Talk:2024/Archive 1

Archive 1

When does the article become present tense?

As of writing it is 8:35am UTC+2. I believe the first places to enter 2024 will cross over in 4 hours and 25 minutes from now. Will the 'January 1st' section become present/past tense when this happens? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter particularly much, a 24 hour window is quite small and any timezone error is insignificant. —Panamitsu (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Should we add the Kerman bombings to events?

So far the bombings in Iran killed at least 103 people. Grainmaster132 (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be added but we should wait for more information on what exactly occurred. Entries like this tend to cause charged responses from various sides given the broader context of what is currently going on in the region so it is always best to wait in the initial stages. PaulRKil (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I support inclusion because of the high death toll (103 so far), the fact it took place on the anniversary of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, and received international coverage and reactions. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Include, due to high death toll. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Calendars

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

this https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024 has a nice feature (a list of what year it is in different calendars) that is absent from the present article can we get some sort of cross reference ? or put in the intro this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_calendars which isn't quite as good thanks !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cinnamon colbert: The "Year in various calendars" template was removed from Template:C21 year in topic by Johnson524 at 17:11, 14 November 2023. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: Multiple editors made requests on the C21 year in topic talk page asking to shorten the template in some considerable way: reasons being so that mobile editors don’t have to scroll so much to get to the actual content of ‘year’ articles, and since the template was so long it would often go deep into the body of articles. It was a WP:BOLD edit request for sure, so multiple inquiries were made on multiple WikiProject talk pages over the span multiple months to ask for ideas on how to make this edit happen without losing important content. In the end, there were net zero responses and nobody opposed, so I went ahead with deleting everything but the template’s wikilinks since discussions had gone nowhere. This is the first opposition I’ve heard on this to date, so if you can think of a way to add back the list of year formats in a way they do not interfere with the reasons I said above on why they were originally removed, then go ahead, but discussions about shortening this template had been ongoing for months at this point, and I felt obligated to conclude them somehow. Any feedback is appreciated. Johnson524 23:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Centralized discussion for this topic at Template talk:C21 year in topic#Year in various calendars disappeared 2001 onwards Johnson524 01:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date format

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020). The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest. At the village pump, I've presented a proposal to establish a standard to use DMY in general for all articles about "generic" years. The discussion got kind of messy however, and I'll propaly restart it at some point. In the meantime, I would like it to create consensus about changing 2024 specifically as well as all other nine articles about the 2020s to the DMY format.--Marginataen (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC) I'm pasting the same reply at all the 2020s talk page sections on this topic, with the exception of 2023. As of about a month ago, we had a situation in which all generic year articles had a consistent date format. Since both date styles are considered appropriate per the Manual of Style, it's unusual to see such solid consistency. Since I value consistency, I appreciated that rare situation. As of last month, only 2023 was changed via local consensus to be different than the rest. If this proposal passes for this article, it would join a tiny minority of articles that do not match the overall consistent style. I oppose for that reason. I would be fine with all generic year articles changing to consistently use a different style, and that is the proposal on the table at WP:VPR#Date format for year articles. Currently, it seems we're at the tail end of a pre-RfC discussion with plans to move forward with an RfC in the next week or so. I would much prefer to keep discussing the overarching change rather than have individual discussions at each year article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC) I do think it is important to change 2024 as it is the year to come and will probably begin before we get to be done with that discussion about all articles. Marginataen (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC) After a week with no but one invalid objection, I've changed the format. The objection is invalid because there is no established consensus on using the same format across articles but only within articles. That is exactly what I'll be trying to do in the comming weeks, but until then the argument there is none and the objection invalid. I will not repost this reply across articles, only here on 2024, so please response here.--Marginataen (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Marginataen, you can't unilaterally declare my objection invalid. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC) MOS:DATEVAR requires consensus to change from an established style. Marginataen, it is clear that you do not yet have consensus. Please self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC) I didn't just do it. I explained to you why it's the case. Why do you think your objection is valid when consistency across year articles has never been agreed upon? That fact was pretty much the only thing we got out of latest RfC Marginataen (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC) We haven't done any RfC, and we paused starting it on your request. There are many valid reasons to want a particular date format. MOS:DATEVAR does not comment on what rationales are valid or not, nor does any policy I'm aware of. You can disagree with my rationale, but deciding that it is invalid and then edit warring based on that decision is disruptive. Please self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Ohh sorry, I quite obviously meant the discussion itself Marginataen (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not saying that consistency was ever agreed upon. I'm just saying that it is desirable. You are free to think otherwise. As long as there is not consensus for your position, the article should remain at the status quo ante. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Anyone other have anything to say? Marginataen (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC) No one answering a talk page discussion is not an argument is not an argument for not making a change. If it was so, all changes could simply he halted by no one engaging in a talk page discussion. Does it really matter that much to you? I will end up making af RfC about it anyway but it just important for 2024 as it will soon be the current year. Marginataen (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) "Does it really matter that much to you?" is a bit of a double-edged sword, isn't it? I care enough to state my viewpoint (a few times) and help craft an RfC question. If consensus develops against me, I'll be fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Does China's Patriotic Education Law merit an entry?

Personally I oppose this as an entry, as there is no article for this law, it appears to be a purely domestic event, and its topic (education) usually doesn't merit entries on articles about years--there's no article for [years] in education.

