Jump to content

Talk:2014/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

2014 FIFA World Cup

I don't know where the 2014 FIFA World Cup will take place, but may start on one of these Fridays:June 6 or June 13, 2014. Joseandricardo, 17:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars

where is this "lucas starts production on star wars 7-9" coming from? anyone have a source? if so, please post on imdb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.188.119 (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed WM XXX

OK, Who's that son of a bitch remove WrestleMania XXX. Tell me why you remove it?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyjonejules (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur

Who keeps removing my edit? Remember, guys, wikipedia is not censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.205.151 (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. Discospinster (talk · contribs)
  2. Discospinster (talk · contribs)
  3. Discospinster (talk · contribs)
  4. RJaguar3 (talk · contribs)
  5. Until It Sleeps (talk · contribs)
  6. Discospinster (talk · contribs)
  7. Naraht (talk · contribs)
  8. Camw (talk · contribs)
  9. RJaguar3 (talk · contribs)
Well, you asked... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

North American Conflict/Can-Am War under Computer/Video Games

Could someone give a reference as to where this is from. I see nothing pertaining to whether this is the game name, or a reference to another game, either on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the web. Just curious, as I would think if it were a form of vandalism, it would be within the main body of the article, as opposed to the games. Thanks. Merc1083 —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

World War 1 anniversary

Can I add the WW1 Anniversary or will it be deleted like the War of 1812 Anniversary from the 2013 page?? --Packinheat2u (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC) No. Yes. See WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not even if I add the fact that it will be observed by the UK since David Cameron announced that it will be?--Packinheat2u (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not. If the commemoration were indepentdantly notable, it might be listed, although the only ones that I recall ever being listed are the Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II and the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 24 March 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) 13:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

add Vesak Day

I think we should add Vesak to "Major religious holidays and observances" Vesak is Buddhism holidays, Buddha's birthday about Vesak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesak Vesak in this year: 13 May 2014 Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainaDelta (talk • contribs) 10:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. eu.stefan (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please add Epiphany and Advent Sunday

Both are important feasts in Western Christianity. Epiphany falls on 6 January and commemorates the arrival of the Three Kings, while Advent Sunday is the ecclesiastical new year and falls on 30 November this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.112.152 (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent Death: January 1

I think Juanita Moore should be added. Her page has been translated in almost 10 languages and her Academy Award nomination for her race at the time is notable. Thanks. — Wyliepedia 04:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Her English article is little more than a stub and a list of films. The non-English articles are similar (i.e. clones) with no local language sources. In fact they only seem to have the obituary and the IMDB as sources. Often with actors/actresses from decades ago their lack of article depth and non-English articles can be put down to recentism, but in this case her career just seems to be too insubstantial, Oscar nomination notwithstanding, to deserve an exception to WP:RY. A marginal exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree, plus, only 7 of those interwikis existed before her death. — Yerpo Eh? 08:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding lunar eclipse dates?

Since the annular solar eclipse of April has been added, I see no reason why the lunar eclipse date on that month has not been added. And the other lunar eclipse to happen later in the year and the partial solar eclipse; they haven't been included in upcoming events. So will they be added? And if not, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.135.181 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Eclipses are entirely predictable and in the case of annular eclipses happen every year and, as with any annual event, is/are therefore not notable. Any event which is even more frequent is even less notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Roger Lloyd-Pack

He does not appear to have been notable outside the UK, hence ineligible for inclusion, despite the number of articles he has. Jim Michael (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I confirmed, Croatian, Finnish, Korean, and Swedish articles are with just a few lines, although he had appeared on the film "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire".---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
A bit part in a film which is part of an internationally popular series of films does not make him internationally notable. He was known primarily for the supporting roles he played in Only Fools and Horses and The Vicar of Dibley. Though popular in the UK, neither of those is internationally notable. It's been agreed that a person has to be internationally notable to be included in the Deaths section, and I don't see that he had any international significance. Jim Michael (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Whereas four years in a cult American tv series and an untimely death is far more internationally notable? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely not, but that's our Systemic bias at work. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
We hardly find any news coverage by major American news media over his death, as they merely use the Associated Press' report titled "British actor Roger Lloyd-Pack dies" (e.g. Washington Post, New York Times). And, as I pointed out, at least 4 non-English articles should not be counted as each of those looks copy-edited with limited information.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There's very little media coverage outside the UK regarding RL-P's death, because the vast majority of people have never heard of him. Even in the UK, most people would not recognise the name, and would only know who he was when you tell them that he played Trigger in OFAH. He was not a household name, which is why most articles introduce him by saying that he played Trigger.
I don't see that Cory Monteith is internationally notable either. Jim Michael (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ichirō Nagai

Barely meets the WP:RY minimum. His English article consists of 2 lines (1 before death) and a list of roles. Almost all non-English articles are similar. This doesn't seem to indicate any particular notability and think he should be excluded. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, he had voice roles in quite a few notable animes, but always as a minor character. He probably wouldn't merit articles in most of the Wikipedias if it weren't for the mass hysteria events called Pokemon and Dragon Ball. — Yerpo Eh? 06:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Olympics but not Paralympics?

