Talk:2013/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

2013 North India floods

2013 North India floods - current death total per wiki article reaches 1,000 - INCLUDE-- (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Lac-Mégantic derailment

I removed this entry, partly because the edit included duplication of infoboxes, but also because this seems to fall in the same category as other events where the international notability is questionable. At present this seems to be on a similar scale, at least in terms of deaths, to the West Fertilizer Company explosion or Yarnell Hill Fire and I think this should also be excluded. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of astronomical, spaceflight and other science related entries

User User:Michaelmas1957 has conscientiously added a number of entries copied, I believe, from 2013 in science. In accordance with WP:RY I believe they were, or should be, correctly placed in the sub-articles but are insufficiently notable for inclusion here so I have removed them (Michaelmas1957 seems ok with this). Others may wish to check through the edit history to see if they feel anything should actually be included here. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind the entries being removed, but don't revert the edits themselves (seeing as they included a lot of cleanup and reference improvements of the article in general). Just delete the offending entries from each subsection. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I took care to leave any cleanup and only remove the new entries. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
derby quote "Others may wish to check through the edit history to see if they feel anything should actually be included here." - i have looked through the science and medicine removals - as always i point out that the world article descriminates against medical breakthrews as "not having yet established notability" - i see that the infant cure of HIV was deleted - at this stage i agree with the removal BUT this item may need to be revisited for inclusion depending upon future universally acceptance as treatment - the number of HIV born babies must be a tradgically high number and a cure would warrant inclusion into the world article-- (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


I have removed his entry to promote a discussion here. This seems to be another case of automatically created non-English articles. If you go to the edit history and compare the first 2 edits it appears as though he already has 50 non-English articles! This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to judge whether any non-English articles exist due to his notability in that language and which were created after his death. Despite an extensive career Pran appears to have very little to justify international notability, all his films and awards are in/for Hindi films, nothing international. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

i see four at death d:q3111264 = nn-- (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources for notable deaths

I was wondering - would anyone object to me adding citations for the notable individuals who died in 2013? The Events section is fully sourced (as it should be); is there a specific policy against adding cites for deaths in year articles? I could easily add refs for every notable scientist listed in the article (a simple matter of copy-pasting from the 2013 in science article). The other entries are all notable people, so it would be fairly easy to find obituaries in major newspapers, etc. Any thoughts? – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to add cites. As per WP:YEARS and WP:RY there is no direction that they be added and I know of no Year article which includes cites for birth or deaths. The basis for this would be, I believe, due to the fact that any citation would be included in the persons article and it would be not only unnecessary to duplicate that in a Year article but, if it were done for all persons, then the load time would be unnecessarily increased. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Renew Benjamin Franklin

New design for US$100 bill and its release on oct 8th is ofcourse US matter, but because the bill is the most used (as far as I know) also allover the world, I think is it is international matter and shd be mentioned.--RicHard-59 (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, it's a minor domestic US event only, appropriate for 2013 in the United States not here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur, its design is of marginal importance here. — Yerpo Eh? 10:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarity on inclusion criteria

Recently, an entry on the Santiago de Compostela derailment was added to this article. This is certainly a notable event, being Spain's worst train accident in 69 years, but I'm not sure it meets the "international significance" criteria. Can another, more knowledgeable editor clarify? – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

EXCLUDE- this event seems way below the consensus threshold to me for inclusion - admittedly, the press is hot on it since there is stunning video footage of the accident - this heavy worldwide exposure might qualify it in my opinion but at the same time I just dont see how this item surpasses 50 other incidents with similar death counts that we have rejected in the last 3 years I have followed this wiki page.-- (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright, with some reservations, I will remove it as a local, not international, event. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I am in favour of adding the 3 transportation catastrophes that happened in the last week, in Spain, Italy and Switzerland, together in one 'event' and on their own. – Plarem (User talk) 19:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph template

(This message will appear in several years)

I have created a template for the first paragraph. I think is is a neat feature, and I hope you like it. It currently works for any year 1930 or later (I have a problem with the Julian conversions, so I'm not planning on using it for those years yet.) The template creates a text similar to the following:

Year 2013 (MMXIII) is the current year, and is a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar, the 2013th year of the Common Era (CE) and Anno Domini (AD) designations, the 13th year of the 3rd millennium , 13th year of the 21st century, and 4th year of the 2010s decade.

Given the year, it inserts the correct Roman Numerals for that year (that was also my idea to add to years) gets whether it's a common, leap or exceptional year, the day the year starts, what year it is of AD, the year of which millenium (take a look at 2000, it "knows" it's still in the 2nd), the year of which century, and the year of the decade. It also prints when it's the 10th and last year of a decade (on year 9), the 100th and last year of a century (on 100), the last year of a millenium (on 000), and it's temporally correct, which is a nice hack.

What do I mean by temporally correct? For 2012 and earlier, it will say Year 2012 (MMXII) was a as the beginning of the paragraph. It starts this year with Year 2013 (MMXIII) is the current year, and is, and it starts 2014 and 2015 with Year 2014 (MMXIV) will be a and Year 2015 (MMXV) will be a respectively. But guess what it will do on January 1? It will, automatically on its own initiative change the wording to Year 2013 (MMXIII) was a, changes 2014 to read Year 2014 (MMXIV) is the current year, and is a while 2015 still reads Year 2015 (MMXV) will be a and without editing! All using the Wikimedia software. I think it's a slick feature to improve the encyclopedia since it makes it automatically current and relevant. I welcome any comments or suggestions, the next one I want to do is get the Dominical Letter (A, B, C etc.) inserted, I don't have that yet, I got the "and last" function for decade, century and millenium working just the other day, so I figured it was time to release it, and I'm very pleased that it works perfectly! Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Update for 2013 Egyptian coup d'état

Since the ongoing crackdown by Egyptian government toward supporters of former President Mohamed Morsi, including Muslim Brotherhood members, resulted in death of more than 600 people, and UN Security Council called up an emergency meeting, I think it is notable enough to include the incidents on this year's article.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There is one entry which is sufficient as it's an ongoing event. It needs an update to include the death toll and UN meeting. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
i disagree Derby, this is like the boston bombing, if someone wants to read the wider particulars they should click on the link to the wiki article - plus, they are saying that many police oficers were also killed and that the Muslim brotherhood supports began it by firing AK-47's - to keep the thing neutral - better to not mention deaths because it would seem one sided representation without officer deaths and Morsi's supporters weapons fire be then also includ3ed.-- (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Lee Thompson Young

