Jump to content

Talk:2012

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 14zach.zoo (talk | contribs) at 00:48, 1 January 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:RY

Former good article nominee2012 was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 9, 2007Articles for deletionKept
January 13, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
WikiProject iconYears List‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.



== 14zach.zoo You need to readd the ending of the mayan calander — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14zach.zoo (talk • contribs) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George McGovern

George McGovern's image should be repersenting the october death section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There are plenty of political figures represented by images in the Deaths section. For balance there should be a sportsperson. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i looked at the soccer player's bio - he barely is notable enough to be included on the page (FIFA cup = "zero" wins) - and yet, unless there is a better death from here to the end of the month as it stands i either vote for him (as derby says out of balance) or there should be no one--68.231.15.56 (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I, too, don't believe that Helmut Haller is really that notable. I also think that George McGovern's picture should represent the October deaths section. SuperHero2111 (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Downing of Turkish jet

I cannot understand the constant unexplained reverts of this section. The incident is notable because it involves 2+ countries and had coverage on 6 continents and had reactions by multiple countries and international organizations. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So people do not bother to check the talk page while are willing to be quick to revert practically anything... -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This event is part of the Syrian crisis and had no major effect on that event, therefore it does not merit its only entry here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It did have a major impact as it had world-wide coverage. It is not part of the Syrian conflict since Turkey is not part of the Syrian civil war. It changed the diplomatic relations (rules of engagement) between Syria and Turkey significantly as any Syrian military unit since then is being treated a hostile unit and will be fired up on. Later Turkey closed her airspace to all Syrian aircraft including civilian. EU had a similar ruling as well in about the same time period.. In any review of the coverage of diplomatic relationships between Turkey and Syria reporters mention this incident and the deaths of the 5 civilians. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
as of today, any larger ramifications of this event are just crystal ball and thus it does not warrant inclusion... turkey got missle defence and syria got missle defence (**Russia arms Syria with Iskander missiles in response to NATO's stationing of Patriot missile defense systems in Turkey. (WND)) - if and when they start to shoot at each other "AND" other countires get drawn-in with tangible physical actions, then this event will warrant inclusion--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not only list physical actions now do we? As mentioned in the article, Canada shuts down its Embassy in Iran, that is considered report worthy. Severing of diplomatic ties merely means Canadians aren't talking to Iranians anymore and Iranians would have to go some place else to get visas. Significance-wise Canada will not shoot down Syrian aircraft, attack at Syrian ships or ground units should their units encounter them.
Turkey had severed diplomatic ties with Syria in 2012 along with other countries but none of that hasn't been deemed worthy to be mentioned. Over this incident Turkey has changed their stance towards Syria. Turkish armed forces will fire on any Syrian military unit up on the slightest violation. Armed Turkish F-16 jets patrol the border now which wasn't the case prior to the downing. Scores of military units were moved to the border as a response to this incident. That is a significant deterioration of relations. This is border-lining (literally) on a physical war.
Since we are talking about later events... The killing of 5 Turkish civilians a few months later resulted in cross-border shelling of Syria from Turkey per the change of stance. As you mentioned up on the request of Turkey, NATO agreed to place patriot batteries against Syrian missiles. US sent an aircraft carrier in the vicinity of Syria possibly to strike if Syria uses chemical weapons. Russia halted an aircraft carrier in the Aegean sea possibly in response. France has sent their Aircraft carrier possibly as a response to the response. You have recent recognition of Syrian opposition by a few countries including the US (to a degree).
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I quote you here "bord(ering) on a physical war..." = crystal ball--68.231.15.56 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you at least quote correctly? I said border-lining as in lining up armed military units at the border which is as close as you can get to a war without starting one. Especially if the said units have orders to open fire in the slightest violation. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 02:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
In the absence of a remark for over two weeks I will re-include that line today. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Basically it's a significant event, as it resulted in the escalation of the conflict, NATO emergency meeting, and approval of NATO for deployment of missile shield for Turkey. Other missing events, Syrian Prime Minister defects, Kofi Annan resigns as special envoy etc...

Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I. K. Gujral

Is he notable enough to be included in the Deaths section? Mnbvcxz09876 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State leaders such as Prime Ministers are normally included in Recent Year articles. So, yes. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of November 2012

The death list of November 2012 is NOT enough! It will include more info of people who died on November 2012!