User:DerbyCountyinNZ has just reverted my addition of the Winter Paralympics to 2014, citing practice in previous Olympic years. The Olympics is there. Why not the Paralympics? HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The consensus has always been (iirc) that the Olympic Games (Summer and Winter) and the Football World Cup are the only sporting events which are of sufficient global importance and interest to be included in Recent Year articles. All other Games and Cups are excluded on the basis that they are insufficiently notable and lowering the notability level would only result in endless arguments over inclusion/exclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The country that hosts the Olympics always also runs the Paralympics. They are regarded within the Olympic movement as events of equal importance. I know the media doesn't treat them that way, but we don't have to slavishly follow the ignorance and prejudices of the mass media. HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with you on this one HiLo. Just because we haven't included them before doesn't mean we shouldn't now. Hot Stop 05:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Olympic movement may regard them as events of equal importance (in principle), but in any other sense, they aren't. Even each individual Olympics itself isn't really an event of any lasting importance (unless something huge happens outside the actual competition). Records get beaten and forgotten sooner or later, record holders likewise. The Olympics are included anyway because of the sheer scale of participation and attention that they attract, and rightfully so, but the Paralympics simply don't have this "redeeming" feature. Unfortunately. — Yerpo Eh? 08:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in your use of the word "unfortunately". DO you think our rules are wrong? HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think the guidelines are wrong, but that the Paralympics don't get the attention they deserve if the movement considers them equivalent (if you forgive me my slight hint of sarcasm). I consider professional sport as a whole self-serving and inconsequential, so in my opinion, the guidelines follow a completely correct principle - treating only the largest competitions as an exception. — Yerpo Eh? 06:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The coverage of the Paralympics may have increased over the last few Games but is still well short of Olympics coverage. It may be different in other countries but the Olympics are frequently the lead media story on television and other media, the Paralympics far less so. The athletes themselves are also less well known outside sports. Far more people will have heard of Michael Phelps who is the only person to have won more than 10 Olympic Golds (18), than Trischa Zorn (also a swimmer) who has won 41 and is one of 4 Paralympians have won more golds than Phelps. How many members of the general public would have heard of her? As Yerpo says, the participation and attention for the Paralympics are still (considerably) lower for the Olympics. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What about the youth Olympics? 59.189.254.170 (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Receives even less coverage, and is therefore even less notable, than the Paralympics. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Phil Everly

Should Phil Everly be included? He doesn't have an article but he's part of a duo that has 25+ languages on Wikipedia and had many singles in the top 100. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.169.0 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

He is certainly more notable than many that qualify for inclusion in RY articles, but previous consensus has been that someone should have their own article to be included, and I'm not sure that making an exception is a good idea...DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Phil Everly deserves to be on this list for his contribution to music as one half of the influential Everly Brothers, regardless of him not having his own article!

EXCLUDE: no exception should be made in this case, as nobody ever attempted to create his own article as far as his death, although the Everly Brothers were described as "iconic rock and country duo", "legendary", "the groundbreaking, smooth-sounding, record-setting duo".---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a silly suggestion: if we simplify the situation and assume that notability is shared equally among members of famous duos like this, we could multiply requirements for inclusion of members - i.e. 18 non-English interwikis for duos, 27 for trios etc. Although I would stop with trios at most, because the issue becomes muddy with bigger bands (changing members, usually unequal roles etc.). In this case, it would mean that Phil Everly would merit inclusion. — Yerpo Eh? 13:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, we should include him, see WP:IAR, we should exercise a degree of common sense at least in relation to duos, although I recognize that it could get complicated with larger groups. Remember the French newspaper headline "Laurel et Hardy est mort". PatGallacher (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely disgraceful that Phil Everly is not included, especially considering his important contributions to music as half of the Everly Brothers! I say add him and get it over with! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.96.204 (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Philip Seymour Hoffman

Why is a picture of him included? I think it would be better to add a picture of Pete Seeger. I had heard of Seeger before, but I had never heard of Hoffman until his death today. SuperHero2111 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The usual practice is to have one image per month in the Deaths section, provided there is sufficient space. It as also usual to balance out the various notabilities otherwise it would be biased towards entertainers. At present Ariel Sharon is the most notable January death, Hoffman the most notable for February (this could change in the next 25 days). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Seeger died in January, hence he isn't really in competition with Hoffman for photo space on the article. We tend to go by notability rather than how many people have heard of them. Hoffman was one of the world's most successful character actors, and his death has received a great deal of media coverage in many countries. Most young people have not heard of Seeger, and his death has not received anywhere near as much coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
too early to say if also Pete Seeger should also be added - I keep a running list of whom needs to be added to obits but like many others I have more pressing things to do - thus list might ultimately be long enough to also add Seeger - time will tell--68.231.15.56 (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mónica Spear

(Just in case) Reminding all editors that she had only 4 non-English articles (French, Hungarian, Italian, and Russian) before her death, thus no reason to include her name.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

d:q2631267--68.231.15.56 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a lot of two-sentence stubs were created after the media reported that she has died. That doesn't really reflect her importance. — Yerpo Eh? 20:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014 Euromaidan clashes

I believe there should probably be a mention of the Euromaidan or the February riots considering how much of an international diplomatic clusterfuck there has been over them. Also notable for being the deadliest violence since Ukraine became independent. --Kuzwa (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Jim Michael (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

NASA's discovery

I would like to ask other editors' opinions if the announcement by NASA about their discovery of 715 new planets could be included in this page.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte Dawson death

I keep adding this under 2014 deaths, and it keeps getting deleted. Can I please know WHY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserName2294 (talk • contribs)

Per Wikipedia:RY deaths "are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question." There are currently six on Ms. Dawson. Hot Stop 09:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
d:q5085913--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
[1] = zero non-English prior to the day of her death--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

STAP Cells entry

Been reading there has been a lot of controversy over this research as other scientists have not been able to replicate the results and are beginning to question the validity of the research. It should probably be removed from this page... --Kuzwa (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

See here: http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/10849... --Kuzwa (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Khushwant Singh

As majority of his non-English articles are created in the languages mostly used in India, I do not think he is internationally notable enough.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, but not because most of the languages are Indian - no need to apply the concept of nationality so strictly here - for example, any of those Indian languages is native to far more people than most European languages. However, he didn't meet the criteria before his death ([2]) and quite a few stubs were created just because it was news. — Yerpo Eh? 06:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ignatius Zakka I Iwas

I would like to ask other editors if he is notable enough and his name should stay on Deaths section, as several non-English articles have only limited information, although he had 13 non-English ones (including Latin) existed at the time of his death.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A question about diseases

