Talk:2012/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Syrian civil war

With quoted 40,000 deaths, I think Syrian civil war needs a mention - especially the milestones of the conflict. The only mention right now is indirect over a diplomatic issue between Canada and Iran. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It began last year, yet it is mentioned only briefly on 2011. Although it is a civil war, several other countries and international organisations are involved. Hence a substantial overview of this conflict should be included on 2011 and on this article. 188.28.13.104 (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Rolling updates

Do we really need rolling updates throughout New Year's Eve and New Year's Day? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't. However, I think that allowing some users to have their little fun for a day is significantly less harmful overall than constantly reverting them, issuing warnings or the like. --illythr (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Well put. This is a tedious process we have to go through every year...WP:YAWN DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Salvador Reyes Monteón

Even though he was one article short before his death, I still think he deserves a spot in this page as he did a lot for Mexican football Eagle2012a (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Exclude, don't see a good reason for an exception in this case. His contribution to Mexican football can be acknowledged by listing his death in 2012 in Mexico (and expanding his article for that matter, because right now it's in a rather poor state). — Yerpo Eh? 16:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Exclude Having done a lot for Mexican football is a perfectly good reason for including him in 2012 in Mexico. However his article does not suggest sufficient international notability which is required for this article. I note that of the 4 references 2 are obituaries, 1 is a dead link and the other is a list of Mexican football players, which suggests his article is more a result of a Football project than specific notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Harry Carey, Jr.

Seeking consensus to Include - although he was one short of required 9 non-Eng at death I have nominated him here for exclusion from WP:RY thru concensus which I believe he will achieve - typically, the biggest problem with getting consensus is that the name was unknown before death. Mr. Carey was a well known actor appearing in many John Ford films with John Wayne - he was easily recognized--S-d n r (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

From the perspective of a non-film-expert, he doesn't seem worthy of an exception. He was two articles short at the time of his death, and even his biography here is still little more than a stub listing his roles. Same goes for foreign-language articles. — Yerpo Eh? 16:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
As someone familiar with films, I agree. Certainly 2012 in film, but not 2012. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The vast majority of the world's population have never heard of him. In what way are you claiming that he is notable outside the US? He is on 2012 in film and 2012 in the United States. 92.41.214.134 (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, while his career is far more substantial than many actors who have been included in Recent Year articles, on the basis of the criteria currently in use I do not see that there is a sufficient case to make him an exception. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
There's no doubt that he had a long, successful career. However, number of roles played is not part of the criteria for inclusion on articles such as this one. He is little-known outside the US. 92.41.214.134 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 December 2012

[[December 14] "Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting" Adam Lanza fatally shoots 20 students and 6 staff members. The massacre was the second-deadliest school shooting in United States history 99.238.139.208 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This has already been requested above. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:2012#Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The wording of your request demonstrates why it is not in this article but in 2012 in the United States instead. 92.41.200.132 (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 December 2012

21st December 2012 - Mayan apocalypse proved untrue, Gangnam Style becomes first video to reach 1 billion views on YouTube. Indieposer (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither is notable. I think some mention of the "Mayan apocalypse" should be in the article, but consensus seems to be against me. [sarcasm] some might think that the second sentence contradicts the first. [/sarcasm] — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I too disagree with removing all mentions of the Mayan calendar "deadline". The mass hysteria that developed in some circles, at least in the western world, was similar to the Y2K one in terms of notability. — Yerpo Eh? 11:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"Mass hysteria"? What examples are there of this? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Vacationnine 05:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This article lists a couple of examples. — Yerpo Eh? 08:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anything resembling "mass" or "hysteria" in that report, just a few groups of relatively few people looking for any excuse to believe in doomsday and a lot more who view the doomsday threat, and anyone who believes it, as a joke. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The article itself uses the term "hysteria", so you'll have to excuse me if I dismiss the fact that you don't see it. For the rest of my argument, see 2012 phenomenon#Public reaction and 2012 phenomenon#Cultural influence. If this isn't noteworthy, nothing on this page is. Of course the whole thing was retarded, but you can't say it wasn't noteworthy. — Yerpo Eh? 20:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops, yes, I missed it. But then the article contains nothing else that actually suggests hysteria, so it looks like another case of media exaggeration. The Times treated the whole thing with appropriate derision. As for being noteworthy, this gathered somewhat less attention than the Gangnam Style video. Representation in the media doesn't equal notability. All a bit moot without further, considered, input into this discussion really. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Less attention?? You haven't watched or read a lot of news in the last few years, have you? Yes, "hysteria" is a strong word for what really happened, but come on, a blockbuster movie was made around the topic. Just search The Times' archive while you're there - there's dozens of articles on it spanning more than a year. And representation in the media is exactly what constitutes notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. — Yerpo Eh? 10:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Media coverage does not show notability; many trivial/nonsense stories gain a lot of media coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a red-top newspaper or a gossip magazine. 92.40.96.215 (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It was never going to be the end of the world, but rather "the start of a new age". --86.157.85.48 (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It has never been that either, it was a load of paranoid/attention-seeking nonsense. The world is no different after 21 December than it was before then. 92.41.219.123 (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

