Talk:2015/Archive 1

event is significant as per NASA's own website - photos will be published from this date fowards and thereby be picked up by commericial news organizations and shown.

Event fails WP:RY criteria. ttonyb (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

humblely, i dont understand what i have failed to make clear - the event begins in April, as per NASA's own webpage, from that day onwards each and every day your local news tv show or newspaper will be publishing FRONT-PAGE articles showing the first close-up views of Pluto. i guess what i am saying is i wish to appeal over your ruling by seeking some kind of voting consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S-d n r (talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

" * April 12 – In preparation for NASA's New Horizons spacecraft fly-by of Pluto and Charon, operations will begin - thus, each and every day, from now until the cameras are redirected away, some months after the fly-by, there may be images taken and published to the public domain^[1]. " --S-d n r (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

the reference (altered to be incorrect syntax so it will show) was as follows: "ref>cite web|title=Offical website New Horizons: Gallery: Science Photos|url=http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/index.php |publisher=NASA|accessdate=26 January 2011}}</ref>".--S-d n r (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The first edition of the European Games is intended to take place in Baku, Azerbaijan in 2015  Akai  (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That might be notable, except for "intended". If "planned", it might be appropriate for this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Would it be worth noting that the centenary commemorations of ANZAC Day take place? Significant event connected to World War I. (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No we don't list anniversaries, even of notable events, unless there are present plans for a notable commemoration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to 2015 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2015 is the current year 86.21.150.28 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - it may well be where you are, as the article already states:-

It is the current year in some parts of the world, including Oceania and most of the Asia-Pacific region west of the International Date Line.

It is not elsewhere - look at the time stamp on your request. - Arjayay (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have never heard the bit that Jim Carey was predicted to have passed away in Back to the Future II by the year 2015, and I'm a huge BTTF buff. Citation needed?

Haven't heard that either, feel free to add {{citation needed}}. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't happen. Big BTTF fan. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is there an update tag for 2015 if the year hasn't even begun? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It has begun in some parts of the world. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently it only becomes the current year after the ball drops in NYC. It's NOT the current year here in California yet the article is now changed to the present tense. This website is so consistently and wholly biased towards the East Coast of America that it's frankly annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:6F80:376:65C8:A961:DE32:3A91 (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed. It serves no useful purpose. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the intent was that recent year articles said XXXX is the current year but to remain factual it had to be like this for 26 hours every 8760. The extra two hours are because of Kiribati and some other Pacific lands respectively (one of them being New Zealand). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Well wouldn't it be better and more accurate to be consistent and if it is 2015 SOMEWHERE than 2015 IS the current year with a note that it is still 2014 in some parts of the world, until it isn't? Changing it after New York City rings in the new year is not exactly accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:6F80:376:90DD:7FC3:63FB:C27D (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The best solution would be to fully protect the page for a day and add a note explaining that the year is in transition. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to put Mario Cuomo photo closer to the mention of his death? For example, to the left of the infoboxes, right under "Deaths" header? --andrybak (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid not (none that I have found anyway!). Any image is pushed below the Topic and Calendar boxes so those for January and maybe February won't appear adjacent to the month. Would love to find out if there is a way around this problem! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I did move it to the left as requested, but somebody moved it back to the right again. I have reverted the code back to show it on the left without being messed about by the infoboxes. I dont have an issue with the location but it is a bit discouraging for a requested change to be messed about with. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask other editors if the subject person is notable enough to be included in Deaths section, as I found that his Spanish article was created after his death, and some of those non-English articles, particularly Arabic one, are copy-edit ones, according to the sizes of the articles, thus only famous in some part of Europe, I suppose, although his article indicates that he is one of hall-of-famers in the ice hockey world. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

looks likea stub to me.--70.190.111.213 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

but has http://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q723088&diff=177203170&oldid=177119104 11 non-eng--70.190.111.213 (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

can someone who knows how look to see if the non-eng are just clone stubs?--70.190.111.213 (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

He scored goals whilst playing football for Czechoslovakia. He was a member of an ice hockey team who won an Olympic medal. He was inducted into an international hall of fame. I believe that those things easily make him sufficiently internationally notable. I don't think the articles being short prevent him being included. Very few ice hockey players are world-famous and his career in both sports ended before most Wikipedia editors were born, so it's not surprising that he's not well-known now. Jim Michael (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Swiss franc jumped by nearly 30% against the Euro and 18% against the dollar in the minutes following the Swiss National Bank's decision to stop reining in the value of the Franc against the Euro, which has caused millions in losses suffered by brokers and investors worldwide. I suppose that the decision by the SNB and its financial "chain reaction" should be included in this year's article. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

i sse it as a major event but i say that "chain reaction" = speculative (even if you can find a few bloggers to agree with it) = WP:Crystal--70.190.111.213 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

just wanted to point out that he had 10 wiki articles (counting both English wikis together) back on December see here Redsky89 (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I added Wendell, but it was removed. He did have ten articles. What part is preventing him from being in 2015? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

At the time of death (as per WP:RY) he had less than 9 non-English wiki articles. As such justification for inclusion needs to rest on his international notability, which appears to be negligible. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

