Jump to content

Talk:2012/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

2012. The targets agreed during the Kyoto Conference for Climate Change should be met by 2012

The objective of the Kyoto climate-change conference was to establish a legally binding international agreement, whereby, all the participating nations commit themselves to tackling the issue of global warming and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The target agreed upon at the summit was an average reduction of 5.20n 1990 levels by the year 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foresta (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The article currently states that the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. This is not correct. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol spans from 2008 to 2012, and ends 31 December 2012. But the Protocol will continue until otherwise decided. The current negotiations on a new international climate regime is considering establishing a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which will begin 1 January 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.213.34 (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

7,000,000,000

The world population is estimated to reach 7 billion people in July 2012. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popwnote.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpdsharett (talk • contribs) 03:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Major religious holidays - cross quarters and solstices

All of the holidays listed as cross quarters and solstices are for the Northern hemisphere only - Southern hemisphere would be six months out (so where 20 June is the northern Summer Solstice, it's the southern Winter Solstice, northern Halloween equates to southern Beltane, and so on). Could someone who can edit this page update this? - even if just to add "in the Northern hemisphere" to the existing info...? Ktp3 (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WHY?!?!?!?!?

Why are we even disscusing this?Why are people falling for yet another doomsday theary?Just like Y2K this is fake!It's just something to scare people into buying useless movies and "2012 protection kits."This kind of thing is dangerous, it causes mass hysteria,doomsday cults,and general stupididity,which brings more fear.And do we realy need to warn people about something that will NEVER happen?All it does is scare people.arn't thare enough problems in this world with out a fake doomsday theary????I'm 12 years old and I get it why can't every one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickmnmn (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to you. You're more astute at age 12 than many much older. My only question is this: Is there some way that someoneone (e.g., moi) can officially nominate a Wikipedia discussion page (e.g., this one) as the most ridiculous waste of time in the whole Wikisphere? Worldrimroamer (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the Wikiserver posted my comment twice. I've deleted the repetition. Sorry for any confusion. Worldrimroamer (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose making some changes to "Dec. 21", if I may.

Under the heading December: December 21, the following things are said which need to be corrected. I will correct them unless someone can tell me why it shouldn't be done. The current text says:

(1) On this day the Long Count date at creation—written 13.0.0.0.0 in modern notation, equivalent to August 11, 3114 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar

The Gregorian-calendar creation date given above is (generally) agreed to be correct. However, the creation date in the long-count Mayan calendar is 0.0.0.0.0, not 13.0.0.0.0. The long-count date 13.0.0.0.0 is agreed by most scholars to correspond to the Gregorian date December 21, 2012, although some calculate it to be December 23, 2012. But that's not my point -- the problem is that the creation date is 0.0.0.0.0, not 13.0.0.0.0. I would assume that this is just a typo on the part of the author. Also, I don't understand what "in modern notation" is supposed to mean. The number as stated is simply a translation of the Mayan base-20 numbers into base 10.

(2) —is repeated for the first time in a span of a little over 5,125 solar years.[8]

I have no idea where this number comes from. One b'ak'tun is 144,000 days, which is 394.25 tropical (or solar) years. The length of time it takes the earth to complete one precession on its axis is, based on the present rate of precession (it varies slightly with time) is about 25,765 years. I cannot even tell what it is that the author is referring to as that which is being "repeated". But anyhow, I cannot find anything that repeats in 5125 years. This needs to be clarified.

(3) The completion of this cycle and the repetition of the previous Creation's Long Count ending date have been central to the 2012 phenomenon.

What "cycle"?

(4) Academic researchers have not concluded that the ancient Maya themselves attached similar significance to this point in time.[9]

It's correct that they have not concluded this. But some academic researchers have strongly suspected it, which is a valid point to be made (and documented, of course). What has not been pointed out in this article but should be (and I can document this from multiple sources) is that it is generally thought by scholars that the Mayan "end date" in the long-count calendar is what they chose first, and then they stepped back, as it were, thirteen b'ak'tuns to arrive at the creation date, 0.0.0.0.0. This is one of the strongest arguments for the assertion made by some (which I personally believe to be correct, but I will not insert my opinions into a Wikipedia article) that the Maya knew about the precession of the earth's axis (precession of the equinoxes), and that they were aware of the existence of a "winter solstice" (another unproven, but very likely true, assertion) and that they recognized that the winter solstice of 2012 was the first time in almost 26,000 years that the winter-solstice sunrise would occur somewhere near the intersection of the galactic and the ecliptic planes. No one can, today, define that "intersection point in space" exactly, and even if it were identifiable exactly, the Maya would not have been able to predict the time of its occurrence exactly. I calculate, using standard statistical methods and assumptions, and based on an estimation of their astronomical observatories' minimal accuracies, that they probably could have determined the date of the intersection of the winter-solstice sunrise and the intersection of the galactic and ecliptic planes to within a few weeks. So why did they choose precisely December 21 as the end of the calendar? I suspect that it is just because it was (is) the winter solstice which occurred nearest the intersection of the galactic and ecliptic planes. HOWEVER --

