Talk:2012/Archive 3

The lede contains this:

The United Nations General Assembly designated 2012 as the International Year of Cooperatives, highlighting the contribution of cooperatives to socio-economic development, in particular recognizing their impact on poverty reduction, employment generation and social integration;^[1] it is also designated as the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All.

Both these subjects are still redlinks which indicates that no-one has thought them sufficiently notable for an article. As such should this paragraph be removed or hidden until the articles exist? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As there has been no comment I'll remove them until the articles are created. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Need to be added: South Africa's African National Congress, the ruling party of the country since 1994, celebrates 100 years since foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.167.63 (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

According to consensus, anniversaries do not merit inclusion, unless the celebration itself is important enough, which in this case it probably isn't. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to edit the page, but it's locked.

Under Events should be: April: April 1-1940 Census Records Release — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadkid1 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the sinking of Costa Concordia with a few casualties really important enough to merit inclusion on this page? I'm thinking no. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I also don't think it should be included, maybe 2012 in Italy. FFMG (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

INCLUDE: the last big ship with many passengers to go down with loss of life is the andrea dora some 60+ years ago so no this "IS" a notable event - it not like we will have to post one a year, let alone, one per ten years. hell, the image alone will be remembered for many years by a vast percentage of the planet--68.231.15.56 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Exclude. Only 5 confirmed deaths in the latest report. Hundreds of vessels sink each year with that number of deaths. Even if the death total gets to 20 there are still dozens of ship losses with that sort of total every year. Just because it's a reaaly big ship doesn't make it more notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How about we wait until everything's been finalized - the final death toll is announced, any aftermath situations are successfully completed (i.e. lawsuits, investigations), then we can begin to discuss this. Whenaxis about | talk 21:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I went and retracted the event from the 2012. Whenaxis about | talk 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Include: In my personal opinion, the fact that this is the largest passenger ship in history to sink, is notable in and of itself, the prolonged media attention from around the world has also made sure it will be one of the remembered events of the year. Most disasters don't get as much air time as this one is getting. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is stupid the way these pages are formatted. It is already halfway through January and not a single event is posted. Is the sinking notable? Hell yes it is. They've been talking about it for the whole friggin' week here in the US, on the BBC, everywhere. The cruise had an international passenger presence, so it affected every nation almost. Forgive my bluntness, but I can't stand how these year pages have become. We want so much neutrality that there is really nothing that merits inclusion anymore on them whether it's some major disaster or some earth-shattering discovery. Look at the older years like 2005 or 1994. They have some juice in them. The newer years have all bled dry. (Tigerghost (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC))

So, is cruft such as Shannon Faulkner becoming the first female cadet to attend The Citadel (January 1994) a major disaster or an earth-shattering discovery in your book? Since you're from the USA, this might be juicy for you, but for everyone that isn't, it's far from that. This page is WP:NOT#NEWS, what turns out to be important can always be added later. I really don't see anything wrong with how 2011 ended up. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