He had 9 non-English wiki articles back in December 2014 see here I guess you didn't count it it he had 9 non-English articles and 2 English articles. Redsky89 (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I count 9 also in the last December Wikidata version. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I must have miscounted, only the Polish and Russian versions created after death. In any case I would still argue that he be excluded as most of the non-English articles are stubs/clones (one has not even reported his death!), and there is nothing in his article which suggests his career had any notability outside the US. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Could we wait until it actually fits before adding a picture of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? He definitely deserves one, make no mistake, but I think right now it's not serving a purpose being shoved in between two unrelated sections. It also doesn't look very aesthetically pleasing. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There used to be a picture of Mario Cuomo, I agree that King Abdullah should have preference until the layout can fit both, but it sure looks messy even like this. Is there a way to make {{Year in other calendars}} collapsible? — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently not, I asked about the possibility of collapsing the Other Calendars and was told it was not possible. A similar question here failed to get any suitable response. Personally I don't see why this shouldn't be possible. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Me neither, and it would be an elegant solution to overcrowding the right edge. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Although he only has 5 other-language articles, I think he may have international significance. I would argue for inclusion of his death, but, unless consensus is reached here for inclusion, I will continue to remove it, per WP:RY. 19:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to make an exception to WP:RY in this case. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ, as baseball players may have notability among the nations where the sport is popular, but not anywhere else, so as cricket players, who may have certain level of notability among Commonwealth nations, but nowhere else.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of Wikipedia if the information I put on here that is true, ends up getting deleted instead of strengthened?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.118.148 (talk • contribs)

hello, could you indicate here what you want to add to the article so we can see if it fits the rules for inclusion (see WP:RY). --McSly (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Deletionist Wikipedia. I'll be your [username deleted]

RoyalMate1 02:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied on the IP's talk page, as it seems to be stable. He had two listings removed from 2014 as not notable, and one edit removed as making a "politically correct" change to a book title. The other edits not compaining about the deletions, one innocuous Wikilink in Cherokee, and two additions to list of podcasting companies seem to be intact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Redsky89, DerbyCountyinNZ, and WCIDFS: He did have 9 other-language-Wikipedia articles at death, and the Swedish article seems to be only a translation of the lead of the English article. I agree with the removal, but it needs to be discussed, not being automatic under WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not only the Swedish article, but the Turkish one, which has only two lines of descriptions. Although each article in other 7 languages seems to have sufficient level of information included, it does not seem he has met the WP:RY requirement for inclusion, due to the insufficient amount of information included in Swedish and Turkish articles.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree on removal. He was recognized (i.e. awarded prizes/honorary doctorates) in other countries. Some of the non-English articles contain local material and references. Coverage would not be sufficient for a popular field such as entertainer or sportsperson but academics generally receive little coverage and this seems sufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I withdraw my recommendation that he be removed. I'm on a smartphone; I'LL say more when I get home. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced he should be included, but I'm not convinced he shouldn't be included. I lean in favor of inclusion, and it's not worth fighting over details in WP:RY to override it to exclude. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"He was recognized (i.e. awarded prizes/honorary doctorates) in other countries." It might be right, but I do not see any report over his death made in the countries other than Commonwealth nations (as a "Sir"), European nations, Israel, and the US(where millions of Jewish population exists). (as far as I confirmed, no report was made in 3 Far-Eastern languages, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, which covers roughly a quarter of global population). I would be convinced if any proof of "worldwide" recognition of his death is provided.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The requirement of appearing in a far-eastern language would eliminate almost all sports figures in a "Western" non-Olympic sport. There's something to be said for that, but it's not part of WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"Far Eastern languages" are examples of quite a few of those. I would like to know if any of non-Commonwealth or non-European nations other than Israel or US (such as Latin American, African, Asian) had reported his death. Otherwise, like other British Sirs, his fame seems to be limited within the nations where his research is concerned. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking 2 nations would be sufficient to be "international". As his notability extends to multiple countries that is sufficient, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a big gap at the beginning of the Deaths section and I can't figure out how to get rid of it. Any ideas? Maestroso simplo (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It can't be done without pushing the images to far down the page. This issue stems from the non-collapsible nature of the Year in other calendars template. See Talk:2015#Image of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia above. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that make sense. However, 2016 seems to have the same templates but doesn't have this problem. I've had a look but can't figure out what the difference is. It's got me stumped. Maestroso simplo (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for Dominical letters clearly states that all years begin on a dominical letter A. Either that page is wrong, or this one is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.53.97 (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I see the problem. In the unlikely event I have time, I'll look into it, but I'm almost positive that there error is in "dominical letter". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I guess not. The second paragraph of the lead of Dominical letter starts:

A common year is assigned a single dominical letter, indicating which letter is Sunday (hence the name, from Latin dominica for Sunday).

I think we're done here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed his entry from the Deaths section, seeing that almost all of the interwikis are one-sentence stubs in spam Wikipedias. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

...the majority of which have been created by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · contribs). At the risk of violating WP:GF I would suggest that this is a deliberate attempt to circumvent WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Right. Not cool, TDKR Chicago 101, not cool. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Scrapes through the minimum for WP:RY but almost all non-English articles are stub/clones, one of which has not even reported her death. Her notability rests far more on her marriage to Brando than her career. Doesn't seem nearly notable enough for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

She is clearly notable as an actress in her own right. --Racklever (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but not notable enough for her death to be listed here, and apparently not notable enough for a Wikipedia article in some of the other-language Wikipedias. I don't know enough of the languages or other-Wikipedia "notability" guidelines to determine, but a number of those would fail WP:CSD#A7 if they were here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Why does Common Era (CE) come before Anno Domini (AD), in all the year articles past 1910? AD is much more commonly used. I propose this is changed on all these articles. Papergumgum (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the end of the first paragraph of Anno Domini article, it says;

Terminology that is viewed by some as being more neutral and inclusive of non-Christian people is to call this the Christian, Current, or Common Era (abbreviated as CE or C.E.), with the preceding years referred to as Before the Common, Christian, or Current Era (BCE or B.C.E.). Astronomical year numbering and ISO 8601 avoid words or abbreviations related to Christianity, but use the same numbers for years AD.

thus "politically correct" to put CE first, I suppose.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This needs to be raised at WP:YEARS, not here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the deletion of Al Rosen is completely nonsensical.

The problem is clearly the rule. See discussion here.

But common sense should prevail in any event. Al Rosen, a Major League Baseball MVP, etc., is clearly more notable than others who are listed ... listed even on the basis of a foreign language one-sentence zero-ref article.

