Talk:2011

Elisabeth Sladen

Why not add Elisabeth Sladen's (tragic) death? --Rhain1999 (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

As discussed previously, she is not sufficently notable internationally (as required for inclusion in this article). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

She was notable in the UK, and hence is on 2011 in the United Kingdom and 2011 in British television. She was not notable outside the UK, and hence is not included in this international article. 188.29.120.198 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How is she not notable outside the UK? She was on a two programs that were broadcast internationally -one of them being one of the most well known programs in history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.2.191 (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree she's notable, she doesn't meet the requirements for WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There are 11 articles regarding her in languages other than English. What other requirements are there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.2.191 (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There are 11 now, at the time of her death there were only 4 and 2 of those were barely stubs with no references, the other 2 were clearly clones of the English article. This is a clear indication that she was not sufficently internationally notable for inclusion. That 7 other non-English wikis have got round to adding articles after they heard that she died doesn't alter that. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

Who said not to include the 2011 Tucson shooting in the article markup? Sure, it's US-centric, but it's a big event. Excluding it seems ludicrous. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been discussed at length. The consensus is that it's insufficently notable for this article. Basically it's really not a big event outside the US. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that was just DerbyCountyinNZ's and a couple other guys' opinions, because they're upset that Wikipedia, founded in the US, isn't paying enough attention to their precious homeland. God forbid the most powerful country in the world is talked about more than New fu*king Zealand! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.231.176 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look at the section just below this one before making yourself sound silly ;) — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with DerbyCounty on this one. An Assassination Attempt on one American MP/Congresswoman(?), whatever, doth not a Major International Event make. (And please don't "dis" our Country either thank you.) Kiwibeca (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Christchurch earthquake?

Why is the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake not included in the events?

181 people were killed in this earthquake and other natural disasters are included on this list. Is there any reason that this earthquake has not been included, or is it an oversight?