This was the entry:

• China Patriotic Education Law will take effect

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't. It appears to not even have an article so why would it ever be included. I'm starting to think we need to semi-protect the article. It seems every time we approach the new year that IP editors show up and put poorly sourced or outright bizarre entries. PaulRKil (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Domestic law changes are commonplace & they're rarely important enough for main year articles. Junior, local, domestic & regional competitions are also often wrongly added. A host leaving a game show was added, before being removed. Things such as those, which are nowhere near important enough, are often added to main year articles. X2023X (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

European centric

Why is the euro final down for 14 July, but the Asian and Africa equivalents not mentioned. 80.192.242.40 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

None of them should be as they are not global events like the olympics or the world cup so it will be removed along with the Asian and African events. PaulRKil (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Regional competitions shouldn't be on main year articles. They should be on sub-articles such as 2024 in sports. X2023X (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

They should be mentioned in my humble opinion, pending due weight compliance. They should be on sub-articles such as 2024 in sports – why so? If they receive sufficient coverage to fulfill DUE (which is our inclusion criteria, as opposed to the BS that was international notability), they should be mentioned here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Page protection

People are slobbering over this page to the point where people are adding random domestic events that nobody cares about. I propose we protect this page for now until people realize that these events aren't notable enough. DementiaGaming (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be pending changes protected or semi-protected. A host leaving a game show & YouTuber no longer making videos were added to this article, before being rightly removed. X2023X (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I've requested to have the page bumped from semi-protected to extended protected. PaulRKil (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if that isn't granted, this page needs semi-protection for this year to prevent vandalism and inexperienced editors from including irrelevant entires. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected until Friday so if anything happens that warrants it to be protected again, then users can re-submit a request but they won't budge on a higher degree of protection. PaulRKil (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Peak editing for year articles is typically late Dec & early Jan, so it'll probably reduce significantly during the next week or so. X2023X (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose extended-confirmed protection or anything higher. This would unfairly deter new editors and serves the message to others that we assume bad faith. Instead of preventing new editors (or "fans") from contributing as suggested by a previously T-Banned editor on the 2022 talk page, we should welcome then into the discussion and offer them a fair chance to defend their inclusion. For this rationale, I would suggest pending changes protection over semi. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Assassination of Saleh al-Arouri

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The assassination of Saleh al-Arouri has been added and removed multiple times. X2023X (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Exclude: It appears he isn't a major leader of Hamas and is instead a deputy leader. In my perspective, adding him would be equivalent to adding events for the numerous Russian generals or regional governors that have been killed in the invasion of Ukraine. I also don't think it is a markedly major escalation of the conflict that would warrant inclusion. PaulRKil (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC) I think this should be an include considering how much coverage was given on this figure and assassination. We should follow DUE based on coverage, which for the most part (responding in part to Paul) will exclude most random Russian officials during the Ukraine invasion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Epstein Island Flight Logs

This is literally some of the biggest news of the whole decade so far, hundreds of public figures are being exposed as paedophiles, and no one is talking about it on this page? Former Presidents are being exposed here! I mean, its just my opinion, yous can tell me what you think. 123WasTaken (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

None of what you said is true. "Hundreds of public figures" is less than a dozen with pretty much all of them not being directly implicated in any wrongdoing. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein's associates list for more detail. PaulRKil (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the flight logs were released in 2021 (they've just been circulating again on social media recently). The new info now is just names which were previously redacted in the court proceedings. Not all of them have been accused of any crimes (some are witnesses and victims). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The article about it was deleted. The info is vague & most of what's being said is speculation. It's highly-publicised, but not important. X2023X (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hidden text

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There was a note at the top of the Events section, only visible when editing, asking editors not to add things which are ineligible for main year articles. It was removed for not having consensus, though I'd say it being there unchallenged was silent consensus. Should the note be reinstated? If not, what's a better way to deter things being frequently added including local/sub-national elections, entertainment events, the personal lives of celebrities, low/zero-death toll accidents, junior/youth/college/local/domestic/regional sports events, local/sub-national elections? Such things being added is the biggest problem on main year articles. X2023X (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC) WP:BADHIDDENTEXT clearly states that types of hidden text that should not be added include: others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit. 33ABGirl (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC) There's a consensus to not add the things I mentioned & those which the hidden note included, though I don't know if there's a guideline or policy to that effect. Any ideas regarding trying to reduce the frequency by which such entries are being added? Some of them don't even have articles, such as the train crash in Java & the Jeffrey Epstein list. X2023X (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC) 33ABGirl makes a very strong argument which practically destroys your entire case. I would recommend using a hidden comment phrased as this: "Current consensus does not support the inclusion of event X. If you wish to rediscuss and change consensus, consider starting a new discussion on the talk page first". Btw, as a reminder to all, please do not assume a consensus exists unless you can link and cite specific discussions saying otherwise. One editor engaged in this behavior before and the editor who did so got T-Banned. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 Haneda Airport runway collision and Attempted assassination of Lee Jae-myung

Should we include the 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision and the Attempted assassination of Lee Jae-myung to this page? There has been a lot of back and forth about their inclusion.

Outcome will, of course, be honored. PaulRKil (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't come off as canvassing but it feels appropriate to notify the people involved in the edit warring so they may be able to provide their perspective @Heathy94, @DL6443, @DementiaGaming, @X2023X, @sinisreality2023, @MrJaydenfire, @Wikieditor019, @Jake11223344, @Vinicius mad, @Tri Ardiansyah, @Bobertrobert0709, @Indiana6724, @WolfishJT, @ PaulRKil (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• I oppose both entries for lacking due weight. The 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision didn't have a high death toll and wasn't a catastrophic incident (i.e. the passengers all survived), so it only merits an entry in 2024 in Japan and not this page. The attempted assassination of Lee Jae-myung didn't result in Lee Jae-myung's death (for now) and Lee Jae-myung wasn't a current or former head of state/government. By contrast, the 2022 assassination of Shinzo Abe resulted in Shinzo Abe's death who was a former head of government. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect towards your opinion, due weight is defined at WP:DUE as significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. You seem to be using due weight as a word to describe your own opinion on these events' material instinct instead and how to increase the chances of your comment not being seen as an argument, not necessarily in compliance with the policy. Since Japanese events rarely get coverage Stateside, when I hear about disasters happening at Haneda Airport from an NBC news alert on my phone, that's something that I would consider important or deserving of some attention. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• I also oppose as both events don't fall into being notable enough for entry in main year articles. Major transportation disasters are normally only included and this event did not result in a catastrophic incident and plane crashes with a larger loss of life have been excluded in the past. If anything, I'd support it briefly being mentioned in the earthquake entry as it appears to be a contributing factor as the coast guard plane was responding to the earthquake.