Rosen gets far more hits, so is clearly searched for more by the English Wikipedia readership.

I would urge that common sense be applied, and he be restored. The rule should be changed in the long run. But in the short run -- as wp allows, and indeed as this guideline itself clearly states at the outset ("This ... guideline ...is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.") -- common sense should be applied in this particular case.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

He might be notable in the US but is not internationally which is the basis for inclusion in this article. Others listed may be less well known in the US but given that they have articles in at least 9 non-English languages the indication is that they are in fact internationally notable. This criteria has worked reasonably well since its inception with the only possible argument now being that given the apparent lack of notability of some with 9 non-English articles that 9 is too low a minimum. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

He is more notable among readers of the English Wikipedia. From whatever country they might hail.

This is a guideline for what is notable to include in an article on the English Wikipedia.

This "test" is crazy. It would be like changing the article notability test to say "the person has to have been covered in RSs in five languages, to be notable ... and we don't care how much coverage they have in English."

The fact that Mike Porcaro has this one-sentence article, zero references, that one editor wrote, that nobody reads, makes Porcaro more notable for the English Wikipedia than someone who has three times as many (we're talking thousands of ...) views on the English Wikipedia, with an article many times as large? ^{[revising per Yerpo's point elsewhere that I erred vis-a-vis Porcaro's views]}

Thousands more English WP readers view Rosen's page ^{[than that of Tatsumi]}-- not important to you.

One to four editors more than wrote Rosen articles, writing in languages other than English, create article pages on someone named Porcaro ^{[make that Tatsumi-as pointed out by Yerpo, Porcaro did receive many views]} -- all-important to you. And (as though it is important for English WP purposes, which I greatly question), you assert that the fact that those 1-4 editors wrote those articles stands for the proposition that Porcaro ^[Tatsumi] is more famous internationally??? Really? Based on the actions of those 1 to 4 people?

Seriously? We need more eyes on this. I've posted at a couple of project pages, to attract more eyes here. Epeefleche (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I replied at Wikipedia talk:Recent years. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this really sufficiently important to be listed in a "year" article? It's a small terrorist attack. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The scale of the attack is clearly too small for inclusion, if there are sufficient international consequences then it should probably be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I would strongly support its inclusion. Clearly a major and notable event. These year/decade pages are way too strict on their criteria IMO. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I oppose its inclusion. As has been pointed out: small terrorist event, and so far no global implications. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

BBC: "The unprecedented attack shocked France and there has been an outpouring of sympathy and solidarity worldwide." Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Sympathy and solidarity" are always expressed by most countries for any disaster, this is not the same as actual impact on another country. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, look everyone, it's now such a "minor" event that 40 world leaders have joined a million people in a unity march - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30765824 Yep, clearly nobody will be interested in knowing about these attacks when they look back on the 2015 page in the future. Let's just keep the entry blank, so people can look at a white space of nothing instead. Personally, I love to remain ignorant and read history books that consist of blank pages - really fascinating to read. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There is only one editor in favor, and 3 against. Perhaps in 2015 in terrorism. (I'm on a smartphone; cannot tell whether that links to an article we actually have, but it should. found it ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I've removed it per this discussion. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey I am seeing that the Paris terrorist attacks are not seen as an "important event" though it has been classified it has raised the international threat level. Given that the article itself is like the previous Boston bombings should be given credence and thereby be included. No to revisionism in Wiki. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo might not have been big in size but what it did was enormous. So we're going to completely leave it out despite the huge international response, all the marches, etc. This was a BIG thing and it's going to continue to be a big thing. Especially with the attack in Denmark in February also. It's a huge injustice not to at least mention it, and shows how little you all seem to care about the lives lost and the lasting effects of something like this. Benbuff91 13:44 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No need to drag this down to personal level. I do wonder, though... what lasting effect? — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Charlie Hebdo attack will always be a notable event. It represents a time when extremism was a threat to freedom of speech and expression. How often does something like this actually happen? It was one of, if not THE biggest news event of the year so far. It ushered in an enormous international response, mass protests, and the effects will probably be felt for years, in both the Muslim community and in the art and entertainment world. To say it's not notable enough to be put on here is ridiculous. Not to mention this was just the beginning of what has turned into a series of attacks. Why is the Boston Marathon Bombing and the Sydney Hostage crisis, both events with similar circumstances with much less casualties, not worth mentioning. 20 people dead is not a small attack.Benbuff91 15:41 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Not saying that I'm against inclusion, but you didn't really answer my question. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Visiting 2015 and seeing the glaring omission of the most obvious global event to happen thos year makes the whole article look untrustworthy. If something that was all over the world's main newspaper front pages for a couple of weeks isn't here, what is the 2015 article for? 92.26.187.13 (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"one death is a tragedy, 1 000 000 deaths is a statistic" is sentence from Staline. Sure lots of events cause more deaths but history is not abouth numbers, it is abouth the impact on social structures. If so many people are shocked by this event then it is important. Not many people died in Fergusson, it still a really important fact. In India, the whole society is talking abouth one rape, while there are hudreds of rapes every day there. I'm not gonna list every example of symbolic facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.134.183.149 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Although with fewer than the nine non-English-wiki articles usually required, should he be included in the deaths list on this page? Benaud was one of the major figures in the history of cricket, as indicated here in the New York Times.--A bit iffy (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ignore above — have now added him as there are now at least 9 foreign-language articles.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. The requirement is 9 non-English wikis at the time of death, which he did not have. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously ... just because a person has an article like this, in a language other than English, totally bereft of refs in any language whatsoever, viewed by perhaps nobody, created by perhaps a bloke in Wales ... you think that one more just like that would make them notable, but the absence of such a piece of garbage of a wiki created by an editor makes them non-notable (for the English WP)? It's a ridiculous rule.