HOWEVER: PLEASE NOTE THIS: I will NOT insert personal calculations and assumptions into a Wikipedia article. I belabor the above points about intersection of planes only because I know there are some that are interested in the topic. There has been so much written on this topic, maybe there is some other place in Wikisphere where it would be appropriate. Maybe it's already there. I dunno. Don't have the time ... But I'm just saying that any modification I make to the article will be strictly factual. Worldrimroamer (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Worldrimroamer. In response to your questions (which I've numbered 1-4 above for clarity):
  • (1) The precolumbian Maya always wrote (in Long Count [LC] notation) this mythical creation date as 13.0.0.0.0 and never as 0.0.0.0.0. Or to be more precise, all extant Maya LC inscriptions that mention this date write it with a 13 in the b'ak'tun-place (13.0.0.0.0), there are none with a zero in that place (0.0.0.0.0). I am ignoring those couple of inscriptions (eg at Coba) where the date is written with even higher-order LC places, in these inscriptions all the higher-order places are set at 13 as well (incl. of course the b'ak'tun). Mathematically the date might function as if it should be all zeroes, but it seems never to have been written that way. Thus it's not a typo, instead it intentionally reflects the Maya (and modern scholarship) practice of how it was written. In this sense it would be incorrect to write it as 0.0.0.0.0. Also, "in modern notation" refers to nothing more than the contemporary practice of how Maya scholars write (for convenience really) Long Count dates, ie using arabic numerals with decimal points as the separators between 'cycles' of each successive magnitude. It doesn't have anything to do with converting Maya base-20 numbers into base-10.
  • (2) The approx 5125 solar years number refers to the amount of time it takes for configuration of the LC date component at mythical creation (13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 K'umku to write it in full together with the corresponding calendar round date too) to repeat itself, ie how long it takes for thirteen b'ak'tuns to complete and so the LC date once again becomes 13.0.0.0.0 (see the first table here, that might make it easier to visualise). This second date is the 21 December 2012 date, when we again have a LC date of 13.0.0.0.0 (except that this time the calendar round will be 4 Ajaw 3 K'ank'in). In other words, the span between the creation date (11 August 3114 BCE) and the pseudo- enddate (21 December 2012 CE, when the LC again reads 13.0.0.0.0) is a little over 5125 years. It has nothing to do with the precession in the earth's axis (or anything else astronomical, so far as most Mayanist scholars hold. It's purely a calendrical 'anniversary').
  • (3) "Cycle" here refers to the b'ak'tun-cycle, one cycle (eg from 9.0.0.0.0 to 10.0.0.0.0) taking 144,000 days, or 394.25 years, and the thirteen such cycles it takes for the LC creation date to be repeated is 13x 144000 days or 5125.25 years. IMO the text makes it clear enough.
  • (4) This article (2012 article) is not the place to go into any detail about what any minority/competing/alternative interpretations may be. We have other articles like Mesoamerican Long Count calendar and Maya calendar for any scholarly alternative interpretations, and in particular the article 2012 phenomenon for the more esoteric and speculative popular discussions about what significance the 2012 date has, wrt millenarianism and the Maya calendar/Long Count. Those are better places to add any alternative ideas, but they'll need to comply with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR policies. Suggest proposing any alterations you might wish at the talk pg(s) of those relevant articles first, like you've done here. But the scope of this present article intentionally does not go into any of that detail. IMO the current statement here is sufficient and matter-of-fact accurate desc of what this Dec 2012 date corresponds to in the maya/LC calendar, that's all that's needed here. I don't think any adjustment is needed in this one. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

2012 Maya & Aztec Calendar: Milankovitch Cycles & Global Warming

The slow precession of the earth's wobble is called the Great, Cosmic or Platonic year and equals 25,860 earth's years. In ancient Maya mythology, the Cosmic Millstone is the sun's path, across the galactic equator and the ecliptic marking 13.0.0.0.0 Ptosistheseus (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

2012 is also the year of the next Preston Guild

Preston Guild,, is an historic celebratory event unique to the city of Preston in Lancashire. It originated in the year 1179 when King Henry II granted a Charter which recognised Preston as an important settlement in England and gave the town a number of rights and privileges, including the right to hold a market and trade goods. --Gaylecox (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tis a local event. ttonyb (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Titanic

April 14th, 2012 will mark the 100 years since the disaster. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but, per WP:YEARS and WP:RY, anniversaries are not listed unless there are present, notable plans for commemoration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I figured there would be some BS Wikipedia rule to not list it. Oh well, just more important information not allowed in Wikipedia. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
LOLZ @CrazyBlueEyes hahaha it's true, what you say. Remember *speak your mind* AJona1992 (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

London 2012 Olympics

{{editsemiprotected}} The closing and opening ceremonies need to be reversed (the Olympics open before they close) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinion (talk • contribs)

 Not done: if you're referring to the August section, the closing ceremony is that of the Olympics, while the opening one is that of the Paralympics. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

2012 events

In the article it states: These beliefs range from the spiritually transformative to the apocalyptic, and center upon various interpretations of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar.

I would like to see this changed to "These beliefs range from the spiritually transformative to the apocalyptic, and center upon incorrect interpretations of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar.