New year

Hi, I'm just curious about something (and no, I'm going to say in advance, I'm not looking to start an argument): Why do we have to update exactly what areas of the world are in 2013 in comparison to those who are in 2012 still? I understand that Wikipedia aims to be accurate, but isn't that a bit too accurate, I mean, I don't think that anyone is really looking to read the article to see where the year is current and where it's not. I would have figured stating whether or not the year is in the past, present, or future would have been good enough. Again, I know this is a bit of a senseless comment, I just wanted to know why we do that. Thanks. JPECH95 08:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't make much sense, but it's harmless and it appears that some people like to spend the New Year's eve doing it. See the #Rolling updates comment above. — Yerpo Eh? 09:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh ,whoops I didn't even see that section there, and I did look through the page to make sure this hadn't already been talked about. Well anyway, yeah, I guess it is harmless and if they want to do it, why not? Thanks for your swift reply. :) JPECH95 10:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You can now unblock the page since 2012 is now over--24.13.169.19 (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

was/is confusion

Opening sentence of this article reads: "2012 (MMXII) was a leap year that started on a Sunday".

Uncertain why people commonly mistake this but just because something's over doesn't necessarily make it stop being what it is. 2012 "is" still a leap year and just because it's over doesn't mean it's no longer years. Just because 1995 is over doesn't mean it's no longer a year. It's as if the name of 1995 changes because its over when you put "was." 1995 no longer is year, but now something else? /: \ Because a television show ended doesn't make it stop being a television show. This is why having "was" in the opening is grammatically incorrect.173.0.254.226 (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

All past years open with the same wording e.g. "890 was a ...". There has likely been some discussion of this somewhere e.g. WP:MOSDATE or WP:YEARS which is where this discussion should probably take place rather than here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013

Please add the following entry: January 17 - Johnny Otis (Ioannis Alexandros Veliotes), Greek-American "Godfather of Rhythm and Blues" ...and link to the existing Wikipedia page on Otis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Otis) 79.131.118.111 (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

He's not notable outside the US, hence he should not be on this article. He should be on 2012 in the United States and 2012 in American music. 188.30.113.144 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Not done: per above response. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Jenni Rivera

Hi folks, I understand the guidelines for death notability generally state a minimum of so many languages are needed to determine notability. But I think this may not be exactly a fair judge of actual notability. Because this singer was Latin American the majority of people deeply familiar with her would be speaking Spanish with spans multiple countries throughout the Americas and establishes added international significance to her. Also she was known in the English speaking hemisphere as well and because of the prominence of these two languages she is more known than it may first appear. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

EXCLUDE-fails WP:RY, looking at her article fails to by my mind meet any chance at notability by side route of "concensus" --- now you have your answer on talk page please remove it immediately and stop warring with Derby--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
not to say you had no chance at consensus but if Keiko Tsushima - whom earlier this year i said should get concensus and no one even bothered to respond, does not get included then your current pick is highly improbable--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Exclude. The original argument can be applied to any celebrity with dubious importance in the English- or Spanish-speaking world, and I see no good reason in this case to ignore the consensual guidelines without a clear alternative that would work better. — Yerpo Eh? 08:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Exclude. The standard of non-English articles is becoming increasingly insufficient, many persons who could hardly be considered notable under any other criteria meet this minimum and have therfore been included. As such anyone who fails to meet the current minimum criteria is quite clearly lacking sufficient notability for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Include. She had numerous songs and albums chart over North America, and her death has rocked millions of people. Come on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.12.163 (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

2012 deaths

What about Sherman Hemsley? He was well liked as a actor by many.76.5.74.9 (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You can always argue for it, but he cleary doesn't meet WP:RY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Whitlam (Australian published author, social worker, former champion swimmer and wife of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, born 1919), died 17 March 2012 but is not on the list of deaths. She is on the list of deaths on the 17 March page. Should she not be on the 2012 page also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.cats2004 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't meet WP:RY, having no non-English language articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