An article like that is not notable by WP standards. How can you say that two of them would drive any serious and intelligent decision?

There were nearly 70,000 views by readers of the English WP of this fellow the day he died. Our readers have interest in him. Specifically with regard to his death -- the very issue we are discussing the notability of. You care not a whit about our readers. The article is amply cited. 72kb long. RS GNG-satisfying refs galore. Which are the DNA of WP notability. But if one more Welsh teenager wrote one more zero-ref, two-sentence article about him ... presto, he would have been notable? Brilliant. (Not).

This fellow is not notable under this flawed test. Who is -- and therefore obviously by your test more notable? Walter Burkert. 429 views! on the date of his death! A total of two refs in his entire English wp article! Neither of which have links to them. Because he has "non-English" wikis, such as this zero-ref article that perhaps nobody reads! Whoopee!

I agree with the editors in the discussion in the last two sections at Wikipedia talk:Recent years, who are saying that this rule is non-sensical. Should be revisited. With larger input than the few involved in the decisions. The king has no clothes here. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought you said Wikipedia is not a RS. How are pageviews on English Wikipedia relevant, then? Not to mention that I already explained to you how pageviews are worse than the current criterion, which you conveniently keep ignoring. So to repeat my above comment, please propose a better rule or stop wasting everybody's time with this nonsense of yours. Thank you. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that then-oldest supercentenarians are not included in the Death's section unless any of those are considered as notable besides their lifespan. However, she was not only the then-oldest, but the verified oldest Japanese person ever, the oldest person ever born in Asia, and the fifth oldest verified person ever recorded. As all top 4 oldest-ever people have passed away in 20th century, which years' articles do not necessarily apply WP:RY rules, I would like to ask other editors if she could be included. Thanks ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Exclude. I see no reason to make an exception. Oldest people/last survivors don't actively do anything to become notable, it's just luck of the draw. I nay case transient superlatives such as this become less redundant as soon as they are exceeded, their notability doesn't actually last. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But she must be very notable ... she has an article in the Turkish Wikipedia, with zero refs in Turkish ... Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

See, that is not necessarily the absolute criterion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

For a very good reason, as is amply clear. Epeefleche (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, which is why we have this exception. With any other kind of criterion that has been proposed, exceptions would be the norm. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Exceptions to good rules are fine. But this rule sweeps in people on the basis of wikis. Written by one (or a few) wp editors. Based on the notion that articles written in or google translated into language x, lacking any language x refs, show interest in the person in some part of the world. Even if nobody reads the article, and even if it has zero language x refs. It's the worst rule I've seen in years. IMHO.Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please propose a better rule or stop wasting everybody's time with repetitive HOs. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem repeatedly arises every time discussion here focuses on the rule being nonsensical. I'm joining conversation that started anew in this regard. I've suggested a number of factors for consideration. If talk page discussions keep on arising with regard to the rule not working ways that editors view as satisfactory - of course just as you chime in saying "this is the rule" (or the rule works well), I'm entitled to chime in with my view. This is not a waste of time -- we're seeing that the suggestion of some that "the rule works well" ... just like the rule itself ... is a "king has no clothes" case. I would be interested in hearing which of the other factors, that we use in other WP areas, you would feel most reflect notability, if we scrap the "let's rely on a wiki created by an editor who may be in Wales, with zero refs, to establish notability). GNG looks to independent reliable sources. Other rules look to page views. One could look to -- if the subject at issue is "death of person x" ... views on the date of death. We could consider size of article perhaps as a factor, or refs in RSs, or incoming links on the English WP. One or more of these factors, perhaps cobbled together, would be better than relying on Joe in Wales using Google Translate to create a two-sentence, zero ref article. Let us know, if the current criteria were not applied, and assuming that we need a further criteria (and that GNG notability is not sufficient, despite wp not being paper), which approach you would most embrace. Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No, page views are not useful (WP:NOTNEWS), as I clearly explained on the WP:RS talk page (which you still keep ignoring, straining everybody's assumption of good faith). Also, please stop with your straw man nonsense about "two-sentence, zero ref articles" - we already exclude obvious cases of this, as you would clearly see had you bothered checking the archives or otherwise familiarizing yourself in the slightest with the happenings on these pages. Again, I feel that the 10-interwiki rule is a useful proxy for importance on the international scale, so it's not my task to propose something better. It's yours, because you criticize it, just because one person you care about was filtered out. The only king with no clothes here is you. Combining criteria to create a score would possibly be better, but would be incredibly complex to implement (therefore not practically doable) unless someone programs a tool. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: can we please keep this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Recent years where it belongs? — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we please have a photo of Lee Kuan Yew for the March deaths? Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It could replace Malcolm Fraser for diversity, if there's a good reason. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think he is internationally and historically more significant than Fraser. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone removed the photo of LKY? Can someone please put it back? Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? It's been there all the time. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that it should be included in the Event, as it has been the first meeting between US President and Cuban leader in 59 years since the last meeting between Dwight Eisenhower and Fulgencio Batista was held in 1956. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems the process of normalizing relationships between the two states is on faster track now so I think maybe it would be better to wait for something substantial to happen... something that actually affects people's lives. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

She scrapes the minimum according to WP:RY, but several of the articles are one-sentence stubs not demonstrating international importance. It also appears from her filmography that her work was mostly limited to minor supporting roles. Therefore, she doesn't really belong to this list, imho. Thoughts? — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, as her Tagalog article only has one line, translates "she is a famous person" so and so (according to Google Translation), and even her birth date is not indicated on the article. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

1.You should do gallery about Gallery of the deceased in 2015 cause it beautiful and I felling orderly.Please consider that. 2.You should Separate incidents in the country and abroad leaving aside cause easier reading. I am sorry I used your grammatical mistakes. Norgeredigere (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Galleries are discouraged per policy (see WP:Gallery). The Wikimedia Commons project is better suited for this.
2. Which country? This Wikipedia is not about any country in particular.

