Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

It appears that many(including myself), are having difficulty choosing which natural disasters can have a place in a yearly article. True, some natural disaster may not have a direct or an immediate effect on the world, however I think it is fair to consider their scale. I am aware of the world relevance standard, but honestly I think one should look at international notability instead. In Haiti for example, score died in an earthquake, however it did not really affect any other nation or state outside its borders. Of course I believe it needs to be mentioned(and is an extreme example), but it falls into the international notability category. Events that involve death, are especially sensitive, and thus need a little more sensitivity. While the content must remain neutral, it is exceedinglydifficult to remain completely neutral.

In [discussion], was proposed that for natural disasters to qualify for inclusion, 100 or more deaths would have to be involved. These types of disasters are not terribly frequent, and most of the 7 that happened this year were for the record books.

1. Japan Earthquake(300 billion USD)-300000 Homeless, and Costliest in recorded history-International Aid
2. Christchurch Earthquake(13 billion USD)-10000 Homeless Costliest in New Zealand's History, and second deadliest-International Aid
3. April US tornado outbreak(10 billion USD)-14000 Homeless Largest and costliest tornado ever outbreak recorded-Some International Aid
4. China Floods (5 billion USD)-500000 Evacuated, large numbers homeless
5. Joplin MO Tornado (3 billion USD)-10000 Homeless? Costiest Single Tornado
6. Rio de Janeiro flooding(1 Billion USD)-23000 HomelessPerhaps worst weather disaster in Brazil's History
7. Burma earthquake(100 million USD- Several hundred homeless

Thoughts? --Trilobite12 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the criteria is the number of deaths then the cost and the numbers of those made homeless is irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I included those fact was to demonstrate that when natural disaster's death toll reaches 100, there is in many cases a huge impact. But true, it is a deviation from the criteria. Nonetheless, 100 deaths seems to be a good qualifying figure.

If no one is responding may I just add that to the recent years article myself? --Trilobite12 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the inclusion of this until there is sufficient consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus because there is no discussion. If no one wishes to discuss this, then I could assume that everyone is OK with this proposition. --Trilobite12 (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you couldn't, but that approach might finally drag me in here ;-) Although it seems brutish, I think we need to rule a line at a point in the "number of deaths" scale, perhaps at 100. Financial costs should not be criterion. They don't work as a fair comparison for the whole world, and are pretty meaningless to most people when they hit the billion mark. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulties with setting a blanket standard of 100 for all natural disasters are that:

1. Some types of disaster exceed this level numerous times every year.
2. Some types of disaster happen so frequently, even within single countries, that the sheer frequency makes them insufficiently notable.
3. Some types of disaster can exceed 10000. Can similar diasasters of barely over 100 (1% of others) be considered similarly notable?
4. Some man-made disasters (e.g. mass shootings) have never reached 100 deaths. Should another limit be set for these?

My feeling is that different minimums for different types of disaster would be the best way to go (although getting consensus would be even more difficult). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's put the man-made disasters aside for now. By most definitions they don't fit under "natural disasters" and this is hard enough anyway. I'd still recommend having an absolute minimum (open to discussion on the number - 100 is my current preference) and perhaps a list of those "disasters" for which you would like higher minimums. Still pretty ugly, but we need some rules. What would be your exceptions with higher limits? HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My proposition would be having different minimums for different types of disaster. Also, my other proposition would be that the minimum would range from 200-300 deaths. (For different disasters)I would put it in around those numbers because for some disasters, the amount of people dead is very different than for another disaster...(Sorry if I sound a bit brutal, but we have to do it like this or we would have more bitter arguments on the year articles...) – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 20:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

115 or 145 are too random to be useful. Figures of 100, 200, 250 or 500 would be more appropriate. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then if 115-145 are too random, I change my proposal to 200-300 deaths for different types of disaster. – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs) 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose this entire concept. The existing structure is sufficient, adding all these new rules will just make it more confusing. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why, just a few new rules to the guideline to prevent some arguments on the Recent Year talk pages... – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs) 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because i don't believe they will prevent those arguments. See WP:CREEP. The more rules you have, the more they get ignored. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal

• This would avoid creating a byzantine maze of rules just for this one subject area that would probably be ignored anyway. If an item is added, it can be removed with an edit summary note that the entry was either moved to or already exists at the spin-off article. There are enough such disasters in any given year to easily support these new articles, and we don't have to worry about the main article becoming bloated if there happens to be an extraordinarily dangerous year. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something I proposed sometime ago (iirc). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of natural disasters may help users gain some perspective on the relative scale. Of the ten deadliest disasters of the last 100 years, number ten is the 1948 Ashgabat earthquake, which killed an estimated 120,000 people. The deadliest disaster ever recorded, the 1931 China floods killed somewhere between one and two and a half million people. The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami killed between 15,000 and 20,000 people. A disaster and a tragedy to be certain, but when put in a historical perspective the death toll is actually relatively low. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So natural disasters are evaluated the same way as before? If so, I can understand why. However as I have read over the discussions regarding disasters, I found that it is difficult for Wikipedians to remain neutral. Someone will react negatively at the inclusion or exclusion of an event, because one may have an emotional attachment to that event(especially disasters). Moving natural disasters that do not quite meet the criteria to separate page is objectively a fine idea. There is no doubt in mind that many will revile the move, however. Recent Years pages differ from most other Wikipedia articles, in that editors and contributors need to sieve through information, and decide which information is the "most important" Even for topics that are highly controversial, like the [Creation–evolution controversy]], remaining neutral while editing is much easier. Virtually all that is needed is the background, issues, view points, and arguments made by either side (That of course, is highly condensed) And with non controversial is remarkably easier to remain neutral. As for Recent Years, it is far more difficult. Having some more rules would help. My reason for including that list of 2011 disasters, was to demonstrate that using 100 deaths as qualifying criteria, would not cause the article to bloat. Even if in an given year, there are 10 of such disasters(each year nine or ten 100+ deaths disasters occur), they would not dominate the space in the article. If anyone is willing to move the number up to 200, that is fine by me. --Trilobite12 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of deaths is not a good metric to use for determining international impact. The Haitian earthquake last year had no real impact outside of Haiti despite the high death toll. A big part of the reason for the widespread destruction in Haiti was the fact that it was already one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere and had no building codes.Not the case in Japan, which is one of the wealthiest nations on Earth and had been preparing for decades for such a disaster, only to find it was even bigger than they had prepared for.The Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear incident this year has caused other nations such as Germany to reconsider their own nuclear programs, and led people in coastal areas around the world to consider what would happen if tsunami on such a scale were to impact their area.Two horrible disasters that killed thousands of people, but very different on terms of international impact. I don't believe an elaborate set of hard-coded rules will be followed by the type of users that are constantly posting every little thing to the current year article, as it is obvious they are already ignoring the guidelines we already have. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask for less criteria in the WP:RY article, a minimal amount for inclusion on natural disasters/terrorist attacks and important business events to be eligible for inclusion. If the less criteria and minimal amount on natural disasters/terrorist attacks came into effect, this would prevent most arguments on the year articles about earthquake inclusion, terrorist attacks and other inclusions.

As for the less criteria bit, I mean that more items would be eligible for inclusion on the year articles, like the UK Riots and the U.S. Debt ceiling crisis and credit rating downgrade or EU/IMF bailouts...

For the minimal amount for inclusion on natural disasters I mean a standardised number for natural disasters like:

• Earthquake inclusion: 6.5 Richter scale/50,000 deaths/450 million USD(375 million EUR)of damage
• Tornado inclusion: 110 deaths/500 million USD(415 million EUR) of damage
• Terrorist attacks: 55 deaths by single shooter/70 deaths if responsible by one terrorist/120 deaths if organization responsible/100 million USD(65 million EUR) of damage
• Riots: 3 days/400 deaths/200 million USD (140 million EUR) of damage/If one event is responsible for over 1 day of rioting

and others...

Important business effects. If one business event would make markets fall for over 3 days non-stop OR in fear of an event make markets fall for over a day, then I think that should be added.

This 'central guideline' for all the Recent Year articles was written by a relatively small amount of users (42). This amount, according to me must be around 100 and have editors from different areas. By having 42 editors on this Recent Years project, some editors may not agree with these guidelines and to overrule that there has to be a consensus which leads to bitter arguments...

Please add, at least some of my ideas to this guideline.

– Plarem (User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 19:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame you chose to start a new section rather than reading and participating in the discussion already underway immediately above. Some of us have already put some serious thought into this matter in that section, and I for one don't really feel like repeating myself. Please read all the points above, and try responding to what others think. HiLo48 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there is a fear that too many rules and restrictions will be applied to recent years. Like I said above, moving some natural disasters to a separate article is good idea, however there is too much bias and emotional attachments to natural disasters. It is difficult for many to attain to Wikipedia's neutral policy. The content of a generic year page involves sifting through events, and choosing which ones in particular are the "most important" or are "most relevant." It is sometimes risky business choosing which ones are indeed the most significant, as arguments can be made for any large scale event. Neutrality is extremely difficult in this case. If a generic year page did not exist, and only pages such as "(year) in politics", "(year) in natural disasters" were available, internet altercations could be avoided. Debates can be valuable, but regarding year articles, they are too excessive and unproductive.