In the case of the assassination attempt, Lee Jae-myung was not a current or former head of state/government and did not succumb to his injuries. For context, the inclusion of the assassination of Shinzo Abe in 2022 was debated because it happened after his premiership as some editors felt only assassinations of incumbents should be included, therefore trying to add an attempt on a non-national non-incumbent political figure wouldn't warrant inclusion in a main year article. PaulRKil (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Exclude the Haneda Airport runway collision, due to insufficient notability and low death toll. I am neutral on Lee Jae-myung, but leaning towards exclude. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Exclude both. The death toll of the crash is 5. Transport accidents with similar or higher death tolls happen every day. The stabbing didn't kill anyone. There was only one victim who's never been a head of state/gov. It appears to be a lone wolf attack; there's no indication of the suspect having any international links, nor links to gangs, terrorist groups etc. X2023X (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Exclude Haneda Airport collision per ES of previous reverts prior to my self-revert, but support a brief mention in the January 1 earthquake entry per PaulRKil. Neutral on Lee Jae-myung. --DL6443 (^Talk/_Contribs) 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, I wasn't aware of the previous reverts when I added the Haneda Airport entry, and hastily self-reverted --DL6443 (^Talk/_Contribs) 21:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Include the 2024 Haneda Airport runway collision as part of the 2024 Sea of Japan earthquake section, as one of the planes involved was directly related. Exclude the attempted assassination of Lee Jae-myung as the wounds were not fatal. 33ABGirl (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• I also would just note that an air incident could also be notable for the lack of fatalities as well. US Airways Flight 1549 is notable for that reason. I think for now we keep it mentioned in the earthquake entry but it may be revisited once the investigation continues. There’s a lot of speculation that the fact the plane was made of composite materials played a significant role in the lack of fatalities on the airliner, but nothing official. PaulRKil (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Include as part of the entry for the earthquake. DUE would govern that given the high amount of coverage from RS's, especially international coverage, we at least acknowledge it here. No opinion on Lee yet, leaning exclude due to lack of ability to find more widespread coverage in US media (though I found a few pieces about it) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Should the MNDAA capture of Laukkai be included

On Jan 5 2024, the major scam hub and the capital city of Kokang SAZ, Laukkai in Myanmar was captured fully by the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army and was a major defeat for the military junta of Myanmar. Should this be included. Arthur Taksin (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Borderline exclude because this page is generally not for providing details about ongoing armed conflicts, even if important, with the main exception of when armed conflicts begin or end. The specific page for the Myanmar Civil War includes the capture of Laukkai in the lead as part of the infobox on the right, and potential readers can just click on the hyperlink in the lead on this page to go to that page. This isn't denying the due weight and importance of the event, but I don't believe this page is best suited for including such details. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800 Please provide a discussion where there is consensus that this page is generally not for providing details about ongoing armed conflicts, even if important, with the main exception of when armed conflicts begin or end to support your claim. 33ABGirl (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800 Could you explain why you tried to strike my question with this edit? Please be aware that this is disruptive editing. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@33ABGirl Can you explain why you strike other editors questions as well? I am an editor of the Myanmar Civil War page, and was the one who shrank all the small sections on that page into 4 larger sections. The Myanmar Civil War is still ongoing, with many important details that don't merit inclusion on this page (i.e. the state of Chinland, the siege of Loikaw, the success of Operation 1027, etc.) which is meant for a general overview on 2024, not a place to provide important updates on armed conflicts. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Those comments I've struck are in accordance WP:SOCKSTRIKE, previously stated to you in this edit. The edit were made by a ban evading sockpuppet, standard practice is to strike the sock's comments. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a discussion where there is consensus that the page is ...not a place to provide important updates on armed conflicts....? I would think that if a update on a conflict is important, it would belong on this page? 33ABGirl (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I never said that there's a consensus. I was just stating my views for why I believe this entry shouldn't be included, and I included the word "borderline" because I could change my own view if other editors agree. This page, 2024, has space constraints and often has hyperlinks in the lead to direct users to find out additional information on the main pages for events.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If we need to go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, so be it. I am now aware of your actions for WP:SOCKSTRIKE, which has been resolved. I added the disagreement to WP:3, instead of it taking up more space here. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed your addition to WP:3. As mentioned on WP:3, Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. This discussion is perfunctory and has not come to a standstill.

I am also uncertain about the reasoning behind your assertion that the discussion should not be taking up more space here. The talk page is where issues on this page should be discussed. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am in fact opposed to including this content for similar reasons as you mentioned. My challenge to your response was solely based on the phrasing, which seemed to imply the existence of a consensus that hadn't been established. 33ABGirl (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Exclude per JohnAdams1800. As there are limitations on this page on the inclusion of events, with this event being part of a larger event which has its own stand-alone timeline, not all milestones for the larger events should be included here. Inclusion of this event over other similarly or more impactful events in the larger even would be WP:UNDUE. 33ABGirl (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Does North Korean recognition of South Korea merit inclusion?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I added the following entry:

• January 15
  • North Korea–South Korea relations: North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un says Korean reunification is "no longer possible" and asks the Supreme People's Assembly to amend the constitution to formally recognize South Korea as a separate country.

I believe it merits entry because the Korean War has never had a formal peace treaty, and both countries--North Korea and South Korea--have never recognized each other, claiming the entire territory of the Korean Peninsula. This change from Kim Jong Un (totalitarian dictator of North Korea) appears to merit due weight, at least in my opinion. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Exclude. No concrete actions have been taken by either government thus far, apart from an announcement made by the North Korean Government. Considering that the North Korean Government frequently makes such announcements without subsequent action, including this particular announcement while excluding other similar ones would be considered giving undue weight WP:UNDUE. If substantial action is taken, such as the formal amendment of the constitution, then the inclusion of that specific action can be considered. 33ABGirl (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait until the constitution is amended and/or the North Koreans submit something akin to a formal recognition to the United Nations. PaulRKil (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Include. Come on, this is the first major event in the Korean conflict since 2018. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Super Bowl

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey, so the Super Bowl is coming up in the US. You think we should add that to predicted and scheduled events? ItsShrimple (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose It goes in 2024 in sports, not this page. The Super Bowl is an American domestic sporting event that does not have sufficient due weight to belong on this page. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, just wondering why it’s on the 2025 page under predicted events. ItsShrimple (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I don't believe it's included in the 1967 to 2023 pages. Best placed in the 2024 in sports page. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Non global recurring annual event, we should only include non-annual global level events such as the World Cup and the Olympics. The sources of an event need to demonstrate its significance in the context of a year. Most sources for the Super Bowl amount to “It’s occurring on x date at x arena.” That happens every year, what makes this year extraordinary? PaulRKil (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Strong exclude. Domestic sporting event. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should these entries be included for space reasons--I added the main article hyperlinks in the lead (2024 Iran-Pakistan skirmishes and Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war).