Minor actor. Most non-English articles are stubs or little more and are clearly cloned with no native language citations. Seriously, how can he be considered one of the most important deaths for the year? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I support removing him. He was a working actor who didn't receive much recognition during his lifetime. I checked the references, and only #2 is pre-death and directly about him (but it's not really coverage). Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


Could someone tell me why abdications are notable? I thought I recalled consensus that they were not, and that only unusual changes of government are reported. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I would think that they fail WP:RY generally, though abdications are not mentioned specifically (nor is the normal course of succession). Perhaps they should be. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I pinged the editor who added the three abdications. Perhaps we'll hear from him/her. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Funny that i didn't get a message, I added kings of Belgium. But let me ask, if the Queen Elizabeth2 desides to abdigate, would that be an internationaly important thing it should be mentioned here?--RicHard-59 (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
If she abdicated it would probably create more international impact than the ones which have occurred this year, whether that would be sufficient for inclusion in a Year article would have to be assessed at the time. As it has been repeatedly reported that she has no intention of abdicating we'll probably never have to make that assessment. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
My mistake as to notice; I saw User:WCIDFS as the editor adding the abdications. You (RicHard-59) only added one. I still don't think they meet WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
In the highly unlikely scenario of Elizabeth II abdicating, that will be included, as she is Queen regnant of many realms. The monarchs of Belgium and the Netherlands are not, hence their abdications are not international events. Jim Michael (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Jetty Paerl

  • Explain why she does not fit the critera despite having enough articles Football2013a (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Just look at her article - practically unknown, the only remotely important achievement was her Eurovision performance (not even winning). The number of articles about her simply reflects the fact that people like to collect, in this case all the articles about Eurovision contestants. I agree, including her here would be out of place. — Yerpo Eh? 19:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Jiroemon Kimura

I think that Jiroemon Kimura should be included on the list of deaths. Jeanne Calment and Sarah Knauss were both included in the articles about their years of death (1997 and 1999, respectively), so I don't see why Kimura should not also be included, especially since he holds the record for the verified longest male lifespan in all of recorded human history. I think that he should be included. SuperHero2111 (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion on this reached no consensus. As I stated there, the previous consensus for recent year articles (which does not include 1997 or 1999 making them irrelevant) is that being the oldest, or last survivor, is an insufficient claim to notability for these articles. Despite Kimura having a greater claim than most others in that category I see no particular reason to make an exception in his case. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason why recent year articles should be treated any differently than years such as 1997 and 1999. It was only 14-16 years ago, so it isn't that far in the past. BTW, the definition on Wikipedia for a recent year is any year within the last ten years. So does that mean that he will magically go from being non-notable to notable once ten years have passed, or what? You see, my point is that I see no reason why 1997 or 1999 should be treated any differently than articles on more recent years. If supercentenarians who died in 2013 are not notable enough for inclusion, then what makes supercentenarians who died 14-16 years ago any more notable? I think that the distinction between "recent" and "non-recent" year articles is arbitrary and pointless, and therefore, should be removed. Including past supercentenarian deaths but not the more recent ones is a very fallacious double standard, which I feel should not have a place here on Wikipedia. SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden and PRISM (surveillance program)

I'm not sure this is adequately "notable" for this article. However, as edit warring has already started in, I'm not going to revert, except to note some of the words used are controversial and shouldn't be present at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought we'd have this problem with Snowden. I'ts another news beatup, might be notable in the US but NOT historically and internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I can assure you that it's a very big deal in Europe. The Germans, in particular, are quite "agitated" by the story. Favonian (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
And yet neither 2013 in Germany or the German version of this article see fit to mention it. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
as derby says belongs in US only at present - now if under a crystal ball senerio US invades Cuba to retrieve Snowden ... (not likely to happen) ... or some other "International" event occurs then yes include - but, as for now EXCLUDE-- (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I have to disagree on this one. Snowden has created quite a stir internationally, including the highly embarrassing situation when the Bolivian president was forced to land when his plane was refused access to French and Portugese airspace because they suspected Snowden was on board. That before we even begin to mention the implications of what he revealed. — Yerpo Eh? 18:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no objections to my last post, so why was the entry removed? International importance cannot be denied. — Yerpo Eh? 07:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything that's happened in this story are the completely predictable things that happen when nations keep secrets and some people think they shouldn't. It's certainly not a first, and there will be many more. There's really nothing historically significant here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's quite an understatement. There hasn't been anything close to it happening in international relations for quite some time (not even Assange's situation). Russia is willing to defy USA by harboring Snowden (asylum pending), there has been a diplomatic incident involving European and South American countries, and the story has been all over the media on all continents for almost two months, showing no signs of stopping. The disclosure itself is already international, because it involved data on US and British agencies. Which of this year's events can compare? I'm willing to wait if Russia actually grants him asylum, but excluding this item borders on unreasonable even now. — Yerpo Eh? 07:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Being in the daily news these days doesn't indicate real importance. The 24 hour news cycle demands masses of column inches and TV minutes EVERY day. Right now, Snowden is the filler. For how many days is it really news to say that he is still in a Moscow airport? The eventual perspective on that in his biography will not be a new line for every day that he's there. It will just be a few words saying the he spent x days there. Have you paused to wonder why hardly anybody else is agreeing with you here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I mainly paused to wonder why you have ignored the majority of my comment and misinterpreted the rest. Yes, "being in the daily news" doesn't indicate importance by itself, but being in the daily news for two months is not common (most news fade after a few weeks). Besides, Snowden's residence on a Moscow airport is not the main item of interest here, as you imply. — Yerpo Eh? 07:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
That was but one small example. I didn't want to overwhelm the audience here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Too bad that you chose the irrelevant one, then. Care to test the audience with another from your large list? — Yerpo Eh? 09:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So, as it appears, there are no real arguments against inclusion, and Snowden got an asylum in Russia (which is a notable development in itself). I therefore intend to return the entry later today, and I kindly ask other editors in advance not to revert it. — Yerpo Eh? 13:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The argument is that it's really not that important, he's a criminal on the run and the US news media are making it a big deal with the rest of the world's media following. This will have no lasting historical impact. The fact that so few people have bothered to comment is another indication. And the consensus is still to exclude. If you include against the current consensus I will revert. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
And I challenged you to find one international event this year that could compare in scope, but you insist on focusing on the media attention the case has gotten as if it's somehow an argument against inclusion. Consensus that's not based on arguments is irrelevant, you know, because Wikipedia is not a democracy, but, just to show that you're wrong even here, I see 5 people in favour (me, Favonian, WCIDFS, Michaelmas1957 and the IP user - the international event that he/she required has now happened, so I count it as support) and 2 against (you, HiLo48). Other editors' non-involvement is just another flawed argument of yours, because this event is far less directly understandable, than, for example, the almost killing of a local politician in public, and the average user just doesn't know what to make of it.
I disagree that the addition of this event by 2 users (WCIDFS and Michaelmas1957) should be used to gain consensus in this discussion without having their explicit input, especially as they gave no hints in their edit summary why they thought it should be included. I am also not happy with suggesting another user has changed their opinion just because you think it has. However I can't be bothered dragging this out unless it is clarified further that there is (still) no consensus to exclude (by which I mean that if it is e.g. 3-3 then the previous status quo (exclusion) is still in force). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:LAWYER before you continue with this hair-splitting over unimportant details. Besides, WCIDFS has now clearly stated his support and both him and Michaelmas1957 explained why they thought the entry was important in the entry itself. And as said, there is no status quo in this case, because one side has presented no valid arguments. — Yerpo Eh? 12:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
So, if I summarize, the event has already had demonstrable influence on the top-level international relations (therefore satisfying the WP:RY criteria), it has own wiki article, the three-continent rule is more than satisfied, you have no real arguments against inclusion and you have no consensus. All this against your personal, unsupported opinion that "this will have no lasting historical impact". I believe the case is clear... — Yerpo Eh? 05:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. There is no consensus here. Consensus is NEVER demonstrated by counting votes. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, consensus is demonstrated by balancing argumented opinions, of which there are two supporting inclusion and none against. Therefore, there is consensus for inclusion. And yet you still insist in misrepresenting my statements to make them look like I rely on the same invalid arguments as other users who try to add less important events (which I'm not). May I ask why? Because if I didn't know better, this would've looked exactly like you're against inclusion of an event embarrassing for the USA on an emotional basis. So please start providing some relevant arguments or stop reverting. Thank you. — Yerpo Eh? 09:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
PS: I don't suppose you realize, but your reference to WP:COMPETENCE is quite ironic in the light of above... — Yerpo Eh? 09:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not get it why you two (DCNZ&HL48) still consider overall events not notable yet. As far as I know, Snowden had applied for asylum in more than 20 countries, and there are at least a handful of countries which offered him asylum, before Russian government eventually did. And whatever he confessed about wiretapping done by US government stirred up top-level government officials in many countries. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It is still my opinion that this is essentially a news story with little, if any, lasting international and historical significance. That could change, but at present I see insufficient evidence that it has. Yet another example of too many people believing that if it is in the news it is really important. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet another direct international consequence of this event (albeit symbolic): Eh? 16:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