-->this as the calculation was done incorrectly; with the end of the calender being in 2020 (I think, check with other articles)

However, one particular event which hasn't been named is the 2012 solar storm, which has been scientifically confirmed; see http://www.2012supplies.com/what_is_2012/solar_maxim.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16400-major-solar-storm-could-cause-lasting-damage.html appearantly this would occur and could theoretically shut down the electrical grid and/or cause interruptions for 11 years 91.182.101.65 (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Decades start at 1

Technically it's not the 3rd year of the 2010's decade, because the decade doesn't start until 2011. Meaning that it's actually the second year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.26.2 (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, as usual. The 2010s started in 2010. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The decade doesn't start until 2011. Think about it: there was no 0 A.D. The first decade started in 1 A.D. and the second in 11 A.D. and so on and so forth up until this new decade which has just started this year: 2011.Lunamia (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The 202nd decade of the Common/Christian Era started in 2011, but the 2010s started in 2010. Two different decades. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not need to be global to be in Wikipedia

The claim that only events of a world-wide scale can be included in Wikipedia is prima facie absurd. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:YEARS, and specifically WP:RY#Events specify that an event has to have international "notability" (a different definition than WP:Notability) in order to be listed in a years article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The first ban on bullfighting in a region of Spain certainly has international notability. Millions of people around the world are very much interested in the movement to ban torturing bulls to death. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Once more this is a local issue lacking international significance. ttonyb (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I, personally, am very interested in the movement to ban bullfighting, and I live 20,000km away. I still don't think that the event belongs on this page. HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not in the same boat as you, but I don't see how an event in one specific state is relevant to the entire globe. As I said on your talk page, Daz, keep calling those who you disagree with vandals and I'll report you. Such an act is strictly forbidden.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
United States Elections do have an INTERNATIONAL NOTABILITY. Why do you feel they should be excluded? Magnum Serpentine (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

31st january

The distance of passing by the near earth object 433 Eros lacks a couple of zeroes, it says 433 Eros will pas at approximately 17 thousand miles, it should be 17 MILLION miles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.14.234 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.149.185.4, 31 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

It will be the 2012th year of the Common Era or Anno Domini designation, the 12th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century; and the 3rd of the 2010s decade.

Hello - I would like to point out some of the facts are wrong. Well one of them is and it makes the sentence confussing. Although the year is 2012 it WILL NOT be the 2012th year it will be the 2013th year. For example when you celebrate your 12th birthday, you are celebrating being alive for 12 years and you will be starting your 13th year.

It might be better to start with - It will be the 2013th year of .........

Thanks

Sam Pain

78.149.185.4 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your reckoning would make Year 1 the 2nd year. It's not like keeping track of how old someone is. Until a baby's first birthday, they are in their first year. But calendars start with Year 1, which lasts for 12 months, there is no Year 0. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Solar Max

In 2012 is a solar maximum or solar max. During solar max sunspots appear. sunspotsare associated with solar flares and coronal mass ejection. which can disrupt radio communications, cause blackout or even worst, can lead to the demise of the ozone layer or even death from raditaion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.43.33 (talk • contribs) 00:42, August 26, 2008

Source? 24.49.35.99 (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


This is complete BS. Solar Maximum will not occur in 2012! The next Solar Max is predicted to occur in 2013 or 2014 (see the NOAA website). All references to solar activity shoudl be removed from this article.

68.196.122.36 (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

World won't end on 12/21/2012 (only Mayans say) in real life but 5 billion years it will... (ours say)

Sorry for being off-topic.

Hmm... Year 2012...

According to "Book of Relevations", Christian Bible says that the Earth will end and be desolate for 1000 years and become a New Earth and Eternity.

There will be Pole Shift and Polar Reversal in 2012. Despite disaster, it will be a perfect alignment, however the Pole Shift/Polar Reversal will either be very short or a little longer... 2nd Coming Of Christ will be here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.32.110 (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Mayan elder priest, the world won't end on December 21, 2012, yet it'll be transformed instead, so the world will be saved.

Myth: Mayans predicted that world will end on 12/21/2012 only in 'fiction'

Fact: For 5 billion years (5000000000 A.D.) "Mayan year 12500000.0.0.0.0" in the future, it will end in real life as scientists predicted as we expect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.32.110 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that here. Please note that article talk pages are not forums. There is a fair list of places where comments such as this would be welcome at WP:OUTLET. Intelligentsium 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we all know that. Mayans probably envisioned that the transformation looked like the "end of the world" because it can wipe out humanity..... I mean comon'. It's a possibility it could transform.... Just sayin'. By "end of the world" Mayans meant for the humans basically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.54.186 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You guys DO realize that they probably -just got tired of counting-? I mean they did have an advanced society, but wouldn't you get a little fricking tired of counting? I mean really? End of the world? Panic! Please, do it, I'll be on my front lawn in a foldy chair in my pajama pants with a cup of coffee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.9.130 (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a damn good idea. 24.49.35.99 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, don't most advanced civilizations also have trolls? I'm sure that it's possible the Mayans were either killed by one of their own, some sort of plague or just got sick of it. I'd be less than surprised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.112.120 (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Christmas December 25 Western Christianity - only?

Some Eastern Christianity countries have Christmas on December 25 as well, Romania, one case ; mostly east slavic nations like Serbia, Russia, Ukraine have Christmas on January 6. Please Edit. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.224.82 (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico to possibly become the 51st State (Prediction)

I have seen the news about Puerto Rico that may become the 51st state of the United States from the voters next year. Here is the source: [1] JMBZ-12 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This article talks nothing about a prediction of it becoming a state. It mentions the president speculating about allowing Puerto Rico to vote on the matter themselves. And even that is purely speculation. Not a prediction. This should be removed. (71.41.210.130 (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC))
Agreed. Furthermore, it's pretty much a local phenomenon. Perhaps, if it becomes less speculative, it could be placed in a "politics" or "United States" timeline article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

French presidential election, 2012

French presidential election in 2012 in April 2012 85.8.78.54 (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Local event Ifore2010 (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Mayor of London and London Assembly election

The election for the Mayor of London and the London Assembly will take place on Thursday 3 May 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euanholloway (talk • contribs) 10:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 124.247.237.26, 2 September 2011

want to edit for add my birth date

124.247.237.26 (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't add people unless they happen to be WP:NOTABLE--Jac16888 Talk 14:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional dates

