed "sufficiently notable". 15:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Per WP:Recent years guidelines.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  16:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Mascolo

He meets criteria, barely, but his career doesn't look too notable - mostly consisting of side roles in soap operas. I understand many people remember his villains, but objectively, I think he could be left out. Opinions? — Yerpo Eh? 09:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

Death: Nov 11. Victor Bailey (musician) American bass player born: 1960 92.109.98.138 (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done He fails the minimum criteria at WP:RY (less than 9 non-English articles at the time of death). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note

Just a little note, when the December section is bigger, can you add in an image of Alan Thicke? Thanks. Not now, but when there's more room. 206.45.11.108 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't look like the next most notable person from December. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can his image be here if somebody replaces Quan Gabriel's image for somebody that is a non-entertainer? 206.45.42.137 (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Sager

Sager's death was covered in the "British"., "French"., "German"., "Canadian"., and "Japanese". presses, just to name a few. His death was featured on the "front page". of the New York Times and was commemorated by all thirty teams in the world's largest basketball organization.

I would contend that he is a noteworthy exception to the WP:RY guideline on the number of non-English articles. Furthermore, I feel that this matter is worthy of review by more than one singular editor. Saget53 07:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. I had never heard of him before reading this post, and after reading the article on him, I just don't think a sports reporter known for his ugly suits is that internationally significant. -- Irn (talk) 15:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point to the fact that Sager is now featured in the Recent Deaths section on the front page of Wikipedia. Good enough for the front page, but not good enough for the 2016 article? Saget 53 06:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The two are not related. The front page section is more like a traditional news portal and (sadly) very US-biased, while WP:RY serve as a compilation of the most important events worldwide that year, and we try to avoid bias like that. — Yerpo Eh? 06:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think that covering this national sports league automatically makes a journalist internationally important. Overriding guidelines on this one would increase bias towards American entertainment even further. — Yerpo Eh? 16:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016

Once there is more room, can you please add in an image of Zsa Zsa Gabor? Because we need one more female to end it off with the years. 

206.45.42.137 (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I added this now. It was a space issue before, and an astronaut and a Nobel winner were more notable even if you take into account gender bias Valentina Cardoso (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wanted that image because the other image of Gabor was incorrect. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2016

Can you revert Chyna's image? I don't find her notable other than the fact she was a wrestler. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree, so I've changed it. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why headphone jack remove of iPhone 7 and Trump stuffs not included?

The iPhone 7's headphone jack removal is highly notable among the world. So is Donald Trump's election, which posed a lot of worldwide controversy, hence is notable enough more than local but also global, more than any other president in Wikipedia's history (the only ones Wikipedia faced were young Bush and Obama). Why can't any of them gain any inclusion? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like both, they both posed worldwide controversy, which is highly notable. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with inclusion of either/both based on WP:RY and previous consensus since WP:RY was implemented. Neither had any lasting impact; merely making the news is insufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand that elections are not normally included under WP:RY, would the circumstances under which Donald Trump won the election (by winning the electoral collage without winning the popular vote) have enough international significance in and of itself to suggest its inclusion? --FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Derby. Firstly, iPhone 7 "news" is pure trivia. Secondly, the consensus is to exclude national polls and other such routine local democratic processes, unless there is a good reason for making an exception. For now, the consequence of Trump's election is a large amount of hot air, so I don't really see a reason. That said, if he later turns out to be as influential and notorious internationally as, say, JFK, the inclusion of him being elected could be considered later. — Yerpo Eh? 08:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy you say? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Roosevelt is perhaps a better example. — Yerpo Eh? 20:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump election should be included. The nomination and election absolutely dominated the headlines for over 9 months. For 9 months there was not a single day for any major U.S. newspaper without a Trump-related headline or article on the front page, with unprecedented international coverage of a U.S. campaign. It also represented only the 5th time the electoral college vote was different than the popular vote result. It also represents the first time a true outsider (no previous public office held and no previous military experience) was elected U.S. President. Trump's election, the campaign, and even the nomination process, clearly meets the "three-continent" rule under WP:RY. Both of Bill Clinton's elections in 1992 and 1996 are included in those respective Wikipedia pages of yearly events, as is George Bush Sr's election (1988), and both of Ronald Reagan's 2 terms (1980 and 1984). Definitely newsworthy and international enough to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.88.104 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elections prior to 2000 do not come under the scope of WP:RY, and besides WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Included — JFG talk 08:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And reverted. There is nothing, so far, which indicates that this election satisfies WP:RY. Merely making the news is insufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2016

Can you add in these two?