For some stupid reason the Boston Marathon Bombings are in this article, which has far less international significance than the US documents Edward Snowden had leaked. For this reason alone, the revelations brought forth by Mr. Snowden should be included. Mayazcherquoi (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
That does not apply to this issue, as this is news, and the news event surrounding Edward Snowden and his leaks have significantly greater international coverage than that of the aforementioned article. Not to mention the protests that have taken place in several countries as a result from his leaks...Mayazcherquoi (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The irony here is that, for all of the "protection" of this article from US-centrism, there is a whole lot of cluelessness about what people outside the US care about, especially among the people who work the hardest to keep things out. A simple news search makes it clear that Snowden news is incredibly internationally notable.

Snowden in the news in the:

Counting the US, I believe that makes 8 countries in 5 different continents reporting on this, far surpassing the "Three-Continent Rule" requirement. Time to add the dang thing. Wrad (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, hey! Look at this! Here's one from Egypt. Took me like 5 seconds to find, too, and plenty more where it came from. [11][12][13]
So... adding Africa, I believe that makes 6 continents. Every single one except Antarctica. Add the Snowden story. It is internationally notable. Wrad (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It passes the Three Continent Rule, which means that the event meets the minimum guidelines for inclusion and a consensus is required to overrule the guideline and keep it out of the article. As there is no such consensus (5 in favor of inclusion, 3 against, not counting two users who have added the material without comment, which would make it 7-3), it's time to add the material. Wrad (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
When something is big news in America, even very short term big news, it almost always seems to presented as big news on Australian news services too, whether or not it really has any impact here. I suspect this is because of a kind of laziness among reporters and journalists. Material from America is always easy to get, especially when compared with stuff from other parts of the world, particularly the non-English speaking parts. The idea that being reported outside America makes something globally important is simply not true. HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
So now you're saying that reporters in every other country are lazy and just copy off of American news. Unbelievable. Really. I can't believe you're saying that. I should be flattered, I suppose, as an American, but I'm not. I'm a bit disgusted, to tell the truth. I'm also convinced you didn't actually read the Australian sources. They are not copies of American news. They talk about the direct implications of Snowden's actions on Australia, not something most Americans would care about at all. You also completely ignore all of the other countries represented. Look at the guideline, WP:RY. Regardless of your personal feelings about journalists around the world, including those in your own country, apparently, we have a Three-continent rule, and this meets it. Wrad (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not "saying that reporters in every other country are lazy and just copy off of American news." So you don't to be so horrified. When people resort to misrepresenting the points made by others, they are usually losing on the logic front. (Or the competence front.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC for Snowden in 2013


The issue is whether or not to add the Snowden release of NSA files to the press to this article. Is it internationally notable enough to be included (see discussion above)? Relevant guidelines include WP:RY. Wrad (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I say include. A simple news search makes it clear that Snowden news is incredibly internationally notable.

Snowden is in the news in the:

The UK is freaked out because their government worked with the NSA and used the PRISM software. The Australian Attorney General has spoked out in condemnation of Snowden. Germany's President has spoken out in support of Snowden, and Germany has cut off its survellance deal with the US and UK. Russia is, of course embroiled in this in a million different ways. China is involved because Snowden fled to Hong Kong in the first instance. Venezuela is, of course, involved in the asylum fight. The Arab World is invested in it because, of course, most of the targets of this surveillance are Middle Eastern. How anyone can think this is not an international issue is beyond me. Wrad (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually what WP:RY says is:

New events added must receive independent news reporting from three continents on the event. This is a minimum requirement for inclusion. Events which are not cited at all, or are not Wikilinked to an article devoted to the event, may be removed.