Some additional dates for your list:

  • 4-6 June 2012: RIO+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Brazil
  • 5 June 2012: Official Bank Holiday in the United Kingdom to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11
  • 7 June 2012: Anniversary of death of Alan Turing
  • 29 August 2012: Paralympic Games Opening Ceremony, London
  • 9 Sept 2012: Paralympic Games Closing Ceremony, London
  • 12 Dec 2012: Special Event "Experience Egypt with Lady Egypt" - The Big Day at the Great Pyramids — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csu58259 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • 4-6 June 2012: There are hundreds of UN conferences in a year
  • 5 June 2012: Probably allowed if/when it happens, in spite of the general rules against anniversaries, as there are notable, present, plans for the commemoration. But not for the bank holiday, for the general commemoration. Possibly only in 2012 in the United Kingdom, but I tend toward allowing it, even here.
  • 7 June 2012: See above, per WP:RY and WP:YEARS
  • 29 August 2012: No, per WP:RY
  • 9 Sept 2012: No, per WP:RY
  • 12 Dec 2012: Possibly in 2012 in Egypt, but not here, per WP:RY.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Month list atop year articles

At the moment 2011 does not have months on the top of the page like 2012 does. Is it possible once we reach 2012 that the month list at the top of the page is kept? it is a very good idea.


Another 2012 year Designation - Girl Scouts of the USA

The Girl Scouts of the USA has also designated 2012 as the "Year of the Girl." This designation should be included in the opening paragraphs of the article where other year designations are made.

On March 12, 1912, Juliette Gordon Low founded the Girl Scouts of the USA in Savannah, Georgia, making 2012 the 100th Birthday of the Girl Scouts of the USA. This important anniversary should be included in the 2012 calendar.S1k2c3 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't find this designation particularly important for the entirety of the World, if even, the United States. Typically, Wikipedia follows international regimes that indicate the type of year and a cause for movement behind that. For example, as you can see on the top of the page: 2012, the article states:
The United Nations General Assembly has declared 2012 as the International Year of Cooperatives, highlighting the contribution of cooperatives to socio-economic development, in particular recognizing their impact on poverty reduction, employment generation and social integration. It has also been designated as the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All.
International Year of Cooperatives being a movement to increase the contribution of cooperatives to socio-economic development, such as, poverty, employment and social issues. Whenaxis (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

2012- End of the World

The world is not actually going to end. That has been proven by scientists. Has anyone ever thought that 2012 might just be the end of a cycle? It might just be the end of the world-- as we know it! Babykinz16 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment:

Okay, people believe it will, people believe it won't. Can't we put it under Unknown Dates?

Wikipedia is not crystal ball nor can the "event" be supported by verifiable sources. ttonyb (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The end of the world on 2012 are hoax, we don't know yet when the world will end. --Gtabigfan2010 (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
-----Genesis 8:21-22. look it up.


Well I'm a Christian but I'm not an Angry Christian. Even if we are Angry, there are many people who aren't Jewish/Christian :| --67.242.209.209 (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
To what was this a reply? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
To me this Mayan calender nonsense is like scientists from 2800 finding a calander from 2000 that records the last date to be December 31st 2999 and assumes that the world will end on that date when actually we just thought 2999 was a logical number to stop at. Hey, maybe the Mayan who was making the calender was murdered by conquistadors before he could finish it :).


Why don't we add another about possible theories on what may happen in 2012? There we could add stuff about the end of the world and other things we are not entirely sure of. I personally don't believe that the world will end 2012 but I do find it interesting to read about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.162.178 (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That detail already exist in 2012 phenomenon. This is not the appropriate place for such detail. ttonyb (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mayan Calender

Its a calender calenders start over, does the world end Decemer 31st every year? no

Calgaryivan (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Overlinked?

An editor added the {{overlinked}} tag. I don't agree, but I'm not going to remove it if there really is a consensus that it is a problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly in the Religious Holidays section? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2012

In the interest of consistency as well as universal usage: Under the heading "Major religious holidays", the entry for "September 21 - Fall Equinox ..." should read Autumnal Equinox (or September Equinox). A click on the active link "Fall Equinox" correctly takes you to a description of the Autumnal Equinox.

121.44.236.254 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bullfighting ban in Catalonia the first day of 2012

January 1, 2012, is the day when the Bullfighting ban in Catalonia goes into effect. Source: La Raza, August 8, 2010. This fact has been removed from the 2012 page a few times. Is there a valid reason for suppressing this important and documented fact, or is it just plain malicious vandalism? Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's important enough on a global scale. If it was all bullfighting, everywhere, to be ended, that would justify an entry. I live in the state of Victoria, Australia. I expect that jumps races for horses will be banned in this state within the next few years It will be a major event for many people locally, but I wouldn't expect that event to make it into this article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason to include this local item. ttonyb (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Catalonia is a large important part of Spain. This is the most far-reaching ban on bull-baiting so far in the Hispanic world. There is no reason for excluding this information. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would personally see the end, in a major region of Spain, of a major aspect of culture that dates back hundreds of years, as worthy of a mention -- I expect this has a good chance of making the main page news when it happens. Looie496 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:RY#Events, this appears to be a subnational event. A local firm consensus can override project-wide guidelines, but I don't see consensus here. (And I don't see why a subnational event should have international notability. If bullfighting were banned in all of Spain, and it was the last major country in which bullfighting was legal, that would seem to have adequate notability.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many millions of people around the world who are very interested in the movement to ban torturing bulls to death. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Big numbers do not equal notability. There are always thousands of people interested in one topic or another. That doesn't make something notable, or even internationally notable.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This should be included. It's notable.TurtleMelody (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, this clearly is a significant regional issue but not a historical international issue. This has been explained in the aforementioned arguments by other users why this entry should not be included in this article. Perhaps this should be included on the Catalonia page if it hasn't already. On a personal note, I live in Australia and I have NEVER heard anything about this or seen this issue on the news or mentioned by anyone in many of my social circles. Unlike the devastating 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami which has been mentioned and covered on several occasions by local and international media as well as being a common topic discussed by people I know of all ages, lifestyles, rich or poor, professional or not. There is a distinct difference between both of those issues in my society. Nozpoz (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

