Talk:2017/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

50th Superbowl anniversary

Why would the 50th anniversary of the Superbowl be celebrated on the 51st game? --TopGear 22:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Super Bowl 1 was Jan 15, 1967. Super Bowl XL was Feb 5, 2006; 39 years later. An anniversary is the annually recurring date of a past event. So, SB 1 was the past event, in effect the 0th anniversay. SB XL is the 39th anniversary. SB XLI is the 40th, and SB LI is the 50th. Page already updated to this effect. Also, the page for 2016 (correctly) lists Super Bowl L as occuring in that year. Jachim69 03:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

how can we say that the Superbowl will be celebrated in 2017? perhaps it will no longer exist, perhaps it will become biannual. perhaps it will skip a year. Doesn't this violate the rule that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? --mtz206 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought about that, too, after see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball on another page. The whole section is listed as 'Predicted Events' and follows the pattern of quite a few other years. In my edit I was just concerned with the off-by-one error, and not the broader question of whether the whole section is appropriate. That would affect most pages 2007 and beyond. Jachim69 05:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I would say it's highly unlikely that the Superbowl will cease to exist or start skipping years. I think it warrants inclusion. The "crystal ball" rule does not apply when an event is almost certainly going to happen and is notable in and of itself (such as 2007 or the seventh Harry Potter book.) Grandmasterka 10:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Pearl Jam

i'm not sure, if the pearl jam note is really required ... --85.124.168.136 21:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Miami mafia

I'm quite sure the in Miami 2017 the mafia will have taken over Mexico not Jericho, NY218.214.49.175 04:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson clone

Click says that the clone is sueing michael jackson... in the click film at least, the dialogue says [after explaining about the clone] 'Michael jackson is sueing himself for molesting himself' and it seems more likely to me that the younger child clone michael jackson would be sueing the adult rather than vice versa. 84.68.110.116 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of fictional section

I have started a discussion on the appropriateness or otherwise of in-universe references to fictional events on these years articles. Please see Talk:1997. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you erased information about real book named "2017"? And btw, if you erase everything "fictional" from years' entries, so you should go and erase also here, shouldn't you? And this also, yeah? Or maybe just stop deleting all this? Stansult 13:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kestrel Helicopter Canceled?

This page still contains a reference to the USMC's Kestrel Presidential Helicopter project, which was canceled last year by Obama and Sec Gates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.16.101 (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush surprasses Gerald Ford by age

If former president George H. W. Bush is still alive, by about late November or early December 2017 he will surprass Gerald Ford by age. What date exactly? 68.126.159.187, 01:41 16 April 2007 {UTC)

November 25, 2017 will be the official date that George H.W. Bush (if alive then) will pass Gerald Ford as the oldest president by age.

So? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just answering that person's question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.146.140 (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Films set in 2017

Is "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2" really set in 2017? And what about "Fortress (1992 film)"? It's also film set in 2017. Section "Films set in 2017" is not consistent with films listed in "Category:Films set in 2017". Maybe this section should be replaced by a link to that category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.238.117.139 (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hercules on 2-Disc 20th Anniversary Edition Disney DVD

Hercules will be released on 2-Disc 20th Anniversary Edition Disney DVD for Summer 2017, for a limited time only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.238.12 (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Inauguration of Donald Trump

I understand the reluctance to put Trump's pending inauguration in this article. However, such information for US Presidents is already in all the other Year articles, going back to George Washington. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Recent years#US inaugurations for a centralized discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Obama's isn't mentioned in 2009, and that was a historical moment. No need to mention Trump. Alligators1974 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I have been looking on multiple years, such as 1961, and 2009 where the inauguration of a POTUS is listed, in this case President John Kennedy and President Barack Obama. I looked at the < ! > of 2017, and I wasn't going to edit in President Trump's inauguration until it actually happens. It says in < ! > Do not add Trump's inauguration. Now, I may be a bit stupid, because it might mean Don't add it until Trump takes office. But, can you explain it to me anyway? TDMfan23! 04:28, 21 December 2016 (GMT)

It might be a bit late, but i'll reply anyway. Per Wikipedia:Recent years#Politics and legislation, elections (including inaugurations) are not typically included. Please note that WP:RY only applies to articles on years from 2002 onwards, so Presidential inaugurations may be included in the articles of years prior to 2002. --FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe maybe now isn't the time to put it down, I feel. TDMfan23! (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2016 (GMT)

