Jump to content

Talk:2011

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.29.120.198 (talk) at 17:17, 30 September 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nancy Wake's Death

Thought i would ask rather than just add her. Should Nancy Wake who died on the 7 August be added to the deaths section. She was a British Agent and member of the French Resistance. She was at one point the Gestapo's most wanted person during WW2, they nicknamed her the 'White Mouse' . Honored officially in Australia, New Zealand, France, the UK and the US, as well as the Commonwealth of Nations. Also stood unsuccessfully in several Australian federal elections. Rump1234 (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RYB with respect to the number of foreign-language Wikipedia articles. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, despite the fact that she is far more deserving of notability than many that are included, she does not meet the criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...though one of the criteria is that the criteria can be ignored... Wrad (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that Bruce Beresford hasn't finished making his movie about her. (See here.) I suspect that the aditional fame it will bring will make her inclusion a certainty. HiLo48 (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting this again, I noticed that there were now 13 non-english Wikipedia articles on her, not counting Simple English. Of those some are stubs, but most are start or quite substantial. - Bilby (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in a couple of years, but this looks like just a case of recentism - people writing articles about her just because the media announced her death, where noone bothered when she was still alive. It's a good sign that she wasn't considered so important internationally. — Yerpo Eh? 08:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I'd be inclined to argue that she is a significant international figure, and the the various language wikis are just catching up. Certainly she is important in Australia, France, the UK, New Zealand, the US and Germany, in various ways. I don't think we can see this as simply recentism. Whether it is enough to qualify here is a different thing, but she has both international significance and is covered in more than 10 different language wikis, which seems to meet the criteria. - Bilby (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case of WP:Recentism. This is someone whose notability was achieved over 60 years ago. That it has taken till her death for some wiki langauges to realise this is more like the opposite of recentism. Recentism is more appropriately attributed to minor sports and entertainment people who have "recently" been active in their field. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that this is largely a case of recentism. Her notability 60 years ago apparently wasn't so prominent for people working in various Wikipedia editions to bother creating articles about her before she died. Only in four they did. The later articles were obviously spurned by various media publishing her obituary, which is often the case. There were several cases like that in which we decided against inclusion. I'm sorry if this comparison seems offensive, but Ryan Dunn also achieved his notability in the whole decade before his death, but most of the articles in other languages were written after that event and he was excluded from this year's list. That said, I agree that Nancy Wake would be far more deserving of a place and I won't hold any grudges if my opinion is ignored. It's just that we're again resorting to arbitrary judgement and it will be even more difficult to justify exclusion of someone "obviously" not deserving the place in the future (or even the existence of the interwiki criterion itself) if we include her. Additionally, only 5 of foreign-language articles are non-stubs, two or three even consisting of just a few sentences. — Yerpo Eh? 11:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you may be underestimating her importance - she's had biographies written about her life, with the first published in 1956, she been extensively covered in multiple sources for over 60 years, a TV series was based on her life in the 80's and one movie about her was made while another is in pre-production. Rather than seeing this as recentism, it is more a case of the tendency of WP to reply only on recent online sources. Certainly, I wouldn't say that her notability has only emerged in the last 10 years. - Bilby (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely in agreement with Bilby here. The acts she is famous for were performed nearly 70 years ago. One of Wikipedia's biases is that such people generally get less coverage than more recent "folk heroes", simply because they are of less significance to younger editors. We must look beyond Wikipedia for her importance. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is recentism from the perspective of, say, Polish, Finnish, Welsh and other-language Wikipedias where the articles were only created after she died. You're mistaking notability for importance - of course she is notable, that's why she can have a well-referenced article meeting all notability criteria (in all Wikis), but apparently only English-, French-, German- and Israeli-speaking editors considered her important enough to bother writing articles about her that weren't spurned by her widely reported death. See, I do not make any claims about her importance per se, but her worldwide importance (reflected in her wiki coverage), which counts here. And I'm merely saying that we're throwing away criteria for inclusion among the recent year deaths that work reasonably well. Now, the criteria may not be perfect, but if we choose to overrule them, we should create better ones instead of just ignoring the issue and making arbitrary judgements. Perspective is the key (which is perhaps difficult to understand for someone that doesn't really care for WP:RY as a whole, just wanting to promote "his" subject) - tomorrow, somebody else might come by, wanting to include a person slightly less "obviously deseriving" and a whole lot of talk-page bashing will erupt. The day after tomorrow, another one. Is it really worth it? — Yerpo Eh? 08:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can always overrule guidelines. This has happened quite a few times in othe Recent Years and people not only less notable but far less important have been (block-)voted in. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, because of that, we're downplaying guidelines even further... I mean, if that's ok with others, I have nothing else to say, but I'm still wondering if it's worth it (i.e. will make Wikipedia better). It's also curious that all three editors speaking in favour of her inclusion come from "down under" (AUS or NZ). You don't have to be psychic to predict POV accusations flying around these pages in the future. — Yerpo Eh? 13:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the significance of where editors come from if the arguments are sound. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Virginia Earthquake