International Year of...

The lede contains this:

The United Nations General Assembly designated 2012 as the International Year of Cooperatives, highlighting the contribution of cooperatives to socio-economic development, in particular recognizing their impact on poverty reduction, employment generation and social integration;[1] it is also designated as the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All.

Both these subjects are still redlinks which indicates that no-one has thought them sufficiently notable for an article. As such should this paragraph be removed or hidden until the articles exist? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As there has been no comment I'll remove them until the articles are created. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "United Nations International Year of Cooperatives 2012". Social.un.org. 2011-10-31. Retrieved 2011-11-13.

African National Congress 100th anniversary

Need to be added: South Africa's African National Congress, the ruling party of the country since 1994, celebrates 100 years since foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.167.63 (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

According to consensus, anniversaries do not merit inclusion, unless the celebration itself is important enough, which in this case it probably isn't. — Yerpo Eh? 14:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Event Edit

I wanted to edit the page, but it's locked.

Under Events should be: April: April 1-1940 Census Records Release — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadkid1 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cruise liner sinking

Is the sinking of Costa Concordia with a few casualties really important enough to merit inclusion on this page? I'm thinking no. — Yerpo Eh? 08:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I also don't think it should be included, maybe 2012 in Italy. FFMG (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
INCLUDE: the last big ship with many passengers to go down with loss of life is the andrea dora some 60+ years ago so no this "IS" a notable event - it not like we will have to post one a year, let alone, one per ten years. hell, the image alone will be remembered for many years by a vast percentage of the planet--68.231.15.56 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Exclude. Only 5 confirmed deaths in the latest report. Hundreds of vessels sink each year with that number of deaths. Even if the death total gets to 20 there are still dozens of ship losses with that sort of total every year. Just because it's a reaaly big ship doesn't make it more notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
How about we wait until everything's been finalized - the final death toll is announced, any aftermath situations are successfully completed (i.e. lawsuits, investigations), then we can begin to discuss this. Whenaxis about | talk 21:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I went and retracted the event from the 2012. Whenaxis about | talk 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Include: In my personal opinion, the fact that this is the largest passenger ship in history to sink, is notable in and of itself, the prolonged media attention from around the world has also made sure it will be one of the remembered events of the year. Most disasters don't get as much air time as this one is getting. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is stupid the way these pages are formatted. It is already halfway through January and not a single event is posted. Is the sinking notable? Hell yes it is. They've been talking about it for the whole friggin' week here in the US, on the BBC, everywhere. The cruise had an international passenger presence, so it affected every nation almost. Forgive my bluntness, but I can't stand how these year pages have become. We want so much neutrality that there is really nothing that merits inclusion anymore on them whether it's some major disaster or some earth-shattering discovery. Look at the older years like 2005 or 1994. They have some juice in them. The newer years have all bled dry. (Tigerghost (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC))

So, is cruft such as Shannon Faulkner becoming the first female cadet to attend The Citadel (January 1994) a major disaster or an earth-shattering discovery in your book? Since you're from the USA, this might be juicy for you, but for everyone that isn't, it's far from that. This page is WP:NOT#NEWS, what turns out to be important can always be added later. I really don't see anything wrong with how 2011 ended up. — Yerpo Eh? 19:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
@Yerpo: The Costa Concordia disaster should still be included on this article. WP:IAR, sometimes discretion is needed. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the disaster element of the Costa Concordia disaster is being overplayed making inclusion more subjective than objective. A disaster is defined as "an event of substantial extent causing significant physical damage or destruction, loss of life, or drastic change to the environment. A disaster can be ostensively defined as any tragic event with great loss stemming from events such as earthquakes, floods, catastrophic accidents, fires, or explosions. It is a phenomenon that causes huge damage to life, property and destroys the economic, social and cultural life of people." 11 deaths (possibly up to 32 if all the missing are included) and US$600 million; 32 deaths while certainly tragic is not even in the hundreds or thousands usually associated with a disaster and a number which is exceeded by numerous events which are never proposed for inclusion, while most disasters which merit inclusion are of the order of US$billions rather than millions. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Derby. There are plenty of cruise ship expeditions that travel through the polar regions of the World that go unreported because it does not affect any country or known cruise line. If we were to document every single accident from airplanes to cruise ships, the entire page would be filled up. It's almost like including a car accident that had 11 deaths, notable? Whenaxis about | talk 23:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with both of you, based on the fact you guys are comparing apples to oranges. How can you possibly expect a ship disaster to do billions of dollars in damage like a hurricane, if there aren't any ships worth that much. Notability, is not based off comparing ship disasters, to something horrible like the earthquake in Japan last year, it's about comparing it to similar events and it's impact within that scope. Because this disaster is the costliest passenger ship sinking in HISTORY that makes it notable for inclusion, it should also be mentioned that by your guys' argument the Space Shuttle Disaster's would not be notable simply because they only killed 7 people, and to that I would say psshaw. So keep disasters in context, don't go pulling stuff which is not comparable like hurricane disasters, and try to determine worthiness based on those criteria. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that the amount of money involved is more important than the number of people who died? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide some examples of previous inclusion of a shipping disaster in previous years' pages? Costliest - nor deadliest - shipping disaster in history. See Titanic. As I said earlier in the discussion, we should wait until everything is finalized before making a decision for inclusion. At this time, it's a no. Whenaxis about | talk 01:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Well then let's take off Titanic from the 1912 page. Major ship disasters aren't notable afterall. (Tigerghost (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC))
1912 is not a Recent Year article. 1503 is considerably more notable than 11/35. WP:OTHERSTUFF. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