But she does meet the requirements for the 17 March page? Is that not inconsistent, or is there a different standard for dates and years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.cats2004 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Are there any requirements for the 17 March page? It wouldn't surprise me if there weren't. That, hovever, is irrelevant. Inconsistent or not, there are good reasons for the guidelines at WP:RY and Margaret Whitlam does not even come close to them. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Boris Strugatsky

About this reverted edit (yeah, I only just noticed that it has been reverted). The reason the man doesn't have his own article is because most of his books were written in collaboration with his brother, who died in 1991. It doesn't mean he is not notable enough: he has individual articles in nine languages, just not in English (refer to the interwiki column in his Russian article), which is exactly one short of the minimum requirement in WP:RY#Deaths, but maybe the 28 languages in which Arkady and Boris Strugatsky is available can make up for that? --Koveras ☭ 10:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've found a similar example. In 1996 article, Fujiko F. Fujio is listed on Deaths article, although there is no English article for that person himself created but a redirected link to Fujiko Fujio, which has 17 non-English articles. (Fujiko F. Fujio was the author of a Japanese manga, "Doraemon", and one of co-authors as Fujiko Fujio for some other mangas.) Therefore, it is appropriate that either including both Strugatsky or Fujiko or excluding both, I suppose. ---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
1996, being before the founding of Wikipedia, is not subject to WP:RY. I tend to think that Strugatesky should be included; however, I've been reading science fiction since at least 1963, so I may be biased. Even keeping in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you haven't pointed out a problem. I'll open an appropriate section in support of inclusion below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Per the paragraphs above. I propose that Boris Strugatsky's death be included in this article. Although his article is joint with his brother here, according to WCIDFS, he has individual articles on 9 non-English Wikipedias. (I don't know if he had those articles before his death; perhaps others could comment.) I may be biased, having had read science fiction for a long time, but I was quite familiar with his work when I reverted the addition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Include. Boris Strugatsky's contributions to the Russian science fiction literature are inseparable from those of his brother, but both of them contributed equally to their lasting impact upon the genre, satisfying the notability criteria. PS: I have checked the nine interwiki articles: six of them existed long before his death. --Koveras ☭ 20:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we will get any more votes... --Koveras ☭ 08:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the number of articles for the brothers I think he should be included. It is unfortunate that the brothers do not have separate entries, although I suppose there would be too much duplication, otherwise no discussion would be needed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna

More than 10 articles in different languages, so is it okay to add for deaths? Red Hat On Head (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Exclude Only 8 non-English articles at death, of which 4 were Indian languages and the rest were stubs/clones. Notability before death seems insufficient for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A fire at a prison in Comayagua, Honduras kills 360

INCLUDE - i cannot find any previous talk on this in archives--S-d n r (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