Obviously deleting every generic year page is unrealistic, so in order to limit debate or disagreements, I think that it is appropriate to set at least a few sensitive guidelines, at least for natural disasters. Plarem, using specific number of deaths for specific types of disasters could help, but may be a bit too closed ended. I will reaffirm that using between 100-300 deaths for all disasters could be useful, and not as random. In many cases, the level of impact is usually(not always) intrinsic to number of casualties in any given disaster. Using 200+ deaths as qualifying criteria, will yield surprising few disasters per year. --Trilobite12 (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that I have would not apply to every single topic in Recent Years, and really is not incredibly as taut as you suggest. It is most practical to use the a specific guideline in this case because the recent articles are unlike most other Wikipedia articles

For example: An article on the prehistoric creature RWQ, for example, involves integrating what the mainstream scientific community believes to be correct about RWQ. Obviously there is plenty of disagreement amongst paleontologists regarding its behavior, and their exact physiological characteristics. For an article to remain neutral, it must incorporate the conflict amongst scientist, while still affirming that mainstream researchers believe x is true. That is the key however, the researchers say that x is true, not the article. The articles does not aver that x is an absolute, simply because there is disagreement. If say, only one credible scientist thinks that x is false, whereas the rest have found common ground, that one scientist's view must still be represented within the article. If say the general public disagrees with x, then their views also should also be included. While general direction of the article on RWQ, should be derived from what the majority paleontologists think(because they have the benefit of evidence), disagreement is still incorporated. Wikipedia is not absolute

What I getting at here, is that Wikipedia does not argue(unless speaking for its own rules and codes of conduct), it represents. In the context of the year articles, it only represents how a relatively small group think about a certain event. in If an event is included withing a recent year article, then it gives that impression that its title to "relevance to world", is absolute and there is no room for debate. This is unlike most articles, where editors can use mainstream thought and scientific consensus. While these individuals(I hope), have the intentions of being objective, it is incredibly difficult to pinpoint what effects some events may have on the rest of the world. The inclusion of an event is executed as an absolute measure, however under the a criteria that is loose ended(world relevance).

It is particularly difficult to assign natural disasters the title "world relevant", because there are much too many elements to consider. There is no field of research that studies which disasters are the most significant, because significance in this case is much too subjective. Now granted, there are some disasters that are clearly indisputably world relevant(Tohoku eartquake), but for others, significance is much less clear. It is has been made clear through past discussions, that too many people are attached to certain major events/disasters, and can nearly always find reason for them to be included.

Factoring in all of this, there is reason to have at least some parameters for natural disasters. This is not to restrict certain information, rather the opposite. The vast majority of the time, proposals for natural disasters are shot down. Also we cannot trust that folks remain completely neutral in discussion. At least for natural disasters there should be some solid figure for inclusion.

(If we are truly to be objective, then would it be just to remove the the Haitian earthquake from the 2010 article? I mean, it has no world impact after all, so why should it be there?) --Trilobite12 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline is not complying with a subsidary of (all hail) the Manual of Style, (all hail) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.

From WP:RY:

==Events==
===January===

• January 1 – Past event.
• January 1 – Same as above (S/A). (Wikilink all dates that begin an event/birth/death entry, even where those dates repeat. Wikilink the central names or concepts in descriptions of events, assuming those names or concepts have articles on Wikipedia. If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article but is deemed sufficient for inclusion, it must be externally sourced in the year article, especially if it refers to living people.)
• January 2 – S/A
• etc.

===February===
===etc.===
==Predicted and scheduled events==
===March===

• March 1 – Future event. (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and should not be making predictions of its own about the future. It should not make statistical extrapolations of unclear or unverifiable significance. The purpose of this section is to indicate the contents of current schedules or predictions of events that reliable, external sources have deemed potentially important.)
• March 2 – S/A
• etc.

===April===
===etc.===
==Births==
===January===

• January 1 – [[Name]], Nationality and very brief description (Do not Wikilink anything other than the date of birth and name. External sources are presumed to exist in the subject's own article, but may be duplicated in the year article to ensure that the latter article passes WP:BLP.)
  
• January 2 – S/A
• etc.

===February===
===etc.===
==Deaths==
===January===

• January 1 – [[Name]], Nationality and very brief description, (born [[YOB]]) (Do not Wikilink anything other than the date of death, name, and year of birth. External sources are presumed to exist in the subject's own article, and their duplication on the year article is not strictly required.)
  
• January 2 – S/A
• etc.

I have boldfaced what is not complying with.

From WP:OVERLINK:

What generally should not be linked

An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value.^ref Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article,

• Avoid linking plain English words.
• Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions.
• Avoid linking units of measurement that aren't obscure. If a metric and a non-metric unit are provided, as in 18 °C (64 °F), there is no need to link either unit because almost all readers will understand at least one of the units.
• Avoid linking dates (see below).
• As a rule of thumb (see below), link on first reference only.
• Do not link to a page that redirects to the page the link is on.

I have boldfaced what is not complying with.

I'd like to see this changed to follow with the (all hail) Manual of Style. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 21:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Consubstantial" is generally defined as "of the same substance." Are you sure that is what you mean to say? In any event RY articles appear to be ignoring that rule. I generally agree with OVERLINK but in this case I don't see the harm in exempting these few articles from it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I mean not complying with in the evening and it just did not come to me...– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, I forgot about WP:IAR and that the date articles are historical... I am sorry for any inconvenience caused... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an error when the WP:LINKING was changed to report that dates were to be unlinked. The RfC specifically exempted "timeline articles" "inherently chronological articles". That includes year, day-of-year, and possibly year-in-topic articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute has arisen here regarding that application on these guidelines, specifically the guidelines regarding date linkage, to "sub-articles" that commence with the relevant year (such as, in the case in question, 2011 in the United States). It is claimed that as 2011 is the "parent article" of the article in question such article is also covered by these guidelines. I consider that if the date linkage guidelines, or any other part of these guidelines, were intended to apply to such articles, these guidelines would state so, which they do not. Accordingly, the general guidelines opposing such linkage (per MOS:UNLINKDATES and WP:UNLINKDATES) apply to the articles in question. In fact, most of the pages in the "Year in country" series do not link dates, and to apply date linkage to these pages (not to mention the numerous other topics listed in the topics box of each year), would, in my opinion, lead to thousands of articles containing a plethora of unnecessary links. Davshul (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase in your statement above is "... in my opinion ...". Your activites over the last week to damage many year in country sub-articles by de-linking their dates within them only goes to show how short-sighted you are. Here is the example ... on March 6, 1933, the world article 1933 lists the death of Anton Cermak, a Chicago, Illinois mayor who was assisinated --- further, there is an article March 6 which also shows his death. According to the current criteria for notability (Wikipedia Recent years), neither would be included if they occured in 2011 --- neither in 2011 or in March 6. And yet, 1933 in the United States contains no death information at all --- further, there is no wiki page for March 6 in the United States. Some day a bot will create all this information as wiki pages, like this bot should today if it existed, and create what you blindly believe is i quote "lead to thousands of articles containing a plethora of unnecessary links" --- I state catagorically that you have no idea what an encyclopedia is. All you are doing is removing content that ultimaletly will exist. Some day the article 1933 in the United States will show all the deaths that occured then (as today it shows none) --- further, someday there will be an article titled March 6 in the United States (or even June 13 in Canada) both articles will be filled with the appropriate information of hundreds of births, deaths, and events from various years on those dates. You are a destroyer of content --- heaven help you for your book burning activites, since this is actually all you are really doing--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i see the same fight against your vandalism is going on by the major editor over at 2011 in Canada --- clearly niether of us who are the major editors of these articles believe that your activities of de-linking dates is anything but vandalism--70.162.171.210 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i have been informed that the word "vandal" is too harsh --- i will withdraw it but not anything else said.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism, but it is clearly against the guidelines to remove the links. Date links are allowed in timeline articles, and are encouraged, specifically, in "year in country" articles. It's not in WP:LINKING, where it should be, but it was in the RfC which established the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm for keeping the links, personally Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Years and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Please provide a neutral pointer at other relevant country WikiProjects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at similar articles with a different year (e.g. 2010 in Canada, 2009 in the United States), and all their dates are unlinked. There weren't discussions about linking/unlinking the dates on their talk pages either. Personally, I would stand by my original decision and unlink the dates, or the whole lot of links would be a nightmare to navigate comfortably, though I would still classify the linking as good faith rather than vandalism. And 70.162.171.210, I know you are passionate about your viewpoint, but accusing other editor of "book-burning" and "vandalism" doesn't help the discussion one bit. It only antagonises fellow editors instead of making actual productive work. See Wikipedia:NOT VANDALISM and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Shuipzv3 (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Please check the logs. 2010 in Canada and 2009 in the United States were partially unlinked last week, although I'm not sure they were fully linked before. 2011 in the United States and 2011 in Canada were unlinked last week. See fait accompli. It should be pointed out, as well, that 1980 (or possibly 1990) and earlier were unlinked by an unauthorized bot before anyone complained; I'm not sure the links have been restored. Nonetheless, there is no credible assertion in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines that the "month-and-day" headings should be unlinked in year articles; the only real reason that they haven't been restored is that it's a difficult bot to write. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can some one edit it to what years are recent? Some people might get confused. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem which has never been resolved. My feeling is that any year which has been edited "live" should be considered a Recent Year. This would mean 2002 onwards. Wiki started late 2001 but there's probably not enough to count it under that criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fundamental to the navigation of recent years pages if we had an amalgamation of all the templates at the top (excluding WikiProject, in the media, etc. templates). My proposed template looks like this: Template:RY

My template encompasses some of the problems that the recent years pages have experienced -- such as, many editors requesting/adding events that occur on the "In The News" section on the main page. As well as, not quite knowing the inclusion criteria for RY, so, this new template should allow editors to familiarize themselves with the processes and criteria for RY. And of course, like the rest of the templates, this should be placed at the very top of talk page for higher visibility. Whenaxis about | talk 23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ideal to me! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just put the template live. I'll be going around starting to tag the articles. So, if you want you can use the {{RY}} template when necessary. Whenaxis about | talk 00:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, for the discussion above this section. I would even think that recent years would be in a smaller group of pages being the current year, the previous year and the year forthcoming. Because typically, massive editing on RY pages cease about a year after the year has passed and begin about a year in advance. Just a side thought. Whenaxis about | talk 01:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked back as far as 2007 and the only year that didn't seem active was 2009. 2007 is actually full of non-notable material which clearly fails the Recent Year guideline so I'd go back to at least 2003 and also include 2013 (but right now I should get back to work...). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be happy to know, I tagged from 1988 through to 2013. I will continue when I have some free time. Whenaxis about | talk 01:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe to make RY articles more complete instead of just listing events, we can have a summary of major events in the introductory section of the article.