I knew as soon as I heard about this earthquake I would find it on the 2011 page. However, it is fairly minor, though it was felt throughout the East Coast of the United States and Canada. The continuing American bias is not reasonable, especially, when other events that are very similiar do not make it into an International page. This page is about INTERNATIONAL NEWS that effects the whole world.

Some other events like the 2010 Central Canada earthquake had a 5.0 magnitude and effected Canada and the northeastern United States, but never made it into the international news section in 2010. So, why does this news story make it in, it was only a little bit stronger at 5.9 magnitude and did similiar damage (minor or none). Whenaxis (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EXCLUDE ... it is written up where it belongs in 2011 in the United States--70.162.171.210 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude as above. More evidence that some people really struggle to understand what should be included in a Year article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this isn't even a major event in the US, no real harm was done. On the West coast we know a 5.9 is not that big of a deal. You know you've been in a quake for sure, some stuff might fall off the shelves, but that's usually about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude, as per other comments. I am not even sure why we are having a vote at all.
On a side note, this is Wikipedia, you cannot blame some editors for the editing errors of others. All we can do is correct the mistakes as soon as we spot them. FFMG (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EXCLUDE Even in the areas where it was felt, the impact of this earthquake after today will be zero. The fact that anybody even thought it was a reasonable addition shows the problems we have with the lack of objectivity of some editors here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure to check here when major monuments in other countries are damaged and closed until further notice, to make sure that those events don't go into the year articles. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that post is that it seems we're all expected to know what you're talking about. What major monument? What damage? I seriously can't imagine one damaged building in my country going into a Year article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the Sydney Opera House were shut down indefinitely, it wouldn't be significant? I'm talking about the Washington Monument. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be significant enough for the global Year article. But that's just my opinion. I'd be interested in others. Maybe your mention of a monument is important, along with Washington's name. From afar, both seem to be far more important to Americans than any politician or building is to Australians. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A temporary closure of the Washington Monument is not important. Maybe, the complete closure would be important such as: the closure of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. But that didn't happen. Whenaxis (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Hurricane Irene

Why can't Hurricane Irene be added to the list of events?

From WP:RY

Three-continent rule

New events added must receive independent news reporting from three different continents1 on the event. This is a minimum requirement for inclusion. Events which are not cited at all, or are not Wikilinked to an article devoted to the event2, may be removed.

1 =

(Europe): http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0826/irene.html - "Evacuation order for parts of NYC" - RTE News.
(N. America): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/27/nyregion/new-york-city-begins-evacuations-before-hurricane.html?_r=1&hp - "City Orders Evacuation of Coastal Areas" - N.Y. Times.
(Asia): http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-08/26/content_13198402.htm - "Hurricane Irene tightens aim on East Coast" - China Daily (China).
(Australasia): http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/america-evacuates-as-huge-storm-heads-to-new-york-20110826-1jeb7.html - "America evacuates as huge storm heads to New York" - Sydney Morning Herald.
I gave 4 continents reporting on this event. And they're all independent from each other.