at the time it was just accepted as notable from what i can see but now there is a question as to WP:RY--68.231.15.56 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Exclude because it was a domestic event. Very notable in Honduras, which is why it is on 2012 in Honduras. It has nothing to do with the rest of the world. Jim Michael (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Include being a purely domestic event is only one criteria for possible exclusion/inclusion. The scale of this event is historically significant in international terms. If being a purely domestic event meant automatic exclusion it would need to be applied to every Recent Year article, and probably every Year article. Try that and see what happens! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
great so this is your statement on this 2012 event Derby but you still have not weighed in on the 2013 event (Brazilian nightclub fire) that gave Jim Michael traction to start an all out removal of all events from the year in articles --- i mean get real - if this event and the one in 2013 are to be excluded on "quote" "unquote" local - then why not the earthquake in Haiti that killed 1/4 of a million people - it also only was a local event? In mathematics (assuming you got that far into it) you learn at some point what is called a boundary-value problem - the meat of it is this, at what point is the minimum bound by which even a local event should be considered notable enough to be remembered 20 years from now in an encyclopedia?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
This event is included in list of fires as well as 2012 in Honduras. Removing it from this article does not remove it from the encyclopedia. How is this prison fire, which the vast majority of people have never heard of, historically significant? No-one other than Hondurans remember this fire now, let alone will they do so years in the future. Try finding a non-Honduran who when you ask them what they associate 2012 with, says: "I always remember 2012 as the year of the prison fire in Honduras". It was not the Great Fire of London, no important buildings or notable people were affected. It's not part of the school syllabus. No other country has brought in new health and safety laws in response to the Honduras fire. Year articles are meant for major international events, such as the Algerian terrorist attack and the Pope's resignation. It is not meant to list every fire, earthquake, flood etc that has killed people anywhere in the world: list of earthquakes, list of floods etc exist for that purpose. Jim Michael (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
That is setting the bar for WP:RY way too high. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Try finding anyone other than Hondurans and Wikipedians who have heard of this prison fire. Ask your partners, friends, family, neighbours, colleagues - they won't know what you're talking about, nor will they care. This received very little media coverage. Not only is it forgotten, it was ignored outside of Honduras at the time. Compare that to the Great Fire of London.
It is already listed on two articles. If there were a Disasters in 2012 article, it would be there, too. Jim Michael (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone show how this has anything to do with any country other than Honduras? Has any other country changed their health & safety legislation in response to this fire? This is not a historical disaster like the Great Fire of London or the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. No notable people or notable buildings were affected. Many people being killed does not make it notable in world history. Did you see this event on the front page of newspapers anywhere outside of Honduras? Would you have heard of it if you didn't read Wikipedia? Do you think schools around the world are teaching their pupils about this along with major historical events? Was this a major talking point in academia? This article is not about listing all events in which many people were killed, which appears to be the only reason that this has been added to the article. Jim Michael (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
There are endless errors in your argument:
  1. Neither the Great Fire of London and San Francisco earthquake had any impact outside the country they occurred in.
  2. "Many people being killed does not make it notable". So if it was 3600 it would be notable? What about 36000? 36000? At some point the scale DOES become significant, there is just no defined point at which that occurs, yet.
  3. These events don't have to be "major talking points in academia", whatever they are. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if events like the Great Fire and 1906 earthquake weren't even mentioned in history classes but that still doesn't make that relevant to this discussion.
  4. "This article is not about listing all events in which many people were killed, which appears to be the only reason that this has been added to the article". No-one has ever said anything about "all" events being worthy of inclusion. There will always be "some" that are worthy, there just needs to be a defined criteria for what qualifies.
  5. There have already been complaints that too few events are being included in Recent Year articles, see Talk:2013. That none of those that have complained seem capable of coming up with any guidelines to replace those at WP:RY is not surprising.
  6. As per WP:RY, consensus can override any other criteria. The consensus here is to include this event. That this may seem to be unjustified/unreasonable or whatever won't change that, this is just the way wiki works and trust me when I say that this is far from the most egregious use of the consensus policy to get something added to a RY article when anyone with the power of objective reasoning would have agreed that it shouldn't be. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I used the London and SF events to point out that a disaster can be historically important without it being international; The Great Fire of London was raised earlier as an example of a national event with long-term historical notability that is well-known centuries later. The Honduran fire in comparison has been ignored by over 99% of the world; it has never been well-known and never will be. It remains to be the case that the death toll is the only reason for this being included despite that not being a reason to include an event - you would not be in favour of including this if the death toll were 36 instead of 360. There cannot be thousands of people killed in a prison fire. The London and SF events are taught in schools; the Honduran fire is not. There is no consensus to add events merely because of a high death toll. Every year, people add events and deaths of people who are nowhere near meeting the criteria, which is subsequently followed by claims that the event or person is/was massively important. You did not reply to my points that the media did not mention this event prominently anywhere outside Honduras and that no-one that any of us know from outside Wikipedia have ever mentioned this fire. I respect your work here but am puzzled at your belief that 'if many people were killed in an event, it is by definition of great importance in world history'. When a very important world event happens, millions of people talk about it with their partners, family, friends, colleagues and neighbours. Is there anyone on here who can honestly say that they have talked to anyone in real life about the prison fire? Jim Michael (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Summary - Definitely for inclusion: User:S-d n r, User:DerbyCountyinNZ
- Apparently for inclusion: User:ArglebargleIV
- Unknown, possibly for inclusion: User:68.231.15.56
- Definitely for exclusion User:Jim Michael
Looks like a consensus for inclusion to me (but then I'm not psychic!). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
subtract one from that scoreboard as you will see above i did not vote since i thought it was already obvious to everyone that i am s-dnr ... i have no interest ever in loging in it is a total waste of my valuable time - that the main article requires loging it i thereby do so only then--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
x--S-d n r (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Like millions of people around the world, I talked about the 7/7 bombings to several people I know. Did any of you talk about the prison fire with anyone you know? Of course not - nor did I! Can you imagine trying to start a conversation with your partner, neighbour, friend, relative or colleague by saying: "did you hear about the prison fire in Honduras?". Notice the difference - many millions of people are very interested in 7/7, which killed far fewer people. Any attempt to start a conversation about the prison fire would be met with a look that would be a cross between blank and puzzled. They would not be interested in the slightest. 7/7 was on front pages of many newspapers around the world; the Honduran fire was not. There have been many television programmes and a huge amount of media coverage around the world about 7/7. Nothing of the sort for this fire. No-one outside Honduras is interested in the prison fire - that shows that it was a domestic event. No other country is changing its health and safety laws or building regulations because of it. This fire was not included in any Review of the Year programmes. No-one outside Honduras thinks of 2012 as the year of the Honduran prison fire. No-one now, let alone in many years time will say: "I remember 2012 as the year of the Honduran prison fire". When anyone asks about 2012, there is no way that anyone outside Honduras would mention this fire as one of the main events of the year. This demonstrates the huge difference between an internationally, historically notable event (7/7) and a domestic event that the rest of the world is not interested in and which has no effect on the rest of the world (this fire).
Events do not need to involve death to be internationally notable. For example, The Pope's resignation and the Dutch Queen's abdication are important enough to be included.
The argument used that "many people were killed, therefore it is historically, internationally notable" is false. There is no guideline/policy that says a domestic event should be included because of its death toll, which is the only reason given for this being included. Year articles are for major, internationally, historically notable events. They are not for every event in which many people die.
User:Arthur Rubin and User:CalendarWatcher have both removed this domestic event, thereby the tally in the above comment is wrong.
Jim Michael (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually I believe ArthurRubin removed this on the (mistaken) basis that that was the consensus, while I expect CalendarWatcher merely reverted my edit purely for the reason that it was I that made it (you will note that they have NEVER contributed to this talk page discussion, or any other for that matter. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Honduras Prison Fire Kills Hundreds Of Inmates". Sky News. February 15, 2012. Retrieved February 15, 2012.