Both of them met WP:RY before they died. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2016

Can you revert to revision 756394185 by Elephantpink? The other names also fail WP:RY too. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! -- Irn (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vesna Vulović

@Valentina Cardoso: She meets the specific WP:RY criteria for deaths, but seems best known for what happened to her, rather than what she did. I'm not sure she should be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder about that beforehand. For example, if the recipient of a medical breakthrough had 25 articles, would they be mentioned, or only the surgeon? Valentina Cardoso (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky one. She is only notable through chance rather than any deliberate action which would normally be grounds for exclusion. However she has been in the Guinness Book of Records for 40+ years which could be a reason for inclusion. The sheer number of interwiki articles well beyond the minimum would seem to lean towards inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely exclude. We've established that sole survivor, longest survivor, oldest etc. doesn't confer international notability because it's based on chance, not something they did. Jim Michael (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Michael

He was a global figure who's music will be heard by many generations to come he deserves his photo in the December section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No room right now. Rusted AutoParts 01:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree – Replace an entertainer in order for George Michael's to be in here. Replace someone for someone who is not American or an Entertainer (e.g. Replace Anton Yelchin's image for someone like Vittorio Merloni or Quan Gabriel for João Havelange). I respect who should be on here. I rather wait for 2017 rather than anything else. Besides, I'm trying to revert an IP's vandalism. That IP has a 124 in it. Trying to stop it is hard. And I think Michael's image should be more notable than Gabriel's image. Do you see what I'm getting to? 206.45.42.137 (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless enough space becomes available to add another image the only solution will be to remove someone further up the page. The most likely candidate will be Janet Reno who, while known outside the US, does not seem to have directly involved in any international activity. Having tested the layout with Reno removed it is also necessary to move the markup for John Glenn up the page which moves the image to slightly above December, which I don't see as a major issue. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

Can you add in Ashot Anastasian? He meets WP:RY.

 Done — Yerpo Eh? 07:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

Can you add in Claude Gensac? She meets WP:RY.

I would argue that she does not merit inclusion. Her English article consists of a single line and a list of films. Many other language articles are similar, which suggests she is not sufficiently internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, leave her out? 206.45.11.108 (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is consensus that she should be included. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. 206.45.11.108 (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

Could Phife Dawg be added in to the March death section? He meets WP:RY, as do A Tribe Called Quest.

C. Martin Croker, Sept 17

Entertainer, animator - created "Adult Swim" on Cartoon Network. Deserves a mention. 24.39.192.122 (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not - he has no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2016

Can you remove Glenn Frey's image? Reason: There is no room for five images in January. And you also please remove Juan Gabriel's image because there's too many images in the August section. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the consensus is on the anonymous user's side. I removed Frey's image because it breaks layout and because there are too many American enterntainers represented already. Juan Gabriel's image is ok as far as layout is concerned, so I left it. — Yerpo Eh? 06:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2016

Can you add in these two? They both met WP:RY before they died.

Thank you. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Election of Donald Trump

The election of Donald Trump to the US Presidency is widely regarded as one of the most notable events of 2016. Its inclusion was however reverted as failing WP:RY criteria, which sounds bizarre: by this logic we could probably remove 95% of other events on the page. The WP:RY#Politics and legislation section says: National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country. Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources. Trump's election easily fulfills these criteria: both supporters and opponents reckon that his policies and attitude are dramatically outside the realm of conventions and will indeed change the country (for better or for worse is in the eye of the beholder), and international media coverage of this US election cycle has been utterly massive. If that were needed, here is some documented proof of worldwide notability:

  • Donald Trump was named person of the year by TIME (US), Financial Times (UK), Le Figaro (France) and probably many other newspapers and magazines worldwide. I do not see a single "year in review" press article that doesn't include Trump's election in the top 10 events of 2016.
Irrelevant for the purposes of inclusion of the election. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 12:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides relevance? WP editors like you and me, or reliable sources? — JFG talk 12:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant for the purposes of inclusion of the election. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 12:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite, this is very relevant: those stats are objective measurements of worldwide interest in the US election and in its winner. Wikipedia has a global audience, and they have spoken with their clicks. — JFG talk 12:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This election has been noted as exceptional for several other reasons: first woman nominee, first non-politician elected, discrepancy between the state-by-state Electoral College vote and the nationwide popular vote, diplomatic incidents, etc.