--210.48.101.90 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. Under the current criteria at WP:RY consensus has been that it is unsufficiently internationally notable for inclusion. A discussion here as to what the minimum numbers should be (if any) for natural disasters to be included in recent Year articles seems to have lapsed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Include it! Many international citizens died in the earthquake. It also affected insurance re-insurers worldwide. My opinion is that is needs to be included on the basis that many countries were affected by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.2.191 (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, this has been discussed at length. Your comment provides no new arguments. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If you do not consider that INTERNATIONAL EFFECT, what do you consider international effect!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.2.191 (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Something internationally significant that doesn't occur regularly. I mean, insurance re-insurers?? Are you serious? If my private house burns down, it will probably affect some international re-insurer in some minor way. It's called globalization. Enough for inclusion here? No. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I caught a mention of a revised estimate of the cost of rebuilding Christchurch on the radio this morning; NZ$20b, virtually all of which will be born by Insurance of some type; (EQC or Private.). Reinsurers are going to want to recover this cost, and they will do that through Premiums. The impact of Febuary's Earthquake *will* be felt gobaly because of this, so should be included here. Kiwibeca (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not something internationally significant, i.e. standing out qualitatively rather than just quantitatively in some marginal way. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Marginal"?! I and my fellow Cantabrians haven't been able to go into Town since 22nd Feb. We won't be able to do so again until April next year, at the earliest. Some 1,000 buildings in the CBD are coming down; it's estimated that 10,000 houses will also need to be demolished. Upwards of 5,000 families; in many cases, whole Streets and Neighbourhoods, have been told that their Land is too badly damaged to be rebuilt on any time soon, and that they will need to move house. Many people are having Insurance headaches, which is impacting *hugely* on their Rebuild, we're still getting sizeble Aftershocks; a 5.5 just a couple of weeks ago, and Japan seems, to me, to be hogging the limelight unfairly, IMO. (With the greatest of respect to them, Japan is one of the largest Economies in the world, and doesn't really need the world's Charity. We're not, and we could really do with some big time assistance to try and put our City back together.) *You* try living through what we've lived through for the last 15 months or so Yepo, and see how "marginal" you think it is then.(!) Kiwibeca (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So, this is basically about you, personally, feeling that Cantabrians don't get enough attention. That's cute, but you could've said so at the beginning so I wouldn't waste my time trying to explain that the event you encountered isn't one of the most important events on global scale this year. I also don't appreciate twisting of my words - I said that the international impact was marginal, that's all. I don't know where you got the idea that this page has anything to do with charitability or correcting perceived unfairness, but I assure you it's wrong. You might also want to read the NPOV policy. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Cute"(!) Good one Yerpo, thank you.(!) For what it's worth though, I know all about POV's and Bias. As a matter of fact, I made an edit on this very page, just a few weeks ago because of it. The Feb Earthquake belongs on this page, and you won't convince me of anything to the contary. Kiwibeca (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Great to see how the Turkish earthquake gets a space on this page yet the Christchurch Earthquake does not! Obviously sarcasm in there!! As the CHCH earthquake effected the RWC venue it effected an international (yes you read right, that said INTERNATIONAL!) sporting event! Means for adding YES!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.129.63 (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Turkey earthquake, because it obviously fails the same criteria, so it's time to end this pointless "discussion" now. I don't see how consensus can be changed by a few editors personally affected by the event repeating irrelevant arguments. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It actually seems that you are the only one (maybe a few others) that object to adding to this event. I just do not understand how you can be so blind to the fact that this is an international event. During the earthquake the CTV building collapsed, killing most inside. Within this building was King's English School. Many, if not all, students of this school were foreign, and many died (about 70-90 odd). Therefore many countries were affected by the deaths. Therefore this is an international event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.137.56 (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Add the CHCH Earthquake already. (Or let us do it at least.) Kiwibeca (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that the event is, internationally speaking, on the scale of incidents that probably occur by dozens each year (large fires, ferries sinking, building collapses, local floods, terrorrist attacks etc.). The only truly noteworthy part of it is the partial destruction of a medium-sized city, which, although indeed tragic, isn't so important outside NZ. It wouldn't even be near as widely reported if NZ wasn't a developed country, but as it is, it probably got more media attention than the 2010 Chile earthquake that devastated a metropolis three times the size of Christchurch (among other settlements) and caused almost three times as many casualties. As I said, the only people trying to add this were personally affected by the event, wanting to tell everybody as loud as possible what they experienced. Me and "a few others" are the ones regularly caring for these pages, trying to be neutral and to develop a set of standards for inclusion that would help in creating an overview of really globally important events each year. As for me, I'm done trying to convince you. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I also take issue in the Christchurch earthquake not being listed. Ignoring personal bias to the event, as has been said this quake did command international attention on news outlets. It killed people from all around the world. It has required expertise from people around the world to demolish buildings (the hotel Grand Chancellor needing very technical deconstruction) and retrieve bodies (notably Japan who helped out). The earlier quake lead to a visit from Prince William and had the attention of the royal family. It affected insurance greatly, and will have international affects in that respect. It affected the international rugby world cup tournament. And its destruction was not "partial". It destroyed the main center of the city, and ruined many suburbs-- the damage was significant and has lead to a lot of demolition. And take note this is New Zealands second largest city. It is a hugely historical event for the country, and also has international acknowledgement and will and has affected people internationally. How this hasn't been realized yet has to be down to ignorance, its outrageous. There are other listings on the page that have far less international affected or acknowledgement. --203.173.187.186 (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Here, here. We concur. Add the earthquake.