2 =

Hurricane Irene (2011)

WP:RY intro:

The event must have a demonstrated, international significance.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/new-york-hurricane-could-be-multibillion-dollar-catastrophe/?ref=nyregion - A New York Hurricane Could Be a Multibillion-Dollar Catastrophe - NY Times

And a Plan B:

Any of the standards set below can be overruled by a consensus to ignore those standards in a given case.

IT IS NOT A U.S. CENTRIC EVENT OR AGAINST THE AMERICANISATION OF WIKIPEDIA As Hurricane Irene has hit some Carribean Islands, starting at Puerto Rico.

– Plarem (User | talk | contribs) 21:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exclude Yes, Hurricane Irene has effected many islands in the Caribbean and will be effecting the United States of America. 1 fatality has occurred in direct relation to this storm. No damage whatsoever. Please consider the fact that not even Hurricane Katrina made it into the 2005 page, Katrina caused billions in damage - it happened to be the costliest hurricane ever - and caused thousands of deaths, it entered news all of over the world, controversies were pilled over it (Hurricane Katrina (2005)#Criticism of government response) and economical and environmental problems resulted. Irene is a mere nothing compared to Katrina. I am suggesting, but not certain, that you may have included this because Irene effected you or the news has been overdramatizing this hurricane. But, certainly this is not worthy. Whenaxis (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it would be rational to at least wait until it's over to assess the true impact of a storm. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. However, if User:Plarem still wants this event to be placed in 2011, further discussion shall continue. Whenaxis (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude. Not an internationally/historically notable hurricane, just one of many that happen EVERY year. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evacuation of 300,000 people in New York City doesn't rate international news? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need to look at it just as "Evacuation of 300,000 people". It doesn't matter where from. New York is no more important for that fact than the flood plain of the Yangtze, where such events seem fairly common. But I'm open to other opinions on how significant evacuating that many people is on a global scale. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - unless something more happens, it doesn't seem to meet the current standards for inclusion. Large scale evacuations are certainly an impact for everyone involved, but they're not necessarily of sufficient global impact to meet the current consensus. - Bilby (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Layton

Although very notable in Canada and therefore rightly on 2011 in Canada, he doesn't appear to have any international notability. He was never head of government, only of his party and the opposition. Therefore, I don't believe that he should be included in the Deaths section, even though he has enough articles. 31.64.40.33 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His article reads more like a biography than an encyclopedic entry, it certainly seems overlarge for the subject matter. And while he easily exceeded the 9 non-English article minimum at his death the vast majority of those articles are stubs or little more. I agree that he appears to have no international notability (being a member of the opposition doesn't really count). I'd lean toward "Exclude". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EXCLUDE - 2011 in Canada, highest level of note he deserves to be recognized--70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EXCLUDE as per above. I live in Canada and I don't believe that Jack Layton is even important. This is the first time ever that a member of the Opposition had a state funeral and/or a memorial this big and I don't know why. But to more important matters, Jack Layton was mentioned in Canadian media only for a short time. Whenaxis (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 9, 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. The years are missing from the copied elements.

Once again, we have another plea to put in a natural disaster, like a hurricane (typhoon), tornado, a minor earthquake. All these things happen on a daily basis. To me, an event that is majorly catastrophic with over 2000 people dead, or an airplane crash that is notable for safety or newsworthy in same way. But something that happens every single year, every single day, perhaps, is not worthy. Moreover, it's a surprise when some people come up with Tornado Outbreak, what's next Thunderstorm scared me!. Some really frivilous things and really miniscule events come onto Wikipedia and it's an annoyance for adminstrators or trustworthy Wikipedia users because we have to read in between the lines and make sure it's something noteworthy, or even real. Whenaxis (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 11th – 10 years on. Anniversary of 9/11 terrorist attacks.