Note that it says "this is the minimum requirement". Meeting this does not automatically make an event notable.The news media reports on, and frequently places undue importance on what it reports. That many countries report it in the news make it WP:NEWS, it does not, necessarily, make it internationally and historically notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Derby, it's true that the 3 continent rule is a minimum requirement, but anyone can see that this is extremely internationally notable and far surpasses the minimum requirement. Just ask yourself this one question: Has any other event in 2013 caused as many world leaders to speak out, legislate, or change policy, or has any other event of the year caused as much diplomatic strife, as this one? The answer, clearly, is an emphatic "NO."Wrad (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Fully agree, I intended to open a RfC myself, but haven't had the time. My arguments are clear from above, I hope. Include. — Yerpo Eh? 07:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Support: Agreed on inclusion too. Mayazcherquoi (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It is strange that this event which most directly concerns the USA is not mentioned at all in 2013 in the United States, an article which is full of the most trivial events with seemingly no standard for inclusion whatsoever! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Misdirection. It doesn't matter what is or isn't on other Wikipedia pages, as you yourself have argued in this very debate. We're talking about 2013, here. Wrad (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: This RfC is an abuse of process and an unnecessary demand on editors. User Wrad claims to be seeking comments. There's plenty of comments above. For OVER a month! Problem is, he didn't get what he wanted, despite improper editing approaches (see my recent Comment on misrepresentation). Is Wrad hoping some of those who disagree with him won't notice this? I have, and I'm not impressed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
We've been talking about it for over a month and you've lost the argument, you just aren't seeing it or are refusing to see it. Seven people are for including it and three against. Anybody else who comes in here and comments is going to agree with including it, and you know that. That's why you're so afraid. Time to stop lording over the page and let the community speak. Wrad (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
When you start to get that personal, YOU'VE lost. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Derby It is strange that this event which most directly concerns the USA is not mentioned at all in 2013 in the United States... You yourself quoted WP:OTHERSTUFF, try reading it once. I don't know why you insist on making the lack of within-Wikipedia interest an argument in this discussion, but it never was and it never will be (same goes for HiLo48).

I'm fully aware of what Otherstuff says, which is why I didn't say "It's not in 2013 in the US therefore it shouldn't be here" but merely mentioned that it was strange that something supposedly so important isn't included in an article which contains much that is most certainly not important. Seriously, I would not only have expected its inclusion but supported it, in that article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You didn't say that explicitly, but you've clearly been implying it since the beginning (eventhough you could have added it to that article yourself), despite me explaining that it was to be expected, because the event is less directly understandable than some others. You also used the absence of the event in de:2013 as the contra-argument to the claim that it's important for the Germans (it's now there, and with a picture, no less!). Regardless of all this, it's the outside-Wiki coverage what matters, and Wrad summarized it quite lovely - in sharp contrast to other WP:NEWS from the USA, this event did not merely get recycled in foreign media, but the foreign coverage focused on what this means for each respective country, with some countries already taking measures because of it. How much more internationally notable than this must it get for you to admit that you misjudged this situation? — Yerpo Eh? 11:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@HiLo48: I believe further comments are necessary because it's you and Derby that are abusing the concept of consensus in this case. Comments are plentiful and they favour inclusion, yet you still block it. By the way, Wrad summarized the core of your argument quite appropriately. — Yerpo Eh? 09:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reinforcing my argument. — Yerpo Eh? 11:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. With extensive, ongoing international media coverage, this event easily meets the criteria. (As an aside, I don't see this RFC as an abuse of process; it's simply attracting a wider audience to the discussion. Articles on individual years, like this one, are so general in scope that they are rarely watchlisted by editors with interest or expertise in the subjects they list.) —Psychonaut (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion per the many points above. Not only has this been widely covered internationally (and was in fact broken by The Guardian), but there has been international fallout from revelations. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • EXCLUDE from year-in 2013, I already said this in the previous talk section - it clearly belongs in 2013 in the United States - and only there as of yet - no tangible ramifications have actually occured - all I see is endless media hype/blog/infotainment news - as to Derby's aside about Snowden curretn exclusion at US in 2013 = being barely notable - No it should be there - as the primary editor of the US in year article for the last three years I am just behind in making inclusions - I need to add some 200 obits there which I have already filtered out of some 5,000 - there are some 30 to 50 daily events I have also been procrastinating upon - Snowden is just one of them-- (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to make assumptions about your change of mind before. However, your argument is false, as already amply demonstrated. — Yerpo Eh? 09:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Exclude While there is no doubt that there was some small diplomatic ripples around the world with his disclosures, (but mostly about his jet-setting rather than what he actually did), the vast majority of the world could not care less about him. Most of the stories in the news was about him running away while the US was desperately trying to get other countries to break their laws to catch him. He is a US citizen who blew the whistle on the US activities, it is a US news story. FFMG (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Did you even read the article? Sorry, but this is far from US-only, because:
  1. they spied on foreign diplomatic representatives too
  2. at least British and German agencies were also involved (in fact, Snowden got a lot of documents he leaked from the British GC-Wiki)
  3. in all three countries mentioned there have been consequences of the disclosures
That alone is more than enough to satisfy criteria for inclusion, even if we ignore what happened with Snowden himself. There's two stories here - the disclosure itself and the Snowden's personal story, the latter being a convenient diversion for the public (same as in Assange's case). What the "vast majority of the world" cares about is not a criterion here, because we could wipe all the RY pages almost clean if we relied on that alone. — Yerpo Eh? 09:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course I read the article, of course I read the papers, I am not sure what you are trying to assume by your comments.
Are you accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about simply because I do not agree with your point of view?
Countries spy on each others all the time, countries spy on their citizens all the time, there is nothing new here, that some rogue personnel told everybody about it is not really news, (in fact another US citizen got 35 years for doing just that).
The UK/German governments are not making a big thing about it, a handful politicians and conspiracy theorist are maybe acting all shocked and amazed, but the bottom line is that it is all business as usual.
So, if it is all the same with you, I still say this should be excluded because it is a domestic issue with some small inconsequential ripples, (of no real consequences from day 1). FFMG (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I suggested you don't know what you're talking about because you use nothing but obviously false arguments. To begin with - large or small, there are notable international consequences and that is already enough to justify inclusion. You can try to play down importance of each one separately, but not all of them together.
Another false argument of yours is that the main issue here is spying itself. Wrong, it's the scale of things and the uncommon phenomenon of high-profile whistleblowing on government activities (comparable to the Pentagon Papers leak included in 1971, but with immediate consequences).
Third false argument is that it's business as usual. Of course, the governments are trying to act cool and create an impression that it's not a big thing because they're involved, but you normally don't harass journalists [27] over an unimportant domestic issue of another country, do you? You also normally don't create top-level diplomatic fiascos [28] over petty criminals, do you? — Yerpo Eh? 11:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Include. An easy way to find out whether the Snowden-Leak, and particularly the informations he leaked, had a small or remarkable impact outside the U.S. and U.K., is to take a look beyond the borders. Let's take Germany, for example:
  1. This story is keeping on being on the news in the press (nationwide and local), television, radio and online-magazines almost every day for months, now. Not many tasks last that long in the media. Der Spiegel, one of the leading weekly news magazines of Germany, showed this topic on the covers of three issues since the leaks [29] [30] [31].
  2. The leaks started heated (and ongoing) discussions, whether the surveillance endanger freedom of speech and surpress the expression of non-mainstream-thoughts [32] [33], until which point the benefit to the fight against terrorism is bigger than the harm for the human rights of freedom - and if the line already has been crossed [34]; if whistleblowers are villains or necessary to ensure compliance with the law [35]; if this technonogies may be misused for economic espionage [36]; how big are the dangers of misusing the technics to change facts [37] or to spy on non criminals and average citizens (on abject motives) [38].
  3. The German government had to declare it's role supporting the surveillance - and if this action could be a violation of the constitution of Germany [39], which could have effects on the German election campaign and the result of the election in September.
  4. There seems to be diplomatical damage as well, as leading politicians in the EU and UNO criticize the spying of representatives of friendly governments and institutions as unfriendly act [40].
  5. There may be international economic-effects as well: privacy authorities demand suspension of the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles [41], which could be harmful to cloud-services. The negotiations on the planned USA-EU Free-trade-agreement could become endangered [42] [43]. Users are starting to mistrust internet-services and begin to use their data more careful [44] ... and I guess the more stupid criminals will do so, too (the more clever ones might have been careful before Snowden, anyway).
  6. CryptoPartys all over the country are informing average computer-users how to use encryption-technonogies to protect their privacy. An indication of increased senibility and mistrust among the general population beyond the nerd circles. There are even CryptoPartys in the parliament [45].
Maybe more citizens are privacy-sensitive in Germany than in other countrys, because they have experienced twice in history how dangerous a comprehensive collection of data by a government agency can become: "thanks" to Gestapo and Stasi (have you seen the Award-winning film "The Lives of Others"?). The one-sided evaluation of that data can be used to increase dictatorial power massively, to suppress opinions, filter out unwanted minorities and can even bring thousands or millions of people in mortal danger. Of course the players are different - the leaked surveillance has been implemented and used by democratic states, not by dictatorships. But if you take a look into other countrys you see people with that same concern as well (some sources where listed by User:Wrad above already).
If conspiracy theorists are right with their fear, that this could be the end of the dream of a free internet and the beginning of a kind of Nineteen Eighty-Four-World, or not... According to this, there's strong evidence, that the Snowdan-Leaks of the surveillance-program could already have a noteworthy (and maybe even growing) impact to the world, to the reputation of the U.S. and U.K. and even to economic issues. Therefore it deserves to be included. --Frankliner (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment So far I'm seeing 7 !votes for inclusion (9 if you count User:Favonian from the earlier debate and User:Michaelmas1957, who added the event in the first place) and 2 against (4 if you add in Derby and HiLo). I am also seeing plenty of reliable sources on the side of inclusion that demonstrate the international notability of the topic, far surpassing the requirement in WP:RY. I am seeing no sources whatsoever on the other side. Nothing to support the claim that the event is not internationally notable other than the voices of the editors themselves. Not a single one. It really doesn't matter how you look at this debate so far, the consensus is on the side of inclusion. For those of you still sitting on the fence, I state once again, backed by the sources I provided at the top of this RFC: Few to no events in 2013 have caused as many world leaders to speak out, legislate, or change policy, or have caused as much diplomatic strife, as this one. It needs to be included. Wrad (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It should be included on the U.S. page as well, but this is fairly important in an international context given all the consequences of Snowden's disclosures, including the consequences of his attempts to evade U.S. authorities.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • COMMENT It has been nearly a month, and consensus has reached that the topic should be included in this article (2013). Time to add it? Mayazcherquoi (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The story appeared to have died down a bit, but yet another direct international consequence has just emerged - the Brazil-Argentina cyber defense deal. In light of this and the clear consensus reached above, I intend to re-add the event later today. If someone still has any relevant argument against it, now is the time to bring it up. — Yerpo Eh? 08:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2013