— Yerpo ^Eh? 05:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The entry for the FIFA bribery allegations has been removed but the entry for Blatter's resignation has not. While these admittedly have been major news stories what international impact has there been outside of sports? This is relevant because WP:RY states that the only sporting events that are included are the FIFA world Cup and the Olympics. If these events are notable in a purely sporting context then they belong in 2015 in sports (regardless of the edit summary "Where the hell is it supposed to go on the sports section?", which is a failing of that article and not a justification for including it here). Is there any international impact outside of sports? If not then neither belongs here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This level of sports (sadly) has quite some political connotations and I do think the event should be mentioned here, just not twice. We're talking about the World Cup bidding process which is an international multi-billion-dollar business, and the corruption case involves criminal inquiries in multiple countries, including such diverse activities as the Haiti earthquake relief. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet another example of the petty, ludicrous hairsplitting on the 2015 page. The FIFA bribery is a major worldwide story about the governing body of the world's most popular sport, involving the World Cup for God's sake, a huge international scandal with hundreds of millions of dollars in corruption, with implications for other areas of sport/politics. The BBC had wall-to-wall coverage of this story for a week, as did many other media outlets. What more do you want? It seems the only "acceptable" entries on the 2015 page are massacres, earthquakes, and plane crashes. Look at the countless other years articles from the 20th century and earlier, which cover a wide range of subjects and events. Delete the first entry if you must, but the Blatter resignation stays. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to include her ? More than ten articles at death should be the only requirement for inclusion on the page. We should try to be inclusive --Racklever (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Previous discussions have either been against inclusion or no consensus to include for anyone who is/was the "oldest..." or "last survivor" on the basis that living a long time is not sufficiently notable. this is the most recent discussion, with a link to previous ones. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask why notes about elections are not included? --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:RY, national elections are only listed if they are unique in some way. One could make a point for international elections, such as that in the European Community or the United Nations, but most of those are merely symbolic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

L what about the most recent UK election? since the winning government has no promised a EU referendum? Or Turkish elections where Justice and Development Party (AKP), has lost his maj? --Crazyseiko (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just regular democratic process. Elections happen all the time all over the world, governments change, then they change back after a few years... nothing exceptional. If what they do after being elected is significant, then that will be included (such as an eventual UK decision to leave the EU, if it so happens). — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so please enlighten me as to how Monty Oum doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion here? He's the creator of a popular web-based series seen across the world, worked for a company Rooster Teeth that is known across the world. Yet somehow he doesn't meet? Tell me exactly how Joshua Fishman does. Oum's impact and tragic passing is a worldwide thing, not just limited to the US. Rusted AutoParts 14:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you try actually reading the guidelines which DerbyCountyinNZ mentioned in his edit summary (WP:RY). — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I did. And as I said, Oum's notability isn't just restricted to US. Personally it feel as though he's picking and choosing who he wants to be in here, but that's just me. If you're saying being a Producers Guild of America nominee and creating a popular series that is gaining traction in the anime world, as well as in general pop culture isn't notable, I don't know what is. Rusted AutoParts 15:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, read it whole. Hint: it has a "deaths" section. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel the guidelines for including people in the Deaths section prohibits people of notability from getting included because of the amount of non-English Wiki's they seem to have to need. Monty Oum was a well regarded animator whose work has achieved global attention. He was nominated for a Producers Guild of America award for his work, and his anime RWBY is now being dubbed for Japanese audiences, which is a feat in itself as normally anime get translated from Japanese. He's on 5 non-English wikis, which I feel is more than enough. Rusted AutoParts 20:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the right place to ask for the change would be there: WP:RY.--McSly (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, Monty Oum is (in my opinion) not a good example of why the rules should be changed. His work was only recognized within a very narrow community and being nominated for something is usually considered trivia. In short, he was notable for the animation industry of USA and not much else. His tragic death and the short-span attention surrounding it do not change this. 2015 in film is probably a better place for including him. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If these two events (i). 2015 Pakistani heat wave and (ii).2015 Indian heat wave meet the touchstone of the 2015 events kindly include them into 2015. thanks and regards.--Jogi don (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A case could be brought for overriding WP:RY. He only had 6 other-language Wikipedias at death, but the article mentions some accomplishments which qualify as "international". Neutral on the addition, but Rusted AutoParts seems to want to add it without this discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Because you told me, to pass RY, they need at least 10 non-English Wiki pages. Why is it important that the 10 need to be before they die? He had a majority of them, what can only be considered a technicality is blocking his inclusion. Same with Keyes, Peterson and Oum. Rusted AutoParts 17:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's important because a lot of editors react to the news that somebody has died, which could be understood as death being the most notable part of that person's life. Which is a form of WP:RECENT, not an indication of real importance. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

He's an Emmy winning film producer who's produced major films such as the Ocean's Eleven and The Karate Kid films. He's not a random person that people mourn for a day or two. He was a big name in Hollywood. Rusted AutoParts 18:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Being a big name in Hollywood doesn't necessarily translate to international renown. I don't see any reason why we should override WP:RY for a Hollywood producer whose biggest accomplishments are Ocean's Eleven and The Karate Kid films. -- Irn (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why Beau Biden was removed from the list of deaths from May 30th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.250.11 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

He clearly fails the minimum requirement at WP:RY, namely that he had less than 9 non-English wiki articles before his death. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ: Can you show me where in WP:RY we have a requirement for 9 non-English wikis? I'm not seeing it there. agtx 04:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Births

Shortcut

• WP:RYBWP:RYB

Births are only to be included if there are Wikipedia articles in at least ten languages about the individual in question. William Shakespeare, for example, has several non-English articles on him, listed on the left sidebar. This is a minimum requirement for unexplained inclusion. Although inclusion may then be automatic, it will not necessarily be permanent. Any entry may be contested by any editor who finds the entry undue; and, pending discussion, many names might not merit inclusion, even if they have enough non-English articles.