2011 saw a pivotal change to the World's government through the Arab Spring, as well, 2011 saw continued unmitigated environmental catastrophes such as the 9.1 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan. The continuing war on terrorism hit a turning point when it was announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed and the United States announced an end to the Iraq War. Socio-economic changes also occurred when the Occupy movement began with the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Whenaxis about | talk 23:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, year articles should have a lede summarising the historically important events. Of course, the relative importance of events may change, some that seemed important at the time my turn out to be minor, and vica versa, after a few years. And POV and weasel words should be avoided. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions to make the above lead better? Because I look back at it and it reads like a news story. Whenaxis about | talk 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a drive-by comment as I'm here for a different reason, but yes, that box above reads pretty badly to me. "pivotal change in...government"? - not hardly, very little has actually changed; "war on terrorism"? - how US-centric can you get, that "war" is a USGov declaration and the Iraq campaign had absolutely zero to do with terrorism (or WMDs); and the "Occupy movement" worked great until it got cold outside. Sorry to be so negative, but it really does seem to be OR and SYNTHy to select these items for highlighting. Even the earthquake wasn't all that big moment-magnitude-wise, though it did happen to take out a nuclear plant within months of its planned shutdown date. Franamax (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As always, it's hard to please everybody. I was just using the above as an example, that if adjusted a little bit would make a good lead for 2011. I agree, that what I said was not my best, however, I'm Canadian and we're just so tainted by US-driven notions and statements that it's hard to decipher what is acceptable. In addition, as usual the media blows things up and makes it seem like it's worth the run for it, but really it isn't. Thanks for your thoughts, Whenaxis about | talk 21:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Canadian eh? I thought we all agreed we were going to keep that quiet until we can take over completely. :) Yes, "hard to please everybody" is the crux here, especially for recent events it's hard to sort out exactly what is truly significant. Perhaps a mash-up of various different "Year in review" articles from major media would work (my favourites as authoritative are The Economist and Nature, though even they have their slants). Or maybe a cutoff of affected XX million people, which would include the Japan quake and nuclear disaster, and the European financial crisis - but then again, would also include the release of the latest iPod. I dunno... Franamax (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As recent year articles go, there's enough argument about inclusion of events... and now it'll be even more tedious by thinking of a lead - with everyone's input flying around. *sighs* Whenaxis about | talk 22:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just above, I see a statement that RY starts at 2002 or so. Has anything changed since then, such that 2nd millennium BC is now considered a recent year? [1] Franamax (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tags for years earlier than 1990. We would have to check previous discussions here, WT:RY, and WT:YEARS to be sure where it should be; I'm sure consensus has moved it back to 2000, almost sure about 1995, and 1990 could possibly be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been involved in previous discussions, but I would somewhat object to anything before 2002 (per #Recent years just above), mostly because of the three-continent rule (due to more limited web-availability of sources before that date) and also because I've not myself seen a huge problem needing to be solved with the older year pages (or at least the ones on my watchlist). Obviously that's just my own opinion. Franamax (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go revert any remaining of my edits up to 2002, as per my talk page. Sorry for the inconvenience, Whenaxis about | talk 21:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverted once in the past for an edit similar to one I made today (today I modified the description of Wisława Szymborska, in her 2012 death entry, from "Polish Nobel poet" to "Polish poet and Nobel Prize laureate"), so I'm curious as to whether there might be a preferable phrasing for Nobel Prize winners' entries. Options (using Szymborska as an example) include "Polish Nobel poet" (this one, which I changed, sounds kind of sparse to me--comparable to something like "Oscar actor" or "Grammy singer"); "Polish Nobel Prize-winning poet" (sounds better, but in some cases could be ambiguous or misleading, e.g., a "Nobel Prize-winning author" who received the prize for peace rather than, as one might suspect, for literature/as an author), "Polish poet and Nobel laureate" (sounds comfortable to my ears but still uses "Nobel" as shorthand for "Nobel Prize"), or "Polish poet and Nobel Prize laureate" (my personal favourite so far, although maybe "Prize" should be left implicit, not unlike the omitted "award" in "Grammy winner" or the absent "statuete" in "Oscar winner").Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this a while ago, but there was no response. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support following the standardized pattern "nationality profession [optional extra factor contributing to notability]", in this case "Polish poet and Nobel Prize laureate". Neologisms like "Nobel poet" should not be encouraged. Favonian (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

prior example from the archive should be Danish Nobel physicist in chemistry if and only if Nobel is in a different specialty otherwise just Polish Nobel poet which implies (Nobel in literature)--68.231.15.56 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that much of the non-notable material previously deleted from this article, and prompting the creation of this project, has been added back in. Is anyone else interested in tidying it up, again? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of future entries of the form

• Assuming no further changes to United States copyright law, all works by Famous Person will enter the public domain.

I don't think they should be there, for at least three reasons.

1. "Assuming no further changes to or changes in interpretation of United States copyright law" is speculation, especially considering the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
2. It's US-centric; doesn't mention British copyright.
3. It's not particularly notable. A copyright will eventually expire.

Any more comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all points. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed most. Still all fail point 2 above, perhaps whould be moved to yyyy in the United States. Items not removed are:

1. Mickey Mouse, as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act is separately significant. Relevant because it's speculative under point 1 above, because the previous copyright was about to expire. Does meet point 3 because it's one of the first new expirations under the Act.
2. the Beatles, for no apparent reason. They're the Beatles. I wouldn't object if it were removed.
3. claims of the form all works of a certain type (e.g., sound recordings) made or published over a wide time interval, which have the same copyright expiration date. (only 2 or 3 examples). Still fails point 1 and 2 above, but now meets point 3. I wouldn't seriously object if they were removed, but I might object if they were removed without further discussion.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, the inclusion criteria for deaths is the same as for births — ten non-English Wikipedia articles. The inclusion criteria that's actually enforced at 2012 (and presumably other year articles) is slighty stricter — ten non-English Wikipedia articles at the time of death. I'm assuming there's a general consensus for this, and it strikes me as a sensible requirement, but it should really be made explicit on this page. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous discussion on this which did not reach consensus to apply this. That a number of users are now applying this as a criteria would seem to indicate that this would now reach such a consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please link the previous discussion with no consensus? Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 1#Proposed amendment to Deaths criteria DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that I bring the following comment and proposal here.

Each entry for the decades of the 20th century has an entry like the following: "The 1910s was a decade that began on January 1, 1910 and ended on December 31, 1919. It was the second decade of the 20th century."

However, the linked page, "20th century", indicates that this century started 1/1/1901. The page for the 1900s deals with this matter: "The period from 1900 to 1999, almost synonymous with the 20th century (1901–2000)".

Is the following amendment, to the second sentence acceptable, along with the equivalent for the other decades? "The second decade of the 20th century, however, started in 1911." Though perhaps a better alternative to this difficult issue would be simply to delete the confusing sentence. I have seen reference to a past consensus on this matter, but there is no citable evidence to support the opinion that the decades of the 1900s are the same as the decades of the 20th century. It is possible that the confusion here arose because some believe that the 20th century began 1/1/1900, I don't know? Rwood128 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion seems to be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 9#Last decade of century in 2010. Consensus there seemed to be that the "last decade of the nnth century" shouldn't be there. Perhaps we should go with that approach. There had been a previous discussion that the "facts" that the 1900s is the first decade of the 20th century, and the 1990s is the last (full) decade of the 20th century should be included, but the 2010 consensus seems otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of amendment is not needed. Yes, you could in principle begin a decade from any year, say, 1965 or 1911. But since decades are not customarily counted that way, it would be pointless to highlight a decade starting in, say, 1911. --Jmk (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It therefore appears that the consensus in fact agreed that the sentences like "It was the second decade of the 20th century" should be deleted, but that this wasn't done. I will wait a week or so before acting. Thanks for sorting things out. Rwood128 (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent years pages are vacant of information that made these pages helpful. At some point these pages were purged of information making them almost unusable. Furthermore, it seems like few people are declaring ownership as to what qualifies as notable and removing entries as if they were vandalism. They make no attempt to try to mitigate the removal into a discussion on the respective talk page.

For instance the Syrian conflict/civil war isn't even mentioned once in 2012 and I think significant incidents in it more than deserve an entry. For instance the incident where Syria shot down a Turkish recon jet which changed the diplomatic relations between Turkey and Syria. There were several other incidents as well.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This project was created because large quantities of trivia were being added to Recent Year pages making them far exceed the preferred maximum size for an article and despite the fact that there are appropriate sub-articles where such material can be included. The objective guidelines included here were created to prevent, or at least reduce the number of, endless subjective discussions of what is historically and internationally notable for inclusion. Much material is clearly not worthy of inclusion (but editors keep adding it anyway) while some is debatable and may be included or excluded depending on consensus (whether it is actually worthy or not).