• Iran carries out missile strikes in Iraq and Syria, declaring them as retaliation for the Kerman bombings on 3 January
• January 16 – Iran carries out missile strikes in Pakistan, declaring that it was targeting the Sunni Baloch separatist group Jaish ul-Adl, which had claimed responsibility for the 2019 Khash–Zahedan suicide bombing
• January 17 – Iranian-backed Houthi movement attacked the Marshall Islands-flagged, United States-owned and operated bulk carrier Genco Picardy in the Gulf of Aden.
• January 18 – Pakistan carries out retaliatory missile strikes in Iran as a response to the earlier Iranian missile strikes inside Pakistani territory.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait: I think these will ultimately either be excluded or merged into one or two entries given the fact they're so closely related. PaulRKil (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Does the 2024 Uqturpan earthquake merit inclusion?

I'm unsure, but if there is a consensus to include it the entry should be rewritten, particularly to remove grammatical errors. This may have merit as it had an effect on three countries, but pages about years don't include every international natural disaster.

This was the entry, which has grammatical errors:

• January 22 - A earthquake shakes shared borders between China, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, leaving 15 deads.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Exclude for now. Minimal casualties, despite the high quake magnitude. Very little media coverage. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Does this entry merit inclusion--I can't find an article on it.

I personally oppose inclusion because there's no article on this event, the death toll is low, and the last sentence indicates a lack of media coverage and investigation about the event.

• January 20 – An airstrike kills five elite Iranian Revolutionary Guards in a building in Damascus. Iran blames Israel.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Exclude due to lack of notability. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Upano Valley Sites

You think we should add the discovery of the Upano Valley sites? Pretty large discovery in my opinion. ItsShrimple (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Borderline exclude as this better belongs in 2024 in archaeology, as this was an archaeological finding, not a geopolitical event or major scientific breakthrough. I added the discovery to that page. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

An event does not have to be a geopolitical event or major scientific breakthrough to be included on this page. Archaeological findings may be included if it meets the due weight criteria. 33ABGirl (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Given their age, this discovery does seem notable. I'm open to inclusion, provided the entry is written to emphasise they are the oldest. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Include This was a very major archaeological discovery. Just because there is a more specific page does not mean that it cannot be included here. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 Sea of Japan earthquake

Should we remove the Sea of Japan earthquake entry? I think we should. It only killed 20 people. DementiaGaming (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Include. 7.6 magnitude isn't a minor quake, and the casualty figure is now almost 50. There is widespread damage to properties. This was Japan's largest earthquake since 2015. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Borderline exlcude while not minor, context is important. It hit a country that is well prepared to handle earthquakes of that magnitude and the result is much less damage and loss of life compared to the earthquakes of similar magnitude we saw hit in Haiti and Turkey. Similarly, we don't include every Category 4-5 hurricane that hits the United States and causes a lot of damage and inflicts deaths in the dozens because the US is largely prepared to handle such storms. By extension, we should also exclude the plane crash that occurred. PaulRKil (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. The death toll has risen to 57 people, and although we're not getting an exact number on how expensive it is, it's now probably very, very, costly. Yeah, I think we should include it. DementiaGaming (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree as well to include, but we should still Exclude the related plane crash in my point of view. PaulRKil (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The death toll is now 73. X2023X (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Include This is notable event with significant coverage. ArtForDecades610 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Kenneth Eugene smith execution

He is the first person to be executed by nitrogen gas in history, I feel like that should be noted in here 2603:8080:7CF0:8820:C888:AB62:5E18:2C37 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Borderline oppose, because I believe this can better go in 2024 in politics, which I added the event to. Kenneth Eugene Smith was an American convicted murderer, and his execution involved legal challenges and reactions, including different views and laws (i.e. other countries' laws) regarding capital punishment. The page about 2024 has limited space, and usually doesn't include events surrounding criminal law. If other editors believe the entry should be included, and there is a consensus, the event can be added to the main page.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutral, and leaning towards exclusion. The method of execution is somewhat notable, being the world's first. However, I'm not sure if the event itself merits inclusion on the 2024 page. He was just one man, and largely unknown. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Leaning include, at least for now, as it's a notable execution. World's first as far as I know. Waiting to see what enduring notability this one has. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Exclude this is more fitting in 2024 in the United States PaulRKil (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

Shouldn't there be a section for predicted events in popular culture? 46.142.141.1 (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is, pop culture should be on the article as it had an impact on each year, since 20th century. ArtForDecades610 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Include for me, pop culture has its defining moments on each year and of course decade. Technology could be the further influence as it had an effect on media and entertainment. Take for example, movies, video games, music, literature, sports, and TV shows and specials. These like slang and technical terms are also significant on shaping world cultures and traditions, as well as language history and development. ArtForDecades610 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose pending Due Weight. Rarely is stuff like this widely mentioned, and even then not by a majority of reliable sources. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Include Because, why not? Gold Like Shore8 (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Include Normally, I would say that, but I don’t have anything wrong with pop culture and media events, as you can see, they are completely covered by journalism and academic sources. These events can stay as long as it wants as long it follows Wikipedia core principles and policies. -“Userbase3913” (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because popular culture in 2024 already has specific pages for it, and usually doesn't have sufficient due weight to be on this page. See 2024 by topic (i.e. arts, music, sports, etc.) for such events.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Does this entry on the Israel-Hamas war merit inclusion?

I left the entry on the page for now, but I personally oppose inclusion because I believe the entry lacks due weight as a minor event of a much larger, ongoing armed conflict--the Israel-Hamas War. This page usually doesn't include events about major ongoing armed conflicts, both because information can rapidly change and because there are timelines for such events--Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war.