Deaths

The same criteria apply to deaths as to births, with the addition that the number of non-English Wikipedia articles is taken at the time of the person's death.

DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That's my fault for reading too fast. I saw "several." Got it. As discussed at RfC, I think this is a bad guideline. agtx 07:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This probably should be added to the section July under Event: the Chattanooga shooting. Ptb1997 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think it should be added? it appears to be a local issue more suited to 2015 in the United States (where it already is mentioned). MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne, it is a local event. --McSly (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) I hadn't heard about it until now and I live in the United States. Perhaps 2015 in the United States? Dustin (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Why can't the Chattanooga shooting be added to the article. It occurred in 2015. Or is it too local to be added? Ptb1997 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You have already asked that question before (although you deleted the question and the replies so please take care). MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I once heard about the wildfires going on in the state of California, but I will ask the following question: is the 2015 Cajon Pass wildfire considered a local event or is a national event? I'm asking because events that are too local can't be put on Wikipedia, and I'm really wondering if a wildfire is considered local or national. If I get answers, I certainly will pass it along. Thank you. Ptb1997 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Being a national event does not guarantee that it will be allowed to be included. International events are the most likely, but anything else can often require discussion. All that aside, I don't think the suggested wildfire event makes the cut. Dustin (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

So, you're saying "it shouldn't be added", right? Or should it be? Ptb1997 (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it's perhaps too local to be a good fit for this page. It more or less affected the local community where it happened, while on this page we collect events that have international significance. If you think it's significant on the national level, add it to 2015 in the United States. — Yerpo ^Eh? 21:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I added the date that Bobbi Kristina Brown passed away, and it was reverted with a message that she did not meet WP:RY and to bring to the the talk page for a consensus. Checking her page, including English, she has a page published on 10 different language Wikipedia, which would seem to satisfy WP:RY. Before adding the death to the list, I'd like to gain a consensus it should be added. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The bio is only in nine different languages. (Simple English is still English.) And at the time of her death (which is what we use), there were only two languages. You can check the Wikidata history to get that information relatively easily. -- Irn (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

DerbyCountyinNZ has added an HTML comment not to add the US same-sex marriage decision here because it is not "internationally significant." There is no corresponding comment here on the talk page, and I strongly disagree with this apparently unilateral assessment. This got coverage in media around the world: , , , (and that's from a 10 minute search). I'm not sure what more you're looking for. I understand that this is specific to the United States, but the swift change in American attitudes toward gay marriage is globally notable. agtx 16:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your disagreement with DerbyCountyinNZ's apparently unjustified claim. This did receive coverage worldwide, and the United States is by far the most populous nation in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. Dustin (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Couple more for good measure: , . agtx 17:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

There isn't consensus yet, but considering that at the time of removal there was nothing posted here, I'm adding it back in for now. Typically there would be WP:BRDC, but somehow we missed the discuss part. We're discussing now. agtx 17:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Since that editor does not want it included, talk page discussion is necessary to determine whether the event should be kept (it should in my opinion). However, at the very least, that note is simply incorrect, so I have removed it. Dustin (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel the need to explain that series of edits, so... I made several mistakes. I first removed just the "not notable" part of the comment, then I changed my mind and decided to remove the entire comment. This required me to undo my first edit which I did. I then tried to undo DerbyCountyinNZ's original comment-adding edit only to find that I had undone the wrong edit, so I rolled myself back. I finally found the original comment-adding edit only to find it could not be undone, forcing me to manually remove it. Dustin (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that general principle applies when the editor reverts and then follows with a discussion. However if the editor reverts, puts in an HTML comment, doesn't bring it up on the talk page, and ignores it for a month, then I think adding it back in is fine pending discussion. agtx 17:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It has been standard procedure to insert an HTML comment encouraging users to gain consensus for inclusion on the talk page rather than go through possible edit wars, when it looks like one may eventuate. I view disregarding such comments as disruptive, the comment itself is clearly designed to promote discussion and and this should take place BEFORE the comment is removed, assuming that such a consensus is reached. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:BRDC once an edit has been reverted it should then be discussed, that discussion being initiated by the editor making the change not the editor making the revert. Simply reverting the revert and then claiming the second person should start the discussion is simply initiating a potential edit war. As for this particular topic, this page is for internationally significant events. The US is by no means the first country to legalise same-sex marriage. One of the reasons WP:RY was established was to prevent the plethora of US-centric additions which are prevalent in year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The United States is the most populous country by a huge margin (over 100 million people more than #2). How is that not significant? You don't dictate what is notable which is why I removed your HTML comment. Either way, discussion probably is the best way to start out. Dustin (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely do not want to start an edit war. However, I was also concerned about your decision to place an HTML comment in the article itself as opposed to start a discussion. That makes it appear to other editors as though there is consensus when there is not. I realize there's no absolute guideline on when HTML comments are appropriate, but it seems to me as that using them here was not the best course of action.

As far as WP:RY, it requires demonstrated international significance. I've linked above to half a dozen in depth news articles in different languages from different continents. While we should be careful not to have a US bias, we should also keep in mind that reverting something simply because it happened in the US is just as bad. Here, an event that occurred in the US was news worldwide (front page in many countries). Is there a reason that doesn't demonstrate international significance? agtx 18:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. It was a big deal outside the US. -- Irn (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Can I ask why you've reverted the edit and then posted nothing here? Again, I don't want to be in an edit war, but reverting without joining the discussion doesn't seem right to me. I know you've discussed in the context of the RFC, but even under the current guidelines, this is notable given the global media coverage. There was no consensus to keep this out of the article, and no discussion at all before my post today. agtx 03:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had posted here. My apologies.