Based too much on astronomical events

I have noticed your policy regarding recent year article focuses too much on providing dates of astronomical events which very few people are concerned with rather than more important events which actually interest people like presidential elections, sporting events like the FIFA confederation cup, release dates of popular games and so many other popular eland notable events. What makes you think astronomical events like solar eclipse, planetary transitions are more important and note worthy? I have seen other reader's similar concern but you seem blind to it. What good are your years article if you do not give any attention to your readers and only write your perceived important events and are biased towards astronomy and science rather than other fields like law, economics, sports, and so on? I think you might change all the recent year articles to recent years in astronomy articles. At least that's the only thing your 2016 and 2017 articles features! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.121.134 (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is no "policy" that favors the inclusion of astronomical events. Because these events are predictable those editors that are interested in them have added them to as many futue years as they can find. WP:RY guidelines exclude such events due to both their frequency and predictability both of which diminish any possible notability. In the vast majority of cases these entries will be removed, eventually. And FYI, elections and sporting events are also usually excluded, with a few exceptions as detailed at at WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

2017 or not 2017

As usual on 31 December users add a listing of which parts of the world are now in 2017, this is an encyclopedia not a news service we can wait until wiki time changes to 1 Jan before we change the article. This removes the need to list every village in the world as the earth revolves. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

First of all, an usual New Year's Eve countdown in all parts of the world between December 31 and January 1 are not critically meet with a criteria of WP:SYNTHESIS. Assume that the Wiki date usually follows the British date format, so why the American Wiki users don't basically entered a criteria when it would be shocked as 2017 hasn't started in the US that follows the said Wiki time.
Basically for example, the wiki time is 1 January XXXX at 00:00, where the Eastern Time in the US would be 31 December XXXX at 19:00, and the time in Sydney would be at 11:00 am at 1 January XXXX that which uses daylight saving time. Formulas will be shown during in every New Year: [[UTC−{{#expr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}+1}}:00]] behind at the east of Date Line and [[UTC−{{CURRENTHOUR}}:00]] for ahead at the west of date line. ApprenticeFan work 17:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I want to know, what if a notable event happens today where it is 2017/2016? Do we put it on the 2016 or 2017 article depending on wiki time or what time it was where it happened. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 19:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer a running commentary over saying it is 2017 when half the world is still in 2016. Dustin (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I also support keeping the article updated as the time zone changes. This has been the tradition for some time, and as long as there are users willing to make the updates, they should not be reverted. (This could even be automated in the future using Template:Year article header.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree with MilborneOne (talk · contribs). This whole "update every hour/half hour etc" is tedious and pointless, leaving it for a day won't affect anything. The issue of when to list an event depends on the event. The vast majority of events occur in a specific timezone and therefore on a specific local date. On the off chance something occurs across 31 December/1 January depending on location then it can be included in both years. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
And as this issue has, and will, crop up every year, it should really be addressed at WP:Recent Years (as already noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#New Year's Eve). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I support the usual practice of keeping the article updated hourly. While it has relatively few advantages, it has zero disatvantages, and there are always editors willing to keep it updated. An official policy should be added for future years, to prevent the current scenario where a couple of editors always try to remove as much information as they can because the lack of official policy in favor of keeping the article updated. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 09:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree, I don't see the harm in this tradition. — Yerpo Eh? 20:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

Can you add Tony Atkinson? He meets WP:RY.

 Done DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, his death hasn't been confirmed. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017

Can you add in Viktor Tsaryov? He meets WP:RY.

Not done for now: Not even his page gives a reliable source for his death. Please provide one. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Note: Marking request as answered. st170e 15:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992

This section was in the article before. I have no idea why or who deleted it. This event has been planned since October 26, 1992. Exactly 25 years. usernamekiran 10:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamekiran (talk • contribs)

It is not internationally notable and as such belongs in 2017 in the United States not here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It is more notable internationally than "inauguration of Donald trump". The documents being released will be accessible from all over world, not just from US. usernamekiran 11:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamekiran (talk • contribs)
Loads of documents are accessible across the world - that doesn't make their release internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Although WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a good reason to include, there is consensus that the inauguration of Donald Trump should not be included. If you see it here, please remove it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
There may be a plausible argument for inclusion later; if the documents contain evidence of foreign involvement in the assassination, the release might rise to international significance. Wait and see. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jim Michael I apologise for the confusion. I meant, one should exclude this event because it is located in US, and not on some international territory. And your point is exactly my point. Almost entire world holds interest in assassination/investigation since the day HSCA released their report. That's why the documents are accessed through all over the world. It already has significance. Not as "international affair" though. But the interest crosses all the borders.