Please put this in for 2013: August August 28 - 30000 people gather at the Lincoln Memorial to celebrate the 50th aniverssary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s I have a dream speech. Chipperdude15 (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:RY anniversaries of national(and limited international) notability are not included in Recent Year articles. Appropriate for 2013 in the United States but not here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Events

It is now August 31, and there are still no events listed for the month of August! We need to add some events. If we don't, there will be an entire month with no events listed!

In fact, the last time any event was listed here was the ouster of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi on July 3. It's been almost two months now with no events added! This is crazy! We need to add some more events to this damn article! SuperHero2111 (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Which of our notability rules would you like us to break? HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Nothing, I would just like us to use some common sense, and common sense dictates that there should be at least one event listed between July 3 and August 31. SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Euh... not really. It's not horribly out of the ordinary for some months to go without events. See 2010#September. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The most significant international event during August has been the Syrian civil war. As this is an ongoing event it would probably be better to wait until later in the year to get a proper perspective on the course of events and how best to include them. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, as an aside, I have also noticed that the more recent a year is, the more strict the rules about inclusion are. For example, in 2010, the Chilean miner incident was listed. I'm sure that if this event had happened in 2013, it would not have been considered notable enough for inclusion. And also, ever since 2009 or so, the rules and guidelines have started to gradually become stricter and stricter. The more recent a year is, the fewer events and deaths there are. I find this trend to be very worrisome, and I really hope that we can fix it and turn it around before it's too late. SuperHero2111 (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually there are probably 2 reasons this appears to be the case. Firstly we have had 1 or 2 editors who have taken an extremely strict line on what counts as internationally notable (stricter than mine for instance), but they have only contributed to the last 2 RY articles and have made no effort to take the same line with earlier articles. Secondly, I for one stop following RY articles about a year after they've ended and a LOT of entries which are CLEARLY inappropriate have crept back in. But as I got no response when I pointed this out I decided not to waste my time doing it all again. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
There have been no internationally, historically notable events for several weeks, which is why nothing from then has been included in this article. The Syrian civil war is internationally notable because of the involvement of several other countries. However, the large majority of individual events during it are not. The rules are being properly applied now, whereas a few years ago that was not the case. There is no rule that every month must have something written about it in the Events section of this article. The 2010 Copiapó mining accident has been removed from 2010 because it was a domestic event which was never eligible for inclusion. Its rightful place is on 2010 in Chile. The only reason it received a lot of media coverage in many countries is that it made a good news story. (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
So no one has read the use feedback for this page? – Plarem (User talk) 20:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't read it... – Plarem (User talk) 20:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but this article is a joke. Please, for the love of God, add some events, otherwise you might as well just have a blank page. The strictness of moderation here is farcical. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't add things that are not important enough to include, merely to avoid having a gap in the Events section. (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