Why censor Mayan Dec 21 date?

Even though nothing happened do you want the future generations not to remember this data?.Then why not delete y2k info?. The mayan 21 dec date was a world news event.media was constantly harping the issue just like y2k event.

this has already been discussed can you instead look for a reseerection of the archive first?--S-d n r (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't been censored. It is not included because nothing happened in connection with this. Year articles are for important world events. There was no event, hence no entry for it here. We also don't include on here the baseless claims by Harold Camping, who has repeatedly claimed that the world would end on a particular date, only for nothing of the sort to actually happen. Jim Michael (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought Harold Camping's (last three) claims were included in the respective year articles. Oh, well.
I haven't checked the archived discussion, but it should probably be in a "2012 in ..." article. It is in the "See also" section here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
2012 in credulous overhyped bullshit? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Camping claimed that the world would end on 21 May 2011 and subsequently said it would happen on 21 October 2011. Neither false claim is mentioned on 2011. Jim Michael (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This is an article about important world events, not about ludicrous nonsense that some people imagined due to some supposed connection to an obsolete calendar. Nothing happened, hence it doesn't have a place here. Jim Michael (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian baby?

Why is there no mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.100.210 (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it is so totally insignificant it doesn't belong in any encyclopedic chronology. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't be so ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.100.210 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hahahahaha ha. No. Accusing a respected editor of ignorance because they refuse to acknowledge the commonplace act of childbearing by a reality TV star on an article collecting the most internationally significant events of an entire year does not cut it. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this is poor form that it's not being included, it was certainly reported more than Canada and Iran stuff, who the fuck cares about Canada? The baby is much more important.
This article is about important world events. Jim Michael (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Search Kim Kardashian and then search Iran on google, you'll see what the world cares more about then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.100.210 (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Current fads of western teenagers sell good, but that doesn't really equal importance. We're trying to educate, here, not emulate pathetic yellow journalism. There's enough of that crap, already, please don't try to pollute Wikipedia with it. — Yerpo Eh? 09:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yellow!? Is that a dig at asians? That's racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.100.210 (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Very funny, ha ha</sarcasm>. — Yerpo Eh? 09:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ignore him or her obviously he/she is a troll, sent from the depths of 4chan to attack wikipedia Plzwork1122 20:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.67.155 (talk)

Rodney King - "civil rights figure"?