@Yerpo: The Costa Concordia disaster should still be included on this article. WP:IAR, sometimes discretion is needed. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the disaster element of the Costa Concordia disaster is being overplayed making inclusion more subjective than objective. A disaster is defined as "an event of substantial extent causing significant physical damage or destruction, loss of life, or drastic change to the environment. A disaster can be ostensively defined as any tragic event with great loss stemming from events such as earthquakes, floods, catastrophic accidents, fires, or explosions. It is a phenomenon that causes huge damage to life, property and destroys the economic, social and cultural life of people." 11 deaths (possibly up to 32 if all the missing are included) and US$600 million; 32 deaths while certainly tragic is not even in the hundreds or thousands usually associated with a disaster and a number which is exceeded by numerous events which are never proposed for inclusion, while most disasters which merit inclusion are of the order of US$billions rather than millions. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Derby. There are plenty of cruise ship expeditions that travel through the polar regions of the World that go unreported because it does not affect any country or known cruise line. If we were to document every single accident from airplanes to cruise ships, the entire page would be filled up. It's almost like including a car accident that had 11 deaths, notable? Whenaxis about | talk 23:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you, based on the fact you guys are comparing apples to oranges. How can you possibly expect a ship disaster to do billions of dollars in damage like a hurricane, if there aren't any ships worth that much. Notability, is not based off comparing ship disasters, to something horrible like the earthquake in Japan last year, it's about comparing it to similar events and it's impact within that scope. Because this disaster is the costliest passenger ship sinking in HISTORY that makes it notable for inclusion, it should also be mentioned that by your guys' argument the Space Shuttle Disaster's would not be notable simply because they only killed 7 people, and to that I would say psshaw. So keep disasters in context, don't go pulling stuff which is not comparable like hurricane disasters, and try to determine worthiness based on those criteria. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the amount of money involved is more important than the number of people who died? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples of previous inclusion of a shipping disaster in previous years' pages? Costliest - nor deadliest - shipping disaster in history. See Titanic. As I said earlier in the discussion, we should wait until everything is finalized before making a decision for inclusion. At this time, it's a no. Whenaxis about | talk 01:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then let's take off Titanic from the 1912 page. Major ship disasters aren't notable afterall. (Tigerghost (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC))

1912 is not a Recent Year article. 1503 is considerably more notable than 11/35. WP:OTHERSTUFF. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

To reverse my opinion a bit, this event could potentially be added on the account of Costa Concordia being the largest passenger ship ever to sink. It would help if you mentioned things like that before dragging WP:IAR into this discussion (this goes to Kuzwa but applies to other previous and future discussions). As it was, it sounded just like an excuse to do it on a whim regardless of anything, which could only result in an edit war because the same argument could go both ways. Every other argument heard so far concerns mere trivialities - the number of casualties is comparable to a serious road accident. The number of inconvenienced or discomforted people is comparable to a decent snowstorm. The damage will probably be somewhere within the margin of statistical error for insurance companies, even if (or precisely because) they're multinational. Seriously, debates around here would be so much more constructive if people could focus on relevant stuff. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

@Derby, death tolls don't determine the notability of an event. @Yerpo, IAR is always relevant to any discussion. Regardless of if it is mentioned or not. I haven't edit warred with anyone, so don't come after me. --Kuzwa (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read my comment before replying to it. I didn't "come after you" in the slightest, especially not in connection with any edit warring. And I still think that IAR is not a synonym for "anything goes". It's a lot more subtle. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

@Yerpo, yes I realize that there are some unrealistic comparisons - however, my underlying thought at this time is not to include it until everything is finalized, when we have a final body count, when we have a final damage amount and so on and so forth. So that, we don't have inaccurate information on the page when the numbers are consistently changing. @All, what points go for this disaster to be included, and what points go for this disaster to be excluded? Perhaps, it's best if we weigh the reasons for inclusion versus the reasons for exclusion, to help us decide. Whenaxis about | talk 00:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

To me, adding an event before its consequences are completely finalized is not bad by itself, when relevance is established. People constantly monitor and update this page so any temporary number should simply be presented as such. As for Costa Concordia, it could be included as the largest passenger ship ever sinking, if that is true. Other facts are trivial. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We can always add it later, if it's notable. Whenaxis about | talk 21:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• January 13 – The passenger cruise ship Costa Concordia sinks off the coast of Italy. There are 12 deaths and 20 missing amongst the 4232 passengers and crew.

how many dead before it becomes notable? currently it looks like the final total will be 32.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Risking this debate to devolve into death-toll haggling, which isn't my intention, I'd say at least comparable to the Zanzibar ferry sinking (in 2011). But to focus on what I meant with my last comment, it would rather read:

• January 13 – The passenger cruise ship Costa Concordia sinks after running aground off the coast of Italy becoming the largest passenger ship (by tonnage) in history to sink.