To reverse my opinion a bit, this event could potentially be added on the account of Costa Concordia being the largest passenger ship ever to sink. It would help if you mentioned things like that before dragging WP:IAR into this discussion (this goes to Kuzwa but applies to other previous and future discussions). As it was, it sounded just like an excuse to do it on a whim regardless of anything, which could only result in an edit war because the same argument could go both ways. Every other argument heard so far concerns mere trivialities - the number of casualties is comparable to a serious road accident. The number of inconvenienced or discomforted people is comparable to a decent snowstorm. The damage will probably be somewhere within the margin of statistical error for insurance companies, even if (or precisely because) they're multinational. Seriously, debates around here would be so much more constructive if people could focus on relevant stuff. — Yerpo Eh? 09:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

@Derby, death tolls don't determine the notability of an event. @Yerpo, IAR is always relevant to any discussion. Regardless of if it is mentioned or not. I haven't edit warred with anyone, so don't come after me. --Kuzwa (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Please read my comment before replying to it. I didn't "come after you" in the slightest, especially not in connection with any edit warring. And I still think that IAR is not a synonym for "anything goes". It's a lot more subtle. — Yerpo Eh? 13:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
@Yerpo, yes I realize that there are some unrealistic comparisons - however, my underlying thought at this time is not to include it until everything is finalized, when we have a final body count, when we have a final damage amount and so on and so forth. So that, we don't have inaccurate information on the page when the numbers are consistently changing. @All, what points go for this disaster to be included, and what points go for this disaster to be excluded? Perhaps, it's best if we weigh the reasons for inclusion versus the reasons for exclusion, to help us decide. Whenaxis about | talk 00:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
To me, adding an event before its consequences are completely finalized is not bad by itself, when relevance is established. People constantly monitor and update this page so any temporary number should simply be presented as such. As for Costa Concordia, it could be included as the largest passenger ship ever sinking, if that is true. Other facts are trivial. — Yerpo Eh? 08:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
We can always add it later, if it's notable. Whenaxis about | talk 21:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

how many dead before it becomes notable? currently it looks like the final total will be 32.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Risking this debate to devolve into death-toll haggling, which isn't my intention, I'd say at least comparable to the Zanzibar ferry sinking (in 2011). But to focus on what I meant with my last comment, it would rather read:
— Yerpo Eh? 08:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

without mentioning the death toll, it would look silly --- anyone reading it would say, "wait, what was the death toll?".--68.231.15.56 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, because it doesn't add any information as to why the event is important enough to be mentioned here. Anyone interested in the death toll can look it up in the article. — Yerpo Eh? 11:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Yerpo. The death toll is so low that it makes it seem less important, as sad as the deaths are, I think that the mention of the largest passenger cruiseship to sink is notable enough for inclusion. Whenaxis about | talk 20:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the one day downtime of Wikipedia be noted in the 2012 year article?

"The English Wikipedia will be shut down on Wednesday due to Wikipedia's founder, Jimmy Wales, being un-American.", a quote so dont get mad at me.

i think i can remember last year an issue where wiki was in the news and it was decided not to self-promote wiki by noting wiki activities--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
68.231.15.56, this is not a blackout of just Wikipedia, this is an internet blackout. Sites like, Google, Facebook, eBay, PayPal, Twitter and Tumblr have supported this blackout by opposing SOPA/PIPA. Sites like, Wikipedia, Reddit, Boing Boing and many more are blacking themselves out on Dark Wednesday to protest it. As for the quote, it is NOT Jimmy Wales who decided that Wikipedia is going dark tomorrow. It is through a mass "referendum" by the Wikipedia community. What I wanted to add to the article is the fact that some parts of the internet are going black to protest against SOPA/PIPA on Dark Wednesday, 18 January 2012. – Plarem (User talk) 16:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
the extent of the other organizations you have cited sounds like you are a proponent of noting the event in the year article--68.231.15.56 (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added it into the article under 'Predicted and Scheduled events', revert by Derby. – Plarem (User) I oppose SOPA! 19:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It's already detailed in length on the Stop Online Piracy Act here. Not particularly important here. Unless, you can provide some sort of overriding policy or previous event that was noted in the Recent Years project. Whenaxis about | talk 22:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be added, but only if you include a mention of all those other sites. It's clearly notable, being by far the largest online protest in the history of the Internet. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
On the Fence: From my own personal view, I'm not against the protest being mentioned, but I personally think we should see how the SOPA debate plays out, to see if it's worth inclusion. It's quite possible the protests could intensify, and this be a minor footnote in the battle over the internet this year. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Not to jump to conclusions, but even if we did wait to see if it's worth inclusion, what if it takes months or even years for SOPA/PIPA to finalize? Would we say for example "January 2011 to November 2011 - SOPA and PIPA protest take place"? SOPA/PIPA is just like any other controversial proposed law, where there is opposition and there is support. Whenaxis about | talk 23:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be added. If we continue to not add events at this rate, we will have nothing on the past events list at the end of the year. 98.209.18.176 (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis, the inclusion is not of the SOPA/PIPA propsed bill finalising date, but Dark Wednesday of the internet, 18 January. It is the largest blackout of the internet in history, and major websites like the Enwiki, Mozilla, Wordpress and more blacked out, with sites like Google, Icanhascheezburger and some more having information about the SOPA/PIPA bills. My proposition for the 2012 article is:
– Plarem (User) I oppose SOPA! 09:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Or, using the usual description of an Event in a Year article:

* January 18 – Various US-based websites participate in protests against the U.S. bills SOPA and PIPA.

Which looks appropriate for 2012 in the United States, but not 2012. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Derby. checkY Whenaxis about | talk 20:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose the 2012 in the United States addition – The effect was more widespread. Have a look at these references:
I hope this convinces you... – Plarem (User talk) 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

my current count is 3 vs 3 on the vote for consensus.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How about a straw poll? – Anonymous Plarem (User talk) 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

For inclusion on 2012
Against inclusion on 2012

Please sign on under the appropriate section, I would like to see where we are at now. – Anonymous Plarem (User talk) 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Should the Dark Wednesday of the Internet be included in 2012?

Maybe this heading would be a little more on-topic. I do not want an entry like this on the 2012 article:

  • January 18 – One day downtime of the English Wikipedia in protest of the U.S. bills SOPA and PIPA.

But an entry like this:

Which is referenced:

This is NOT a local event. The internet is worldwide.
This is also NOT a current event. The bills SOPA and PIPA were not passed. (Some faith in humanity has been restored) Reference:

Any more doom and gloom from the opposition? – Anonymous Plarem (User talk) 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The SOPA/PIPA blackout pertain to U.S. driven bills and U.S. websites. The blackout itself is negligible to the survival of the Internet. We don’t know what would happen if the bills were to have been enacted, because SOPA/PIPA is a hypothetical at this time. Though, the blackouts received international attention, it did not affect internationally. Whenaxis about | talk 21:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It did have an international effect. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'international' as (quote):

"existing, occurring, or carried on between nations"[6]

This blackout affected the English-speaking countries (U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Ireland, New Zealand) by blocking some of the most-used websites of the internet (Enwiki, Reddit etc.). The blackout might be negligible to the survival of the internet, but the blackout was significant. It is estimated that over 115,000 websites joined in the blackout.The blackout made history. Opposition? – We are legion. We never forget. (Plarem) (User talk) 21:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It's close but I still do not see this event as being of sufficient historical and international significance for inclusion in this article. It may be that in a few months the repercussions from this may make it more so, but a reassesment could wait until then. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Just another point, think about it this way. Do you think users would look back in a year, 5 years or 10 years time and think about the SOPA/PIPA protests as memorable or noteworthy? Like Derby said, we can most definitely reconsider this in a few months time if visible repercussions occur. Whenaxis about | talk 22:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Re:Whenaxis. This event is comparable to the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. 2 billion people watched the wedding. In 10 years time, the Wikicommunity might think it as unnotable. In the news for a week. The anti-piracy acts news is still in the news from early January. I call the 'anti-piracy acts news' everthing from SOPA/PIPA protests, ACTA protests and Anonymous hacks in protest of ACTA/SOPA/PIPA. Over a billion people were affected by the SOPA/PIPA protest. – We are legion. We never forget. (Plarem) (User talk) 17:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Re:DerbyCountyinNZ. From 2011: "Occupy Wall Street protests begin in the United States. This develops into the Occupy movement which spreads to 82 countries by October." Over a billion people were affected by the SOPA/PIPA protest, 115,000 websites down. Internet giants supported this protest. – We are legion. We never forget. (Plarem) (User talk) 17:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
How do you suppose we go about including everything you have described into the article? For example, the SOPA/PIPA blackout occurred on Wednesday January 18, but the after effects are still being felt. Whenaxis talk · contribs 19:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 January 2012

Please add the recent shipwreck that happened in Europe that cause many fatalities, the Costa Concordia disaster is an article on Wikipedia, but it should also be listed as an even of this year, because it was big and most certainly a notable event that happened so far in 2012.

Under discussion above at #Cruise liner sinking; consensus seems against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Shadycypher11 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Arthur Rubin, I see it is more for than against... – Anonymous Plarem (User talk) 17:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
From the discussion above I see 3 For and 4 Against. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I only read the end of it... – Anonymous Plarem (User talk) 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ben Gazzara and Angelo Dundee should be added

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.242.33 (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2012‎ (UTC)

I have added Ben Gazzara, but I'm on the fence regarding Angelo Dundee. Favonian (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Alan Turing Year