This is the entry:

• February 1
  • Israel–Hamas war: United States imposes sanctions on Israeli settlers over the violence in West Bank.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, pending due weight. My concerns are linked to WP:TOOSOON InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, I agree that it is too minor for this article and comparatively isn't even a major event in the context of the war. Yeoutie (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. For the reasons others have already given here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2024

Lynja from CookingWithLynja died on January 1st, 2024. Please add this. Junmintt (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It doesn't go on this page--it goes in Deaths in 2024--this page just has the hyperlink to that page. In fact, it's already on there for January 1, 2024--Deaths in 2024#1 2 JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Should these entries be included?

• February 1 – Russian invasion of Ukraine: All 27 EU member states agree on a €50bn ($55bn) aid package to support Ukraine.

• February 2 – The US launches airstrikes on 85 targets in Iraq and Syria in response to a deadly drone attack on a US military base.

• February 3 – Red Sea crisis: The US and UK launch joint strikes on 36 Houthi targets across 13 locations in Yemen.

33ABGirl (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose all as less significant and incremental updates of conflicts that are more appropriate for their respective timelines. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I also oppose for the same reasons as 33ABGirl. These events are part of major ongoing armed conflicts that are mentioned in the lead, and have their own timelines. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Include. A $55 billion aid package (equivalent to the GDP of a small country!) is hardly "incremental". This will shape the course of the conflict for many months to come. And you clearly aren't familiar with European politics – this was a really pivotal agreement, which followed immense pressure on the Hungarian government. As for the other two, how are airstrikes on 85 (eighty-five!) targets "insignificant"? And another 36 after that? What exactly would be significant in your eyes? Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Include. All of these are relevant.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Ukraine and Red Sea entries, but include US airstrikes on February 2. I agree with above that the first two are just small updates in major wars that we have seen before, but the airstrikes present the first major escalation and response to the ongoing attacks on US bases in the region which is not represented on this page as of yet. Yeoutie (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Edits

Excuse me, but I put in several events here, and I just checked back and they're gone. 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It appears user@JohnAdams1800 removed your entries for being either too specific for this page or lacking a reliable source. Looking at your additions, I would suggest that they are better suited in pages such as 2024 in the United States or 2024 in Aviation as this page is for events with sufficient international notability and due weight. If you think that an event should be included here but was deleted, you can make a new talk page section and invite other users for their opinions. Yeoutie (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

2024 Bashkortostan protests

Should we add the 2024 Bashkortostan protests? Seems significant enough to warrant inclusion. ItsShrimple (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Exclude. Lack of international notability. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Include. It was on Portal:Current events, so I think that makes it eligible for being on here. DementiaGaming (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe that this may not be a reliable indicator of the notability of an event. After briefly editing on the portal today for the first time, it appears that the events featured are selected by a very limited number of editors. Content disputes are often resolved through edit warring rather than engaging in meaningful discussions. 33ABGirl (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Should the 29 February 2024 Al-Rashid massacre be included?

I personally oppose including this entry, because it's an ongoing event in a major armed conflict (the Israel-Hamas War) with its own timeline (Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war). The death toll and investigation surrounding the event are still ongoing.

Update: It appears there is a consensus for inclusion. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Include. Once again, we have an event that is obviously notable, with massive amounts of worldwide media coverage, and international condemnation – and in this case, involving the literal massacre of 112 people. Yet, simply because it's part of an ongoing conflict, it apparently somehow "doesn't count". Let me ask you, is there any single event within a larger conflict that is allowed to be included? Should we go back through the 1939–1945 pages and begin mass-deleting a bunch of entries? Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This page is not protected, and the event's inclusion risks vandalism and violations of NPOV. The Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident page is extended-confirmation protected. The incident is part of one of the most contentious topics in Wikipedia (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), and I support inclusion after the death toll and details of the incident are verified.

Side-note: I don't know why the semi-protection for this page was removed, considering this page routinely gets irrelevant entries included. I'm not going to ask for it to be added back because administrators want evidence of vandalism first (pages aren't preemptively protected). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Include Getting a lot media coverage, it was a leading item on BBC news a short time ago. PatGallacher (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Include: While it is an event in an ongoing major armed conflict, it has proven to be a far more significant event versus the more typical occurrences we've seen in this conflict and seems to be a turning point in the international view of Israel's handling of the war. There appears to be a lot of countries that are publicly scrutinizing Israel for the first time as a result. Not to delve too far into Crystal Ball territory, I think it is notable just for the reaction by Israel's allies afterward. PaulRKil (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Mexico Embassy raid

Should we include the Mexican embassy raid from Ecuador? 2603:8080:7CF0:280:7D6F:CCDA:7946:2DD9 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Include, the raid has resulted in Mexico and Nicaragua breaking off diplomatic relations with Ecuador and Mexico has filed a complaint with the ICJ. Yeoutie (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Include, given widespread coverage of international law and reactions from countries & international organizations. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Super Bowl

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Super Bowl had a record-breaking viewer count of 123 million spectators and is the most-watched American broadcast of all time, surpassing the Apollo 11 Moon landing. There is no way it should not be included.

Yes, events on this list are based on how popular they were, and I don’t think that 123 million spectators were geared up and excited to go see the news broadcast on the “2024 Korochansky Ilyushin Il-76 crash” DementiaGaming (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like there are similar discussions every year such as last year's. General idea is that it is a purely domestic sporting event, and if we let the Super Bowl in a whole host of country-specific sporting events would then be included as well. To the most-watched broadcast point, I would argue that this, again, is only country-specific, and that looking at List of most-watched television broadcasts#United States the Super Bowl gaining this many viewers is not too uncommon especially in recent years. Yeoutie (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Also realized this has already been discussed this year just a few sections up. Yeoutie (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of the Super Bowl or other domestic sporting events from any country, because this page is for events with sufficient due weight internationally. The Olympics are an international competition where almost every country competes. Those events go in 2024 in sports.

This page doesn't include many notable events related to popular culture and other notable categories, not just domestic sporting events. Many scientific discoveries, technological inventions, performing arts events, and environmental events aren't included. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose domestic sporting event. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per what @Yeoutie and @JohnAdams1800 have said. Same reason we don't add UEFA Champions League which are larger in terms of viewership which averages 400 million. PaulRKil (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the Super Bowl is an exception and should be included, as the closest thing that we have to a World Cup of American football. Unlike UEFA or the NBA, there isn't a notable FIFA tournament equivalent for American Football, and the ones that do exist barely make a mark. UEFA likely isn't included because of the existence of the FIFA World Cup, same with the NBA Finals being excluded since FIBA exists, and even the WBC trumping the MLB World Series. There ain't a notable international American Football tournament. Plus, American football is an increasingly international sport. The fandom has increased in East Asia as much as it has in Europe, which is now hosting demonstration games every year in the UK and Munich. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does the passage of the AI Act in Europe merit an entry? I personally oppose it.