This was on 2013 in science, but I think It could be also here

I didnt post this but just split it into two talk sections-- (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree totally - it should be included. Wjfox2005 (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Unsure about this. Isn't it the fifth time or so in the past few years that it left the solar system (example)? I lost count. — Yerpo Eh? 09:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Are we up to 5 now? I must have missed a couple. Maybe we could have a vote on which date is correct once we get to ten? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, this "event" was an announcement that they confirmed the 25 August 2012 date. In this case, the event may be suitable for inclusion in 2012. — Yerpo Eh? 19:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Catalan way

And secondly, what do you think about Catalan Way? I would add it too.

I didnt post this originally and this second one is exlude-- (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Risë Stevens died March 20, 2013

I propose that Risë Stevens be listed among the historical deaths of 2013. According to Wikipedia's own article on Risë, she died on March 20, 2013. She was important enough to become a Kennedy Center Honoree (KCH) in 1990. [4] I believe that her KCH colleagues who have died have their deaths listed by Wikipedia. Flores5js (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)James Flores

She doesn't meet the criteria of being so internationally notable to have articles in 9 non-English Wikipedias before death. Being a recipient of an American honor makes her eligible for inclusion in the 2013 in the United States, but in my opinion, it isn't a good enough argument to make an exception in this list. — Yerpo Eh? 05:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
6 non-English articles at death and only 8 after 6 months. The non-English articles are mostly stubs using only English citations. While she performed in several countries apart from the US, and given the usual recentism bias of notability inherent in wiki articles, it appears that international notability has not been sufficiently demonstrated to override WP:RY in this case. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 Ghouta attacks

2013 Ghouta attacks is a major event led to the death of more than 1000 people that should be added. 3bdulelah (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a domestic Syrian event, hence it should not be included. If another country launches airstrikes in response to it, then it would be of international relevance. So far, there has only been talk by politicians in other countries. (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It could be added nevertheless because of the large number of casualties (as is the standard for non-international natural disasters). Alternatively, we could include the yesterday's resolution of the UN Security Council (this). Opinions? — Yerpo Eh? 16:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 North India floods

A domestic event, therefore it should be excluded. There was no discussion at the time, merely a one-line comment saying it should be included because of its death toll. However, death toll is not a criterion for inclusion. (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Death toll can, and should, be used as a criterion for inclusion provided it is substantial enough to be historically significant, as it is in this case. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Nowhere does it say that a high death toll means that a domestic event should be included, despite you having claimed on many occasions that it does. These floods are not historically significant; the vast majority of people outside India have never heard of them. (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 Lampedusa migrant shipwreck

325 dead = notable-- (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
339 dead = notable-- (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
359 dead = notable-- (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Death toll is not what makes an event eligible for inclusion; international notability is. Surprisingly, the Costa Concordia disaster in not on 2012, see Talk:2012/Archive 3. The CC disaster is a more important event because of the cost and because cruise liners rarely crash. If the CC disaster is not included, I can't see a reason to include this event. Overloaded boats, operated by organised crime gangs, packed with illegal immigrants are obviously likely to sink. The only difference with this one is that more people died than in most of the many similar events that happen in the Mediterranean (and elsewhere in the world) every year. (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Hijuelos

I would like to ask other editors about his notability. As far as I confirmed, Finnish article was created after his death, and some other articles (e.g. Arabic, Latin, Swedish) are copy-edit with just a couple of sentences, out of 10 non-English articles. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, most of the non-English articles are clones/stubs and I suspect the only reason they were created was someone in those wiki languages creating articles for Pulitzer winners. Although the Pulitzer is a specifically American award it does attract some international attention but in this case that seems minimal. Unless there is more substantial indication that he was internationally notable I would have no objection to him being excluded. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
he is on my list of obits to add to 2013 in the United States which is the highest level of notability I think that he desearves-- (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Lao Airlines crash

It is one of airplane accidents which killed 49 on Lao Airlines' ATR-72, but passengers include Australians, Burmese, Canadians, Chinese, French, South Koreans, Taiwanese, Thais, and Vietnamese.(news source) I wonder if it is considered as meeting "3-continent" rule as the incident involves passengers from 4 different continents (Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America) ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost every airliner is bound to have people from different countries on board, the same as every larger incident in a big city is bound to involve foreigners by chance. In my opinion, it is not useful to consider effect on an individual level, because it is too trivial. — Yerpo Eh? 09:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

María de Villota

Meets the WP:RY minimum but was she really notable enough to be considered one of the most important deaths of 2013? Not the first to do anything important, never won anything important. It seems most of her notability rests on having a car accident. Considering how relatively minor a lot of the Deaths entries are, is she worthy of inclusion? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

you are good at looking at the extent of stubs - are they translational clones or real items?-- (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The majority are clones and/or stubs, the exceptions would be German, Spanish and French. Many were started or substantially updated after her death, and similarly the same thing happened after the 2012 accident. This appears to be a case of notability resting on circumstances rather than actual achievement. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I've added her to 2013 in Spain, where she belongs. Much of the media coverage of her is related to her accident last year and death this year. If not for those events (which do not add to her notability), she would be little-known. I do not know a great deal about motor racing, but it does not appear that she won anything major or achieved anything special. Hence she is not internationally notable and therefore should not be included. Jim Michael (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is clear after 1 week. I have removed her. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The entry about US surveillance disclosures

User:S-d n r's "correction" of the entry (original edit) introduced a lot of inaccuracies or confusion in the entry about Edward Snowden's disclosures:

  • the claim to notability isn't what Snowden did after the disclosure, but the disclosure's content which triggered international reaction.
  • Snowden's asylum in Russia didn't occur on June 6th, but later - the date is incorrect with the new formulation.
  • "defect" is an emotionally loaded word and an imprecise way of describing Snowden's actions - defecting would mean that he is a Russian agent now, which there is absolutely no evidence about.
  • the disclosures weren't just published by "a foreign publication" (The Guardian), but also The Washington Post.