As for the Syrian crisis it will obviously need to be mentioned in some way. But it started in 2011 and is mentioned there (though it needs rewriting) and there are too many incidients to list individually at this time. Unless it is resolved during 2012 it is probably best to leave it till the year is over. It is probably most appropriate to include it in the lede and/or under Ongoing Events. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately in my view the current product isn't superior to the previous. These pages can be deleted for being useless in their current state. In the past I was able to find significant events in a year just by using these pages. I am uninterested to find useless trivia (such as CD releases and etc), that much I can agree but many important incidents are currently being quickly dismissed. Prolonged conflicts aren't even mentioned. For instance downing of a Turkish jet by Syria is both historically and internationally notable. There have been other incidents in the Syrian conflict that had international significance.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed a few—questionable—holidays in 2012 and 2013. I'm not sure Thanksgiving Day (US and Canada, separately) meets our criteria, and I'm not sure Pioneer Day (LDS) is notable in that religion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how either qualifies as a religious holiday.DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving is arguably the second most important US holiday. Millions of people spend hundreds of dollars travelling 1000+ kilometers each year just to be with their families for it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes it appropriate for Year in the United States articles, not parent Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of the level of the holiday's significance in Canada, but would that make it okay? Since it happens a month earlier in Canada due to cold, would it make it okay if in addition to the US, it was celebrated by a tiny, several square mile country or non-US colony of a few thousand people? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's another thing that's bothered me with the Holidays section for a while, and it's here in this thread. I doubt if Pioneer Day would meet the definition of a holiday in much of the English speaking world, where a holiday means prescribed time away from work or school. Day's like Ash Wednesday, Ramadan and Palm Sunday are not called holidays in my part of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, holiday came from holyday, it's about the day, so Commonwealth use to mean vacation is the one that's derivitive here. Is there a dialect-neutral term? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a problem when you use one country's meaning of words to define another country's. Where holiday means time away from work or school, vacation means travelling to somewhere away from home for recreational purposes, which isn't what you intended. But you're right about the derivation, of course. If Wikipedia really wants to be a global encyclopaedia, it needs a better word than the all-American holiday for that list's title. HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article body format example includes a wikilinked section heading, Nobel Prizes. Is this intended? Doesn't that go against MOS:HEAD? – Wdchk (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the question has been raised; - should the criteria of notability that have been set down in the guidelines apply to less recent years, or not. I would have thought that it should....right? Clearly, an event has to be notable on an international level for it to merit inclusion and there has to be a single consistent standard used. The reason I ask is that many of the earlier years have had the entire contents of the US specific article copied into the main article which creates a very disproportionate picture. The events typically, are the sort of thing mentioned on the main page, such as mild weather events, sports events, commemmorations, openings of schools/hospitals/theatres, minor political appointments, scandals and so on. So should that stuff be there, or should the guidelines here be extended to past years as well?Noodleki (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the guidelines should be extended to less recent years, with a suitable modification of some criteria. The further back you go the less likely that multiple appropriate citations can be found. There are certainly an enormous number of entries that would seem blatantly (except to some editors) lacking in any international notability. I think the main problem will be getting enough editors to follow up on this. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the rules here would work for earlier years, and some wouldn't. I'm very wary of extending these guidelines as a whole to past years without keeping the nuances in mind. Wrad (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you would agree that the basic principle of notability should still be applied to less recent years, such as the exclusion of, say, anniversary of a civil war battle?Noodleki (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that all anniversaries, at least, could be removed. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, almost. An anniversaries possibly should be kept if the celebration of the anniversary was independently internationally notable. (It could happen....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this project when it was started in 2008 was to establish a set of criteria to limit the entries contained in year articles to those which were/are internationally and historically notable, the problem at that time being that they had been subject instant editing whereby anything and everything that happened, even of the most limited notability, was being added with NO regard to their importance/relevance. This applied most seriously to the more recent articles at that time (2006-08) but as wiki started in 2001 (very little had been added to 2001 before the end of the year) could equally be applied to all year articles from 2002 onward. In an ideal world it would be possible to bring the earlier articles (2002-2005) up to the standard applied to later year and then move the scope on every year with the expectation that the earlier articles wouldn't require much care to keep them in line. Unfortunately as can be seen by the current state of 2008 once the those interested in this project "move on" to later years articles can easily revert to their former state (2008 is now almost as bad as when I first started trying to clean it up!). So there appear to be 2 options for the scope of the project:

1. All Year articles from 2002 to infinity come under WP:RY (which means the word "Recent" will become redundant, if it's not already, for the earlier years)
2. Only the e.g. 10 years preceding the current year come under WP:RY. Earlier years will then come under he broad, and not particularly effective, scope of WP:YEARS.

Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A constant ten is more than enough. Such as 2001 to 2011, 2002 to 2012, 2003 to 2013, etc. Each range, of course, is actually eleven articles. No need to increase it to twelve. Apteva (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One reason for WP:RY is to reduce recentism; but some of WP:RY extends to future years, as well. I think it should remain to be from 2002, at least until WP:YEARS provides quasi-objective criteria for inclusion of events in those years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every time there's a widely reported event, and somebody dares to express doubt of its significance on the year's talk page, he gets jumped by the recentist crowd who just clicked off CNN, and a handful of drama queens join the pack with their tune about ownership of recent year pages plus assorted conspiracy theories. Consequently, it's the emotions of (usually American) editors which enforce the final decision (i.e. if the event touches them, they come in greater numbers and are more persistent, creating a "consensus"). This, in my opinion, is a rather lousy criterion for creating lists of important events. So, disregarding my own sentiments about RY pages turning again into collections of trivia that will be utterly forgotten before the year is over, I propose extending criteria for inclusion of events to include a similar condition as the deaths section: coverage by dedicated articles in 9 other Wikipedias, excluding simple mentions in more general articles. To illustrate, both the recent Boston Marathon bombings and 2013 Savar building collapse would satisfy this criterion and get included, diffusing the pointless arguing and hopefully let everybody do more constructive things. Of course, post-hoc page creations would count, so an event could be included later. Opinions? — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles in many languages may merely show that the media in many countries reported it, rather than proving that the event is internationally notable. The building collapse which will soon be forgotten outside Bangladesh is an example of this. The international media report it promininently because of the death toll, but it has no effect on the rest of the world, apart from costs, delays etc. incurred to international companies whose clothes the factory produced. Jim Michael (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand full well that the new method would not reflect international importance anymore, but the current method of "consensus" building doesn't, either. Instead, the goal is to reduce stress and provide at least a semblance of objectivity. Of course the "9 articles" rule would merely supplement the existing procedure, for entries of dubious importance. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it events that should be included in RY articles must be internationally and historically notable. The problem is the definition of international and historic. We have just seen a case where the international impact of an event has been overstated, sometimes grossly. International involvement is a separate issue from impact and is easily determined by the nationalities of those involved. Whether involvement should override impact or other factors probably needs to be determined here but note that events with far more international involvement than the Boston Marathon bombings have previously been excluded and therefore should been included on the same basis. International notice of an event, which is independent of impact or involvement, is biased in favour of what is reported by media outlets and that in turn is biased in favour of the US media. Being the English wiki this is to be expected and unfortunately means that objective assessment is often outvoted by subjective opinions. I suspect using the non-English criteria would still be outvoted (usually by one-time visitors to the article), though maybe less frequently. In terms of historic I personally base this on the frequency and scale of the type of event. In the List of battles and other violent events by death toll#Terrorist attacks the BMB is almost at the bottom of a very long list which I suspect is missing a number of similar size non-American entries. The List of industrial disasters is sorted by category rather than death toll (and also appears to be random with at least one event with no deaths being included (guess which country!)). The Bangladesh building collapse is the largest entry under Manufacturing industry, which is too specific for comparison, but a quick scan through the entries indicates that it would clearly be in the top 10% of those list, probably the top 5%. The list is obviously incomplete, and biased, but does include entries spanning over 100 years.

In short(!), I would like to think that using the 9 non-English entries for events as well as Deaths would help, but still think the current problem s will continue. Worth a try though. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's a real problem when us pesky Americans decide to push our entries. If only others spent as much time pushing their items instead of knocking ours down. Snarkiness aside, the proposed change makes sense. Hot Stop (Talk) 02:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International notability of an event is not based on its death toll - the Boston bombings would probably have been included even if no-one died.

A lone gunman's mass murder is not an international event, despite such events receiving a lot of media coverage in many countries. If something like the Sandy Hook massacre had occurred anywhere other than the US, there would not have been many people wanting it added.

The only argument being put forward for the Bangladesh building collapse being added is that many people died - despite that not being anything to do with the inclusion criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to advocate for a change in the policy which states that "High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion into the article." Let's say one million people die in a single disaster in an isolated part of some country. The place is completely wiped out, so no aid is needed. It was isolated and contributed almost nothing to internal and international trade. Nobody famous was among the dead. According to the current policy, I don't think this hypothetical event would qualify for listing. And I would say that would be an error produced by policy. (Yes, I know, the policy uses the mink word "necessarily" and that the opening of the page says common sense rules, but in reality a lot of editors use policy to trump common sense -- or the definition of common sense as it pertains to a specific issue is itself up for grabs. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be something more definitive about the minimum criteria for the inclusion of disasters. Short of setting specific death tolls (which I've tried to get discussion on before, to no avail), how about any disaster in which the death toll would be in the top 10% of disasters of that type in the last 10 years? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the very unlikely event of a disaster killing a million people, there would be a great deal of international aid. This is because even if a whole city were destroyed, aid would be required for the homeless/injured survivors and for rebuilding. That would be like a worse version of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Using 10% as the threshold would be difficult due to differing estimates and the fact that it could be added, only to be removed due to a disaster with a high death toll occurring later the same year, pushing the earlier disaster out of the 10%. Jim Michael (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs revisiting, seeing as no consensus was reached previously and more and more "holidays" are being included/suggested. How about this for a criteria:

• A major religious holiday is one which is designated an official holiday by the governments of at least 10 different countries.

There should also be a separate article listing all (religious?) widely celebrated holidays (using whatever definitions seem appropriate).