I believe that the above rationale sufficiently demonstrates that the event should be included. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 12:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not internationally notable. Appropriate for inclusion in 2016 in the United States, not 2016 which is an international article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 12:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this election was "not internationally notable". What kind of proof do you need? International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016 is about as long as International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2008 and Barack Obama's election is prominently included in the 2008 article. — JFG talk 13:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of the Obama election was disputed on numerous occasions and, despite some claims to the contrary, there was never a consensus to include (noting that WP:CONSENSUS is not a mere vote). Also note that WP:RY was established in 2008 because of the enormous amount of non-notable entries included in that year, many of which have since crept back in. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the archives of Talk:2008, I see a long discussion of Obama when he was nominated by his party, which was arguably not an event with worldwide impact. I do not see such opposition to his inclusion after he was elected President. Apparently some editors tried to remove him in 2011 and were rebuked. — JFG talk 08:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In short, there is nothing here to justify making an exception to the criteria at WP:RY. This is a standard election with no international consequences (so far), except that it made a lot of news, which is insufficient grounds for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 12:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we could say unequivocally that Trump is the first neo-Nazi to be elected President of the US, that might qualify as being sufficiently notable. However, although I have seen it in reliable newspapers, I don't think that is adequate for what would be libel per se (at least in France and Germany). I think Obama being the first African-American elected president does qualify him for 2008, JFK being the first gangster (umm, Catholic) might qualify him for 1960, even if that were under WP:RY. But the international news coverage doesn't seem adequate. In the event that Trump actually does something unprecedented, we could reconsider the decision. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding the election of Trump Though I believe that Wikipedia should represent a worldwide viewpoint, I also recognize that the election of the President of the United States, along with other leaders in major developed nations, is not solely a "domestic" issue and that it has and will have far-reaching reaching implications internationally for years to come, for the following reasons:
  • The United States has a long history of getting involved in the foreign affairs of other countries, and the President of the United States makes many foreign policy decisions on a daily basis that have the ability to affect tensions internationally. The ideology and beliefs of the president that go on to form actions and decisions is something that can have a huge affect on people outside the borders of the United States, and it appears that Donald Trump is definitely no exception to this.
  • The United States is generally considered the world's only superpower, has the world's largest military budget, and as a result, the president is informally considered the "Leader of the Free World". This doesn't diminish the notably of other major world leaders, though if any leader is to be on here in terms of power, it would be POTUS.
  • Many people and news organizations internationally followed the election coverage, and their is no where near of shortage of sources to support this claim.
  • The election of Donald Trump in particular is an important event in the recent international rise of right-wing populism, alongside Brexit and the election of other right-wing leaders in Europe.