Although I don't plan on adding this quite yet, I feel I should ask the question... The Ebola outbreak that is currently occuring in multiple countries in West Africa seems to be internationally notable to me, it involves several countries, and has been widely reported in international media. However, while it may be notable to add soon (particularly as the death toll rises) what date would we actually use in the article? The date it is first reported? The day it is declared and epidemic/pandemic (like Swine flu in the 2009 article), or some other way? How do we note diseases on WP:RY articles? --Kuzwa (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The answer to this question has been largely left to the judgement of the adding editor so far. It depends on the situation, really, the WHO declarations are convenient for our purpose because of their unambiguity, but if the outbreak is researched well enough, the first reported case may be useful instead. — Yerpo Eh? 05:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm

Does Simple English Wiki count as one of the 9 non-enwiki articles? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Simple English is English not non-English! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Arnoldo Foà

I've removed him for lack of international notability. The majority of non-English articles were created after his death the rest are either stubs and/or clones of the English and/or Italian articles (the English being largely copied from the Italian, including the only non-IMDB references). There is nothing in his English article to suggest any notability outside Italy. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

He had over ten articles at death [3] so we include him. His nationality is irrelevant. --Racklever (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
His inclusion is contested for the reasons above. Even if he had 10 articles before death that is only a minimum requirement. As his inclusion is contested he stays off until consensus is reached to include him. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Peaches Geldof

I don't see why Peaches Geldof was removed she had more then 10 wiki pages at the time of her death. Dman41689 (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No she didn't. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
it says here that she has 18 she died last week. Dman41689 (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikidata page before her death. 8 non-English articles - not enough. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Taylor Trescott thank you for explaining that to me and giving me a mature answer. Dman41689 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Canonization of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II - (Rome (Vatican City) - St. Peter's Square) - April 27, 2014

I can understand that you have deleted the date of Easter, but cancel the date of the canonization of the two Popes, not. How can you say that the canonization is "not particularly significant." How it's not significant if the will follow over 2 billion people in the world, this is an event of global concern. On that day in Rome will be about 7 millions of pilgrims and as I said the event will be followed worldwide by 2 billion people. So you can't delete it because it's an event important. --User:Adriano.93 (msg) 16:37 CET, April 17, 2014

First of all, the event hasn't happened yet, so it has no place under past events where it is now. As for the significance, equating every event inside Roman Catholic Church with all the Catholics is a bit off. Maybe we can include it if it will be really so followed, but until then, your predictions are WP:CRYSTAL. — Yerpo Eh? 16:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you have evidence that these canonizations are significantly more notable than any of the others that happen every year? -- Irn (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm working very hard to understand what's meant by "How it's not significant if the will follow over 2 billion people in the world". HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it the first time that 2 popes were canonized at the same time or has that happened before? Dman41689 (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would that matter? The Catholic Church is looking after its own, the canonisations were approved by someone whose reputation is rather less than stellar outside his own closed circle, and while I am an admirer of Wojtyła (thoguh not as much as Wałęsa), canonisation was, by the close of Benedict's incumbency, even more political than usual. In other words, we'd be giving a PR stunt rather more prominence than it should have. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Trial of Oscar Pistorius

I move to have the Trial of Oscar Pistorius excluded from this list; whilst I do believe there is international sources on the topic in question, I'm not quite seeing the international relevance. This trial appears to be an isolated incident — perhaps best remaining within the 2014 in South Africa article, rather the global 2014 article. Other's thoughts? ——MelbourneStar☆talk 12:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The distinction between international attention and international relevance could be open to interpretation, and is that the crucial test here? Some might say that violence against women is an important global issue. PatGallacher (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Exclude. Local news event with no international implications as per WP:NOTNEWS. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole world is watching the trial, no way is it local. 86.137.144.80 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it's trivia. It makes no difference if people like to watch such things. So exclude. — Yerpo Eh? 17:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's trivial, voyeuristic, tabloid pap. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Explain to me why the Pistorius trial is a local event 86.137.144.80 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Because the result will have no practical impact outside South Africa. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Just re-reading my own post there, as a sports nut I'd see the possible imprisonment of Pistorius as having an impact on future international athletics competitions, but I don't think that's why most people are interested in the trial. It's much more "Look what the man with the funny legs did!". HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It's an international news sensation. We won't know if it's an internationally significant event for a while yet. Exclude til then per WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Arnoldo Foà and José Wilker

ok I added Arnoldo Foà and José Wilker to the list of deaths there are Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about both actors so I don't understand why he's being removed. Dman41689 (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither of them have international notability. A person needs to be internationally notable to be added to the Deaths section. Jim Michael (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Tito Vilanova

Although he meets the minimum WP:RY criteria he appears to have no international notability, he never played fro, or coached, his country. This appears to be another case of wiki Football projects creating articles on footballers who pass WP:NFOOTBALL not because of any actual importance. Exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

He was notable as the coach of FC Barcelona and his death has recieved international coverage e.g. see Tito Vilanova dies: Ex-Barcelona coach loses cancer battle aged 45 Include --Racklever (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Some international coverage is not enough to justify inclusion. As a player and manager, he doesn't seen notable. Exclude --McSly (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
DerbyCountyinNZ, since when did being the manager of Barcelona, one of the biggest football clubs in the world, and winning the league with them, having previously won every single trophy they were eligible for when he was their assistant manager say he has no "actual importance". If I've understood your point correctly, you think he doesn't even have "actual importance" to justify even having an article outside of the football notability criteria, let allow daring to be listed on this hallowed page? Or are you just saying that only international football justifies inclusion here? That would suggest that club football, even mere domestic leagues, have no international notability. I don't think that's true. I'm not really sure the, frankly, painfully closed nature of these year list articles is what was intended when the 10 foreign wiki articles rule was implemented, although I'm probably misremembering. At any rate, Vilanova currently has over 40. I don't know how many he had when he died, but I'm gonna guess it was more than 10. Oh, but I guess that rule is irelevant if people don't want somebody included, huh, well ok, let's look through the zillions of death notices he's got: USA, UK, China, Australia, Argentina and indeed FIFA. Include. Gran2 14:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This man managed to lead a club to win one of the most important leagues in the world with a phenomenal 100 points and even before his illness he was internationally notable. Include. Football2013a (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