Thoughts? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather we just come up with a list of holidays we deem important, the ten country rule seems arbitrary. Also, wouldn't the ten country rule mean that Jewish holidays wouldn't qualify? Hot Stop 23:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Designated an official holiday by the government" is problematic. Using the word "holiday", which itself has multiple meanings around the world, won't work. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific guideline that applies to pages on those years? Can one add every event that happened in, say, 1921, given that it has an article about it on Wikipedia? Smtchahal (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a (vague) guideline at WP:YEARS. And, no, just because an article exists in wikipedia does not necessarily make it sufficiently notable to be included in a Year article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've just had a little exchange on a few recent year articles, with Easter Monday added as a religious holiday, then removed with the Edit summary "Easter Monday is not a religious holiday". Well, what is it? Our article Easter Monday tells us that it's a holiday in over 100 countries, and that it "is celebrated as a holiday in some largely Christian cultures, especially Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox cultures. Easter Monday in the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar is the second day of the octave of Easter Week and analogously in the Eastern Orthodox Church is the second day of Bright Week."

It's a holiday had because of the religious calendar. Looks like a religious holiday to me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Easter I have suggested that the section be removed. It appears to only be included in some Recent Years (under various titles). As such holidays are entirely predictable annual events I don't believe they are appropriate for any Year article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I've also felt uncomfortable with the form "Major religious holidays" because of the diverse meanings of the word holiday around the world. When the list includes days that would never be called holidays in my country, it's quite disconcerting. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion above and at Rmv as per consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Easter I have removed the Holidays sections from the years 2006-2015 and from the Format section on the main page of this Project. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to specify a timeline at WP:RY#Deaths: Perhaps, changing

...with the addition that the number of non-English Wikipedia articles is taken at the time of the person's death.

to

...with the addition that the number of non-English Wikipedia articles is taken at the time of the person's death, or 2012-01-01, if later.

The reason I want clarification is the matter of Abdul Fatah Younis in 2011#Deaths. At first, I thought that he didn't have an en.Wikipedia article at death, which would have made it difficult to determine whether he had 10 language Wikipedia articles. The date should be when the vast majority of conversion to Wikidata occurred. It's difficult to determine by hand whether a person had 10 Wikidata-language articles at death, requiring at least 5 clicks, but it is virtually impossible to find, before Wikidata, whether a person had 10 foreign language articles at death without having an en.Wikipedia article. Such people, according to the guidelines, probably should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wikidata conversion has been a pain in the **** in this respect. I don't see that the addition of a specific date will help. By actually checking the non-English articles for Younis the majority seem to have been created in early 2011 and were still stubs until his death which indicates that his notability stems in large part from his death rather than anything else. As with most such cases if he wasn't added within a short time after his death then he's probably not sufficiently notable. On a side note, the 10 wiki articles seemed a reasonable number at the time it was established but now seems increasingly insufficient, the prevalence/popularity of wikipedia meaning that Recentism makes it relatively easy for people of minor notability to pass the minimum criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, rather than 2012-01-01, we should use the date when the "at the time of death" rule became established? Back in 2002, with many fewer Wikipedias, even an extremely notable person might not have 9 other-language entries then. DerbyCountyinNZ's previous comment suggests that a percentage of the total number of Wikipedias at the time might be an appropriate level of interest. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "ten languages" test in nonsensical. A better test of what is sufficiently notable to reflect would be how many people read the English language article of the subject.

Because ... drumroll ... this is the English Wikipedia. I've read some god-awful zero-ref articles in other languages. So what?

If more readers are interested in reading the English Wikipedia article on person x, but he has fewer articles in foreign languages, he is of greater interest to our readers. I'm a bit amazed that that test was chosen (how many editors participated in that choice?). If a test had to be used, a test such as "at least 5 or 6 or 7 thousand readers accessed the article on the date of death would seem a far better test. Sure, we might lose Mike_Porcaro (who meets this crazy criterion on the basis of this zero-ref one-sentence article!) and Yoshihiro_Tatsumi (seriously, he slips in because of this - 3 sentences, 0 refs, 1 (RS?) EL in English, 1 EL to his own website!), but get Al Rosen.

Or the completely nothing special soccer player Wolfram_Wuttke; Rosen in contrast was an MVP at the highest level of his sport.

So a guy who plays in a league that has teams from countries that speak multiple languages ... say, the Euroleague in basketball ... will get included over one who plays in the NBA, whose article is three times as long, and who attracts twice as many viewers in English. Why would we go that route???

But our readers on the English Wikipedia -- where this test would apply -- are twice as interested in Al Rosen, as in any of the other three.

Alternatively, we could look at article size. Rosen's article is three times as long as each of the others.

Or article size combined with reader interest.

This test is lousy. And I think NZ's deletion of of Al Rosen just now, on the basis of this cuckoo test, is a disservice to the project. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is English-language Wikipedia, not English Wikipedia (and if it were English, Al Rosen might not even be mentioned because baseball is such local sport that it's practically unknown outside USA). Its scope and readership is international, as should be any such general article as RY. Furthermore, arguing that a test is lousy on the basis of one celebrity whom you personally happen to admire is not really convincing. For example, article on Mike Porcaro whom you find so unfitting for inclusion had 19.000 visits on the day he died and 30.000 the day after. Yes, that's more than four times more than Rosen. Still think that he is unworthy as compared to Rosen? Then, the "nothing special" football player was in a team that won a medal in the Olympics, which is generally regarded as the most prestigious sports event in the world. So, a bit of perspective might help to understand the inclusion criteria. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When was this changed? Was there some discussion somewhere where this was decided? How many mentions someone gets in wikipedia should absolutely not be the basis for any guideline as it is completely arbitrary. Spanneraol (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The readership of this WP is those reading it in English. From wherever they may be located. They should be our focus. Our focus is not those reading it in 9 other languages (whether all located in country x, or wherever). That is irrelevant to notability for this WP.

A test based on reader views would be reasonable IMHO, though deprecated elsewhere on wp, as reflecting reader interest.

This test is non-sensical. Thousands more English WP readers view Rosen's page than, for example, that of Tatsumi -- but that is not important to this test. However ... 1 to 4 editors more than wrote Rosen articles, writing in languages other than English, create article pages on someone named Tatsumi -- and that is all-important to this test. The test asserts that the fact that those 1-4 editors wrote those articles stands for the proposition that Tatsumi is more famous internationally. How does that make any sense?

Errata. I should not have included Pocaro in the reader views comment, just the other two. They received thousands fewer views. Though his zero-reference, one-sentence, foreign-language article here is a great example of why the test does not make sense. Explain to me again why that article's existence should drive a notability decision.

These are just a few examples of why the test is lousy. Both in practice. And in the "logic" that we should base notability of a person on whether a few editors, perhaps as few as 1 editor, created an article (perhaps one sentence; perhaps without refs) in a language other than English. Epeefleche (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies have often been excluded on the base that other-language articles are very short, check the archives of RY pages. You're welcome to start a discussion on removing Tatsumi as well, but arbitrarily switching the criterion to what suits your purpose in individual cases - once it's editors, the other time is pageviews, etc... It comes across as "any rule that excludes Al Rosen is, by definition, bad". Which is nonsense, and cannot form a basis of a better criterion. You might want to read WP:NPOV. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said that IMHO a page view criterion is sensible, as an alternative. It shows reader interest. On this wikipedia. One could also arguably add a criterion of size of article.

Rosen is just an example of why this test doesn't make sense. There are other even more dramatic examples.

Deleted this month based on the rule: Ernie Banks (58,000 views the day he died; another major league baseball MVP), Dean Smith (51,000 views; no doubt he would have been covered in more languages had he coached in Europe), R._K._Laxman (34,000), Florence Arthaud (32,000), Steve Montador (28,000), Jimmy Greenspoon (14,000), and Rosen (8,000).

While included were: Tatsumi (2,800), Wuttke (3,000), Wim Ruska (1,500), and Aleksei_Gubarev (468), and Walter_Burkert (429 views!). Epeefleche (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that popularity should not be the main criterion (there is an overabundance of sports and pop stars as it is), but international importance, which is better reflected by the coverage in various languages of the world. We're here to educate, not entertain. Including other metrics and calculating an abstract index may be a better solution, but that would be incredibly complicated. Perhaps if someone was willing to program a tool to do it... — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles in 10 languages" was included from the first version of this page as a rough test of notability. In terms of compatibility with the rest of our notability criteria, it's not a very good one. For example, it's explicity ruled out in WP:OTHERLANGS. Page views is not very good either (WP:POPULARPAGE). I don't think it's going to be possible to come up with one or two numbers that indicate notability. Notability will have to be a kind of informal consensus on the basis of discussions like this one, and it should be based on both generally accepted criteria and substantial coverage in WP. For example, a baseball MVP seems notable. Can we generalize that for notable athletes? Say multiple grand slam winners in tennis or gold medalists at the Olympics. I would say that Yoshihiro Tatsumi is notable because he was significant in the history of manga, had a long and appreciative obituary in the NYT (that's a good criterion – obits in major newspapers), and has a substantial article on the Japanese WP. For authors, highly acclaimed. For politicians, well-known national politicians, heads of state, long-serving and influential Senators (Ted Kennedy, Barry Goldwater, etc.). It should be a higher standard than simply notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. It should be a substantial article. And add other criteria as needed when somebody complains that this person is obviously notable. It doesn't have to be an exhaustive list, just a list of examples and criteria to show that we have a high standard here. For births, it should be even higher. About the only people who are notable at birth are royal babies. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we were going to have a view-based criterion, it would have be views in the week before death (or fatal injury). Views on the day of death merely indicate the death is (for the lack of a better word) "popular". We need some sort of objective criteria which will limit the deaths to no more than a thousand or so per year. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A view-based criteria would not be a realistic basis for international notability unless it was possible to determine where the view came from and the nationality of the user. If Al Rosen has 30,000 views with 29,000 of the being from users the US (IMO an underestimate rather than overestimate) then that would him notable in the US and worthy of inclusion in [[2015 in the United States] but not 2015. The language criterion is not perfect but has worked well since its inception (close to 7 years ago now) and as always can be overridden by consensus in individual cases, both for and against inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Derby-The king has no clothes. This test does not test "international" notability. It tests whether 1-9 editors created 9 non-English WP pages. At the very most, it turns on the acts of a mere 9 people. While ignoring the views of tens of thousands of readers.