Sportsperson picture needed for deaths section

• That's why I put Stefan Liv's one as we haven;t had Sport represented this year Ifore2010 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, some balance would be good. Bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki represent the same theme, so one of them is redundant (al-Awlaki would be the obvious choice for removal since Bin Laden was so much more notorious). — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. In the "Deaths" section of these articles we normally tend to put pictures of the most prominent figures whom died in specific given months. As far as I know, we normally do not tend to choose the pictures of personalities in such a way that there would be an equal division between the selected people according to their field of work. What is the current policy regarding this matter? In any case, in my opinion, in this case the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki was a much more significant event and had much more international significance than the death of Sweden's hockey player Stefan Liv. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Stevan Liv may not be a particularly notable individual, but then Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't particularly well-known either until his death. There is a tendency for the pictures of relatively minor entertainers to be included over people who are actually more historically important. We have one terrorist (the biggest), we don't really need another. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Another option would be Wangari Maathai, who was arguably more important than both Liv and al-Awlaki. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! Given the number of non-English articles she would certainly seem a better choice. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I made the change. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 ICC Cricket World Cup

The 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup was one of the biggest sporting events of the world held in 2011, just as the 2010 FIFA World Cup which was held in 2010 and is included in it. This Should be included in the Article. According to the said Policy it qualifies in every aspect and is thus eligible. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:RY the only sporting events considered to be of sufficient international importance to be included are the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup. There are many sports world championships which are more notable than cricket and others which could be considered just as important. It is not feasible to include all of them and deciding which to include would lead to endless arguments. They are more appropriately included in 2011 in sports. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Layton

There is no mention of his death in the deaths section

Consensus here was to exclude. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy the world

Shouldn't there be a heading for it on October 15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.255.226 (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr

Was he famous enough for inclusion here? Ifore2010 (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

He certainly seems a marginal case. Most of the non-English articles are stubs and seem to be more or less cloned from the English one. I'd lean towards exclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 24 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} please add the magnitude earthquake in Turkey for October 23, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/23/72-quake-in-turkey-kills-138-search-for-survivors-continues/ Jonathan.strickland (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I kind of doubt that is going to happen. I apologize if this seems crass but 138 deaths is not that horrible for a large earthquake. We've tried to discuss at Wt:RY how to come up with clearer inclusion standards for natural disasters, but in the end they basically are subject to the same standards as other events. There is likely to be little to no international impact from this event, tragic though it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

looks like the death toll is getting up there - if it gets confirmed at over 1000 (like some reports are saying) I'd certainly vote for inclusion. sure, it's 1% of haiti but still. watch this space I guess Whitehatnetizen (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I should probably clarify my position. Death toll is actually not a great metric to go by. Where is the line? Does it matter if they live in a country that has building codes, like Japan, as opposed to a country that does not, like Haiti? There's no way to codify that, so we must go by WP:RY's general criteria as opposed to our feelings about how many deaths is enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've cancelled out the "edit semi-protected" for now, because this is clearly being discussed - and if there is agreement to make the change, I'm sure one of the experienced editors in this chat can just make the change. Otherwise - if an edit is required, and if there's consensus - please can someone add another {{edit semi-protected}}. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

October 25, 2011 trim

I will remove some less notable or unsourced events from the list and put them here. Feelfree to discuss. I have rough criteria in mind, but typing them would be too long. Circeus 09:40, October 25, 2011 (UTC) The years are missing from the copied elements.

September 05 : Typhoon Talas hit western Japan, following to massivie rain and landslide in Kii Peninsula, according to Japanese Government document figure, 106 persons death, with worst typhoon disaster in Japan since 1976.

Queensland and Victoria Floods

Why no mention of these, especially when the flooding in Brazil in Jan, and the current Flooding in Thailand are up on this Page? Australia is a fairly important Country Globaly, so surely it's approprate that thses events are mentioned here? Kiwibeca (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

possibly because a maximum of about 44 people died. it was on the world news apparently but it's not really of international significance. if it helps at all, I'm speaking as someone who who spent a week slogging through stinking mud and sludge cleaning out other people's houses in Brisbane. just hope it doesn't happen again this year  :-) Whitehatnetizen (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just doean't seem fair really. Your Floods killed so few, because people had the sense to evacuate before things got really bad and the resources were there to assist them in doing that; our Earthquake killed relitivly few people because our Building Codes are of a high standard and arren't ubndermined by coruption, so somehow that makes them unimportant, globaly.(!) :-) I hope you haven't gotto go through it again this summer too. Kiwibeca (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