100 points, eh? What on earth does that mean. Half the teams in my local football league scored that many points last weekend. That's a silly, parochial post that depends on insider knowledge. It makes no attempt to explain the matter to non-soccer fans. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Exclude not just parochial, parochial squared: requires an interest in football and a specific interest in Barca. 99.9&% of the world simply don't care. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Include Vilanova was known internationally for being managing FC Barcelona and his death has impacted many countries and he is certainly notable plus he had more than eight language articles. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
"Impacted many countries"? How? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What about Jose Mourinho?, he's won countless trophies with top teams across Europe but never played or has managed his country like Vilanova, would he be excluded if he was dead now? Football2013a (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Elena Baltacha

What significant international notability does she have? Jim Michael (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

she competed and won a couple of tournaments in many different countries as shown here Dman41689 (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
None of these appear to have been major international tournaments, because most of the world's best players did not compete in them. Jim Michael (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
really? so the Australian Open, French Open, US Open, and Wimbledon aren't major? Dman41689 (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
She did not progress to the latter stages of any grand slam tournament; the furthest she went in a grand slam was the third round. None of the tournaments she won were of major international significance; had they been, the top players would have competed in them. Jim Michael (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
According to the WTA website, she had won 11 singles titles and 4 doubles ones, all ITF Women's Circuit, and never won WTA Premier tournaments or WTA International tournaments, not only the Grand-slam. Although her career-high single ranking was 49th back in September 2010, I do not think that she was one of the internationally notable players before her death.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ann B. Davis

Redsky89 - Where does it say a person must have 10 articles before death on WP:RY? I checked the talk page as well and can't find it. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been the consensus for several years. It was first proposed to amend the criteria to "before death" here. As you can see from the discussion there was consensus apart from 1 single-issue editor who appears to have taken no further interest in Recent Year articles. It never go raised again, partly because it has been applied largely without disagreement for many years, as evidenced by any number ofedit summaries and archived discussions on the relevant Year Talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
DerbyCountyinNZ Thanks for pointing our the archived discussion to me. That helps. Do you think we can add it to the WP:RY#Deaths now? It would help new-to-RY editors such as myself and give us something to point directly to when reverting. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. I now await the whining... DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Fernandão

Although he has enough articles for inclusion, I feel his English page is only in the semi decent category which indicates he wasn't really an international figure 86.165.203.172 (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
he also played on Al-Gharafa Sports Club and Olympique de Marseille which were outside his home country and we was on a winning team of the World cup that pretty international if he only played in Brazil then he wouldn't be. Redsky89 (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
He scored goals for the overseas teams he played for, which makes him internationally notable. The relatively short length of his English article is probably due to the fact that none of the teams he played for are in the Anglosphere. Jim Michael (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Horace Silver

He has enough articles, but his article does not indicate international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that someone with no recent activity has so many non-English articles would seem to indicate that he is internationally recognised in his field. I would argue that this indicates that he is more worthy of note than many that have been included in Recent Years whose careers have been minimal but exclusively recent. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I support inclusion. The amount of sources calling him a pioneer in his field are impressive and there is clearly international coverage. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Internationally famous so include. --Racklever (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ebola outbreak in West Africa

Thoughts on adding the recent Ebola epidemic to the timeline.

Ramón José Velásquez

There appears to be a consensus that people who have served as national heads of state qualify for inclusion, unless they were only interim or acting head of state. Velásquez was acting President for nearly eight months. The other aspects of his career do not seem to be internationally notable. Being a member of an organisation that is based outside his country is not sufficient - if it were, for example, every Academy Award member who lives outside the US would be eligible. Jim Michael (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The consensus has been that heads of state who fail to meet the minimum WP:RY criteria (9 non-English articles) be included regardless of this unless their term of office is too insignificant. As Velasquez passes the minimum criteria there should be strong grounds to exclude him. I think a term of office of 8 months along with a senior position in an international organisation and the fact that despite the Recentism of many wiki biographies he still managed to have more than 9 non-E articles is sufficient notability for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Islamic State

My edit over the subject issue, declaration of the independence by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, has been reverted. However, it seems that the declaration at this time is notable enough, as Sunni Islam group has not only been taking control over the northern part of Iraq and the eastern part of Syria, but "called on al-Qaida and other related militant Sunni factions operating in the region to immediately pledge their allegiance", as The Independent reported.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it as WP:NOTNEWS. The name change of a rather minor group does not seem notable enough to put on this page. Mind you, they claim they control the area but others say they don't. If they were able to secure borders, I'd totally agree with you. But that is not the case. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Neville McNamara

Sir Neville McNamara should be included on the list as an exception. He was Chief of the Defence Force Staff from 1982-1984, Knighted as a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire by the Queen, appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia by the Australian Government and is second of only four Australian Air Chief Marshal's. Sir Neville brought F/A-18 Hornet's to the Royal Australian Air Force and is a veteran of WW2, Korea & Vietnam. He has a page in Polish and in Simple English. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 04:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent WP:NOTNEWS edits

There are recent edits ([4]) about ISIS and the rocket attacks in Israel. These are not globally enough to warrant inclusions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. ISIS has been declared a threat to world safety by the Americans. Any conflict which uses such destructive weapons is of global importance, in my opinion. Additionally, Israel began an armed offensive on the Gaza strip. – Plarem (User talk) 21:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