— Yerpo ^Eh? 08:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• January 13 – The passenger cruise ship Costa Concordia sinks after running aground off the coast of Italy becoming the largest passenger ship (by tonnage) in history to sink. There are 12 deaths and 20 missing amongst the 4232 passengers and crew.

without mentioning the death toll, it would look silly --- anyone reading it would say, "wait, what was the death toll?".--68.231.15.56 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, because it doesn't add any information as to why the event is important enough to be mentioned here. Anyone interested in the death toll can look it up in the article. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Yerpo. The death toll is so low that it makes it seem less important, as sad as the deaths are, I think that the mention of the largest passenger cruiseship to sink is notable enough for inclusion. Whenaxis about | talk 20:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"The English Wikipedia will be shut down on Wednesday due to Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, being un-American.", a quote so dont get mad at me.

i think i can remember last year an issue where wiki was in the news and it was decided not to self-promote wiki by noting wiki activities--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

68.231.15.56, this is not a blackout of just Wikipedia, this is an internet blackout. Sites like, Google, Facebook, eBay, PayPal, Twitter and Tumblr have supported this blackout by opposing SOPA/PIPA. Sites like, Wikipedia, Reddit, Boing Boing and many more are blacking themselves out on Dark Wednesday to protest it. As for the quote, it is NOT Jimmy Wales who decided that Wikipedia is going dark tomorrow. It is through a mass "referendum" by the Wikipedia community. What I wanted to add to the article is the fact that some parts of the internet are going black to protest against SOPA/PIPA on Dark Wednesday, 18 January 2012. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 16:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

the extent of the other organizations you have cited sounds like you are a proponent of noting the event in the year article--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added it into the article under 'Predicted and Scheduled events', revert by Derby. – Plarem ^{(User) I oppose SOPA!} 19:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's already detailed in length on the Stop Online Piracy Act here. Not particularly important here. Unless, you can provide some sort of overriding policy or previous event that was noted in the Recent Years project. Whenaxis about | talk 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be added, but only if you include a mention of all those other sites. It's clearly notable, being by far the largest online protest in the history of the Internet. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

On the Fence: From my own personal view, I'm not against the protest being mentioned, but I personally think we should see how the SOPA debate plays out, to see if it's worth inclusion. It's quite possible the protests could intensify, and this be a minor footnote in the battle over the internet this year. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to jump to conclusions, but even if we did wait to see if it's worth inclusion, what if it takes months or even years for SOPA/PIPA to finalize? Would we say for example "January 2011 to November 2011 - SOPA and PIPA protest take place"? SOPA/PIPA is just like any other controversial proposed law, where there is opposition and there is support. Whenaxis about | talk 23:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be added. If we continue to not add events at this rate, we will have nothing on the past events list at the end of the year. 98.209.18.176 (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis, the inclusion is not of the SOPA/PIPA propsed bill finalising date, but Dark Wednesday of the internet, 18 January. It is the largest blackout of the internet in history, and major websites like the Enwiki, Mozilla, Wordpress and more blacked out, with sites like Google, Icanhascheezburger and some more having information about the SOPA/PIPA bills. My proposition for the 2012 article is:

• January 18 – Various websites like Wordpress, Reddit, Mozilla and more participate in the Dark Wednesday of the internet against the U.S. bills SOPA and PIPA.

– Plarem ^{(User) I oppose SOPA!} 09:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Or, using the usual description of an Event in a Year article:

* January 18 – Various US-based websites participate in protests against the U.S. bills SOPA and PIPA.

Which looks appropriate for 2012 in the United States, but not 2012. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Derby. Y Whenaxis about | talk 20:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose the 2012 in the United States addition – The effect was more widespread. Have a look at these references:

• The Sopa blackout protest makes history - guardian.co.uk
• Internet wins: PIPA vote cancelled following web blackout - Death and Taxes
• SOPA 101: Your guide to the Internet blackout - CNN

I hope this convinces you... – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

my current count is 3 vs 3 on the vote for consensus.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How about a straw poll? – Anonymous Plarem ^{(User talk)} 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

For inclusion on 2012

• – Anonymous Plarem ^{(User talk)}

Against inclusion on 2012

• Whenaxis about | talk 21:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please sign on under the appropriate section, I would like to see where we are at now. – Anonymous Plarem ^{(User talk)} 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the recent shipwreck that happened in Europe that cause many fatalities, the Costa Concordia disaster is an article on Wikipedia, but it should also be listed as an even of this year, because it was big and most certainly a notable event that happened so far in 2012.