I think a different occupation needs to be used for Rodney King. By labeling him a civil rights figure that is an insult to someone else named King. I think- "Troubled substance abuser who, during one of his many arrests, started a chain of events that eventually led to rioting" would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle kursk (talk • contribs) 00:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed - R King was not an activist for civil rights. He came to attention of the media and general public after breaking the speed limit whilst drink-driving, soon after he was released from prison after serving a sentence for robbery. The only thing he cared about was his own immediate gratification, which is typical for ASPD. He continued his reckless behavior after being awarded compensation. He never tried to make amends for his wrongdoing, nor did he respect or care about anyone's rights. Crediting him with being a civil rights figure is ridiculous. Jim Michael (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think King needs to be on this page, but it's not your place to come up with amateur diagnosis of specific psychological problems. The reason he doesn't belong is that he's not that significant, not that you think he was a bad person or mentally ill. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Shooting

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting of December 2012 is in my opinion significant enough to be in the timeline. It's a pivotal point in U.S. history, since it sparked the gun rights debate. Thoughts?

Mapmaker10 (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The reasons you have given are appropriate for inclusion in 2012 in the United States. This article is for internationally notable events, which previous consensus has deemed does not apply to this event. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Place

This page is a year. So um... You should probably put it as something like "the universe" or "N/A" under "Place", as it doesn't occur in a specific place, let alone only a few dozen countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.93.114.62 (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

First Paragraph Template

(This message will appear in several years)

I have created a template for the first paragraph. I think is is a neat feature, and I hope you like it. It currently works for any year 1930 or later (I have a problem with the Julian conversions, so I'm not planning on using it for those years yet.) The template creates a text similar to the following:

Year 2013 (MMXIII) is the current year, and is a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar, the 2013th year of the Common Era (CE) and Anno Domini (AD) designations, the 13th year of the 3rd millennium , 13th year of the 21st century, and 4th year of the 2010s decade.

Given the year, it inserts the correct Roman Numerals for that year (that was also my idea to add to years) gets whether it's a common, leap or exceptional year, the day the year starts, what year it is of AD, the year of which millenium (take a look at 2000, it "knows" it's still in the 2nd), the year of which century, and the year of the decade. It also prints when it's the 10th and last year of a decade (on year 9), the 100th and last year of a century (on 100), the last year of a millenium (on 000), and it's temporally correct, which is a nice hack.

What do I mean by temporally correct? For 2012 and earlier, it will say Year 2012 (MMXII) was a as the beginning of the paragraph. It starts this year with Year 2013 (MMXIII) is the current year, and is, and it starts 2014 and 2015 with Year 2014 (MMXIV) will be a and Year 2015 (MMXV) will be a respectively. But guess what it will do on January 1? It will, automatically on its own initiative change the wording to Year 2013 (MMXIII) was a, changes 2014 to read Year 2014 (MMXIV) is the current year, and is a while 2015 still reads Year 2015 (MMXV) will be a and without editing! All using the Wikimedia software. I think it's a slick feature to improve the encyclopedia since it makes it automatically current and relevant. I welcome any comments or suggestions, the next one I want to do is get the Dominical Letter (A, B, C etc.) inserted, I don't have that yet, I got the "and last" function for decade, century and millenium working just the other day, so I figured it was time to release it, and I'm very pleased that it works perfectly! Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014

Add riiiiight here: === August === * [[August 6]] – ''[[Curiosity rover|Curiosity]]'', the [[Mars Science Laboratory]] mission's [[Mars rover|rover]], successfully lands on [[Mars]].<ref name=MarsScienceLaboratory>{{cite web|url=http://www.space.com/13501-nasa-mars-rover-curiosity-atlas5-rocket.html |title=NASA's Next Mars Rover Hoisted Atop Rocket |publisher=Space.com |date= |accessdate=2011-11-04}}</ref> * [[August 8]] The map of the [[Sloan Digital Sky Survey]] is completed, creating the largest 3D map of the universe. * [[August 31]] **Researchers successfully perform the first implantation of an early prototype [[bionic eye]] with 24 [[electrodes]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120831065003.htm |title=First implantation of prototype bionic eye with 24 electrodes: 'All of a sudden I could see a little flash of light' |publisher=Sciencedaily.com |date=2012-08-31 |accessdate=2012-11-29}}</ref> **[[Armenia]] [[Armenia – Hungary relations|severs diplomatic relations]] with [[Hungary]], following the extradition to [[Azerbaijan]] and subsequent pardoning of [[Ramil Safarov]], who was convicted of killing an Armenian soldier in Hungary in 2004. The move is also met with fierce criticism from other countries.<ref>{{cite web|last=Gorondi |first=Pablo |url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Azerbaijani+military+officer+serving+life+murder+Hungary+freed+when/7173300/story.html |title=Azerbaijani military officer serving life for murder in Hungary is freed when sent home |publisher=Montrealgazette.com |date=2012-08-31 |accessdate=2012-11-29}}</ref> 179.210.86.1 (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It seems the addition to be made is: August 8 The map of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey is completed, creating the largest 3D map of the universe. The article for the SDSS suggests that the third phase will be completed in 2014...?
If that is the requested edit then it is not notable enough for inclusion in this article. It would be more appropriate in 2012 in science. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Delhi gang rape