I tried to view the edit as a good-faith action at first, but S-d n r clearly demonstrated the opposite with this edit summary - combined with the above hints, it's clear that he is quite emotional about the subject, considering Snowden a traitor, and the attempt at presenting the core issue an anti-American sentiment. He's free to have his own opinion, of course, but Wikipedia is not a suitable medium to express it. Can someone else please weigh in on this? I don't want edit-warring. — Yerpo Eh? 14:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)





(1) -- (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where is the point in choosing between those two versions like they were somehow equivalent (as demonstrated above, they aren't)? — Yerpo Eh? 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
clearly you are now worried that your biased version will be revealed-- (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you please stay WP:CIVIL? You'll have to elaborate on this purported bias if you want to be taken seriously. As I explained, an American citizen fleeing from US authorities isn't the noteworthy part of this event. — Yerpo Eh? 15:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(2), although I'm not fully convinced it should be in 2013. The "defection" is not a notable event or a notable part of the event; it shouldn't be mentioned here, regardless of whether the event should be in 2013 at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

How is this event historically notable? Secret information being leaked has happened on many occasions. Unless it leads to someone being prosecuted, a change in the law, or sanctions by one country against another, then it is not important enough to be included. (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
See the discussion above, historical notability has been established many times over. — Yerpo Eh? 13:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This whole issue is getting enormously tedious. In any case, I would leave out any mention of the word "whistleblower" as this is being used by fans/followers of these sorts of people as a term of hero-worship and therefore falls under WP:WEASEL. I would prefer the input of User:Cosmic Latte on this as he seems to be one of the few people who can be relied on to edit with a NPOV in Recent Year articles. In the meantime I suggest:
I also note that there are still plenty of editors who dispute the notability of this (no doubt we'll have another drawn out debate for exclusion). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Your edit is marginally better, but still fails to address the issues I raised above: an American citizen fleeing from US authorities isn't the noteworthy part of this event. Let's stick to the date of the leak, and the reader can find out what happened to Snowden from the article. And, it wasn't just "a foreign news publication" (that implies he's a traitor). As for phrasing, "fugitive" can be also understood as POV, how about "defense contractor"? — Yerpo Eh? 05:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(2) Not the leaks and the defection of Mr. Snowden is the main-issue. It's the surveillance itself. And the damage is even getting bigger as the U.S.-relations to Brazil, France and Germany are visibly damaged. --Pelira (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Marmaray tunnel

What about Marmaray tunnel? I think it's opening is historical event... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a domestic event, as it is wholly within one country; therefore it is not eligible for inclusion here. If a 2013 in Turkey article is created, it should be on there. (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 Bohol earthquake

I believe that 2013 Bohol earthquake should be included as it is in the notable events of 2013 as it was featured internationally. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, there's nothing to indicate international importance. — Yerpo Eh? 17:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree either. The last earthquake which was included in the year's article is 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which has killed more than 15K people, and caused massive damages including Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, back in March 2011. Although the damages and fatalities caused by earthquakes, it does not necessarily means that it is notable enough to be included in years' articles, as there are so many earthquakes occurred around the world. For example, there is no indication about 2011 Christchurch earthquake, which killed 185 people including dozens of international students, and damaged buildings including world-famous Christchurch Cathedral, on 2011 article.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
International media coverage does not mean that an event is internationally, historically notable. This disaster only affected one country, hence it is a domestic event which is rightly included on 2013 in the Philippines, but not on this article. (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda)

I am not intending to include it at this point, but could be included later as it has been described as "the most powerful storm to make landfall", more than 1,200 people feared to be dead while the typhoon devastated Central Philippines, then heading to Vietnam.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it should be included anyways, as it is the most powerful land-falling storm, and also the death toll by itself makes it noteworthy. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
i say dont include it - --- --- yet till the final numbers are in --- i hate to constantly update the numbers-- (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
We haven't added it yet IP. We will add it after it dissipates after it makes landfall in Vietnam. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I had been bold and included it, mentioning a very rough estimate of casualties that won't have to be updated a lot before official data comes in. — Yerpo Eh? 08:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the subsequent changes by User:S-d n r and User:WCIDFS for the following reasons:

  • the new text was grammatically horrible
  • the designation "the strongest cyclone to make landfall" is not confirmed yet
  • the source quoted doesn't support the number of casualties given
  • it makes no sense to give exact death toll on this page until final official data is in, as already explained above

We should be a little bit more conservative here. — Yerpo Eh? 07:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 Pakistan earthquake

current total of 515 dead seems to me in the ballpark of a natural disaster that should get included.-- (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Death toll has nothing to do with the inclusion criteria. This is essentially a domestic event, as damage caused to other countries was slight. Domestic events are not included, no matter how many people are killed. Recent Year articles are for international events and deaths of internationally notable people. (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
To be precise, we are including disasters with over 1000 casualties, even if they're confined to a single country. — Yerpo Eh? 17:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think that? WP:RY#Disasters, assassinations, and other crimes says 'High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion into the article.' A few editors have wrongly claimed that domestic events with high death tolls are eligible for inclusion. In fact, no such rule exists and discussions to try to implement such a rule have not gained consensus. If an event is not international, it is not eligible for inclusion. A domestic event with a high death toll is nevertheless a domestic event and does not belong in a list of international events. (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
As I have noted before WP:RY says "High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion". This means that a high death count may merit inclusion. There have been many discussions previously on whether death toll alone is sufficient, and on some occasions consensus has determined that it is. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Please provide links to discussions on talk pages of recent year articles in which consensus was reached that domestic events should be included because of their death toll. (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk:2013/Archive 3#2013 North India floods. Clearly local, yet no-one argued against inclusion! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
update total = 825 - seems like should be included to me-- (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I added it to main article but it got removed as local news item - It appears from here (d:q14944216) to be a well covered international event - I believe that it should be included in the year article-- (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