Still, it's not the first such court case, even in the US. The Defense of Marriage Act, and the two previous Supreme Court cases overturning parts of it, seem as important. And, for those comparing it to the Irish referendum, that is (at least, according to the entry), the first time same-sex marriage was legalized by a popular vote. The first time it was legalized by a court and by a legislature would also be appropriate, although before the years covered by WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

But by the standards in WP:RY, which we're working under right now, DOMA and Windsor aren't as important because they didn't get massive international press coverage. This, on the other hand, was in newspapers around the world. If "international significance" doesn't mean large-scale global news coverage, then what does it mean? You're correct that it wasn't the first time a court ruled that same-sex marriage must be legal, but I also don't understand why something has to be the first to be on this page. That's not the guideline. Heck, we've done the G7 41 times and it's still (rightly) here, because it's big international news. So is this. agtx 04:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not about "making the news" it is about what is internationally notable. Events that involve multiple countries or that have a significant impact on multiple countries are notable, a country making a law that many other countries already have, has no international impact. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I've asked about G8/G7 meetings. Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, I have not seen a good reason why annual inter-government meetings, such as G8/G7 meetings, should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember my previous input on G7/8, if any, but as an annual event it should probably be excluded, unless they actually achieve something. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly. Your criteria of having a significant impact on multiple countries would eliminate over half of the events on the page. I think "international significance" should be determined by whether or not people saw it as a significant event internationally. Putting it on the front pages of newspapers around the world is a definite sign that they did. -- Irn (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't throw around WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as if it's a bad argument when we're talking about things on the same page. Come on now. As far as no international impact, this is sounding dangerously like WP:OR. Who's deciding whether there's been international impact? What are we basing that decision on? The Le Monde article, from France not the United States, starts "C’est une décision historique." The French are calling it historic. I don't understand how else, other than by global news coverage, we can hope to understand what "demonstrated international significance" means. agtx 07:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I once proposed the criterion that foreign media should report about actual consequences in their country, which would limit the problem of globalized copy-pasting of agency news. That goes for controversial cases, significant firsts and large disasters on the scale of thousands of casualties would still merit inclusion by default. By this criterion, Ireland is important because it was the first time that same-sex rights were decided in a referendum. Opinions? — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. As far as the Irish referendum goes, there are no actual consequences in other countries. You just added the Cuba-U.S. diplomatic relations thaw, which is hugely important but fails this too. Can you show examples of news articles on three continents that discuss the specific impact in their country of the opening of a Cuban embassy in Washington? agtx 13:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the three-continent rule refers to reporting only, but at least one foreign-language news source should report influence in a second country. Which is fulfilled in the case of the US-Cuban relations by default, because it involves more than one country - i.e. it is international. The Irish referendum, on the other hand, merits inclusion by the virtue of being a significant worldwide first. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so six English-speaking countries may publish information about an event versus one English and one non-English country for another event can but the latter is treated as more important just because it involves more than one language? That does not make sense. That's just a technical issue. Only 4.6 million people live in Ireland while over 4% of the global population lives in the United States. It appears that same-sex marriage is legal in multiple countries which (excluding the U.S.) total about 600 million (I spent awhile doing the math, and I did not include countries where it is legally performed in just some states, such as Mexico), which would mean that legalizing it in the U.S. increased that total by over 50% (this is operating on the assumption that most countries in the world have a similar proportion of same-sex to opposite-sex couples). U.S. events, as with something in India or China, affect far more people and are more likely to be followed up on by other countries due to those countries' external influence (especially U.S. and China). Especially with events in the United States, coverage is more likely (in English-language sources, I mean). Even if you disregard that, that doesn't change the fact that there is coverage of the state of same-sex marriage in the United States in foreign languages. To find things to search, just type the titles of the other language versions of the Same-sex marriage in the United States article into a search engine and look at most of the material published on or after June 26. Dustin (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: oops, did I say "foreign-language"? Sorry, I meant only "foreign", for the reason you mentioned. But it should describe the influence on that foreign country, not just cover what happened elsewhere. As for the same-sex marriage status, you forgot that it was legal for over two thirds of US population already before this decision. So the numbers aren't quite as spectacular as you show. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see your point there, but it only kind of was legal in most states. That legality was both extremely recent and very tenuous. Had the Supreme Court's decision gone the other way, it would have been illegal in most states again. I think we can understand the Supreme Court's ruling to be the definitive moment. agtx 16:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

See, now we're already getting into technicalities and straining definitions. But an even more critical issue in this line of reasoning is that you are putting USA on a pedestal. You predicted international effect before the lawmaker even had the chance to implement the change at home (WP:CRYSTAL comes to mind). What many people forget is the fact that the list 2015 will still be open to editing in, say, two years. Will there be any damage to wait until/if some other country actually does acknowledge the US' example (making it meet all the criteria), and insert the entry then? Sure, the page will have the most visitors this year, but we aren't obliged to cover events in real-time, there are other projects for that. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't really understand this comment. I didn't predict international effect. There was international effect. See the articles below. Mugabe is on the radio telling his country how wrong it is. Nigerians are saying that they think it means Obama is going to force them to allow gay marriage in Nigeria. Apparently 5000 naked protesters are going to be out on the streets in Nairobi to protest this decision when Obama shows up, as reported by a French news source (which, as a side note, is truly bizarre). International effect doesn't have to be that because the US allowed same-sex marriage, another country allowed it too (and, in any case, I still dispute the idea that "international effect" is even required to get an event on this page). Can you explain why those articles don't suffice to show the international effect that folks are insisting on here? agtx 18:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Should add, took me about 5 minutes to find a similar story in Slovenian, and I don't even speak Slovenian. . agtx 18:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it was all over the news everywhere, I never denied that, but this is just reporting some curiosity half the globe away, as they do for everything from trivia to world-shattering events, with clear bias towards English-speaking western countries. So we cannot orient on this. You said "are more likely to be followed up on by other countries" - since nothing (yet) changed outside USA, the entry is a natural fit for the page 2015 in the United States for now. Mugabe told his citizens what to think about it, but so did mass media everywhere else. All things being equal (pun intended), I don't understand why the US decision is more worthy of inclusion than, say, Argentina's or Sweden's. Those were reported in Slovenian and everywhere else, too. — Yerpo ^Eh? 04:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, so this rule that you've added now, "at least one foreign-language news source should report influence in a second country," where does it come from? In any case how about or or . The reality is that this had major international effect, which can be seen from the in depth international news coverage. I understand that you're working to try to keep the article tightly focused, and I appreciate that, but I think you've taken it too far. agtx 17:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