John McCarthy

October has been a bad month for computer guys. John McCarthy, father of LISP and AI pioneer died October 24th. He should be listed under deaths. Mg79 (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course he should be, thank for notifying. I added him now. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Willy De Clerq

Although he had the nine foreign articles needed during his lifetime, I'm stuck to whether he should be included or not. Ifore2010 (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

He seems to have some international involvement, but his articles are all pretty insubstantial which indicates he was not particularly notable. Unless there is something to indicate that his contribution to the European Parliament or European Commision was substantial it seems he was little more than a local politican, which is not enough for inclusion here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Day of Seven Billion?

Why is this notable? Even the UN commission that set the day admits it's only accurate within a year or so, and scientific agencies estimate 2-year intervals starting next year. We do list UN commemorative years and decades, but days? Does anyone know how many UN commemorative days there are? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's true that the date is just a rough estimate, but it's as good an estimate as any, and the point is in raising the awareness of the population growth. Which is undoubtedly of utmost global importance, and there are lots of ways of expressing it, but not many of those are suitable for inclusion in a list of events. The alternative would be to put it under the "unknown date" section, but in this case, another problem would immediately arise - if the estimate is accurate within a year, under which year do we put it? This one? 2012? Both? — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The references in Day of Seven Billion suggests 2013 as containing the most likely actual day. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Which one apart from the report by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis? — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Reaching 7 billion could certainly be considered internationally notable. But the point at which that is reached is purely a guess and even attributing it to a specific year is barely credible. However, if the UN deems that the Day of Seven Billion mark this milestone then that should be included, provided it is emphasised that it is not the actual day but a randomly selected day of "celebration". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

some census number needs to be included since it is the only time this metric will ever be seen here - milestones of billions seems to be the best census number to use since it only occurs once every 12 years - the big question is to pick a date - UN seems best since it would be hoped to be the most neutral organization--70.162.171.210 (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Hilbe

Is he worthy for a mention in this page even though he was a head of state?, his English entry consists of only one line!

Andy Rooney

Did he have ANY impact outside the USA? HiLo48 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

His non-English articles suggest not. In any case he fails WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, he only has 8 non-english article, (and a 'simple-english'). I don't think he should be included. FFMG (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Conrad Murray conviction

It was headline news worldwide, deserves to be mentioned in this page. Ifore2010 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is meant to include historically and internationally notable entries, not WP:News. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Michael Jackson's actual death was an internationally notable event. The conviction of his negligent doctor for involuntary manslaughter is not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But maybe the Jackson entry could be amended to reflect the now legally accepted cause of death. HiLo48 (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

FL-class

Would this article be suitable for FLC?

1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Y I agree.
2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. N Very short lead.
3. Comprehensiveness.

   • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.  Half done, it has most of it, but a few gaps.
   • (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.Y I agree.

4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Y I agree.
5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.

   • (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. Y I agree.
   • (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. Half done. No pictures in the 'Events' section, but fine images in the 'Deaths' section.

6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day., except in response to the featured list process. Y I agree.

   And, the one other (not listed):

7. Citations. Every statistic must be cited adequately with reliable sources. Half done, the Deaths section has no references at all. I know that the major figures, like Steve Jobs or Muammar Gaddafi would have a lot around their deaths, but "minor" figures comapred to them like, Nikolai Andrianov or William Lipscomb...

Would it be able to make FL-Class through WP:FLC?

– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps 2010 would be more suitable for such an attempt. Or this one at the start of the next year when it can be said it's complete. As for references, you might want to check Deaths in 2011, where every listing comes with a reference. None of the persons listed here is a minor figure in any meaning of the word, so this is a non-issue. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)