I have removed entries about the recent airline crash because, as of now, it are not notable enough to include (and also because of WP:NOTNEWS). WP:RY states that for airline crashes to be notable enough for inclusion, they must result in policy change or result in the death of a major political figure or celebrity. This crash does not meet that standard. However, if we get multiple reliable sources saying this airplane was actually shot down (not just alleged by others, by anonymous sources, or other speculation), then it would certainly be notable enough for inclusion on the list. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, NY Times, NBC, BBC, CNN, Time, NPR all say "crashes" in headline and mentions allegations of being shot down. Only Fox News mentions "shot down" in headline. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually WP:RY states no such thing. Disasters may be included if international relevance can be established. I maintain that disasters of sufficient magnitude should be included in any case (and editors who claim that any consensus to the contrary are misusing the term "consensus"). Include. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pardon, I guess that was WP:NDOY. WP:RY WP:NDOY says "Disasters of a global or near-global significance may be added. The importance of these disasters can be demonstrated through various international news sources. High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion into the article. Likewise, assassinations or other similarly serious crimes can be listed if international relevance is demonstrated. Events such as suicide-murders, kidnappings, school shootings, etc. do not necessarily qualify unless especially significant." Still, WP:NOTNEWS. It's just speculation that that it was shot down. A plane crash itself is not notable enough unless it gets very widespread attention (like the other Malaysia airlines flight). Honestly I think we should add some more clear criteria on what gets included on the RY pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
You stated that "for airline crashes to be notable enough for inclusion, they must result in policy change or result in the death of a major political figure or celebrity". There is no such statement at WP:RY. An airline disaster of this magnitude is extremely rare and therefore historically significant in its own right; it is in fact the greatest death toll in a disaster of this type covered by WP:RY. It is also clearly internationally significant in that it was an international flight which crashed in a third country. Regardless of the cause of the crash this makes it internationally significant. The mere speculation that as to the specific cause increases that international significance whether or not that speculation is correct. No-brainer. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Not my day... that was NDOY not RY. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Include as it has been reported that Aids researchers heading to Melbourne believed among dead, obviously including the scientists from various nationalities. Also, the White House issued the statement blaming Russia that "this incident occurred in the context of a crisis in Ukraine that is fueled by Russian support for the separatists, including through arms, material and training.", thus already involving 3 different continents, Europe, Asia, and Americas.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Include, it is clearly an international event: A Malaysian plane carrying people of many different nationalities travelling from Holland is shot down by pro-Russian terrorists in Ukraine. Apart from that, it has already received coverage from media from all around the world, and reactions from many of the world's governments. – Plarem (User talk) 21:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree; now it is an important event. Yesterday at this time it was not apparent it was. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games

Should the 2014 Commonwealth Games be listed? Pretty major event, 4000 athletes, 71 nations. Starts tomorrow. GedUK  08:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Previous Games don't seem to have cracked a mention. No idea of the reasoning behind that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems to fit the inclusion criteria though, not annual, is international transcontinental. I'd add it now, but it may as well be done tomorrow when it starts and be added to current. GedUK  08:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Its exclusion is based on the Comm Games not being a global event. The reasoning is that only 2 sporting events, the Olympic Games (summer and winter) and the football World Cup are the only 2 sporting events which are sufficiently notable on a global scale i.e. they will make be of greater than just sporting interest across the globe. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't think that's really true though. But if that's the consensus then OK. GedUK  11:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
In terms of media coverage, the Commonwealth Games have hardly been reported by the media from non-Commonwealth nations, unless any world record is made, as none of them is eligible to participate the games, thus vast majority of people in non-Commonwealth nations do not even know such sporting events exist.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a bit arbitrary. The list of events for this year already includes several that got none or close to no media coverage in my country (they certainly had no impact), and an awful distortion of over coverage of events in Ukraine/Crimea/Russia and in the middle east. (And, of course, being a past British colony, the USA is eligible to join the Commonwealth and participate in the Commonwealth Games if they wanted. I'll bet that would make a difference to reporting here!) HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The Commonwealth Games is clearly a large multi-national event that is worth a mention, a quarter of the countries in the world are eligible to attend, the fact the nobody in the USA has heard of it is not a reason not to mention it. A few of the current entries dont have global media coverage or interest, perhaps a FAQ is needed of exactly what is the inclusion criteria is so it can be challenged. MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not think that USA would like to take part in it, as they never consider themselves as a part of Commonwealth ever since its independence. Anyway, if you would like to include the Commonwealth Games in years' articles, someone may ask "if" over something else. For example, there will be 2014 Asian Games, which is also "a large multi-national event" with 13,000 athletes from 45 Asian countries, in which more than 4 billions of people, more than a half of the entire earth, reside, but only covered by the media from the countries which take part in, and hardly known to the rest of the world. And I do not think it makes years' articles better by including either one of those or both, expecting edit wars followed by, based on each editor's "if". Therefore, the current inclusion/exclusion setting over the sporting events should be maintained, thus Commonwealth Games should be excluded---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. 2014 in sports is the appropriate place for sporting events of less than global interest/importance. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Skye McCole Bartusiak

Meets the WP:RY minimum but seems to be too minor an entertainment personality to be one of the most internationally and historically significant deaths of the year (even given the relatively low standard). Exclude DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

10 articles is a pretty high threshold... but honestly don't care one way or the other in this case. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Derby here. Tragic she died so young but her roles were fairly minor. Calidum Talk To Me 14:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Imich

Since Jiroemon Kimura was excluded from 2013 there is no reason for Imich to be listed here. Thoughts? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Taylor Trescott: I'm new to the RY pages but Imich has over 10 pages so see no reason not to include. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as did Kimura. It was determined at Talk:2013 that if the death is notable and not the person, then they are excluded. Imich is mainly known for his age and has little worldwide notability. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It has been agreed that oldest people and last survivors should not be in included in RY articles. Jim Michael (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Technically, Alexander Imich did have over 9 foreign-language Wikipedia articles before death. However, he seems only notable for being long-lived, which suggests that his death should not be listed in a year article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
He is known for more then just living a long life. He was a chemist and parapsychologist. He lived and worked in Poland for most of his life, had a report published in a German journal. he didn't come to the United States until 1951 and did more work in the United States. If he was only notable for living a long life the he shouldn't be added but he has done something with his life and their shouldn't be a reason to exclude him. Redsky89 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The vast majority of his not-English articles weren't written until after his 99th birthday, if he'd been truly notable in his field it is reasonable to expect that they would have been written earlier. This is a strong indication that his notability rests more on his longevity than his work in parapsychology or chemistry. As noted above previous consensus has been that persons noted solely or largely for their longevity do not merit inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion per above. Calidum Talk To Me 14:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Is that really your best argument? his 99th birthday was in 2002. Wikipedia was launched in 2001 I highly doubt that every notable person had their pages made in every language within a year of the sites launch. Redsky89 (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my error, that should be his 109th birthday. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Marilyn Burns