Under discussion above at #Cruise liner sinking; consensus seems against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Shadycypher11 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Arthur Rubin, I see it is more for than against... – Anonymous Plarem ^{(User talk)} 17:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

From the discussion above I see 3 For and 4 Against. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I only read the end of it... – Anonymous Plarem ^{(User talk)} 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.242.33 (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2012‎ (UTC)

I have added Ben Gazzara, but I'm on the fence regarding Angelo Dundee. Favonian (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede for Recent Year articles usually contains United Nations declared "Year of..." designations. The Alan Turing Year does not fall under this scope, in fact it looks to be little more than an anniversary. Should this be included? I think it probably shouldn't. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Whenaxis about | talk 20:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we need inclusion of the Turing Conference in June.. some editor added it. I'm thinking, no. Whenaxis about | talk 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards inclusion on this one. Yes, Turing was born 100 years ago, and the anniversary-ish nature of the reason for picking 2012 is glaring. But, for the sake of comparison, consider that the RMS Titanic sank a century ago as well. It is probably safe to assume that considerably more people have heard of the Titanic than of Turing. Even so, there is no RMS Titanic Year article to indicate that anyone has named 2012 after the Titanic, yet there has been an Alan Turing Year article sine 2009--and this article does indicate that international Turing-inspired events will occur throughout 2012. The year may not be significant (save trivially), vis-a-vis Turing, on account of his birth (which did not, after all, happen in 2012), but it does seem notablly Turing-related insofar as it has been designated internationally (regardless of the reason) as a year for recognizing Turing's life. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please add Sharada Dwivedi to the death list (just passed away d. 6-Feb-2012) 59.183.48.148 (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RY. He fails the crietria completely. Try 2012 in India. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please add that the maldives president Mohamed Nasheed resigned from power after ongoing protests against him in the country, and that the vice president Mohammed Waheed Hassan replaced him as president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.138.81 (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this is of sufficient international importance to be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The usual format for Recent Years is one pic per month for Deaths unless room permits more. Currently there are 2 pics, which exceeds the available space. With the death of Whiitney Houston there is the additional problem of who should be selected, with Etta james for January we already have one singer, should there some balance/variety as to who is included? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The photo of Ben Gazzara should be not included, but has no exceed with fewer space. Gazzara has fewer non-English Wikipedia articles than Whitney Houston. Don't worry Derby, replace Etta James picture to Theodoros Angelopoulos on January death section, as for Ben Gazzara, it will be replace to Whitney Houston pic that should save. ApprenticeFan ^work 05:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

anatomy of a murder = 7 oscar nominations... Gazarra second male lead after Jimmy Stewart ... Theodoros Angelopoulos no film he was involved in a single oscar ... a doctor saves hundreds of lives then gets a free pass to kill 1 person? houston killed herself in a premature death ... it is the same as the doctor kills someone .... a number of good works does not equal one heinous free pass--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I thought this was allowed in becuase it is the first Ifore2010 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall there being any discussion on the first being exempt, but that doesn't mean there was none! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

21 of January- The Selwyn College Prepratory School's main building burnt to the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerd123 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the text below regarding the "upcoming" solar cycle, because I think the remaining part is sufficient, such as already stating the 11 year cycle length:

... and the previous solar maximum of Solar Cycle 23 occurred in 2000–2002. During the solar maximum the Sun's magnetic poles will reverse. The period between successive solar maxima averages 11 years (the Schwabe cycle).

Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole entry is insufficienlty notable for this article (ditto the "Transit of Venus" entry. They belongs in a sub-article, maybe 2012 in science or 2012 in astronomy (if that existed). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? Transits of Venus are one of the rarest predictable astronomical events. The occur only twice a century, eight years apart. Before they were discovered people had pretty much no freaking idea how large the solar system was. The fact that the first transit-enabled estimate was 64% the real value and still managed to beat every suggestion ever made before is telling. And that it was brought down to plus or minus 0.2% as the sole result of 4 more transits is testament to how much they have helped scientific knowledge. This is not just visible from a small area either, it can be seen from about 3/4ths of the globe and is the only time you can see any planet in front of the sun with the naked eye. As for the solar maximum, I don't know, they happen every 11 years, it's a weak one, and might not even happen till next year. I don't care much either way. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(also, don't look at the sun with the naked eye unless you're using an approved solar filter or it's right at sunrise/sunset. (or the clouds are so thick you can barely see the outline))

And it is at 2012 in science. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be added that Abd Rabbuh Mansur Al-Hadi, the former vice president of Yemen'sAli Abdullah Saleh who signed a plan to transfer power to his deputy after ongoing protests against him that were part of the Arab Spring, which sworn in Hadi on the 25th of February? It's pretty important in my opinion. (Shows that a revolution occurred in Yemen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.226.165 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• January 5 – Frederica Sagor Maas, American playwright (b. 1900)
• January 17 – Johnny Otis, American singer (b. 1921)
• January 31 – Dorothea Tanning, American painter (b. 1910)
• February 1
  • Angelo Dundee, American boxing trainer (b. 1921)
  • Florence Green, British World War I veteran (b. 1901)
• February 6 – Janice E. Voss, American astronaut (b. 1956)
• February 17 – Ulric Neisser, American psychologist (b. 1928)
• February 25 – Erland Josephson, Swedish actor (b. 1923)

--S-d n r (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Frederica Sagor Maas - Exclude. Short of WP:RY at death. Foreign language articles are almost all stubs/clones with no local cites, many focus on age which is insufficient for inclusion here.
• Johnny Otis - Exclude. Short of WP:RY at death. Foreign language articles are mostly stubs/clones with almost no local cites. Probably deserves notability but not reflected in articles.
• Dorothea Tanning - Possible include (if there is consensus). Made WP:RY minimum at death, just. Some reasonable foreign language articles with local cites, others are poor stubs.
• Angelo Dundee - Exclude. Short of WP:RY at death. Foregin language articles all stubs or clones with few local cites. Previous entry (above) failed to get much discussion suggesting insufficient interest to include.
• Florence Green - Exclude. As per previous consensus, age and veteran status is insufficient for inclusion in Recent Year articles.
• Janice E. Voss - Exclude. English article is barely more than a stub, foreign langauge articles mostly smaller (if mission details are excluded all are stubs, if that). Simply being an astronaut is no longer rare enough to be notable on its own.
• Ulric Neisser - Exclude. English article has issues which does not help assessing notability. Foreign language articles are stub-clones with no local cites, often no cites at all and only the same few English cites if there are any.
• Erland Josephson - Exclude. Has plenty of foreign language articles but exclude the film lists and most are stubs. English article does not indicate a significant international career.

DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Should the Syrian referendum of Feb. 26 be included in the article?
Ref:

• Syria votes on new constitution referendum amid unrest

– Plarem ^{(User talk)} 21:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

no ... when and if there is a change of leadership--68.231.15.56 (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How is this article a member of the Wikiprojects:

• WP:WikiProject Alternative Views
• WP:WikiProject Mesoamerica
• WP:WikiProject Mythology
• WP:WikiProject Paranormal
• WP:WikiProject Rational Skepticism

This is a WP:YEARS article, just because the Mesoamerican calendar ends in 2012, it doesn't mean that it belongs to the above WikiProjects... There is one event related to it, with a paragraph in the lede about it. I think that the above WikiProjects should be removed from the templates of this talk page. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 19:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And assuming the world doesn't end then the reference to the Mesoamerican calendar should probably be removed at the end of the year anyway. If it does end then problem solved! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the SOPA protests back in January. 184.146.115.213 (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done This doesn't seem notable enough. See discussion a few sections above.--McSly (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add for 2012 : March | 3