--Qmaghreb (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RY. I believe you had a rant deleted earlier. Please do not repeat yourself, or re-insert comments deemed inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Calero

Undecided if he should make the list even though he had 10 languages before he had the stroke, notable enough? 217.43.209.98 (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the non-English articles are cloned from the English or Spanish and I suspect most of these exist due to wiki football projects creating articles for as many international football players as posible. However his professional and international career does seem sufficently notable. I would lean towards inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
from the article "... he played 23 tournaments with Club Pachuca and won 10 cups with the team ..." - implies to me the necessary notablity - INCLUDE--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besse Cooper

Besse Cooper was the last surviving person documented as born in 1896! 71.250.242.24 (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? As per previous consensus Oldest Persons are not considered notable enough for inclusion in Recent Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i disagree, but i will table this one until if and when i have something to say--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni Rivera

Hi folks, I understand the guidelines for death notability generally state a minimum of so many languages are needed to determine notability. But I think this may not be exactly a fair judge of actual notability. Because this singer was Latin American the majority of people deeply familiar with her would be speaking Spanish with spans multiple countries throughout the Americas and establishes added international significance to her. Also she was known in the English speaking hemisphere as well and because of the prominence of these two languages she is more known than it may first appear. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EXCLUDE-fails WP:RY, looking at her article fails to by my mind meet any chance at notability by side route of "concensus" --- now you have your answer on talk page please remove it immediately and stop warring with Derby--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not to say you had no chance at consensus but if Keiko Tsushima - whom earlier this year i said should get concensus and no one even bothered to respond, does not get included then your current pick is highly improbable--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude. The original argument can be applied to any celebrity with dubious importance in the English- or Spanish-speaking world, and I see no good reason in this case to ignore the consensual guidelines without a clear alternative that would work better. — Yerpo Eh? 08:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude. The standard of non-English articles is becoming increasingly insufficient, many persons who could hardly be considered notable under any other criteria meet this minimum and have therfore been included. As such anyone who fails to meet the current minimum criteria is quite clearly lacking sufficient notability for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Following procedure. An editor added the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that had more than 20 people killed, mostly children (the addition). I have removed it, pending a discussion as to whether or not it should be added into the 2012 article - as it happened only in the US (not a globally). Should it be added to the 2012 article? -- MST☆R (Merry Christmas!) 03:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EXCLUDE-A local event which fails WP:RY--68.231.15.56 (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • exclude There have been far more deadly shootings this year not mentioned. Pass a Method talk 14:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude, just another one in a row, sadly. Might become important later if this one finally triggers any action towards gun control in the USA, but that's not very likely. — Yerpo Eh? 15:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • exclude Sadly happens far too often, (in the US and around the world). And strictly speaking this is a domestic event. FFMG (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - Really? We're going to deny the historical significance of this event? The 1999 article mentions the Columbine massacre, just as the 2007 article discusses Virginis Tech. I know we're trying to enforce WP:RY but this is currently one of the sparsest year articles I've seen. I feel like not including this event is the other extreme: we're trying so hard to limit excess entries that we're excluding very notable events. User:Saget53 09:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include All incidients of this type are "local" events, but that is not the only criteria that applies. The question of notability therefore rests on whether the scale of this particular event is suffiient to make it historically notable. The List of rampage killers, though incomplete, lists approximately 9 similar events (taking a reasonably broad context of what might be considered similar), of which only 2 fall within the last 10 years (the scope of Recent Year articles). As such this seems to be sufficiently rare in scale to make it notable. From a purely objective standpoint I think any similar event involving 20+ deaths should be considered sufficiently notable for any Recent Year. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include – As President Obama announced a new panel to review gun control laws by January 2013 will mean a renewed debate on gun politics in the United States once again due to this massacre. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you just said "us" thus not world debate and how so useful for the world article?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, nobody said that "just because it happened in the U.S." was the reason for exclusion, so please spare us this misleading. The argument is that, while tragic, it is not so special (which is a tragedy by itself). Columbine was special because it was the first such event to get a worldwide recognition as a symptom of American obsession with firearms (largely due to M. Moore's documentary), while Virginia Tech was the deadliest. I still don't know what is so special about Sandy Hook/Newtown, but if people favour inclusion, then so be it. I just hope that it's not merely because of the short-lived and self-serving "outrage" that already got drowned by other daily news (at least outside of the USA). — Yerpo Eh? 08:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that this event has now been added, is that right? With 5 excludes and 5 includes this seems a bit borderline to me. In any case, does that mean that, from now on, any domestic shootings/mass killings now gets included? Or only certain countries? While this event is tragic, it is not a first or 'worse' one, even in the US, and, to be fair, will probably not even have much domestic impact in the long run, so do we now need to include other mass shootings around the world? FFMG (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - we do not include domestic events, hence this should not be included. It is true that it received a great deal of media coverage in many countries, but that is because of the proliferation of the US media, the fact that many children were killed and that in many countries which do not suffer a similar rate of gun crime, there is a puzzled dismay at the high rate of gun ownership and gun crime in the US. For similar reasons, the Virginia Tech massacre should be removed from 2007. There would not be many people wanting to add these events if they had occurred in Brazil, Mexico or Iraq. Events should not be considered more important because they happened in the US. I cannot understand the suggestions from some editors that domestic events should be incuded if the death toll is above a certain level. A massacre (whether at a school or not) could be an international event if it is committed as part of a war or by an international terrorist organisation. The massacres in Virignia and Connecticut were committed by lone gunmen, driven by personal resentment and hatred. 92.40.96.215 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - I am puzzled as to how Wikipedia can ignore the impact that this event is having on the US political scene and on international discussions about gun control, gun ownership and other associated subjects. By the way, does anyone think that Wikipedia's general readership will come to this article and not expect to see the Sandy Hook shootings mentioned on the timeline? Shearonink (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are not ignoring the effect of the massacre on the US; it is included on 2012 in the United States. If this event causes changes in gun laws in any other countries, then it could be eligible for inclusion. This article is about world events; that should be made clearer on the article so that readers do not expect to see domestic events. Far more people are killed in events in other countries every month; this is not more important because it happened in the US. 92.40.96.215 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline at Recent years consensus states that
"Any of the standards set below can be overruled by a consensus to ignore those standards in a given case."
So, if the editorial consensus is to include an event or to not include an event (any event, not just this one), then the editorial consensus should stand. Shearonink (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a consensus for this mass shooting to be an exception to usual recent years practice. There is no way in which this was different to other shootings of its kind. Although this is one of the most publicised events of the year, it has not significantly changed the life of anyone outside the US. 94.196.63.95 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either way it goes in this particular instance, include or exclude?, per the complete Recent year guidelines I have no problem with whatever the consensus might eventually be. Shearonink (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The argument about international discussion about gun control is often raised with no sources, in reality it is not the case, I cannot think of a single country that is even thinking of changing any of its laws because of this tragedy. There is no, international discussion about gun control at a government level and I doubt there is any discussion at any other level, (I cannot find any source directly linking this massacre to any ongoing discussions).
Even in the US the political outrage has died down very quickly, (as far as I can tell from my country).
Currently, there does not seem to be a consensus to include this shooting, (5 vs 5 so far) FFMG (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 deaths