The extremely violent gang rape/murder of a medical student in New Delhi, India was a seminal event in 2012. This event and the coverage it received surely will do more to shake the idea that women should not be educated than any other in history. It was reported globally and the outcome, death by hanging for all the adult perpetrators was a victory for women's rights in India. It certainly was reported/read/commented on in Muslim countries of which there are very many. Unlike many events that happen but leave no trace, this event has certainly left a trace.

Was this just another murder/death, forgettable because they are so common? No, it was singularly notable for the brutality and circumstances, for its ability to cut through prejudice. If Rosa Parks' refusing to give up her seat on a bus is worthy of inclusion, the Delhi gang rape is because it has wider significance. This event was notable, should be remembered, and should be included among the notable events of 2012.

I can't edit the page myself but something like this will do:

  • December 16 – A medical student is brutally gang raped/murdered in New Delhi, India, sending shock waves through the region and being a beacon for womens' rights as regards education.

A suitable newspaper article to cite is this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/asia/four-men-convicted-in-rape-case-that-transfixed-india.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.40.169 (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Erden Eruç solo circumnavigation

Does the completion of the first solo human-powered circumnavigation of the world by Erden Eruç on 21 July 2012 meet the guidelines for inclusion in this article? Maybe he should be listed in the '2012 in sports' article instead?

His circumnavigation was reported in America, Australia, Europe (though he did not cross it), and probably Africa as he crossed that continent along the way. He set several ocean rowing world records including most continuous days at sea by a solo ocean rower (312), most experienced living ocean rower (876 days), longest distance rowed (nearly 29,000 nautical miles), first to row the Indian Ocean non-stop, and the first to row across 3 oceans, along with the first solo human-powered circumnavigation (Jason Lewis completed the first individual human-powered circumnavigation as part of a changing team between 1994 and 2007).

Eruç is arguably the most successful and famous ocean rower to date; however, ocean rowing is certainly not a very popular sport for the masses and it may not even be known as a sport to most people.

In comparison to the example of Roger Bannister's record - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RY#Sports_and_other_contests - it seems that Eruç's records are physically more impressive, more unique, difficult to break and not nearly as likely to be broken by so many people in as quick a time as was Bannister's (only 46 days later and officially lowered 18 times by 13 people over the last 60 years), nor will many people be able to afford the money, time and effort required to break Eruç's records, though there are probably a few people trying to do so right now. Still, he will always have the 'first' designations stated above.

Thanks for any response, be it a thumbs up or down. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems too trivial for inclusion here. I would also hesitate to classify this as a "sporting" achievement, but those who follow 2012 in sports may disagree. There have been many circumnavigations, even solo, and one more (albeit entirely human powered) does not seem to have gathered particular attention, although finishing a few days before the start of the Olympics probably didn't help. I also note that the article is about the person not the circumnavigation and that there is only one non-English wiki article on him. As such I don't see that this satisfies the WP:RY criteria. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the response. I see that 'year in sports' is mainly just for yearly events and olympics, so that's not an option. Yes, it's true that many have solo'd around the world in various ways but only Eruç has done so entirely by his own power, which seems very significant though maybe only to me. His journey certainly did not garner widespread attention, maybe because it took so long, or that two earlier team efforts garnered more attention, or that his PR team (if there is one) was not very successful. Possibly the documentary film and book releases may improve his notability. It doesn't seem too trivial (imho) to be included here at some point, it's just not very well-known and recognized as a significant achievement yet. Maybe by 2020, a line may be merited in this article. Hmm, time to split the article (person / event) and start 'stubs' in other languages? :) Cheers, Brian W. Schaller (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

deleted britannica yearbook link

The Britannica yearbook for 2012 is a reference source devoted to the subject of the year 2012, hence worthy of inclusion in this article. Please restore the twice-deleted link. Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have that yearbook, but the 1997 yearbook is a reference for things that occurred in 1996 and earlier. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This one is all about 2012: Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year. 2013. ISBN 978-1-62513-103-4.