I oppose inclusion because I believe this entry can better go in 2024 in science (I added it there), as this article usually doesn't include domestic laws for entries.

This is the entry:

• March 13 – The Artificial Intelligence Act, the world's first comprehensive legal and regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, is passed by the European Union.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, anything that's even slightly interesting, or science/tech-related should ALWAYS be deleted. That seems to be the default response to everything on here. Apparently we're ONLY allowed to post election results, such as those from remote Pacific Islands that most people haven't even heard of. Never mind the fact that AI is emerging as one of the global issues of our time, and this was the first agreement of its kind in the world, and applies extraterritorially (i.e. like the GDPR), as well as to EU member states. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I kept the entry, and will ensure it stays on the page unless there's a consensus to remove it. Also the page doesn't include every election, mainly just national elections for heads of government & state (i.e. referendums, local/regional elections, or special/by-elections are rarely included) that receive reliable coverage.

Side-note: I'm not anti-science/technology--I'm a college student majoring in mathematics. This page and 2024 in science rarely mention new mathematical discoveries and proofs, despite mathematics being a level-1 vital article. The last entry that I found on mathematics for the year pages was in 1994 (the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem). My point is lots of advances aren't mentioned on the year pages in general.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wjfox2005 I agree we should include the AI Act but I also think every sovereign nation should have their elections where their executive office is at stake, regardless of the size of the country listed. Those "remote Pacific Islands" comprise of about 3.5 million people when you exclude Australia and New Zealand. PaulRKil (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Include because it is an act that covers multiple nations by way of it being an AU regulation and as the entry says, it is the first regulatory framework for AI. Definitely significant in the AI boom that we are seeing right now. PaulRKil (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep it in. My opinion is the same as PaulRKil. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Should this entry be included?

• February 6 – Former President of Chile Sebastián Piñera dies in a helicopter crash at the age of 74.

33ABGirl (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the inclusion of this death on the main year page, as there is a separate page dedicated to listing deaths. While the cause of death is extraordinary, I am uncertain if it rises to meriting a spot on this page. The individual in question was also a former head of state, not an incumbent one. 33ABGirl (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Support because Piñera is a former head of state, his death received widespread coverage by reliable sources and international heads of state, and his cause of death was extraordinary.

I opposed including the earlier attempted assassination of Lee Jae-myung (2 January 2024) because the latter was never a head of state, survived the assassination attempt, and did not receive reactions from international heads of state. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Overdue reply, but Oppose. We have a deaths list for a reason. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Do these entries merit inclusion?

• • The Chinese President Xi Jinping begins his European tour, starting in France, Serbia and ending in Hungary.
• May 6
  • King Charles III, celebrates the first anniversary of his coronation, marked to his cancer diagnosis.
  • The King Frederik X and his wife, the Queen, makes the first state visit to Sweden, as new monarchs, since the abdication of his mother, in January 14, 2024.

I removed them after someone added them. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

King Charles III celebrates the first anniversary of his coronation, marked by his cancer diagnosis, I don't think it is relevant Otilio2 (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that any of them are notorious. The visit of the Chinese President and the new Danish King and Queen are normal diplomatic events and we don't include here anniversaries of ephemerides. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Exclude all. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

President Xi Jinping's State Visit to France

I was wondering if it is notable enough to be included here?

Macron sets Ukraine as top priority as China’s Xi Jinping pays a state visit to France – AP News

China's Xi Arrives in France for State Visit – Voice of America AsianStuff03 (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, though it can go in 2024 in China and 2024 in France. State visits between heads of state are common and lack due weight for this page, unless they are particularly significant--i.e. two countries establish diplomatic relations and this is the first state visit after that. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as it isn't too unusual. While they are geopolitical rivals, they do have open relations with each other. If they had zero diplomatic relations such as the case with North Korea and a lot of western states, it would be notable. PaulRKil (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

oppose – state visits aren't too big and common place. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion and wording of this entry

I'm not sure about whether this entry merits inclusion, but I'm leaning towards exclude--Is there an article for this event? The State of Palestine has attempted to become a full member of the UN for decades, so this event would likely have gotten its own article if there was a change in its UN status.

• May 10 – The United Nations General Assembly increases the rights of Palestine within the United Nations, and advocates for the United Nations Security Council to make Palestine a UN member state.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd include it pending bigger decisions or impacts. For now it's the biggest one which has happened, though if more significant developments occur, I'd be in favor of condensing all of it into a single entry. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Rafah Offensive

Shouldn't we add the beginning of the Rafah offensive to the section of events in May, given how much is being reported on it, and how important it has become? Tornadoboy7 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait and see. Way too often do we, not to discount myself, fall into TOOSOON traps, and this looks like yet another one. Until something is firm in place, I'd exclude, pending extraneous circumstances like when the entire world's TV sets were focused on lower Manhattan during 9/11. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand. but it seems that most news sources are covering this topic at the current moment. Plus, it looks like the Rafah offensive will go on for some time. Tornadoboy7 (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait because neither Israel, Hamas, or any large s organizations monitoring the situation have said that Israel has begun its formal invasion aside from some skirmishes and missile exchanges. PaulRKil (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Flight 321

There has been a relatively decent number of media reporting about the incident (BBC, CNN, etc). It is also a very rare occurrence of severe turbulence mid-air, and has resulted in the death of a 73 year old man. Should it be included? Though, since the fatality count is quite small, maybe it is not that significant. It is also a very rare incident incurred on Singapore Airlines involving casualties, last time being 2000. So, up to you to include it. 2406:3003:2002:2D79:D93A:C16E:D2E1:4F6 (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It best belongs in 2024 in Singapore. Indiana6724 (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Exclude. Sad event, but relatively minor casualties, and the plane wasn't destroyed. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Collage Prototype