What about Sherman Hemsley? He was well liked as a actor by many.76.5.74.9 (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can always argue for it, but he cleary doesn't meet WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Strugatsky

About this reverted edit (yeah, I only just noticed that it has been reverted). The reason the man doesn't have his own article is because most of his books were written in collaboration with his brother, who died in 1991. It doesn't mean he is not notable enough: he has individual articles in nine languages, just not in English (refer to the interwiki column in his Russian article), which is exactly one short of the minimum requirement in WP:RY#Deaths, but maybe the 28 languages in which Arkady and Boris Strugatsky is available can make up for that? --Koveras ☭ 10:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a similar example. In 1996 article, Fujiko F. Fujio is listed on Deaths article, although there is no English article for that person himself created but a redirected link to Fujiko Fujio, which has 17 non-English articles. (Fujiko F. Fujio was the author of a Japanese manga, "Doraemon", and one of co-authors as Fujiko Fujio for some other mangas.) Therefore, it is appropriate that either including both Strugatsky or Fujiko or excluding both, I suppose. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1996, being before the founding of Wikipedia, is not subject to WP:RY. I tend to think that Strugatesky should be included; however, I've been reading science fiction since at least 1963, so I may be biased. Even keeping in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you haven't pointed out a problem. I'll open an appropriate section in support of inclusion below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the paragraphs above. I propose that Boris Strugatsky's death be included in this article. Although his article is joint with his brother here, according to WCIDFS, he has individual articles on 9 non-English Wikipedias. (I don't know if he had those articles before his death; perhaps others could comment.) I may be biased, having had read science fiction for a long time, but I was quite familiar with his work when I reverted the addition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. Boris Strugatsky's contributions to the Russian science fiction literature are inseparable from those of his brother, but both of them contributed equally to their lasting impact upon the genre, satisfying the notability criteria. PS: I have checked the nine interwiki articles: six of them existed long before his death. --Koveras ☭ 20:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 23 December 2012