It's time for this article to be unprotected

2012 has already come and gone. It's 2015 now, and this page is still protected. The end of the world hype that surrounded 2012 is gone now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archanine (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015

On october add "23 October The BBC's teletext service Ceefax ends after 38 years of transmission, due to the digital switchover in the UK. Gibboboy777 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 10:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, the event does not have much international significance, so it would be a better fit for 2012 in the United Kingdom. — Yerpo Eh? 10:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Robert B. Sherman for inclusion to the 2012 Deaths List (March 6)

Hello:

I would like to include Robert B. Sherman on the "Deaths" list in "2012" and I was told by one of the editors that in order to do this I would have to gain consensus here, so that is what I'm endeavoring to do. Robert B. Sherman was the subject of two major film releases in recent years, both released by a major motion picture company (Disney). One film was a 2009 documentary about him entitled The Boys: The Sherman Brothers' Story. The other was a 2013 major film release Saving Mr. Banks about the making of the 1964 movie, Mary Poppins (for which Robert B. Sherman won two Academy Awards). In Saving Mr. Banks, Robert Sherman was portrayed by the award winning actor: B. J. Novak. Along with his brother, Richard, Robert has written more film musical scores than any other songwriter. Two of his films, Mary Poppins and The Jungle Book were the biggest grossing films of their respective years, 1964 and 1967, respectively. According to Time.com, Sherman's song, "It's A Small World (After All)" was recognized as the "most performed song of all time".[1]. In 2008 he (along with his brother) became only the second musical theatre songwriters ever honored by the President of the United States with a National Medal of Arts award. His list of credits is also extremely well known having written the songs for Mary Poppins, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, The Jungle Book, The Aristocats, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh and the list goes on. Thank you for considering this. Howard352 (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I lean against special inclusion. None of those strongly suggest international significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that the universal recognizability of Sherman's accomplishments make him internationally significant. Howard352 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no "universal recognizability" (whatever that might be). He had 3 non-English articles before his death, well below the level one would expect for international recognition. He had one award from outside the US, the Moscow Film award and the Russian article, not created until after his death, doesn't even mention it. On the whole he belongs in 2012 in the United States and probably 2012 in music and 2012 in film, but not here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Arthur Rubin - Sherman's international significance just doesn't seem convincing enough for an exception to made in this case. -- Irn (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Previous discussion (in Archive 4, referred to in Archive 5) was against inclusion. Consensus can change, and, there being no guidelines now, it might come down to a vote, in spite of WP:NOTVOTE, but it should not be included without discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - After five years, the event has had little lasting impact, and it's really just one more in a long list of mass shootings in the US. That said, it was a significant event that year, and it is still one of the deadliest mass shootings in modern US history. I probably wouldn't be opposed to inclusion if the article had more local events from around the world, but as it stands, this event wouldn't fit with the rest of the article. -- irn (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, there are many other significant local events that aren't included that I think should be before Sandy Hook: the 2012 Pakistan factory fires, the 2012 Delhi gang rape, the Comayagua prison fire, and the Port Said Stadium riot are some examples. -- irn (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it bizarre that you would seek to exclude "the deadliest mass shooting at either a high school or grade school in U.S. history and the fourth-deadliest mass shooting by a single person in U.S. history" from a synopsis of the year's most notable events. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Mass shootings like this are so common in the US that you have to qualify it by the specific type of institution in which it happened in order for it to stand out. But again, I'm not opposed to its inclusion; I'm opposed to its inclusion in the article as it stands now. Including it when we don't include events like those I've named above – events with greater death tolls and greater repercussions – is a form of systemic bias. -- irn (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Include probably the most covered child massacre in the history of the western world. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    That is an outright lie. Columbine was much better known and covered. This is not an argument against inclusion, only that TRM's argument is without basis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you for your ongoing personal attacks Rubin, another one for the list which will see your permanent exclusion from the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Eclipses

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Calendar missing

It's impotant to add in Calendar section — Maya date (13.0.0.0.0)! Шао 666 (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's been discussed plenty of times already, check the archives. — Yerpo Eh? 11:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Kony 2012 worth listing?

My addition of Kony 2012 to the list has been removed by User:MrMimikyu1998 and User:Matt Campbell (history) with no edit comment. Upon asking here, he claims having removed it due to being too little relevant.

Because I think otherwise, regarding it is the most viral documentary film until its time, making it a hallmark of 2012 in internet history, I am asking other people here what they think.

Regards, --84.147.35.234 (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If you think its notable then you need to make sure you add a reference. Matt Campbell (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Done & thank you. --84.147.35.234 (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
It's nowhere near important enough because nothing came of it. If Joseph Kony had been arrested as a result it'd be important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012/Archive_5&oldid=1187430808"