From December, TESS mission, and the ESA's CHEOPS hold interest in very select group of people. Most of the world's population don't even know anything about it, nor these missions affect them in anyway.

The missile interceptors, and the yeast research are truly significant on international levels. usernamekiran 20:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC) usernamekiran 20:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamekiran (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017

Can you please add in Igor Volk? He meets WP:RY.

Done Sir Joseph (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism

There seems to be consensus at WP:RY and in previous years not to include a terrorist attack unless there is something special about it, such as Charlie Hebdo. Unfortunately, terrorist attacks are not always even news, even more so that we are not a news organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, terrorist attacks are incredibly common; not all can be included in this article. Most terrorist attacks should only be listed at List of terrorist incidents in January 2017. There should, however, be agreed-upon criteria for including the most major terrorist attacks, like the Charlie Hebdo one, in year articles.
I'm undecided on whether or not the Istanbul attack should be included in the 2017 article. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 01:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
What makes you think that the 2017 Istanbul nightclub attack possibly should be included? Jim Michael (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The Charlie Hebdo attack was a lot less major than the 2017 Istanbul nightclub attack. It should be included in this list then. Beejsterb (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Not really, because several notable cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were killed because of their satirical work. Only one of the Istanbul victims was notable - and he just happened to be at the club at the time. Jim Michael (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-humans in deaths section

Tilikum would certainly meet the death criteria if he were a human. Should he be included like he is in Recent Deaths? EternalNomad (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is consensus that nonhuman deaths should generally not be included, even under WP:YEARS guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What to include

Really? A mass shooting at one of the busiest airport's in the nation is NOT noteworthy? A terrorist attack in Israel is NOT noteworthy? Seems you people are arbitrarily changing the criteria for inclusion seemingly at a WHIM every time anyone attempts to edit this article.

Seems to me most of you people are control freaks, someone TRIES to contribute, but you revert their edits. Keep this up, and I'll STOP editing this site altogether, its obvious you don't want my contributions. - Blakebs (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2017 (CST)

I think you said it yourself "busiest airport in the nation" this list is to reflect international events not national, 2017 in Turkey/United States/Israel and similar is available for that. Please dont attack other editors you need to compromise and work with others to make the best of your time on wikipedia. If you dont like what is being done then your a welcome to raise it and discuss it but please dont call others names or assume any motives. We welcome contributions from anybody but they need to understand the rules and guidelines. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I try my hardest to contribute here; any contributions I make are undermined; You need to come up with criteria for inclusion and have it stick, instead of arbitrarily changing it at a whim. Its ONE event related to terrorism, you act as if it'll clutter the ENTIRE article. I think it should be included. This could very well lead to a change to how people travel by air, new regulations, etc.

The page needs content, alright? Whether or not you believe it to be notable is beside the point. - Blakebs (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2017 (CST)

Nevermind; I'll take my contributions elsewhere. Blakebs (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2017 (CST)

One of the busiest airports in the country? Really? Our article says 21st-busiest.
Terrorist attacks in Israel are not notable; I suspect there are more days in which there is a terrorist attack in Israel than days in which there is not a terrorist attack in Israel. Even in undisputed territory, terrorist attacks are not uncommon.
If a terrorist attack leads has demonstrable worldwide effect, not just worldwide notice, it should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Images

Isn't it a bit too soon to have four Deaths images? They obviously don't fit and are causing the article to have a large empty stretch near the bottom. I'd say comment them out for now. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Commenting out the least notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Invasion of the Gambia

In the likely possibility of Yahya Jammeh's ouster, would such an event as the invasion of the country be included? ProjectHorizons (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this event is already significant enough according to our criteria. — Yerpo Eh? 07:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Clearly the dispute in Gambia is of note but the term Invasion is perhaps a bit non-neutral to use here. MilborneOne (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Deaths link to Birth year

I know it has been that way for a while but does anybody know why in the list of deaths we link to the birth year, as far as I can see it doesnt provide any information to the reader about the subject person. Should the birth year not be linked ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It's in WP:YEARS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Doesnt really explain why - I cant see any value in bringing up an article on the year which at best might just list them same individual as being born. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Women's March

The deletion was explained in the edit summary. I lean toward inclusion, but an argument could be made that the vast majority of the protest was within the US, and it hasn't (yet) shown (much) international effect, or even national effect. A lot of (local) traffic disruption, a few arrests, but not much has happened. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Can you add in Dmytro Grabovskyy? He meets WP:RY.