For these collective reasons, alongside my more inclusionist philosophy on Wikipedia, I find it easy to say that WP:IGNORE should be applied in this situation and that the election of Donald Trump should be added. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially the entry should read: "November 8: In the US elections, which were held in accordance with US electoral policy, Donald Trump beat Hilary Clinton, and despite the fact that there was nothing untoward about the electoral process many Americans refused to accept the result and apparently several countries expressed concern that at some point in the unidentifiable future Trump might do something which they don't like, although the official reactions were overwhelmingly positive, as in all other US presidential elections. " DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:DerbyCountyinNZ: What harm does adding it to the section (which is empty) do? Why are you hiding behind these guidelines so much? According to WP:RY, "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country"; Donald Trump being elected is undoubtedly a major shift in power from Barack Obama. In addition to that, Trump also differs vastly from previous Republican Party nominees (GOP Establishment: Mitt Romney, John McCain), along with a new wave of populism that unexpectedly took over the electorate, a lot of which was blue 4 years ago. And, its nice to respond without sarcasm. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DerbyCountyinNZ: No, the entry should be short and factual, e.g. as I first inserted: November 8 – Donald Trump is elected 45th President of the United States. No need to insert any political views or WP:CRYSTAL speculation in there; this election was one of the top worldwide events of 2016, that's an obvious fact. Happy new year, folks! — JFG talk 08:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would open the floodgate to all sorts of other national trivia which would make RY pages as a whole less useful. As I said above, the consequence of Trump's election is a large amount of hot air for now. As you correctly noted, anything more than you proposed would be pure speculation, but that also means that it says nothing about why the event is important. We can always add Trump later if he turns out half as influential as he promises (I have my doubts about that). What's the rush? — Yerpo Eh? 09:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can relegate this particular election to "national trivia", and any additions of other national elections would have to stand on their own merits for inclusion. Regardless of future events, Trump's election and the admittedly exceptional campaign that preceded over 18 months was definitely an internationally important event. As we close down 2016 with the usual quick glance in the rear-view mirror, every "year in review" commentator on the planet recognizes this as one of the top events of the year, on par with the Brexit vote. By your logic that we should wait for consequences before inserting a political event, we could argue that Brexit should not be mentioned either, because the actual withdrawal process hasn't started yet, the British economy hasn't collapsed, major civil unrest didn't happen and the biggest visible impact of the referendum so far is "a lot of hot air". Yet that is widely recognized as one of the top events of the year. — JFG talk 10:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Withdrawal is the expected tangible consequence of the brexit referendum, which is far more tangible than anything that can be expected of Trump's promises. Somewhat analogous to Obama's promises (on the merit of which he even received the Nobel Peace Prize, but just look at how many international conflicts did he bring to a close). And journalistic standards for what constitutes a "top event" are something completely different from encyclopedic standards. — Yerpo Eh? 16:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; then I really don't get what you call "encyclopedic standards". Let's see what we have in the article already:
  • a drug trafficker was recaptured, is this an encyclopedic worldwide impactful event?
  • There were some ghastly bombings: why include those in Brussels, Lahore and Istanbul, not others?
  • A flight crashed in May and another in December: why those?
  • The President of Brazil was impeached: why isn't this just local news?
  • CO2 levels reached 400ppm: how is this number noteworthy? The highest ever? Sure, but so was 390, so was 375, so was 350…
  • Two stolen paintings were recovered: this will surely change the world!
Picking which events are encyclopedic and noteworthy worldwide requires editorial judgment, and Wikipedia relies on the editorial judgment of external reliable sources. In that sense, journalistic standards cannot be considered "completely different" from encyclopedic standards. In fact, a lot of what Wikipedia reports in recent events is strongly influenced by what journalists deem notable and impactful. As editors, our personal opinions of noteworthiness should come second. So when the world's press unanimously declares this particular US election a top event of 2016, we must follow suit. — JFG talk 09:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All perfectly good examples of what could, and should, and in one instance, has, be(en) brought up for discussion. I'd certainly agree with 3 or 4 of them (you even used the exact same argument re CO2 as I did (unsuccessfully)). Plane crashes it was more or less agreed that under 100 deaths be excluded except international flights where multiple nationalities were among the casualties, over 100 deaths be included (some argued that the number of deaths was irrelevant in all cases). Terrorist incidents are becoming so frequent and keep increasing in scale so objective criteria are problematic. Anyone with any brilliant (and objective) ideas as to how to deal with such tragedies feel free to start a discussion at WP:RY. All of which does nothing to establish that this US election be treated differently from all the other elections worldwide. Ordinary (i.e. "Free and Fair" and which do not disrupt the running of the government of that country or directly impact on any other country) elections belong in National electoral calendar 2016, news belongs in Portal:Current events and important (YMMV) US events belong in 2016 in the United States. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you agree that all these cases are debatable, thanks but the focus of this discussion is whether we should include the 2016 US election, so let me repeat my point that you did not address: who decides what's important? Every WP:RS we can think of deems this one of the top events of 2016 worldwide: who are we, industrious WP editors, to decide it was just an ordinary local event? — JFG talk 12:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and Happy New Year to all! I'm new to this discussion, but I couldn't help but come across it when looking briefly back at 2016. I agree with JFG and WClarke. Just looking plainly at the language in WP:RY, it states (and as JFG pointed out at the beginning) that National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country...Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources. By no means am I a Trump supporter (and by God, do I hate the foolhardy "I'm not a Trump supporter, but..." preface)...BUT...I do believe it should be included. And I think many sources can point to the international influence and attention that the President-Elect is getting. Taiwan and China, Russia, Israel and Palestine, Mexico, Pakistan and India, The Philippines, Japan, NATO, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania...it's pretty clear that Trump's notability is quite global. I don't think this is making any "exception" to WP:RY, as DerbyCountyinNZ claims. This fulfills WP:RY criteria quite reasonably. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that national elections should not be included the international reaction is really just news stuff, I would agree that if and when Trump actually does something then that may have a reaction internationally but the election itself is just an internal American thing so we dont need to mention it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except what I sourced aren't just passive reactions. The international notability of the event also entails the things Trump has said and done after the election that are already causing ripple effects in foreign policy circles. "If and when Trump actually does something that may have a reaction internationally." Well...Trump spoke on the phone with the Taiwanese President, infuriating the Chinese and breaking diplomatic norm; Trump reached out his hand to be a greater friend to Israel...oh, and that wall on the Mexican border? (I'll stop the list here, else I may risk turning this into a political rant and violating WP:NOTAFORUM). Politics aside, I don't think the election is strictly speaking an "internal American thing." Maybe it's fine to restrict most national elections to their "2016 in [country]" articles. But as WClarke discussed, the United States presidential elections are such an anomaly that I don't think we can ignore the international attention. And it's not just international attention - this election has an international impact. And it's fair to argue that said impact isn't really formulated until the President-Elect is the President, but I would contend that the impact is already being felt here and now. But that's just my two cents. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be some confusion here, this is an event based list and the phoning of the Taiwanese President has nothing to do with the election but is an event in itself with its own related reactions. If you think that things or events that Trump has done should be mentioned then they can be raised but the phone call and mexican wall are not directly related to trump winning the election as an event. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another good argument for inclusion: checking the top 10 wikis in other languages, they all include the US election… and somehow the English wiki should pretend it was a minor event? — JFG talk 20:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