Second, those 1-9 editors may all be in country x. They may not be in different countries at all. It could even be an English-speaking country!

Third, those articles needn't be based in turn on RS coverage in 10 different countries. In fact, that appears to generally not be the case. These articles can be devoid of refs whatsoever! Or be based entirely on English-language refs.

Fourth - why should "international" notability be the test in the first place? Even if you were able to gauge it? (Which this guide clearly does not do). That approach doesn't comport with core WP approaches. We don't say "Ernie Banks, Dean Smith, and R.K. Laxman are not notable for WP purposes, because though they have overwhelmingly robust RS coverage, 1-9 editors in other non-English wikipedias didn't get around to writing articles on them."

As examples, Ernie Banks and Dean Smith each had over 50,000 views the day they died. That is an objective test. We use views in other areas on WP as an objective test, such as in deciding which article to direct to when we have multiple people with the same name. And these 2 men had hundreds of views the day before they died (if you prefer Arthur's suggested test). Each article of their articles is robust; over 50kB in length. Yet this guideline treats Aleksei Gubarev as more worthy of being reflected in a wp article. And he had only 468 views the day he died (less than 1/100th of the others). And 6 the day before he died. And his article is under 4 kB in size. The above examples, including these, are just from this past month. This is not working well. Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, Americans are important and the rest of the world isn't? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derby -- no. Obviously. You can't possibly have read what I wrote, and responded with that. I'm happy to lay it out for you yet again. But you should be able to read what I wrote, and know that of course your statement is wrong-headed. Let me know if you need me to reiterate it in order for me to be clear to you as to why your statement is completely at odds with what I have written.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always saying that the word "importance" is perhaps better for describing the criterion for inclusion here than "notability". Page views may reflect massive media coverage for a semi-famous person who died unexpectedly (as sometimes happens with celebrities if there is a slow news week in real life), but will be utterly forgotten a few months later - and this goes against the principle of WP:NOTNEWS. Ryan Dunn is an excellent example. As per my argument before, I believe that there is an overabundance of sports and pop stars as it is; there's more to life than that, and we should promote curiosity about less recognizable (but important for humankind's progress) people, not just feed the readers what they can read in every tabloid. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the 10 language rule represents a consensus, please link to the community discussion establishing that consensus. Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To mitigate the problem of worthless non-English coverage, we could add a condition that links to spam Wikipedias (ceb:, war:, min:, vo:, io: etc.) don't count. Although the rule should be kept as simple as possible. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes to bring this page into sync with our other policies and guidelines... however I was reverted (with the statement that the current text reflects consensus). There may well have been a "local" consensus (ie agreement among a few editors here on this talk page) for what is said... however, I seriously question whether there is a community wide consensus. There are several items regarding inclusion and notability that run counter to our other guidelines and policies. For one thing, the "other wikis" rule runs counter to WP:IRS... inclusion of content (such as birth and death dates) is based on reliable sources, and other wikis are NOT considered reliable sources. Also the "Three-continent" rule runs counter to both logic and numerous notability guidelines. In other words... I think some of the of the things that are said on this page do not actually reflect community consensus. Blueboar (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were several requests for comment about WP:RY rules in the past, that failed to garner any significant response, so the community as a whole appears to be content with them. It is necessary to have more strict rules than the general WP:N because there are thousands of deaths of notable people every year and we cannot list them all. The current rules proved useful in filtering them out. You're welcome to propose a better filter if you can think of one. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar -- I would be interested in you suggesting an improvement, to bring this guideline into line with the rationale underlying WP's other parallel guidelines and policies.

As you point out, the current guideline relies on the existence of wikis -- which is something we shun, across other guidelines and policies, as being of any value. Try, for example, to even use a wiki as a ref in an article .. its verboten.

As I've mentioned, the current guideline also relies on only the acts (editing) of 1-9 editors. Who may all be in one country. And may all rely exclusively on English refs (or no refs at all) for their articles ... as indicating "international" relevance.

That poorly constructed rule leads to the predictable results. Robust articles that attract 100x the views by readers of the English language WP at the time of the person's death are deleted from an article ... mentioning their death. While much smaller articles with 1/100th the views are included.

Obviously, this rule, based on a questionable assertion (that articles must be read by non-English readers to be reflected in the English language WP), fails to even come close to meeting that questionable criterion. Something more logical, comporting with standards across the project, would be helpful. With a discussion that is broader than the discussion has been in the past. Too many highly notable (by WP notability standards) articles are being deleted, while less notable articles are retained. Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Chalk me up as an editor who agrees with Epeefleche in every particular, with another fillip: since when did Wikipedia itself become a valid source for anything? If a fact cannot be supported by a citation to a Wikipedia article, no metric should be tied to Wikipedia either. Beyond that, the notion that the handful of regulars on this obscure page -- this being only the second discussion I see on the talk page in the better part of a year -- constitute not merely a project-wide consensus, but one that cannot be challenged, is bizarre. That the sentence was unchallenged for so many years I expect is far less a product of widespread community support than of the community having no idea. Ravenswing 08:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: your argument suffers from the same shortcoming as others that failed to incite a change in the past - it bashes a rule that has worked reasonably well for many years - because it blocked one specific person that you care about (POV), while failing to provide a better alternative. That's right, page views are much worse. According to that idea, we'd throw out Yves Chauvin who unraveled a mechanism of a natural phenomenon, helping us improve chemical processes, and won the most prestigious science award in the world for it. He would be replaced by Al Rosen, whose main achievement is, essentially, hitting a ball better than his contemporaries in one country for some time. No, even discussing the use of a criterion that passes Ryan Dunn while blocking most Nobel Prize winners is completely ridiculous. See also my reply in the section above.

Now, if we go into rules-lawyering, we can find several that support the current arrangement: WP:N is of course the core, no person without coverage in WP:RS can be included. But, as pointed out, several thousand people every year would meet this criterion, so a filter is in place to limit their number and prevent flooding. Seeing that any page with such a broad topic should avoid systemic bias and represent a global view, thus upholding WP:NPOV, we can't rely on any automatic metric within this wiki which is, by definition, biased. Using page views would also be using Wikipedia itself as a valid source, no? Additionally, WP:NOTNEWS, so massive short-term media coverage in one country cannot equate suitability for inclusion, nor can any automatic metric that is a direct consequence of this. So, the three-continent and the 10-interwiki rules are used as a proxy for international importance. As said, you're welcome to come up with something better. Same goes for Ravenswing. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the 10 language rule represents a consensus, please link to the community discussion establishing that consensus. Frankly, this whole "guideline" seems bogus, as it was promoted to a guideline based on a discussion of 4 involved editors [2], hardly an appropriate basis for a community-wide editing guideline. Rlendog (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several dozen editors then active at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Years were personally invited to comment on the draft guideline (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Recent Year guidlines draft). Their silence can be interpreted as agreement. Also, there have been numerous discussions over the years, usually initiated by an editor or two not familiar with RY getting upset when their favorite movie/music/sports star didn't meet the criteria. Predictably, "arguments" against were usually along the line of "this criterion is broken and illegitimate", failing to provide a better alternative (present discussion included). Risking to sound aloof, I'd say that the consensus of constructive editors is as strong as it gets. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors other than those you refer to are also constructive editors. And this flies in the face of other long-held wikipedia principles. Such as those relating to notability. And not relying on wikis - for anything at Wikipedia. And how we determine which name is the primary name to direct readers to where we have people who share the same name (yes -- there we look inter alia to what readers look at -- not what one editor (or at most nine) wrote in a foreign language, that few people may look at, that may have zero refs or all-English refs ... the test here. The editors involved in those and other talk pages and guidelines are also constructive editors.

I see the effort to delete names as not sufficiently notable to reflect under this ten-languages-rule has also expanded recently, and is being discussed as well here.

I would urge creation of a broad RFC on this, before more deletions are made because no editor wrote a zero-ref, zero-times-viewed, article in Swahili. Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they are constructive, then I invite them to finally express this constructive attitude for a change. Including you. You completely ignored my last answer to you, again refused to provide an alternative, and basically just repeated the "this criterion is broken and illegitimate" argument. Not to mention the last paragraph's straw man. How is that constructive or even respectful to me? — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: As for "not relying on wikis" — what is the purpose of the {{expand language}} templates? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur - One can certainly look to other wikis to see if there is helpful material, wp:v-compliant, there. But in no way, shape, or form do I think editors believe that that language suspends wp:v, etc. You can't just copy uncited text, translate it, and insert it. And avoid wp:v. That would violate our rule against using wikis, as well as copyright.

As the template says: "This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the Wikipedia." Emphasis added. "May" suggests that it also "may not" be expanded with such text -- that is, if it doesn't meet English WP's criteria (of wp:v, etc). See, in parallel with my comments, User:Rd232's comments here.