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2017

Can you add in Veljo Tormis? He meets WP:RY.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems appropriate to me, pending potential further edits to WP:RY. I'm on my smartphone, so I don't want to yry to make the edit, myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Done Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Morocco Rejoining the African Union

Morocco was readmitted to the African Union on 30th January 2017, after withdrawing in 1984 due to the Western Sahara issue. This is a significant development for the region, as it means that every country in Africa is a member of the Union<ref>https://www.yahoo.com/news/african-union-decides-readmit-morocco-presidents-174342696.html</ref>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.214.241.11 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we add the executive order on the Muslim countries?

Should we add the Immigration Ban by Donald Trump here? It affects other countries and is on Wikipedia's home page.Thenabster126 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I support adding this. It's clearly an important event with global attention and impact. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding Dritëro Agolli

We should add the Albanian poet, writer, politician, Dritëro Agolli, who recently died because he has nine or more non-English pages here on Wikipedia, he if not worldwide, was known by the majority of the world even outside Albania, Kosovo, and even outside the Balkans, so I suggest to you to let me add the page of Dritëro Agolli to the 2017 page, section death! Dardn2015 (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

He meets the criteria, so I added him. You don't need to ask for permission if what you want to do is in line with consensus. — Yerpo Eh? 13:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sotsha Dlamini

Can you revert to my revision 764297378 undone by Rusted AutoParts? The name failed to meet WP:RY regardless if he was a world leader. *riot_iori* talk 00:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I explained this to you already, a consensus was reached to include all World leaders, regardless if they meet RY. Rusted AutoParts 06:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Inclusion is fully justified as per Rusted AutoParts. ALL state leader are included unless their term is so short that their is no possible international notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine. Can you guys please pinpoint to me to when this consensus was fully conceived? I don't want to be a complete tool and assume to make needless challenges about what meets and not meets WP:RY. I'm already confused due to how many world leaders that belittle WP:RY requirements are out there. *riot_iori* talk 01:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The most recent discussion was here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017

Can you add in Viktor Chanov? He meets WP:RY.

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Births?

Y NOBODY BORN THIS YEAR?! (No births In the article) Sausagea1000 (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nobody important, at least. — Yerpo Eh? 10:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Two North Korean missile tests?

The addition of a second North Korean missile test in the events section seems a little unnecessary doesn't it? Especially since North Korea has been performing them a lot more often lately. ProjectHorizons (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. These are now so frequent, with the exact same reaction, that they appear to be no longer notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 16:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Bold removed Japanese footballer

I removed from deaths a Japanese footballer. He is described as having played two international matches and spent his career at a club that doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Even with 35 foreign articles, he barely passes notability, let alone being on the list of the year's most illustrious deceased Harambe Walks (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the removal is justified. There are probably too many international footballers included in Recent Year articles because as the sport with the most international interest they are more likely to meet the minimum criteria. This should be addressed at WP:RY (I've been procrastinating!). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I support removal. Japanese footballer articles, in particular, were created en-masse on dozens of Wikipedias by user Japan Football. Number of their interwikis doesn't reflect international notability at all. — Yerpo Eh? 07:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Aah, that's good to know! I suggest automatic exclusion of any Japanese footballer throughout Recent Year articles unless there are very convincing grounds to include them. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I think older RYs are not problematic (yet), because the user did this last year. Let's just pay attention to future inclusions. — Yerpo Eh? 11:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Do we have a guideline regarding the threshold of inclusion for sportspeople? Would having won a gold medal at the Olympics, having been part of a team that won the FIFA World Cup, or having won a Grand Slam tennis tournament etc. make him/her sufficiently internationally notable? Jim Michael (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Jim Michael I don't think such a criteria exists because usually people with articles on at least ten Wikipedias during their life are successful. The problem is really with the nature of football in that the big clubs are known around the world and there is a very low fixed criteria for a footballer to have a Wikipedia article: to have played in a professional league. This includes the fourth level of English football, where the players are probably only known to the core 3,000 or so fans. An example of what I'm talking about is Liverpool reserve player Jordan Williams (footballer), who at age 21 has only played 17 matches on loan in the lower leagues. However, as he is owned by one of the world's most famous teams, he has 12 foreign Wikipedia articles. While we would agree that at his age, it would be incredibly tragic if he didn't wake up tomorrow morning, he wouldn't be at anywhere near the notability of the others on this list.