21st December 2012 - Mayan apocalypse proved untrue, Gangnam Style becomes first video to reach 1 billion views on YouTube. Indieposer (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is notable. I think some mention of the "Mayan apocalypse" should be in the article, but consensus seems to be against me. [sarcasm] some might think that the second sentence contradicts the first. [/sarcasm] — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too disagree with removing all mentions of the Mayan calendar "deadline". The mass hysteria that developed in some circles, at least in the western world, was similar to the Y2K one in terms of notability. — Yerpo Eh? 11:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Mass hysteria"? What examples are there of this? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Vacationnine 05:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article lists a couple of examples. — Yerpo Eh? 08:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything resembling "mass" or "hysteria" in that report, just a few groups of relatively few people looking for any excuse to believe in doomsday and a lot more who view the doomsday threat, and anyone who believes it, as a joke. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself uses the term "hysteria", so you'll have to excuse me if I dismiss the fact that you don't see it. For the rest of my argument, see 2012 phenomenon#Public reaction and 2012 phenomenon#Cultural influence. If this isn't noteworthy, nothing on this page is. Of course the whole thing was retarded, but you can't say it wasn't noteworthy. — Yerpo Eh? 20:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes, I missed it. But then the article contains nothing else that actually suggests hysteria, so it looks like another case of media exaggeration. The Times treated the whole thing with appropriate derision. As for being noteworthy, this gathered somewhat less attention than the Gangnam Style video. Representation in the media doesn't equal notability. All a bit moot without further, considered, input into this discussion really. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Less attention?? You haven't watched or read a lot of news in the last few years, have you? Yes, "hysteria" is a strong word for what really happened, but come on, a blockbuster movie was made around the topic. Just search The Times' archive while you're there - there's dozens of articles on it spanning more than a year. And representation in the media is exactly what constitutes notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. — Yerpo Eh? 10:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage does not show notability; many trivial/nonsense stories gain a lot of media coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a red-top newspaper or a gossip magazine. 92.40.96.215 (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel bias

Novemeber has a bulletpoint about Israel. What makes that particular conflict more important than the dozens of other ones going on? Pass a Method talk 20:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones, for example? — Yerpo Eh? 22:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Linda Nchi, Battle of Dofas Pass a Method talk 00:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what comparable in scale and importance to the Israel's offensive did happen in connection with those two in 2012? I'm sorry, but it isn't obvious from the articles. In other words, a constructive thing to do here would be to suggest an entry instead of throwing emotionally loaded words around and making other people guess what you think should be done. — Yerpo Eh? 08:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Operation Pillar of Defense be included or excluded? Pass a Method talk 09:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Anderson

Is he notable enough to include? He's very notable in the UK, but is he significant internationally? 94.197.231.186 (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only 8 non-English articles, not meeting the criteria even as of now, thus should be excluded.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even Thunderbirds has only (I should say) 13 non-English articles, and Captain Scarlet has only 4. And even Thunderbirds has more than 10 articles, it proves popularity of Thunderbirds, but not Anderson himself.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing events

There are a lot of events missing from this , example historical event First Female President for South Korea. Syrian Prime Minister Defects........ Kofi Annan resigns as Syria special envoy, and the new Syrian Envoy appointed by UN and other events such as Bangladesh Fire at garment factory killing 100+ Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During recent years, many countries have had their first woman leader - how are any of those instances world-notable events? A resignation and/or appointment of an envoy - worldwide notable in what way? The Bangladesh fire is of no relevance outside Bangladesh; we don't include domestic events. 188.29.211.148 (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the sentiment posted immediately above that the Dhaka fire is ONLY a domestic event. It seems to me that an industrial accident that kills 100+ people, is the worst industrial accident in an individual country's history and that also causes ongoing political/business changes across the world is notable on an international scale no matter where it occurs. If the Dhaka fire is not included, then what justification can there be for including in "2012" the February 1st Egyptian football riot, the February 15th fire that killed 360 in Honduras, the March 4 explosion that killed 250 and so on? If Wikipedia doesn't include the 2012 Dhaka fire article in the 2012 List, then perhaps Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire should be deleted from 1911 as well. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
September 11 – Garment factory fires in the Pakistani cities of Karachi and Lahore kill 315 and seriously injure more than 250.[38][39][40] look again, and its significant worldwide so is Bangladesh, and why is the US shooting significant world wide then ? isn't that domestic violence? Syrian Prime Minister is significant worldwide, and Kofi Annan resigning as special envoy to Syria is as well, Historical speaking South Korea having it's first Female President is too. I find your argument illogical, sorry.