The Szczekociny train collision occurred, with 15 deaths and 50 injured

PantherBF3 (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - no international importance. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

the international is irrelavant to me - the problem is the low number of deaths - if 15 were suficient to accidents the year would have 10x if not 50x more info which would be a fairly low threshold for inclusion--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

These were a domestic event and should not be included. A high death toll does not mean a domestic event should be included. There are terror attacks with similar and higher death tolls in other countries, eg. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, which are not included on year articles. 89.194.8.3 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

you are wrong about comparable totals in other countries - that attack is one of the largest in the last decade--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

of the three countries you just named i can only remember one attack being even over 100 deaths in the last decade--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

these two are the largest i can remeber and both are less - 2007 Tal Afar bombings and massacre and 3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

this is the only one i know of that is larger and it is over a decade ago - 1998 United States embassy bombings--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The 2007 Yazidi communities bombings on 14 August 2007 caused 796 deaths, the highest death toll of a terror attack in Iraq. I don't see why 2007 mentions them. They were also a domestic event and there is no rule to include events merely because of a high death toll; an international involvement is a criteria of inclusion on years articles. The 1998 US embassy bombings are rightly included on 1998 because they were an international event - an international terror group attacking US buildings in Kenya and Tanzania. The Nigeria attacks were carried out by a Nigerian group against Nigerians in Nigeria, hence no international involvement. If 2012 in Nigeria existed, the attacks should be listed on that article. 109.249.234.128 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

i found nothing in archive for 2007 and also looked at the logs of entries for the days just after the 2007 Yazidi communities bombings ... it appears to just have been accepted as an "other"-type event that if "talk" had discussed it would just have been included as an "other" event that would have been included upon consensus ... thus, i say this event, January 2012 Nigeria attacks, is another "other" event which i am guessing that if put up to a consensus would also pass under WP:RY#Consensus --68.231.15.56 (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been consensus regarding several previous events that they should not be included if they are domestic events; a high death toll has been rejected as a reason to include it. For example, there have been long discussions about the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, which caused many times more damage and whose death toll is similar to that of the Nigeria attacks. What justification is there for including the Nigeria attacks? 109.249.124.9 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

natural=accident vs. man-made=murder ... natural threashold is running around 100 to 200 minimum from what i have seen ... from what i have seen NZ would have been included if, sad to say, 50 more people had died--68.231.15.56 (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Aspects of WP:RY that need to be discussed are:

• Three-continent rule of Inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Disasters, assasinations, and other crimes of Inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Lead: The event must have a demonstrated, international significance.

OR

• Consensus

– Plarem ^{(User talk)} 21:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

There is not international significance, nor is there consensus for including the Nigeria attacks. What has happened is that someone has added this domestic event and no-one other than us in this section have taken any notice. I don't see any evidence that something should be included because it is murder, not is there any minimum number of deaths which makes a domestic event eligible for inclusion. The Christchurch earthquake was not excluded beacuse the death toll was too low, nor because it was a natural disaster. It was because of lack of international significance. 109.249.209.137 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

so far the vote is 2 exclude to 1 include:

exclude
(1) 89.194.8.3 = 109.249.234.128
(2) Yerpo

include
(1) 68.231.15.56

--68.231.15.56 (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The consensus has been that any state leader should be included even if they fail other WP:RY criteria. However the eception has been that leaders who were in office for such a short perod that they actually had no international impact could be excluded. I think this is the case here, someone in office for 9 days can hardly be considered internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

i see what you are saying and yet he is also the 1st = usually a very distinguished thing to be numero uno in anything--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I added him to the deaths section, but it was deleted. He is known (along with his brother) for writing the music to films such as Mary Poppins, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, The Jungle Book, and others. I find this notable, but I am confused why it was removed. --Puckingham (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read the criteria for in clusion here. The minimum for inclusion is 9 non-English wiki articles, Robert B. Sherman has 7. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