I and a few other editors have added the September 11th, 2011 onto the article multiple times. Ye, bureaucrats, have NO COMMON SENSE!

Please see WP:BURO and WP:Ignore all rules. AND in the old 'Predicted and scheduled events' it said: No anniversaries, except if special commemmorations are planned.

If I was a bureaucrat, then 2011 would look like this:

Events
January


February


March


April


May


June


July


August


September
  • Please note:
  1. We are too much of a bureaucracy to include anything, because everything is against WP:RY and we can't reach a consensus here.
  2. DO NOT TRY TO ADD ANYTHING OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOREVER.

– Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Australia we have huge ceremonies every year on Anzac Day. I don't believe they should be in recent years articles. Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here in South Africa we celebrate the end of Apartheid every year, there are celebrations in many countries, (I can find references if need be). Maybe we should add that anniversary as well. FFMG (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But are they of a terrorist attack? Are they a 10th anniversary? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 14:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the only argument for inclusion in the big article is that people from multiple nations died in the world trade center and thus people around the world would commemorate the 10th anniversory - but, fact of the matter is this is an anniversory - not the original event - EXCLUDE--70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the only reason i included it into 2011 in the United States was the openning of the memorial and museum. had those sites been completed at 13 years 223 days after the original event i would have noted them - the "10th anniversory" = has no relevance to notability --70.162.171.210 (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vote exclude also - my understanding is the criteria for inclusion is international notability. a ceremony held in one country as a memorial for anything is not notable around the globe. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When people request for events, you cannot just merely decide: "Hmm...I've never heard of an inclusion for this before so, therefore it's not worthy." Wikipedia cannot set out rules for every possible inclusion request. Sure, there are the normal things such as, natural disasters, economy related requests, etc. However, there are requests that don't necessarily fit any of the existing topics or foregoing topics. So, I would suggest to examine reasons to include and reasons to exclude.
Include
It effected many people from many nations.
It changed safety measures across the world.
Continuing effects of 9/11 on families, the government and health.

Please note: This memorial brings closure to many families that did not have a body recovered from the death of their loved one. The above mentioned and herein are some reasons for inclusion of the anniversial memorial.

I agree with you that the actual 911 event had all those impacts that you mention. but the event that we're debating here is the annaversary memorial celebrations held in New York, not the actual event itself. place the words "the memorial event" in place of your "it" in the three points that you mention and it's not worth a mention. e.g. "The memorial event affected many people from many nations" - No. "The memorial event changed safety measures accross the world" - No. "Continuing effects of the memorial event on families, the government and health" - No. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you trying to suggest. However, the notability of the actual event effects the importance or notability or inclusion of the memorial for the aforementioned event. Because the 9/11 attacks and the memorial are so closely correlated I would think that using the outcomes of 9/11 to better emphasize my point for inclusion is what I was getting at. Whenaxis (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude
There were a lot of other memorials of this event
Some other non-American events did not receive recognition on memorials such as: Air India Flight 182

Whenaxis (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude. Not notable outside the US. Making the news does not make an event notable. Certainly less significant than other anniversaries which are celebrated worldwide (e.g. WWI and WWII) which are also are not included. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Cadle Price

Only seven foreign entries but was a Prime Minister of such a small nation, should his death be included? Ifore2010 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to his article he was a leading figure in the movement for the independence of Belize, was its first Prime Minister and held office for 3 years. That would seem sufficient for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
INCLUDE: i think it is clear from most of my discussion that i tend to hold on the side of inclusion in the case of most on the edge obits--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was reached that we include all national leaders (except for interim leaders), even if they do not have a sufficient number of articles. 188.29.120.198 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Sladen

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011&oldid=453240436"