So, all countries are created equal, except the US which is more equal than everyone else? Not buying that! This issue is not about how many countries reported this, or any, event, it is about how many countries were impacted by it. If the mere reporting of an event was the sole criterion then Recent Year articles would be full of waterskiing budgies, near-miss shark attacks, talent shows, Kardashians, etc, etc. This articles is not a News page, there is already an appropriate place for such items, well, the actual news anyway: June 2015. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The accusation at the beginning of your comment is uncalled for, and you will withdraw it. You're well aware that I have said nothing at all of the sort, and I won't be accused of it because I'm American. Dustin didn't say it either, as you'll note from his reference to India and China. This rhetoric is getting us nowhere.

Right here, in this discussion, we're talking about the US same-sex marriage ruling, not the slippery slope in your comment. Can you explain why the three French-language articles in my last post aren't sufficient to meet your standards? agtx 14:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll also add that Khloé Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian, and Kim Kardashian all have so many interwiki links that if any of them got hit by a bus tomorrow, they'd be on this page. I'm adding this merely to say that we shouldn't be deciding who or what is important based on what we like or don't like. agtx 15:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You are asserting that significance should be measured by impact. Why?

As I pointed out above in response to your other comment, that would eliminate about half of the events on the page, and is clearly not the deciding factor at the moment here or anywhere else on Wikipedia.

What do you mean when you say that this page is not news? How can you describe the events on a page of a year as anything other than the biggest news stories of the year? -- Irn (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems like this discussion has started to go in circles. Are we at a point of no consensus here, where it might be worth looking outside this page to come to a resolution? Is it worth having a more formal !vote? agtx 15:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an issue that can arise when two sides have opposing views. One may be better or worse than the other, but sometimes, neither side will budge no matter what. Perhaps there is a solution to ending this discussion? External voices? Ideas? Dustin (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

He is notable enough to have his photo displayed let's take a vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude Not enough room, not notable enough to replace those that are already there and too many entertainers anyway. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Exclude Mainly due to overlap into the August section. Rusted AutoParts 18:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Exclude Not enough room and not that notable either except in a small fan world. MilborneOne (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is likely to meet WP:RY, although the anon adding it didn't appear to use our criteria. I reformatted and linked, but I cannot enter important details and references on my smartphone. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be clarified why this event is internationally notable, if it in fact is. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a domestic event, hence I've removed it. Jim Michael (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but there seems to be some evidence that the Chinese are accusing the Japanese. (I don't have a link, but it was on a (translation display) of a Chinese language news feed recently.) As I said above, there seems inadequate current evidence of international significance, but it might very well happen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The only Japanese connection I've heard of is that they asked some guy about his experience and he said he thought the Japanese were bombing them (The Economist reported it too). So no. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the Iran-UK reestablish diplomatic relations should be included. After there is a section on US-Cuba reopening embassies. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34035164 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asthar123 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds significant enough to me. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't this allowed on the year page, yet some attacks in Nigeria can? Obviously the attacks in Nigeria had an a lot higher death toll, but Charlie Hebdo and the subsequent hostage situations was definitely a bigger event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt jobe watson (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

See the archives of this talk page. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Yerpo and Matt jobe watson: I'm thinking of doing an RfC for this. It's, honestly, despite being small in scale, an event that had a huge media coverage and effect, with marches etc. The scale of the attack shouldn't be what matters - the consequences should. It's been turned into a big event by the media, and the fact that it was against a media organisation. Opinions, anyone? KieranTribe 12:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why this massacre is supposed to be kept silent. It was meaningful beyond the 12 persons who got shot down in the attacks. Events of lesser importance, both human and symbolic, are yet mentioned (The eradiction of the rubella in the US, the resignation of the FIFA president...)La Halfeline (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you. However, there are a few very active editors on this page who work hard to keep out all events they don't see as sufficiently "significant", and they have deemed this event not sufficiently significant, rendering its inclusion impossible. The only option at this point is an WP:RFC, as mentioned above. I don't have the energy to start an RFC over this, but if you (or anyone else) does, I'd be more than happy to participate. -- Irn (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The Mecca crane collapse appears to pass the 3 continent rule: Japan, USA, UK, South Africa. Seem notable enough to include. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The 3 continent criterion is only a minimum. This appears to be a local event. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Minimum, yes. Local to a place that is globally notable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Although there are 10 other-language Wikipedia articles at death, the Italian entry is a substub, the Albainian entry is a stub, and the Arabic entry looks to be a substub (at least Google translate seems to view it as such). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed for lack of notability. Passes WP:RY minimum, just, but English and most other articles are stubs and nothing in his article to indicate that he was internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

He's clearly notable if he's on more than 10 non English wikis, which is the guideline for inclusion. Rusted AutoParts 17:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't on en.Wikipedia at death, as far as I can tell. I thought that was a requirement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It has always been regarded as a requirement, though it has never been stated explicitly, probably because it seems so obvious. In fact it was so obvious I didn't even check! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In any case, there weren't articles in 10 languages before his death (:enwiki and :simplewiki were only created yesterday). — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)