To make criteria for supremely notable footballers is difficult. Awards for best footballer in the world have only been dished out since 1991, and those who are most likely to die played long before then. A criteria of only including World Cup winners would include such mediocre players as José Kléberson, and exclude illustrious players such as Ryan Giggs or George Weah who never went to the World Cup. Some time around 2050, when the first players of the Internet age start to pass away en masse, there will probably be 20 listed per day unless stringent criteria are set up. Harambe Walks (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2017

Can you please add in Lola Albright? She meets WP:RY. 206.45.42.137 (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Done OZOO 14:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017

I do not find any information on the "silk road line" anywhere on the internet i am looking for you to let me delete that information 207.189.234.182 (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I don't see any mention of a "silk road line" on this article Cannolis (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@207.189.234.182 Source: Ruhákkal, játékokkal megpakolva érkezik Kínából az első Hszian-Budapest tehervonat URL: https://444.hu/2017/04/02/ruhakkal-jatekokkal-megpakolva-erkezik-kinabol-az-elso-hszian-budapest-tehervonat (projected travel period 17 days). --Elekes Andor (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@207.189.234.182 Source: China-Europe new freight train links Xi'an with Budapest http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0401/c90000-9198268.html --Elekes Andor (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding South Africans to "Deaths"

I want to add the following two people:

I want to make sure that they meet all the criteria. I understand one of the criteria includes nine or more English pages. I await your response.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2016 (talk • contribs)

Per WP:RYD, there must be 9 non-English Wikipedia articles at time of death. Klaasen only has two articles, and so is not eligible for inclusion on this page. Van der Westhuizen has 10 + Simple; so is eligible and is already on the page.--OZOO 10:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Ahmed Kathrada was one of the main politician in South Africa who fought against Apartheid. He was in jail with Nelson Mandela all of the time. He died on 28 March 2017. Should he not be added to the list? Freddie2016 (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

He fails WP:RY. I see no reason to make an exception and include him. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Does he fail? 15 non-English articles surely passes? I've added him. OZOO 18:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
At the moment of his death, he only had nine different language articles (plus Simple and a Wikiquote). -- Irn (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand the rule mentioned above.
I don't really understand why there can't be an exception for this man. He was in jail with Nelson Mandela for the same reasons (anti-Apartheid struggle.
More pressing. How do I know the amount of articles that exist for a person? Could you maybe explain it by using the Ahmed Kathrada subject as an example?

Hi. Where do I go to find out how many pages a person/subject has? Freddie2016 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You have to go to the corresponding Wikidata item (there's a link in the left column) and open a revision in that item's history from just before the person's death. Admittedly, the process is slightly complicated and I guess it could be automated, but I don't know where to ask. — Yerpo Eh? 11:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Charlie Murphy

Removed as lacking notability. Scrapes pastpasses the (outdated) WP:RY minimum requirement of 9 non-English articles, but most of those consist of a single line and a filmography with either no references or reference(s) copied from the English article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I would lean towards inclusion myself. He had 17 non-English articles at the time of his death, far more than implied by "scrapes", and looking at the page creators of the various non-English articles, they don't appear to be machine translations, just short articles. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the rule may be "outdated" to some but it is our guideline and which should not be able to be ignored by one or more editors playing the game of picking and choosing based on their whim. Wikipedia's guidelines should be respected. Not to mention the laughable claim of "scraped by" which implies 1 or 2 but not 8. The guideline of 9 is good enough and if it was based on anything higher the deaths section would be barren like a desert. Due to worldwide coverage and the internet more and more people are relevant internationally by the decade and that is a simple matter of fact. GuzzyG (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I've struck the "scrapes" as it was my misreading of an earlier edit summary. Removal was not done "on a whim". As with other such removals over the last 8 years that I have followed Recent Years (since it's inception) I have followed WP:RY which states

"This (i.e. the 9 non-English language criterion) 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."