I've removed because although she passes the WP:RY minimum (just) there is no real indication of international notability, her film career was very limited and any notability seems to rest on a s ingle cult film. Almost all the non-English articles are clones of the English one and/or are stubs. None seem to have any local source and most just have IMDB and the same same English obituary. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of the non-English articles are quite short (one paragraph and a filmography list). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Malfunction

Does anyone know how to make this work?

Deaths
January · February · March · April · May · June · July · August

It won't take you to the death section for August; instead it takes you to the Predicted and scheduled events section for August. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two August's above. Try
Deaths
January · February · March · April · May · June · July · August
(This may be more trouble than it's worth.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Brian G. Hutton

He squeaks by the criteria with 10 articles pre-death, but I don't see the worldwide notability of this guy. He didn't have very big acting roles, his career wasn't widely acclaimed, and his non-English articles save for ilwiki and dewiki's are little more than one sentence. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The non-English articles are stubs or clones with no native language input. Notability rests largely on a single film which does not appear sufficient to justify inclusion here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done - not internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Catalan self-determination referendum

I don't think it meets WP:RY, as:

National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election). Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources.

If it wins, it might be sufficiently significant, but failed "self-determination" elections have as much lasting significance as the 3 or 5 times Puerto Rico has requested redetermination of its status — that is to say, none at all, as they never preferred a status other than their present status as a colony (ahem, "Commonwealth") of the US. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. IF the referendum goes for self-determination then this issue can be revisited. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Scottish Independence Vote

The Scottish vote is globally notable regardless of the outcome. It has been covered in the national news in Japan, South Africa, Australia, Canada, Britain, and Brazil. That far surpasses the three-continent rule. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Calidum Talk To Me 05:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. As above for the Catalan referendum. As there is no change this is merely local politics. WP:RY states: "The event must have a demonstrated, international significance". No change=no significance, it is merely news which is insufficient for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
This one actually seems a little more likely than Catalan, but no change=no significance. There apparently are plans to devolve more authority to local parliaments and councils, but I cannot find reliable sources attributing them to this referendum. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The vote belongs in 2014 in the United Kingdom. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
How can something covered on every inhabited continent now be of global importance? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
No other country was affected in any way by the NO vote. Just because something makes the news does not (necessarily) make it historically notable as required for Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Don Keefer

There are a lot of interwikis pre-dating his death, but almost all are one-sentence blurbs mass-created by User:TDKR Chicago 101 on small Wikipedias. For this reason, I removed his addition to the Deaths section and I propose to keep it this way. — Yerpo Eh? 08:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Totally justified. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 13:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebola

Based on the amount of media attention, I would have thought the Ebola outbreak is a notable topic for 2014? Terry Macro (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you asking us what would you think? If you wanted instead to say that you think the Ebola outbreak is a notable topic, then you're of course right, which is why the outbreak has been listed on the page since April, at least. — Yerpo Eh? 13:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it's listed as "February-ongoing" which isn't clear enough. There should be an additional entry(s) somewhere later in the year. So I agree with Terry Macro. A mention of the first Ebola case in the US (12th October) might help. There are currently *no* entries for anything in October, so why not? This is clearly a notable event with global importance and attention.Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The first death in the US is important for 2014 in the United States not this article. Ebola has affected many countries on multiple continents. The point at which it became internationally significant was February which is why it is listed there and that is sufficient at this time. There is no need to emphasise any individual cases.After the year has ended the extent and impact can be ascertained and included in the lead section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerbyCountyinNZ (talk • contribs) 08:54, 16 October 2014‎
Agree with Derby. Although I think it would make more sense to move the entry under March when it was recognized as an epidemic by the WHO (25 March to be precise, see [5]). Can't find any mention of February in reliable sources. — Yerpo Eh? 07:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Box for 'Death' months

The box doesn't direct to October. Anyone know how to fix it? GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed now. Unfortunately it won't work properly for February as the second section it links to is Births not Deaths. No apparent way around this until all months are filled for Births! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Removed Births → February subheader. Consensus seems to be that no unsystematic month listings should be present. There is a way to adjust the {{BD ToC}} template to handle that, but it seems unnecessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Current guidelines suggest that the Births months will never be filled. Guidelines can change, but there is no reason to think that removing the links will be unstable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa

2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.190.29 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A local event, belongs to 2014 in Canada in my opinion. — Yerpo Eh? 06:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Just my opinion, but I feel you're going about the entry filtering the wrong way. I believe it will be better to let the year run its course and then do the filtering next year. Some events tend to escalate and have further consequences over time and by doing the filtering as things occur, events that turn out to be deserving of mention may get omitted. Terrorism, no matter where it occurs, is always of international concern. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. It's better to discuss immediately and apply the filter according to known facts, people will be more offended if they've spent a lot of time polishing an entry just to have it duly thrown out six months later. On the other hand, many users keep re-adding removed events or proposing re-inclusion on the talk page for quite some time after they occurred, so if there's suddenly an escalation, it will surely be noticed sooner or later. Terrorism by itself is of international concern for sure, but that doesn't necessarily extend to every individual act that's labelled as such. — Yerpo Eh? 12:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The shootings are considered as terrorist attacks as the way of the Boston Marathon bombing last year. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Sadly these shootings have been used by our Australian government to increase security in Canberra, and toughen anti-terror laws. This has led to an improvement in public approval of the government. (Beats me too.) The Ottawa event SHOULD have only local impact, but opportunistic pollies elsewhere are spreading its impact. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Any reference for the anti-terror laws? Temporary increase of security measures in a few places isn't really that significant. — Yerpo Eh? 13:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Simply making the point that the impact was wider than just in Canada. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and if you provide any reference for an actual change of national legislation on the other side of the world (as you claim), I will agree with you. — Yerpo Eh? 07:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Deaths