You can't of course, for example, take an uncited section not acceptable in English WP, insert it into Swahili WP, and then copy it into English WP on the basis of the template language. Epeefleche (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with the sentiment expressed here. It is time to revisit the WP:RY guidelines. These articles, about an entire year in the existence of humanity, are too big to be governed by the consensus of a small number of editors. It appears to me as though there are lots of births, deaths, and events that are notable enough for lengthy Wikipedia articles but somehow don't have enough notability to make it on this page. I'm all about countering systemic bias, but we've flipped too far in these articles, to the point that we're excluding people and events that really ought to be on there. As an example, there's an active discussion on whether US recognition of same-sex marriage is notable enough to be in the 2015 article. This shouldn't be a question. It was huge news worldwide. If this guideline is being applied to say that should not be in the 2015 article, then we're doing it wrong. agtx 19:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the guidelines for including people in the Deaths section prohibits people of notability from getting included because of the amount of non-English Wiki's they seem to have to need. Monty Oum was a well regarded animator whose work has achieved global attention. He was nominated for a Producers Guild of America award for his work, and his anime RWBY is now being dubbed for Japanese audiences, which is a feat in itself as normally anime get translated from Japanese. He's on 5 non-English wikis, which I feel is more than enough. Rusted AutoParts 21:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Rusted. See comments in prior two sections on this page. Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rusted seems to be the second third editor to agree. That does not resemble a consensus to change the guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose an alternative which might get consensus. Even if there were a consensus to change the guideline, nothing will happen unless there is consensus for a specific change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current criteria accepts the addition of plenty of people to the deaths section with minimal fuss, with a few exceptions added by consensus. That 2 disaffected users have had their additions rejected and then failed to gain consensus for an exemption to the criteria AND neither of whom can come up with a viable alternative which improves the quality of Recent Year articles (as opposed to merely allowing the individuals they want added) is no basis to modify the current criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't so much about improving the quality of the section, it's modifying the criteria for people of note who have passed away to be added. I know you're in a dash and genuinely don't care about this as both of you are already stating we failed to gain consensus ONLY A DAY AFTER I BEING UP MY STANCE, by the way. The proposal is clear: those who achieved notability on 5-10 Wikipedia sites meet the criteria for being added to the deaths section. This allows people who have achieved international attention to get included rather than excluded based on what can only be described as a technicality. Now the consensus starts. Rusted AutoParts 13:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a proposal. I don't think anyone else will agree with it, but we'll see what happens. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose change. The current minimum requirement is sufficient. Those few cases which fail the minimum but deserve inclusion can be added as the result of consensus. 5 wiki articles will lead to a proliferation of non-notables. Wikipedia has now been going long enough that the proportion of those meeting the 10 wiki minimum has increased by approx 100% in the last 7 years and will continue to increase, particularly those subject to Recentism, such as Monty Oum, who, FWIW, wouldn't meet the 5 wiki minimum anyway as it looks like he only had 1 wiki article before his death. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess I could also do an additional proposal of adding Monty Oum as one of the few cases. Despite only gaining more notability in death, his achievements are still in itself what made him famous. PGA nominated, his anime going international. It also doesn't hurt that sites like Variety, People, New York Times and Time were aware of Oum enough to publish in memorials and obituaries. Rusted AutoParts 14:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I think Monty Oum is not suitable for making an exception at the 2015 talk page. Like DerbyCountyinNZ noted, the only thing that made him notable enough for non-English editors to bother writing about him is his unexpected death which probably made a few headlines within anime communities. So "famous" is nothing but WP:PEACOCK here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In year articles, including recent years, there seems to be a de facto standard that dates should not repeat.

Rather than

Events

• January 1 – Event 1
• January 1 – Event 2
• January 2 – Event 3

...

We use

Events new

• January 1
  • Event 1
  • Event 2
• January 2 – Event 3

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several major issues here that have been discussed at this talk page but do not appear to have been the recent subject of an RFC. Several editors above called for an RFC, and thus I pose the following questions to the community:

1. Does the current guideline reflect a consensus such that it should be considered a guideline as opposed to an essay?
2. Does the current guideline for births and deaths—requirement of a certain number of non-English Wikipedia references (possibly 10, based on talk page comments)—correctly implement a standard of notability that reflects broad community consensus?
3. Does the current guideline for events correctly capture the types of events that should be included here and the types that should not? 19:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

As far as number 1, I'm concerned that the guidelines here do not represent the type of broad community consensus that we look for in a guideline. A small number of editors put this together over five years ago, and it has remained relatively unchanged since. The talk page here, as well as on year articles, have had numerous instances of editors questioning the consensus, but the same few people continue to insist that a consensus exists. I'm simply not sure that it does, and I think this guideline is really an essay.

For numbers 2 and 3, I think we're being far too choosy as to what gets into these articles. I agree that making sure that these articles aren't US-biased is important, but the solution to that seems to have been to keep out US focused material, as opposed to adding in material from other parts of the world. So, for example. in 2015, the addition same-sex marriage decision in the United States was immediately reverted, but the Irish referendum on the same issue was left untouched. Sepp Blatter's resignation is notable enough even though Sepp Blatter didn't actually resign. The death of Beau Biden, the son of the Vice President of the US, was deemed not notable even though the President of the United States spoke at his funeral, but somehow Laura Antonelli is notable because she happens to have enough articles about her in different languages. So is Alexis Vastine. But Jerry Weintraub is a no go.

Quite frankly, this is arbitrary, and it isn't working. The guideline is meant to make sure that only notable people and events get mentioned here, but it's not doing that. Why is Laura Antonelli more notable than Jerry Weintraub? A bright line rule of Wikipedia articles in other languages doesn't answer that question. Why is the Irish same-sex marriage referendum notable but the US Supreme Court decision isn't? To counter US bias? That doesn't make sense either.

I think the first step here is to understand that this page isn't a guideline, but an essay. Beyond that, I propose that people or events that have a solidly referenced Wikipedia article longer than a stub—in any language—are probably notable enough for this page. By arbitrarily cutting down the content here, we're not making the page more useful. agtx 19:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I was going to make an opening statement, but I had an edit conflict with this comment, which I consider hopelessly damaging, if implemented. I'll comment later on the specific problems with Agtx's proposal.

The question isn't well-defined, given the history. There is near-unanimous agreement that something needs to be done done to avoid article bloat and WP:RECENTISM. There was no objection at the time the project guideline was first added, and little objection to each modification. It might not have been advertised sufficiently to constitute a Wikipedia guideline, but it certainly constitutes a WikiProject Years guideline.

The requirement of "international notability" allows placement of people and events not considered internationally notable in the appropriate country subarticles; for example, the death of Ernie Banks is properly listed in 2015 in the United States and in 2015 in baseball.

The requirement of entries in other-language Wikipedias seems a reasonable proxy for international notability, although it's not perfect, and has been "gamed" by "fans" of the person. (It should be noted that, before Wikidata, it was relatively easy to determine what other-language Wikipedias had entries, although that, also could be gamed and damaged in case of articles on groups containing the individual.)

For some specifics; the U S Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage is not the first such decision in the US, while the Irish referendum is, according to the entry in 2015, "the first country to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote."

I'm not in favor of including the FIFA controversy in any form in 2015, but, because I'm not a football fan, I'm not certain as to what should be included in 2015.

I think that there would be a strong consensus for restricting the entries, so it is the responsibility of any who wish to weaken the restrictions, to propose specific restrictions, or attempt to put together the list of all entries which would be in (say) the January components of 2015 (or, perhaps, 2014, to avoid recentism), to estimate how long the resulting articles would be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Arthur Rubin is necessarily wrong that my proposal above would result in too many folks on this page (and maybe even too few events). However, what I was trying to was create a presumption of inclusion rather than exclusion for people who already have Wikipedia articles about them. Basically, if we've gotten over the notability hurdle already, then the question we ought to be asking is why shouldn't they be in this article, not why should they. One good reason might be because we don't have any more than a stub about them in any project. Expanding the article in a well-referenced way inherently demonstrates why they ought to be on the page.

I do take exception to the last paragraph of Arthur's post. First, this "strong consensus" has not been demonstrated. The talk page for this guideline shows significant disagreement in that regard. If guidelines don't have consensus, then nobody has any burden to show that they shouldn't be implemented. Guidelines that don't have consensus aren't guidelines anymore. Instead of summarily removing content from year pages with the justification "See WP:RY," editors will have to justify their reverts and additions on the talk page just like everywhere else.

In any case, my goal in proposing this RFC was to involve the community outside this narrow set of pages to figure out whether there's really consensus here and to see if we can come up with anything better, together. agtx 21:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that using "how many wikipedia articles someone has" as any sort of barrier is something that should be done as it is simply happenstance... and not a barrameter of worldwide importance.. stubs in a bunch of different european languages doesnt make someone important. Wikipedia itself should not be used to check notability of any sort. If someone has a significant article, they should be notable enough for inclusion here... also this is english wikipedia that we are editing on here... not french wikipedia... so shouldnt we lean more towards english wikipedia in inclusion? And the U.S. Supreme Court same sex decision should absolutely be included as it involved a significant change of policy for the U.S. Spanneraol (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These guidelines as a result of attempting to reduce the bloat clearly apparent in 2008 in June 2008 (when it was 84kb). At the beginning of 2009 (when WP:RY was formulated) it was 87kb and is now at 103kb and has been as high as 109kb. The last time I went through the article there seemed to be a considerable number of entries which clearly fail the current guidelines. As for whether deaths/events are sufficiently notable for inclusion the current criteria has worked well since its inception and, as is clearly stated, any entry/exclusion can be overridden by consensus. Having such guidelines reduces the endless arguments about what/who is/was notable. As noted in a discussion above no-one has come up with any guideline which can be easily applied which does not introduce any other (usually worse) bias. As far as Deaths go, many more entries meet the minimum requirement now than in 2008, let alone earlier, because there are more wiki editors globally and more articles get created. As for consensus I put it to those who are unhappy with the current criteria who is going to monitor any changes and who will go back through all the other Recent Years applying the new criteria? It has been succinctly put by an admin not involved in these articles that consensus reflects the opinion of those editors with an ongoing interest in maintaining the quality of an article. On a final note 2015 is not 2015 in the United States. One country introducing a law change made by many countries before it is neither internationally nor historically significant (outside that particular country) and is exactly the sort of US-bias these guidelines attempt to prevent. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to break down your arguments here and respond to them, DerbyCountyinNZ.