Since we're halfway through 2024 I think we should start talking which events are candidates for collage photos. My candidates are: The Israel-Hamas war The 2024 Summer olympics (when they happen of course) The 2024 U.S. presidential election (doubt it) Which events do you think deserve a mention in the collage by the end of 2024 See ya! Superyassi362 (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2024

The 2024 Summer Paralympics in Paris are scheduled from 28 August to 8 September 2024 Safetygal (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Sam Mostyn

I see that one of the July events is the swearing in of Sam Mostyn, is this even an event worth keeping? It's not really a major world event considering most people don't know who, and never will know, who she is. I don't really see the point of this being under the July section of the page. It's not even an event that comes in the wake of an election either so it doesn't seem significant to be featured under notable 2024 events. Maybe I am wrong, but that's just my thought. Jayson Taylor (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

So far exclude due to insufficient coverage from a due weight perspective. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 12:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Dark oxygen

I think it's an important to add about the discovery of Dark oxygen on 22 july, that's huge scientific discovery 23.91.239.201 (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It can go in 2024 in science. Most scientific discoveries aren't mentioned on this article itself. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting discovery, but I just don't think it's groundbreaking enough for 2024. Though I'd have zero problem with inclusion on 2024 in science. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Does Trump's conviction in New York merit an entry?

I'm unsure, but leaning towards exclude because it's a domestic political event that mainly applies to the United States--it certainly belongs in 2024 in the United States--but isn't particularly important outside of the United States. I don't think pages about years have previously featured former heads of state being prosecuted, though I could be wrong.

• May 30 – Former United States President Donald Trump is found guilty on 34 counts in regards to his hush money trial, the first time any American president (sitting or former) has been found guilty of a crime. He faces up to four years in prison.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong include. For God's sake. This is a highly notable trial. Massive, global attention and undoubtedly one of the defining moments of 2024. I think it's ludicrous to suggest this "isn't particularly important outside of the United States", when the U.S. President is literally the most powerful and influential person on the entire planet, and this guy possibly still has a chance at a 2nd term. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

weak exclusion in the Trump ecosystem is yet another conviction in yet another court case. It is a relevant event because it concerns a former US president, but it is a local one, with no (for now) remarkable long-term impact (legislative changes, real influence on the November elections, protests in the streets...), but it is certainly not “one of the defining moments of 2024”. In fact it is the conviction for a business crime, and it would be more notorious if it were a crime related to presidential or post-presidential political activity (rebellion, sedition, large-scale corruption, war crimes...). I have my doubts. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Include - This is a very important (and historic) event, The First U.S President (former or sitting) to have been convicted of a crime. InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is only really notable in the US. Lots of presidents and leaders of other countries have been convicted of crimes. Ultimately this trial has so far no global significance. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. It is of global interest. The United States is the most powerful and influential country on earth, and its President is the most powerful and influential world leader. Trump's status as a felon means that he is now technically barred from travelling to dozens of countries. This trial and Trump's ongoing legal problems have received extensive coverage by every major media outlet around the world, easily enough to meet the notability threshold. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you to learn more about other countries and take a look at their press. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak include since he is a major candidate and certainly the GOP nominee along with being a former president. Exclude the sentence regarding potential jail-time. I think it is too sensationalistic to keep in there and without sounding too crystal ball, pretty much every legal expert thinks he won't spend a day in prison. PaulRKil (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Exclude Ultimately this case has yet to have any impact outside of the United States, or even within it. We have no idea if this will have any effects on his run for presidency, and it's a domestic issue with a scope limited to American politics. I seriously doubt it qualifies as a global event. He isn't the only national leader to be convicted of crimes, and the fact that he was convicted of a business crime unrelated to his political career makes this ultimately unremarkable from a global perspective. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Include per the due weight policy. This is worldwide covered news. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Exclude per comments by Di. Yeoutie (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Does Trump v. United States (2024) merit an entry? I'm opposed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm opposed, the United States is not the only country in the world and this entry is Americentric. We haven't included many important legal cases, like the South African case against Israel in the World Court for example. The legal process for that case is still playing out. For 2022, we didn't include the Dobbs decision, which was also landmark if not more so than Trump v. United States (2024).

This is the entry:

• • In the Trump v. United States (2024) case, the Supreme Court of the United States rules that ex-Presidents have broad immunity from any prosecution for "official acts".

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The United States is not the only country in the world, but it is a country of major importance that can affect a lot of the world, and I don't see that it has a monopoly on this year which includes a lot of events from numerous countries. Considering this was a very unusual and strange ruling from the Supreme Court, granting broad absolute immunity for "official acts", I support including it. One way or another, it will affect a lot of behavior of future American Presidents. We can't just have generic chronology of elections per country, politicians being sworn in or summits. Major events, milestones and changes should be noted, as is this one.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong exclude the immunity of a U.S. president has already been the subject of previous SCOTUS rulings, so it is not a case that will influence the behaviors of future POTUS "a lot". And yes, the US is an important and influential country, but it does NOT mean that any news about this country has to have special notability. And no, this is not the case. The immunity of the head of state is a subject of treaty in Constitutions of countries older than this one, in constitutional debates of other countries, so any decision about the immunity of a head of state, whatever it is, should not have an entry in Year in topic. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Which previous SCOTUS rulings are you referring to? CNN published an article that the ruling practically gave the president "superpowers" [1], The Guardian that the constitution was shredded [2], Al Jazeera that it will "transform the United States government" and that the decision "may undermine the rule of law in the country" [3], The Hill that the president is now practically a King [4], The Nation wrote "The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially" [5], etc. No, this is not an ordinary or routine SCOTUS ruling. This is a major change that now puts even impeaching a president into doubt. It will change the behavior of future US presidents, who now know they have broad immunity, and therefore this event merits inclusion, absolutely.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This entry has a superb and legitimate place, from what you explain, in 2024 in the United States. Neither international relations nor the rest of the countries in the world are going to change. And it is important not to get carried away by the often biased headlines in the press, although I thank you for the work of looking for various journalistic sources. Btw, take a look at Nixon v. Fitzgerald. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

May I remind you that DUE decides what gets included and not the old International Notability standard? That has been firmly decided before through sitewide RFCs, discussions which we have made you well aware of before on WP:YEARS. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