I understand that only people who are "internationally" known are listed although the determination of who is notable is a bit vague (a few listed are still only locally notable), would it be easier to ditch the death section and just rely on the link to Deaths in 2014 ? MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The basis of determination is objective and precise (number of interwiki links at the time of death), but can be overruled by consensus which sometimes happens in borderline cases. The system isn't perfect, but it works reasonably well and the deaths section is, at least in my opinion, a "natural" part of a list of events in a given year. Furthermore, "Deaths in XXXX" redirects to Lists of deaths by year which is less useful if the reader wants an overview (which he/she obviously does if visiting a page such as 2014). — Yerpo Eh? 10:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
OK but I am not sure that the number of interwiki links is a sign of notability but I can see it being used as a rough filter. A few entries dont look that notable, Howard Baker an American diplomat and Thomas Menino a local American mayor are the two examples that stand out. MilborneOne (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly the reason why Menino is being discussed above. Sometimes, the state of other-language articles will indicate that the person isn't really as notable as it looks from the simple number of interwikis. Baker, on the other hand, is notable for his involvement in the Watergate scandal which is one of the most widely recognized events in modern US history. He's not much above the threshold, but many of those articles are quite sizeable, which means that people from very different cultures considered him important enough to merit a decent biography. But feel free to start a discussion about him, too, if you're not convinced. — Yerpo Eh? 20:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks for the explantion Yerpo. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Howard Baker - Death entry

Appears his entry is based on being notable as he was involved in "one of the most widely recognized events in modern US history" but this is not Usapedia. He appears to have been a member of a committee but to the rest of the world he appears if at all as just another foreign politician. Perhaps we should consider removing the entry, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree on removal, for the same reasons as Menino above. I couldn't find any non-English citation in any of the non-English wikis I looked at. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree he was a diplomat, diplomats deal with international relations, he was also a Cabinet minister being the White House Chief of Staff, and he also ran for president in 1980, he dropped out eventually but he still ran. Redsky89 (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • He was a significant figure in American politics including serving as a Senate Majority Leader and Chief of Staff to the most powerful man in the world.

Marion Barry

How many other mayors have ever made it to a Year article? HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson unrest

I think a city burning down is pretty important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plzwork1122 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no international repercussions from this event, as required for inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, no importance whatsoever outside USA, so it belongs to 2014 in the United States. Plus, "a city burning down" is a gross exaggeration. Inclusion will make sense if and when the riots spread and start influencing international affairs. — Yerpo Eh? 10:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Royal births in Sweden & Monaco

The birth of a Swedish princess who's fifth in-line to a throne, is more notable then the birth of a Monaco prince & princess who are first & second in-line to a throne? GoodDay (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The minimum criteria for inclusion is 9 non-English wiki articles. The Monaco twins did not meet that minimum at the time of my second revert. Now they meet that minimum so I have added them back in. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Quantify "notable enough"

An event can be notable or not notable, but I fail to see how it can be semi-notable. Regarding the reversion of the entry on the crowning of Miss World 2014 by User:Wjfox2005 on the grounds of it being "not notable enough", in spite of the facts that contestants from world-wide officially represented their respective countries and that the top five finalists were from four continents and one significant island, could someone please quantify or define "notable enough"? -- André Kritzinger (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:RY states that

Events which usually do not merit inclusion:

  1. Annual championships such as the World Series, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, or NBA Championship
  2. Annual world or continental championships in any sport, such as European or African football tournaments
  3. Any other annual contest, such as Eurovision Song Contest or American Idol
  4. World records (unless especially notable, something akin to Roger Bannister breaking the four-minute mile)

Any event not covered above must gain a consensus for inclusion on the talk page before being added and may be better placed in the year's sports article.

As the Miss World contest falls under this category it does not qualify for inclusion in any year covered by WP:RY (namely 2001 ff.) DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Miss World contest does not fit into this category.
1. All these annual championships mentioned are local North American events with local North American participants.
2. Both tournaments mentioned are local continental events.
3. Both annual contents mentioned are local continental events.
4. The Miss World contest is not about world records and it is also not a sporting event.

WP:RY states in the opening paragraph that "This is the central guideline for recent year articles." The defining word here is "guideline".

Further it states that "The event must have a demonstrated, international significance." And according to the Three-continent rule: "New events added must receive independent news reporting from three continents on the event. This is a minimum requirement for inclusion." With 122 countries participating, the Miss World contest qualifies.

Objectivity does not seem to feature in the application of WP:RY and is, in fact, not even addressed by it. The treatment of guidelines by some editors as if they are rules cast in stone is, in my opinion, often highly subjective.