1) The page will get too big if we change the guidelines. We're not a paper encyclopedia. We can say everything we need to say about a topic, and not run out of space. Right now, we're not saying enough in these articles, because the guidelines are far too rigid about who's notable enough to be included.

2) The current guidelines reduce arguments about who's notable. This is actually a bad thing. What happens now is that people try to add someone to the article, justify why they should be added, and then get shouted down with cries of "it breaks the guidelines!" But the guidelines are totally arbitrary. We're stifling discussions that we maybe should be having, based on utterly meaningless criteria.

3) We can't monitor it any other way than this way. Honestly, I think that's provably false. Of course we can, and we do it all the time on Wikipedia. We monitor all kinds of complicated things here. Let's try to hammer out a guideline that's based on something more real than either your personal view of what events are notable (see edits like this one made with zero talk page discussion) or the number of foreign-language Wikipedia entries someone has.

4) We can't fix all the old pages. Nobody said that changing the guidelines means that we have to fix all the old pages right now this very minute. They'll get fixed over time. We're not on a time crunch here. agtx 04:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually beginning to stretch WP:GF here. #3 is no doubt "provably false" because you have clearly mis-stated what I wrote. I did not write that it can't be done, I wrote that non-one has come up with a better alternative. They are clearly obviously different things. I may respond to the other points later, when I have more time, although Yerpo has covered most of this below. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how I am stretching WP:GF? I don't think you're acting in bad faith here, and I don't want to imply such a thing. I know that you have good reasons for seeing things the way you do, but I disagree with them. I think that a small set of people created guidelines that they thought were good without much input from the rest of the community, and I'm trying to point out that maybe this way isn't working, and we need to find another way. agtx 06:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Derby. As noted before, there are thousands of deaths listed in each year's category (3600+ for this year right now). Seeing that we probably all agree listing them all would be ridiculous, we desperately need a quick, easy and objective rule to filter them out. Keep also in mind there's only a handful of editors who actually bother with filtering and therefore maintaining quality of RY pages. Having to discuss on a case-by-case basis would result in a disaster. A page can get too big - we're not limited by storage space, but we do want to ensure usefulness, and having 5000 entries on a page that was supposed to act as a summary of the most important events is anything but that. Agtx, there are tons of pages that cover everything you mentioned, from biographies themselves, to "Year in country" pages, to "Deaths in xxxx" sets (see Deaths in 2015). Following your argument, we should put all the Wikipedia content on one page and be done with it. How useful would that be, eh?

Secondly, I too note this is another in a long list of discussions that was spurred not by thinking about what RY pages should be as a whole, but by the sense of injustice that one particular entry was removed - along the lines of "I don't care about the consequences of the rule, as long as it passes the person XY through, so you must invent it ASAP". Sorry, but such narrow thinking cannot result in an improvement. I cannot take seriously an RfC (formal or not) that doesn't come with a tangible alternative to the rule in the broadest sense and possibly also an analysis what would the RY pages look like. Shouting "no consensus" and "the rule is broken" without that is almost insulting. Do you seriously expect that people who think the current rule works well will do it with no effort on your part?? — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to set aside Yerpo's attacks on my credibility and try to focus on the issues. I will note, though, that several editors on this page have called for an RFC, and that the reason for doing so is to hopefully bring in some folks from other parts of the project who have different ideas.

I agree, 5000 entries on the page is bad. How about we use notability guidelines similar to how the rest of the project works -- based on published outside sources? Say, a death is notable if several major newspapers (in whatever country) run a story or an obituary. Or newspapers in more than one country? Perhaps a guideline based on international press coverage, as opposed to counting foreign wikipedia articles, could keep the page focused but arrive at it more honestly. Just like in any other page, the person adding the content would be responsible for finding the sources, so I don't think it would greatly increase the workload on the folks trying to keep the page in order.

As far as events go, the guideline includes the "3 continent rule," but if the US same-sex marriage decision or the Charlie Hebdo shooting aren't notable enough to meet that rule (both definitely have 3 continents worth of coverage), then clearly I don't understand what the rule is. Can you help me understand it? Is there an intelligible principle beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT? If there's not, then the guideline isn't really a guideline at all, and that's a problem. agtx 06:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you dislike people pointing out that you criticize without providing constructive alternatives, you should provide them sooner.

To answer your points, every biography is notable, otherwise it gets deleted, so this criterion is not useful. Same goes for events, it says that the 3 continent rule is the minimum. So the lowest threshold to even start discussing whether it's important enough for inclusion. But in a world of globalized mass media where every Kim Kardashian's sneeze gets reported far and wide, it's not useful alone, and will certainly lead to bias - because of the USA's global cultural dominance. So we try to assess its importance for international affairs, to reduce bias towards events that concern only one country.

Your proposal of the 3-continent rule for deaths is finally something tangible, but as mentioned many times before, WP:NOTNEWS, and including people that only merited a lot of attention because they died is, IMO, wrong (my favourite example here is Ryan Dunn). If you think of some good way to overcome the recentism problem, please share it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the personal barbs aren't necessary or constructive. Let's focus on the issues at hand.

I understand the concern about introducing a US bias, and I think that countering unwarranted US bias on Wikipedia is important. At the same time, if we count up all of the events in the article at the end of the year and more are about the US than are about other places, I don't think that means we've failed. I think it means we've reflected a reality where events in the US are important to people around the world. The articles at hand are, after all, "2015" and "2016," not "2015 in international affairs." If there's not some stuff in those articles that's a little, let's say, fluffy, then we've failed to account for the reality that some of the things people care about aren't weighty international happenings. I'm not saying that stuff happens often on a global scale, but it happens sometimes. For example, let's imagine it was 1970 and the most famous band ever to exist announced that they were breaking up. Yeah, it's kind of fluffy, but the global importance seems undeniable.

In any case, if they're just running a Reuters story in New Zealand or an AFP story in Morocco, perhaps that shouldn't count, but if the papers are writing their own, independent coverage of the event? I don't think we're in a place to decide that's not "good enough" to be here, just because we've set an arbitrary and invisible limit on what's weighty enough to be "significant" or how many items about the US is too many items about the US.

As far as recentism, what's the distinction here between Ryan Dunn and Alexis Vastine? They're both sort of minor celebrities that died in somewhat spectacular ways that got significant coverage. My point is that if the concern is including people only notable because of the way they died, then the current system isn't capturing it. How about the guideline provides that people whose death mainly engendered media coverage because of how they died are excluded? That seems like a more direct way to solve this problem. agtx 14:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For one, Vastine participated in the world's most prestigious sports event, which should count for something, at least editors in many countries thought so. I don't understand what makes you label him just a "minor celebrity" (although yes, sports figures are often overrepresented because reporting on sports statistics is easy). As for your first argument, I of course agree that reflecting American cultural dominance is a necessary evil, but if you look at RY lists, we already do that. See 2013 for example: there are 5 events listed that involve USA, the first runner-up (Egypt) meriting two and all others only one per country. Are you saying that it should be even more extreme? — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that putting an invisible limit on the number of entries involving the US or any other country doesn't conform to the purpose of the year articles. It's got no rational reason behind it, other than annoyance at the cultural influence of the US (I understand this from the use of the phrase "necessary evil"). As far as Vastine goes, in a world where the Charlie Hebdo shooting isn't important enough to make this page, he's definitely a minor celebrity. He got one bronze metal at one Olympics and got no metal at another. 11,000 athletes participated in each of the '08 and '12 games. But Vastine got multi-language individually-focused foreign media coverage for stuff he did when he was alive, and Dunn didn't. That's a real, cognizable, and verifiable difference. So as far as a criterion: In-depth or individually-focused media coverage on at least X continents (or in at least X languages) before the subject's death. The same criterion could be easily extended for events. If the event was covered in depth, in multiple languages, in multiple countries/continents, then it seems to belong on the page. agtx 18:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the phrase necessary evil didn't imply annoyance with the US' cultural influence itself, but with some editors' assumption that it make sense to include every triviality just because it happened in the "world famous" country. I was saying that we already reflect this reality, for better or for worse, and that I think it's enough (roughly speaking).

What you proposed is an objective and verifiable criterion, I give you that, but it will be extremely impractical to implement, especially for deaths, and it creates a large grey area (what's "in depth"?). Additionally, it puts a huge burden on any editor who wants to add anything. How is anybody supposed to find old coverage in foreign languages and decide whether it's in depth? It would actually reduce the number of entries because most of them would require asking around for references, and the result might easily turn out to be more arbitrary instead of less. What we could do is add your proposal to the current guideline, so a person could get in even without meeting the interwiki criterion, but I doubt there would be a lot of difference, for the same reason as above. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think these guidelines are great and do an excellent job of limiting the page to only the most important entries. However, with the examples of Charlie Hebdo and the SCOTUS gay marriage decision, both events meet the guideline's requirements, and yet they have still been kept off the page. I think that's a problem.

Regarding deaths, the ten language rule is a blunt tool that functions imperfectly. However, I don't see a better option being proposed. I also think its application to royal births doesn't make much sense. -- Irn (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G6/G8/G7 has been having annual meetings since 1975, according to G7#Table of meetings. It seems to me that these fail WP:RY unless something specific was done. (I believe the 2014 meeting was the first to exclude Russia, which might be a reason. Similarly, the first G8 meeting to include Russia might be appropriate.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this question twice this month; I might as well break it out for specific discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with removal unless something tangible comes out of it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]