As stated above the quality of the non-English articles does not suggest particular notability. For instance Faroese, Occitan and Tagalog were started by the same IP (shades of the editor who created non-English articles with the express intention of getting them to pass WP:RY), consist of a single line plus infobox, have no references and have not been edited since his death! Most of the others were of similar quality before his death and were clearly copied straight from the English article with virtually no local input. This strongly indicates that he was not actually particularly notable internationally, most likely editors have seen that Eddie Murphy's brother had an article and simply copied it. Contrary to GuzzyG's statement above, the 9 language limit IS now too low precisely because it is now so common for people of limited notability to get articles. Recent Year articles are for the most (internationally) notable people and events, NOT just anyone/anything that is of minimal international notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2017

Can you remove Aaron Hernandez as per WP:RY? Gar (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't Emma Morano included in the Deaths section?

It looks like Emma Morano has repeatedly been removed from the Deaths section by @DerbyCountyinNZ:. Given that she has articles on over thirty non-English Wikipedias, she appears to easily pass the criteria at WP:RY, so why the exclusion? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As per WP:RY: "Persons whose notability is due to circumstance rather than actual achievement (e.g. oldest person in the world or last surviving person of [x]) do not meet the basic requirement for inclusion.". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay. In that case, shouln't pretty much every member of royalty be excluded from year articles?
That rule seems fairly random and excludes an awful lot of people, and it's also rather subjective. I think it should be removed. Do you know where I should open a discussion on removing that criterion from WP:RY? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
For a list which is meaning to include "important" (to who? one guy?) deaths it's unfathomable that last of a numbered century wouldn't qualify. Then again it's a unnecessary, arbitrary non-important list where it seems picking and choosing overrides the official guidelines. GuzzyG (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Derby, the title of "oldest known" is too arbitrary and doesn't reflect real achievement or importance. Royalty is a different case, they serve political/diplomatic functions at the state level. — Yerpo Eh? 05:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm slightly torn on the situation. I agree living a long life isn't necessarily a significant thing, but the fact she was the last verified person to have been born in the 19th century is a pretty substantial feat. She lived for an entire century and then some. Perhaps there could be a case made to include her in the Events section? If the feeling is not mutual with others, I'll abide by her exclusion. Rusted AutoParts 05:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't give her much notability. Her life and death didn't receive much media coverage and the vast majority of people haven't heard of her. All she did was to be born just before the 1900s started, then outlive her peers. The only circumstance where it could be worth making an exception to the rule on excluding oldest people and last survivors could be if someone breaks Jeanne Calment's record to become the oldest verified person ever. Jim Michael (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2017

Please add Vinod Khanna to the deaths section, he was a really famous actor. 128.62.70.91 (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done See below. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Vinod Khanna

Should Vinod Khanna be included because he had 12 interwikis at the time of his death, but does he? Cause I'm starting to worry. Gar (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Worry? Is whether or not he's eligible to be listed really that concerning? Ala Charlie Murphy if the other wikis he's featured in aren't substantial detailed, perhaps he shouldn't be listed. Rusted AutoParts 03:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. At least I knew what I was doing. Gar (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
As the non-English interwikis at his death consisted largely of languages from the sub-continent, plus 4 others, it is unlikely he would qualify for inclusion anyway. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Gar (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2017

Add Mike Lowry to notable deaths of 2017 CanadianWikilover (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@CanadianWikilover: Done, thanks for your contribution. Murph9000 (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. He fails WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2017

add bruce hampton to 2017 deaths (one of my favourite musicians) CanadianWikilover (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done; sorry, he doesn't meet basic criteria at WP:RY. — Yerpo Eh? 19:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 eclipse

how come this isn't on the list of projected events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.133.95 (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it is entirely predictable and not uncommon and therefore not notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. I assume it'll be added after it happpens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.133.95 (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Not unless there is something unusual about it which causes significant coverage in reliable sources. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017

A recent news that Chris Cornell had died today. So I may request to edit the death page, please? Thank You 219.92.120.166 (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — IVORK Discuss 12:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Otto Warmbier

Technically, he had 9 non-English articles before his death, but two of them were added a day before when such an outcome was imminent. I suggest exclusion, the event was tragic, but this person wasn't notable for any real achievement, so WP:NOTNEWS would apply. — Yerpo Eh? 09:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. People who gain notability through circumstance rather than achievement are subject to exclusion per WP:RYD. Unless his death results in some tangible international reaction then he should be excluded. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017/Archive_1&oldid=1074287158"