"Notable enough" is not yet quantified or defined, and is about as logical a concept as "somewhat pregnant". -- André Kritzinger (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be harsh, but... who cares about this stupid Miss World contest? It's a meaningless competition, hardly a major/historical event and will be forgotten about soon. Other news and events carry far more relevance. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
More people care about this stupid Miss World contest than you may think, actually, to make it worthwhile for worldwide live television coverage, front page headlines in newspapers in participating countries around the globe, audiences with statesmen around the globe for the winner during her term of service, and more. Agreed, it's not an earth-shattering event, but it is notable. And Wikipedia caters for users from all walks of life, or so I understand.
The fact that you describe the subject as "this stupid Miss World contest" serve well to prove my point about the lack of objectivity about the application of WP:RY by yourself and several other Guardians of the Years. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a better term than "internationally notable" is "internationally important". In practice, all annual competitions included are the most famous sporting events in the world, such as the Olympic Games, FIFA World Cups and such. If nothing else, they are important for the sheer amount of money that's funneled their way. Miss World cannot compare. In my opinion, professional sport is largely meaningless, but professional "beauty" contests are even more so. Guidelines simply represent consensus and there is no point in ignoring it if there is not a good reason - which there isn't in this case. — Yerpo Eh? 13:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

2014 Peshawar school attack

This domestic event has been repeatedly added by the same editor with the claim that it's an exception to the inclusion criteria because it's received international attention. However, many domestic events receive international media coverage - it doesn't make them internationally notable. Terror attacks are common in NW Pakistan, which isn't surprising as there's a war going on there. Death toll does not make a domestic event eligible for inclusion here. It's rightful place is on 2014 in Pakistan, where it already is. We went through a similar dispute two years ago with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, whose place it was decided is 2012 in the United States, not 2012. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Death toll does not make a domestic event eligible for inclusion here." This has NEVER been part of the WP:RY. AFAIK the only user who has ever insisted on this is you (but happy to be shown wrong if you can point me to a discussion where such a consensus was reached). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The Peshawar school attack was not carried out by a school kid misfit, but by the Taliban, an international terrorist organisation that is active in multiple countries. A comparison of this atrocity with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is comparing apples to potatoes. All acts of terrorism have international consequences and should therefore be included. You may disagree with this view on terrorism, but then please explain why, for example, the USA is taking action against ISIS. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It was carried out by Tehrik-i-Taliban, a Pakistani terror group allied to the Taliban, which is why its place is 2014 in Pakistan, not here. Islamic State are international, but even then, we don't list every attack they've carried out this year in this article. We have articles such as Timeline of events related to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for that purpose. Recent Year criteria states that death toll does not make an event eligible. The Disasters, assassinations and other crimes section states that. It is only Derby who claims that a high death toll automatically makes an event eligible. Saying that this is eligible because all acts of terrorism have international consequences is false, because this attack only affects Pakistan. Saying all terror attacks should be included would mean that we would have to add hundreds of terror attacks to every Year article. The Events section is for international events only, not for every event in which many people die. We don't include domestic events and there is no 'except if many people die' get-out clause. Saying that this attack should be included because of the media coverage is not reasonable, as international media coverage does not prove international notability. The 2014 Sydney hostage crisis received a huge amount of mainstream media coverage in many countries (more than this attack did), but that doesn't make it internationally notable - hence it's place is 2014 in Australia, not here. Jim Michael (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. Again. On multiple counts. Firstly, I have never stated that a high death toll automatically merits inclusion, mainly because there has never been consensus as to the definition of "high" and how to apply it/them to different cases. Secondly, WP:RY does not state that "death toll does not make an event eligible" what it actually states is that "High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion". Note that the word "necessarily" is included. I would think that, as I have pointed out numerous times previously, this indicates that a high death toll may in fact indicate that inclusion is merited. Thirdly, as I did not write of this it must be concluded that numerous other editors share this viewpoint. That there have been numerous discussions in the past 6 years about whether a death toll for an event has been high enough, or not, to merit inclusion, clearly indictes that many other editors also share this viewpoint. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You're saying that domestic events, including this one, and various others, should be included purely because of their death toll, despite you knowing that that doesn't necessarily make them eligible - why do you claim it does necessarily make them eligible? There has never been a rule that any type of event should be included because of a high death toll. No discussion has ever reached a consensus that a high death toll makes any type of event automatically notable and your attempts to make such a rule have failed. You keep to all of the other policies and guidelines on here, yet you repeatedly falsely claim that there is an exception to the exclusion of domestic events when there is a high death toll. This is a domestic event that is nothing to do with the rest of the world. You haven't tried to reply to any of the other points I raised. If we included every event with a high death toll, then every year article would be dominated by them. Lists of disasters and its sub-lists exist for the purpose of documenting them; the events sections of Year articles are for internationally notable events only. A high death toll is your only 'justification' for including this, and various other attacks, fires, floods, earthquakes etc, despite the fact that you know that a high death toll does not make such an event automatically notable. If far fewer people had been killed in this attack, neither you nor anyone else would be arguing for its inclusion. That shows that the only reason you or anyone else wants it included - 'many people died, so forget the rules and include it'. The 'lots of media coverage' argument would include many events, including the Sydney siege and saying that an event is the worst of its kind in its country makes it nationally notable, not internationally notable - that's why this event is on 2014 in Pakistan. Well over twice as many people were killed in the Beslan school hostage crisis, so this is not close to being the most deadly or most notable school attack. Therefore you can't argue for notability on that ground. I know that you think that any event above a particular number of deaths should always be included, but, as you know, no such rule has ever existed. Jim Michael (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You still don't get it! What I have argued, more than once, is that some events are of a sufficiently high death toll to be historically notable and that what that the level at which the toll becomes significant depends on the type of event. If a terrorist attack killed 3000 people it would be notable even if it was entirely domestic, but a (purely domestic) tropical cyclone would not. As for the other arguments, the media coverage is only a minimum and a lack of coverage is a reason to exclude while a profundity of coverage is insufficient on its own for inclusion. As for the event under discussion here, I have not made any edit anywhere in favour of its inclusion. If there were a consensus that any such attack which killed 100+ people should be included then it would be in, at 200+ it would not. Personally I prefer a "top 10% in the last 10 years" for all disasters, which in this case would mean exclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I know you've argued that, but policy/guidelines do not back your assertion. There's no minimum death toll that makes domestic events eligible. It's bizarre that you're arguing against me in this section when you now say you want it excluded. Therefore there is not a consensus to include this domestic event; hence I'm removing it again. Jim Michael (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014/Archive_1&oldid=1140153357"