Danger^Mouse (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more evens The Mayan calendar reaches the end of its current cycle that's significant too, and some good majority of people worldwide thought it's the end of the world. Danger^Mouse (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion above. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have, doesn't make sense Danger^Mouse (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that fires in Pakistan and Bangladesh are significant worldwide, but you have not said why you think that is the case.
A first female leader may be relevant to the history of an individual country, but it has nothing to do with the rest of the world. A country's leader's power and influence is not different because of the leader's gender. Margaret Thatcher's policies were nothing to do with her being a woman, nor are Julia Gillard's. That they are women is of little relevance to their what has happened in their careers or the countries they govern. Even if they implemented 'female friendly' domestic policies (which they have not) it would have no effect on the rest of the world.
Nothing like the "good majority of people worldwide" believed that the world would end this month. The vast majority of people in every country rightly dismissed it as paranoid/attention-seeking nonsense. Harold Camping said a similar thing, and only a tiny minority took it seriously. Year articles are about actual events, not baseless predictions. 92.40.96.215 (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is still lacking material, DOMESTIC violence 20 people killed because its US and is more relevant than Pakistan, and Bangladesh where 100+ people die? First female President in S. Korea is significant because of the strategic location and the relations with N. Korea, and Kofi Annan former Arab League envoy/ UN special envoy is quiet significant, so is the escalating situation of Syria, about the Mayans calender its significant because their calender finished simple... a part of history is finished. 182.178.106.128 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll is irrelevant. Domestic events, whether they be shootings, fires, or of any other type, do not belong on year articles. Location of a country does not mean that it is world notable that the leader is a woman. South Koreans' lives are no different due to having elected a leader who happens to be a woman. No other world leaders have refused to meet her because of her gender - why do you think it relevant? The Mayan calendar ending is of no real importance; nothing happened because of it and the world is no different because of it. Year articles are about events which are of significant global notability. 92.40.96.215 (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the death toll IS relevant. Throughout history largescale disasters are recognised as historically notable even when only one country (or other ruling body) was affected (e.g Great Fire of London, Chicago Fire). As applies to Recent Year articles there has already been consensus (though barely) that a minimum death toll of 200 is required for the inclusion of earthquakes. There was also no disagreement whatsoever that the 2011 Norway attacks be included, despite this being purely a domestic event. As 2 of the events in this section are covered by 2 others already and further discussion of all these topics here is only going to make discussion even harder to follow I'll create separate discussion for the remaining events and STRONGLY suggest that if users have issues with the WP:RY guidelines they take it up at Wikipedia talk:Recent years rather than here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this 200 death toll consensus that you speak of? Please provide a link to it. Even if 200 was agreed as a threshold, that has nothing to do with including a shooting with a much smaller death toll. The Great Fire of London is not a fair comparison because a) that was an important historical event and b) it is not covered by recent years policy. A school shooting does not become an important event in world history that is well-known across the globe hundreds of years later. 94.196.63.95 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the 2011 Norway attacks, Anders Behring Breivik was suspected of having links with international terrorism and he claimed to be part of a terrorist cell with other members about to launch similar attacks elsewhere. 94.196.63.95 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sykes

I reverted edits by one user to include Eric Sykes's name on "Death". Although he has more than 10 non-English articles now, I've found out that 6 out of those articles (Catalan, Dutch, Finnish, Korean, Malayalam, Portuguese) were created after his death, and most of those are copy-edit ones. Although I assume that I am doing right, but I would like to ask other editors' opinions for just in case. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your revert and the reasons for it. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First female President of South Korea

Exclude - Not internationally notable, there have been many female state leaders, one more is not exceptional except in that country. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EXCLUDE - not even sure why this low level event is even remotely under discussion--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude - of no global notability; it hasn't even affected South Korea. 92.41.211.133 (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Pakistan garment factory fires