In the first sentence, after 3rd millennium, there should be no space between the m and the comma!-- (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The header is a template, Template:Year article header. The space is deliberate as the the creator of the template is still refining it. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Why are we using a template with an obvious fault in it when it's a relatively short, simple piece of text? HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The "fault" is incredibly minor. The template is extremely useful; for one thing it reduces the petty squabbling over just what the headers should include and how the should be ordered etc. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm. "Incredibly minor" is a judgement call. Obviously it matters more to some than others. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd much rather have "petty squabbling" than a broken template. Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It couldn't get much more petty than an extra space which took several months for anyone to even bother of mentioning! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a difference between petty and grammatically wrong. Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
So why don't you just fix the punctuation error in the template? After all, it IS a mistake, no matter how "minor" it is. And seriously , I don 't want a space before commas , full stops , apostrophes etc . , because that looks horrible !-- (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm the one who designed the template. The space before the comma is not a mistake; it is intentionally there for a reason. It's a reminder to me. It is a terrific template but it is missing one thing that either I or someone else needs to add. I want to add the calculation for the dominical letter. That's the identification code for the type of year it is, e.g. a non-leap year starting on a Saturday. Once I have gotten the calculation of the dominical letter (which is sometimes two letters) done, then I'll remove the space. The space is there to remind me that I have left a thing unfinished. If I made it perfect I might forget to fix it. By leaving one minor flaw present, it reminds me that it not finished. That's the only reason the space is before the comma, it's a mnemonic. If one of you wants to fix the template to insert the dominical letter code, then it's fine to remove the space. (If you read the comment below, you see that I have that as an intention as soon as I figure out how to merge the code that calculates leap year vs non-leap year with what day of the year starts then I will be able to insert the dominical letter or letters.) But, as the group "Naked Eyes" once sang, "Always something there to remind me..." - Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I also want to point out that it is not a trivial matter to get the dominical year code included, it requires a bit of calculation the way I am able to use the Wikipedia software to do Zeller's congruence to determine if a year is a leap year or common year (or an exceptional year in the case of 2000; this was the only century year that's a leap year since 1600 and will be the last until 2400.) Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The following was from the talk for 2012, which explains it (and I thought I included it here);

First Paragraph Template

This was in the talk for 2012, and explains about my intent to put in the dominical letter as well:

I have created a template for the first paragraph. I think is is a neat feature, and I hope you like it. It currently works for any year 1930 or later (I have a problem with the Julian conversions, so I'm not planning on using it for those years yet.) The template creates a text similar to the following:

Year 2013 (MMXIII) is the current year, and is a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar, the 2013th year of the Common Era (CE) and Anno Domini (AD) designations, the 13th year of the 3rd millennium , 13th year of the 21st century, and 4th year of the 2010s decade.

Given the year, it inserts the correct Roman Numerals for that year (that was also my idea to add to years) gets whether it's a common, leap or exceptional year, the day the year starts, what year it is of AD, the year of which millenium (take a look at 2000, it "knows" it's still in the 2nd), the year of which century, and the year of the decade. It also prints when it's the 10th and last year of a decade (on year 9), the 100th and last year of a century (on 100), the last year of a millenium (on 000), and it's temporally correct, which is a nice hack.

What do I mean by temporally correct? For 2012 and earlier, it will say Year 2012 (MMXII) was a as the beginning of the paragraph. It starts this year with Year 2013 (MMXIII) is the current year, and is, and it starts 2014 and 2015 with Year 2014 (MMXIV) will be a and Year 2015 (MMXV) will be a respectively. But guess what it will do on January 1? It will, automatically on its own initiative change the wording to Year 2013 (MMXIII) was a, changes 2014 to read Year 2014 (MMXIV) is the current year, and is a while 2015 still reads Year 2015 (MMXV) will be a and without editing! All using the Wikimedia software. I think it's a slick feature to improve the encyclopedia since it makes it automatically current and relevant. I welcome any comments or suggestions, the next one I want to do is get the Dominical Letter (A, B, C etc.) inserted, I don't have that yet, I got the "and last" function for decade, century and millenium working just the other day, so I figured it was time to release it, and I'm very pleased that it works perfectly! Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Naming the year

Especially for non-native speakers, the way the years after 1999 are spoken is a problem. Please include in the article how it is said, e.g., "twenty thirteen" and / or "two thousand thirteen." (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but is it really that difficult [to pronounce]? Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
As part of the work on the first paragraph to include the dominical letter I can see if I can include a mention of this, that both pronunciations are correct, referring to a year as "n thousand year" or "thousand year" are both common, e.g. some people say "nineteen sixty five" and some say "nineteen hundred sixty five," and either is correct. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is a bit difficult. For the year 2000, the only correct pronunciation is "two thousand," for 3000 the only one is "three thousand." For 2001 to 2009 they can be pronounced as "two thousand one" or "twenty oh one." For 2010 to 2099 you can do "twenty ten" or "two thousand ten". For 2100 the only one is "twenty one hundred". But for 2101, it can be "Twenty one oh one", "Twenty-One hundred and one" or "two thousand one hundred and one". 1999 is "nineteen ninety-nine", "nineteen hundred ninety nine" or "one thousand nine hundred ninety nine," all three are correct. So for any year we have one, two or three correct pronunciations.

I don't want to hard code that, I want the template to do it programmatically so it will require some work. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And to further complicate this, in e.g. New Zealand 2001 is pronounced "two thousand and one". Which makes me think that instead of including this in the template there should instead be a link to an/the appropriate article (assuming one exists somewhere) on the various pronunciations of such things as years. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually a lot of people here in the United States - me included - do use "and" to conjoin a number but technically it's incorrect. "Two Thousand and one" is technically "2000.1" as "and" should only be used to indicate the decimal point but most people will know, if they know you're speaking about a year, that it's the year 2001. In dates it's probably okay, so that's yet another item. Actually I want to get the dominical letter problem fixed before anything else. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That's clearly wrong. 2000.1 (assuming the . is a decimal point) is two thousand point one. Georgia guy (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Kids in Australia are taught that 2001 should be spoken as "Two thousand and one". Without the "and" it's incorrect. For the years up to 2009 that pattern became the convention here. From 2010 we seem to have moved back to the convention that was used for most of the previous century. This year is "Twenty thirteen" for most people.

Chang'e 3

i think i know all the missions anywhere that have left planet earth, = have existed and, i dont think i am mistaken but this is the first unmanned lunar rover. if so, warrants notability to gain inclusion. also, first trip back to the lunar surface since 1974. the second the thing lands and sends back "any" data, it should be in this article.-- (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, if the thing does what it was sent to do, it can be included. I suggest we wait until 16th and include the landing (unless it fails by some chance). The launch itself is much less exciting. — Yerpo Eh? 13:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree as well -- the landing is the real event -- China being the third country to successfully soft-land on the moon, and the first soft landing in 39 years (there have been a couple of deliberate crash landings) is worthy of notice. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
update - China's first lunar probe 'Chang'e-3' enters Moon's orbit -- (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)