i see him as being included on the page but derbycountrynz says he does not merit it - although writing "its a small world" would seem good enough to get him included, derbycountrynz says he did not have enough non-english articles at the time of his death to warrant inclusion ... although we could push his inclusion under "consensus", the fact of the matter is that derbycountrynz is well versed in what criteria are required to make it into the "year in" articles, and i dont want to open the flood gates to all kinds of "lessor" figures by pushing the cop-out inclusion under "consensus" ... if we did, then the article would quickly mushroom into a frankenstein at least 5x if not 10x of not-so-deserving names--S-d n r (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Why should this be included when many other road accidents, not to mention other accidents, with greater death tolls are not? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

it has been removed - cannot see how it even had a chance - now if the tragedy had involved the murder??--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the 100th anniversary should be included in upcoming events, because the sinking of Titanic was a major event that changed maritime history and had significant impact on safety regulations we imply today. Also, people from many different countries sailed died aboard Titanic, and many events will be held around the world in thier rememberance.Zyon788 (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Without an article for the anniversary it would not seem to be sufficiently notable for inclusion. Even with its own article it would need a greater demonstration of international notability than appears to be the case so far. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sinking of the Titanic was a major event. The anniversary, by itself, isn't. That is the rationale behind exclusion of almost all anniversaries. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Being the first mission to actually reach the Earth's deepest point is almost certainly notable enough for inclusion, it rivals ascending the highest point of Everest. (Perhaps not the first person, but it's the first again in 50+ years) Deepsea Challenger, here is the page for more details. --Kuzwa (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Being the first to reach the deepest point solo would be notable enough, being the first in 50 years less so (apart from mountaneers who would know who was on the second expedition to summit Everest?). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a typographical error in this sentence. The proper spelling is "resigns". --Ayelis (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The entry does not meet the WP:RY criteria for inclusion and has ben removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the death of Chico Anysio, one of the most famous Brazilian comedians of all time, should be present on the death section of the 2012 page. His date of death was March 23rd, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph.ruggiero (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He fails the inclusion criteria at WP:RY (9 non-English articles) and in any case does not seem internationally notable. He would belong in 2012 in Brazil (if it existed) or maybe 2012 in television. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Should Jim Marshall's death be added in the death section? He has enough non-English articles. 71.201.90.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC).

He has enough non-English articles now, but only had 6 when he died, all except the French one are stubs with either no citations at all or only the English ones. Even the French article is only a straight clone of the English one with no local citations. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

April 7th - Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika dies in the capital Lilongwe. His vice president takes over.

Emperorconnor991 (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Included in Deaths section, insufficiently notable to be included in Events section. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

As above, the answer is:  Not done. Pol430 talk to me 22:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the 2012 Mali coup d'état, when at the 21th of March renegade soldiers seized power and overthrew president Amadou Toumani Touré, be added to the article? and if added, make sure to also write that Mali's membership in The African Union was suspended due to the coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.242.255 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It should be I guess no one has gotten around to it yet. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

does it deserve inclusion? ... admittedly it is a change of power, it is an unexpected change of power, and yet, it was mostly bloodless (according to the wiki article), and can, for the life of me, in no way effect 3 continents--68.231.15.56 (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Include ... now that the country has declared to be a new state i think it now does indead effect 3 continents ... if only through the UN--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proclamation of independence of Azawad is a different (although connected) event. And that is recognized by nobody yet, so it's not important or affecting anyone internationally at this point. It can be added if and when Azawad succeeds in becoming a country in its own right. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Now meets the WP:RY criteria but well short at death. Most non-English articles are stubs, others are clones of English. This seems to indicate insufficent notability for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

like you said well short at death and only real accomplishment was "body"-type design of 911 porche--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't edit this page yet, but I was thinking that perhaps this could be added:

The USCB estimates that the world population exceeded 7 billion on March 12, 2012. This is cited here: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Jason021388 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Included in 2011 (October 31) , as the UN designation for this milestone. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)