Include - The third largest fire (although it's actually 2 fires) by death toll since 2001 (excluding 9/11). The Comayagua prison fire is larger and has been included in this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exclude - how are the fires in Pakistan or the fire in Honduras of any notability outside their respective countries? The difference between these events and the Great Fire of London is that the vast majority of people have never heard of the factory fires or prison fire, whereas the Great Fire of London destroyed a significant proportion of one of the world's most important cities and is known about by millions of people across the world over three centuries later. There is no chance that decades in the future, the general public will remember 2012 as the year of the factory fires and prison fire. Domestic events being included because people died would lead to year articles being dominated by the likes of the 2011 M5 motorway crash and the Allenton house fire. Lists of disasters is there for people who want to know about them; this article is meant to be only for world-notable events. 94.196.63.95 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
INCLUDE - death toll alone is massive and will go down as one of the worst ever industrial accidents of all time - laughable not to include this event in world article - you ask how it effects other nations? - you dont think that other nations will study how to prevent this in the future in their own countries?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they will, but unless they change laws on the basis of that, it is not relevant outside the country of occurrence. Do you think that years in the future you will have a conversation with someone about 2012, and they will say "I remember 2012 very well, that was the year of the prison fire in Honduras and the factory fires in Pakistan"? Can you find even one person (in real life rather than on Wikipedia) who is not Honduran, who has heard of the prison fire? Likewise with the Pakistan fires. These are not world events. The only people outside the respective countries concerned who are interested are fire/disaster experts. 92.40.123.182 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war

With quoted 40,000 deaths, I think Syrian civil war needs a mention - especially the milestones of the conflict. The only mention right now is indirect over a diplomatic issue between Canada and Iran. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It began last year, yet it is mentioned only briefly on 2011. Although it is a civil war, several other countries and international organisations are involved. Hence a substantial overview of this conflict should be included on 2011 and on this article. 188.28.13.104 (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling updates

Do we really need rolling updates throughout New Year's Eve and New Year's Day? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't. However, I think that allowing some users to have their little fun for a day is significantly less harmful overall than constantly reverting them, issuing warnings or the like. --illythr (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. This is a tedious process we have to go through every year...WP:YAWN DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Reyes Monteón

Even though he was one article short before his death, I still think he deserves a spot in this page as he did a lot for Mexican football Eagle2012a (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude, don't see a good reason for an exception in this case. His contribution to Mexican football can be acknowledged by listing his death in 2012 in Mexico (and expanding his article for that matter, because right now it's in a rather poor state). — Yerpo Eh? 16:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude Having done a lot for Mexican football is a perfectly good reason for including him in 2012 in Mexico. However his article does not suggest sufficient international notability which is required for this article. I note that of the 4 references 2 are obituaries, 1 is a dead link and the other is a list of Mexican football players, which suggests his article is more a result of a Football project than specific notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Carey, Jr.

Seeking consensus to Include - although he was one short of required 9 non-Eng at death I have nominated him here for exclusion from WP:RY thru concensus which I believe he will achieve - typically, the biggest problem with getting consensus is that the name was unknown before death. Mr. Carey was a well known actor appearing in many John Ford films with John Wayne - he was easily recognized--S-d n r (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the perspective of a non-film-expert, he doesn't seem worthy of an exception. He was two articles short at the time of his death, and even his biography here is still little more than a stub listing his roles. Same goes for foreign-language articles. — Yerpo Eh? 16:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As someone familiar with films, I agree. Certainly 2012 in film, but not 2012. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the world's population have never heard of him. In what way are you claiming that he is notable outside the US? He is on 2012 in film and 2012 in the United States. 92.41.214.134 (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, while his career is far more substantial than many actors who have been included in Recent Year articles, on the basis of the criteria currently in use I do not see that there is a sufficient case to make him an exception. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that he had a long, successful career. However, number of roles played is not part of the criteria for inclusion on articles such as this one. He is little-known outside the US. 92.41.214.134 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 31 December 2012

[[December 14] "Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting" Adam Lanza fatally shoots 20 students and 6 staff members. The massacre was the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history 99.238.139.208 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been requested above. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:2012#Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The wording of your request demonstrates why it is not in this article but in 2012 in the United States instead. 92.41.200.132 (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012&oldid=530688917"