See 2024 in the United States. Thanks. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

So what? Yes we have a US page. We have pages for every country. But this is an event that has been widely covered around the world. You seem to neglect any sense coverage even though it is the very thing that defines our DUE Weight policy. There is much more due weight as determined by policy for this event than other US events, so it belongs on the main year page. I feel compelled to remind you get again that the old standards are dead, and until a new consensus in favor of them develops on a site-wide RFC, they will stay dead. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It is still my opinion and I will continue to express it in this way. You will realize, sooner or later, that wide coverage does not always mean importance. You will also realize that Year in Topic is not ITN or Current Events and that Wikipedia is not a news portal, so the way you value events must be different (encyclopedic view). Anyway, you are a US national so I don't demand that you have a global or objective position (and even if it is unprofessional, it is totally legitimate and respectable). _-_Alsor (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"wide coverage does not always mean importance" - it's how we decide things on Wikipedia to be important per WP:DUE, which states that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources", with an added EFN stating "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered". It's policy and a core component of NPOV for us to reflect, not judge for ourselves, what is considered important. If you want to change policy, go through VPPR. You don't do it here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Include, for the reasons given by 3E1I5S8B9RF7. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Include, as I would concur wit 3E1I5S8B9RF7. And I think that Dobbs should be rediscussed for 2022. I see much of the Americentrism arguments as anti-Americanism, an even more flagrant violation of NPOV compared to the false balance being argued wrongly that exists on the page (The US is the most powerful country in the world and its politics widely affect the globe as a whole, so per the due weight policy more weight should be given to the US), and I'm extremely concerned that more exclude votes would effectively bring back the old deprecated International Notability system, which was squashed at an ANI discussion that led to a TBAN whose target instigated a series of sockpuppets in an attempt to bring back the deprecated standard. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Exclude. While important in the American legal system for sure, this disappeared from international headlines (if it ever was in them) after a day and is such a minor event internationally. Belongs in 2024 in the United States. Yeoutie (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:DUE. We include based on coverage and importance as perceived by others, not us. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse be included? I oppose inclusion.

I keep removing it and someone keeps adding the entry back.

I oppose inclusion because the casualty toll is low, it is a domestic transportation disaster in the United States, and has not caused major disruption to the U.S. or global economy compared to say the 2021 Suez Canal obstruction.

The entry is:

• March 26 – A container ship collides with the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, United States, causing a total collapse of the bridge and the deaths of six people.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• I tentatively think include this entry. I agree that the casualty count is low and it is a domestic event, but the large amount of media coverage combined with the uniqueness of the event (a boat doesn't collide into a bridge and completely destroy it every day) outweighs the concerns I may have. Yeoutie (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Include. I have never seen so much media coverage on a single event since the terrorists attacked Israel. 30,000 people crossed that bridge every day before collapse. DementiaGaming (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Include. For the reasons already stated by Yeoutie and DementiaGaming. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose not international notable. Domestic tragedy. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Include. Major impact on the world economy. With all due respect, all the "domestic" arguments have been refuted and RFC'd out of oblivion – they're utterly worthless and irrelevant now. I would encourage all the "domestic" arguers to find a better reason to exclude entries. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

What has been the "impact on the world economy"? I seriously ask why the major newspapers have not reported an "impact on the world economy" such as the pandemic, the invasion of Ukraine or the conflict in the Red Sea (and not the collapse of a bridge). _-_Alsor (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:DUE. I'm afraid to say (albeit a bit late) that we are governed by WP Policy, and not the deprecated International Notability standard. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Does Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 U.S. presidential election merit an entry? I support inclusion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I added the entry after it was featured in ITN, and support inclusion. There is a case for its exclusion, because it's Americentric, but I believe it merits inclusion for making international headlines (like Trump's conviction and assassination attempt) and Biden being the first president to withdraw after the primaries but before the convention. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

exclude domestic politics, just another political drama. This is not ITN nor Portal: Current Events. Please use 2024 in the United States. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Include It is similar, in my opinion, to when we add constitutional monarchs announcing their eventual abdication as we’ve done in the past. To me, Biden is doing the same by deciding to suspend his campaign with the caveat that Biden has far more power and significance in his office than any constitutional monarch. PaulRKil (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

cannot be the same because Biden has not resigned. He is still president of the United States. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Include. Major news, about a major political figure. Wall-to-wall coverage on TV, online, etc. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Include. As stated before, just because a measure is a domestic event does not mean it should not be included, as we use DUE Weight by coverage instead per WP:DUE. We have dismissed International Notability before. Go start a new RFC on VPPR if you want to bring it back. We don't need more bludgeoning after the April 2023 ANI fiasco. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Weak include. I agree that such a domestic political situation shouldn't normally be included, but the widespread international coverage on this topic warrants inclusion. Yeoutie (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Move Forward Party Entry

We currently have this event listed in August: August 7 – The Move Forward Party is dissolved and Pita Limjaroenrat, alongside other senior politicians from the party, are banned from politics by the Constitutional Court of Thailand.

Should this be here? I think it's more of a domestic event that really isn't related to any larger event. I'd say it would be notable if it caused larger event like civil unrest but I don't think that has occurred and is therefore more suitable for 2024 in Thailand. PaulRKil (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak support because the MFP (Move Forward Party) won the most votes in the 2023 Thai general election but was blocked by the Thailand-military dominated Senate from joining a ruling coalition and confirming Pita Limjaroenrat as prime minister of Thailand. This was because the MFP proposed amending Thailand's strict lese majeste laws, which got the party dissolved.

If there is a consensus to exclude, that's fine. I opposed the entry for ITN because Pita Limjaroenrat wasn't an incumbent head of government/state, but thought it was worth mentioning in 2024. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Include. This was a major political party, which drew international attention as it challenged the older, established military/royalist structures in Thailand. Its dissolution is notable in terms of Southeast Asian politics and democracy in the region. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

2023 AFC Asian Cup

The tournament will start on January 19, 2024. Shouldn't we add this? Aminabzz (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it is a regional sporting event. It is the same reason we don't add the superbowl or the NBA finals. PaulRKil (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

سالطان 134.35.134.39 (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

711254501

سالطان 20242 134.35.134.39 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)