Can you remove William Christopher because of WP:RY? He has only eight non-English Wikipedias at the time of his death. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Done.DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Christopher has nine non-English Wiki articles. They include German, Persian, French, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Russian, Swedish, and Turkish. He should be added to the list of 2016 deaths in accordance with WP:RY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwoodl06 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He had 8 at the time of death and therefore fails WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

Hello! Could you add a line to the introduction clarifying that this page focuses on international news? It is not immediately clear why certain significant events are omitted from this list, so perhaps a sentence is needed to explain that the events listed here involve two or more countries. This clarification may be helpful in explaining why events like Trump's election or the Pulse Nightclub shooting are not listed on this page.

Thanks! 09:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Amandaleighevans (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done – This event is local and therefore, it cannot be here as per WP:RY. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Wood inclusion?

Add to April 20th? She was a vastly influencial and important performer and writer in British comedy and has a vast legacy 89.243.127.130 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vilmos Zsigmond

User:Norden1990 is very determined to include the image of Vilmos Zsigmond. As a cinematographer, he does not enjoy anything like the profile of performers like Rickman, and is a long way from being a household name. Norden accused me of bias and lack of knowledge in removing this image. Actually I was a projectionist in the 1980s, I know perfectly well who Zsigmond is, but cinematographers are generally not well known outside the industry and the images in this list are selective, figures likely to have widespread recognition, essentially household names. I think this image does not belong: it violates the principle of minimum astonishment. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section is dedicated to notable individuals who had passed in 2016. So Zsigmond's notable for inclusion but he's not notable enough to have his picture shown? That's silly. "Enjoy the same profile" is meaningless. If we're gonna start weighing whose more notable over each other for a section comprised of individuals deemed more notable than others who passed, we may as well not bother with pictures. Rusted AutoParts 20:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them don't have pictures. There are a handful of pictures per month. One of them is a person who only film nerds have heard of, added by an editor with a strong ethnic bias. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Film nerds". Didn't know that's the measurement we use when considering pictures. An argument could be made only "music nerds" know about Pierre Boulez. Rusted AutoParts 23:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you watch films, you'll be familiar with the names of actors. If you watch a lot of films, you'll also be familiar with the names of directors. But you have to be a film nerd to know the cinematographer.
If you listen to music, you'll be familiar with the names of composers. If you listen to a lot of classical music, you'll be familiar with the names of conductors. But you have to be a music nerd to know the leader of the orchestra.
I'd be happy to lose both, though, since neither have anywhere close tot he name recognition of Alan Rickman. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Name recognition is not relevant at all. Pictures are just there to give some visual representations of a few individuals. As long as there's a healthy balance of genders, races and professions, who's more notable is not relevant. Rusted AutoParts 01:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

March 31st. Ronnie Corbett, Comedian, actor, writer, broadcaster (b. 1930) Nigel Tilbury (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Hi Nigel Tilbury, there isn't enough consensus to add Ronnie Corbett. I've had a look through the page history and he was added but other editors removed him, citing that he doesn't meet criteria at WP:RY. Therefore, I am rejecting this based on lack of consensus. You are free to start a discussion on here regarding the inclusion of Corbett in the article. Best regards, st170e 12:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

Another entry to the death. A German Jazz master, Knut Kieswetter. He died on 12.28. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knut_Kiesewetter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:2388:D600:24A6:796D:8161:B7D8 (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

Please can you include Gary Sprake? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Sprake

Thanks

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016&oldid=757984491"