The lede for Recent Year articles usually contains United Nations declared "Year of..." designations. The Alan Turing Year does not fall under this scope, in fact it looks to be little more than an anniversary. Should this be included? I think it probably shouldn't. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Whenaxis about | talk 20:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Do we need inclusion of the Turing Conference in June.. some editor added it. I'm thinking, no. Whenaxis about | talk 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards inclusion on this one. Yes, Turing was born 100 years ago, and the anniversary-ish nature of the reason for picking 2012 is glaring. But, for the sake of comparison, consider that the RMS Titanic sank a century ago as well. It is probably safe to assume that considerably more people have heard of the Titanic than of Turing. Even so, there is no RMS Titanic Year article to indicate that anyone has named 2012 after the Titanic, yet there has been an Alan Turing Year article sine 2009--and this article does indicate that international Turing-inspired events will occur throughout 2012. The year may not be significant (save trivially), vis-a-vis Turing, on account of his birth (which did not, after all, happen in 2012), but it does seem notablly Turing-related insofar as it has been designated internationally (regardless of the reason) as a year for recognizing Turing's life. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sharada Dwivedi

Please add Sharada Dwivedi to the death list (just passed away d. 6-Feb-2012) 59.183.48.148 (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RY. He fails the crietria completely. Try 2012 in India. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Maldives political crisis

Please add that the maldives president Mohamed Nasheed resigned from power after ongoing protests against him in the country, and that the vice president Mohammed Waheed Hassan replaced him as president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.138.81 (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this is of sufficient international importance to be included. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Pics in Deaths section

The usual format for Recent Years is one pic per month for Deaths unless room permits more. Currently there are 2 pics, which exceeds the available space. With the death of Whiitney Houston there is the additional problem of who should be selected, with Etta james for January we already have one singer, should there some balance/variety as to who is included? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The photo of Ben Gazzara should be not included, but has no exceed with fewer space. Gazzara has fewer non-English Wikipedia articles than Whitney Houston. Don't worry Derby, replace Etta James picture to Theodoros Angelopoulos on January death section, as for Ben Gazzara, it will be replace to Whitney Houston pic that should save. ApprenticeFan work 05:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
anatomy of a murder = 7 oscar nominations... Gazarra second male lead after Jimmy Stewart ... Theodoros Angelopoulos no film he was involved in a single oscar ... a doctor saves hundreds of lives then gets a free pass to kill 1 person? houston killed herself in a premature death ... it is the same as the doctor kills someone .... a number of good works does not equal one heinous free pass--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 Winter Youth Olympics

I don't recall there being any discussion on the first being exempt, but that doesn't mean there was none! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

21 of January- The Selwyn College Prepratory School's main building burnt to the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerd123 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Redundant solar maximum info

I removed the text below regarding the "upcoming" solar cycle, because I think the remaining part is sufficient, such as already stating the 11 year cycle length:

... and the previous solar maximum of Solar Cycle 23 occurred in 2000–2002.[7] During the solar maximum the Sun's magnetic poles will reverse.[8] The period between successive solar maxima averages 11 years (the Schwabe cycle).

Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole entry is insufficienlty notable for this article (ditto the "Transit of Venus" entry. They belongs in a sub-article, maybe 2012 in science or 2012 in astronomy (if that existed). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? Transits of Venus are one of the rarest predictable astronomical events. The occur only twice a century, eight years apart. Before they were discovered people had pretty much no freaking idea how large the solar system was. The fact that the first transit-enabled estimate was 64% the real value and still managed to beat every suggestion ever made before is telling. And that it was brought down to plus or minus 0.2% as the sole result of 4 more transits is testament to how much they have helped scientific knowledge. This is not just visible from a small area either, it can be seen from about 3/4ths of the globe and is the only time you can see any planet in front of the sun with the naked eye. As for the solar maximum, I don't know, they happen every 11 years, it's a weak one, and might not even happen till next year. I don't care much either way. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
(also, don't look at the sun with the naked eye unless you're using an approved solar filter or it's right at sunrise/sunset. (or the clouds are so thick you can barely see the outline))
And it is at 2012 in science. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Abd Rabbuh Mansur Al-Hadi sworn as yemen's new president

Shouldn't it be added that Abd Rabbuh Mansur Al-Hadi, the former vice president of Yemen'sAli Abdullah Saleh who signed a plan to transfer power to his deputy after ongoing protests against him that were part of the Arab Spring, which sworn in Hadi on the 25th of February? It's pretty important in my opinion. (Shows that a revolution occurred in Yemen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.226.165 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on the following names

--S-d n r (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Frederica Sagor Maas - Exclude. Short of WP:RY at death. Foreign language articles are almost all stubs/clones with no local cites, many focus on age which is insufficient for inclusion here.
  • Johnny Otis - Exclude. Short of WP:RY at death. Foreign language articles are mostly stubs/clones with almost no local cites. Probably deserves notability but not reflected in articles.
  • Dorothea Tanning - Possible include (if there is consensus). Made WP:RY minimum at death, just. Some reasonable foreign language articles with local cites, others are poor stubs.
  • Angelo Dundee - Exclude. Short of WP:RY at death. Foregin language articles all stubs or clones with few local cites. Previous entry (above) failed to get much discussion suggesting insufficient interest to include.
  • Florence Green - Exclude. As per previous consensus, age and veteran status is insufficient for inclusion in Recent Year articles.
  • Janice E. Voss - Exclude. English article is barely more than a stub, foreign langauge articles mostly smaller (if mission details are excluded all are stubs, if that). Simply being an astronaut is no longer rare enough to be notable on its own.
  • Ulric Neisser - Exclude. English article has issues which does not help assessing notability. Foreign language articles are stub-clones with no local cites, often no cites at all and only the same few English cites if there are any.
  • Erland Josephson - Exclude. Has plenty of foreign language articles but exclude the film lists and most are stubs. English article does not indicate a significant international career.

DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Syrian referendum

Should the Syrian referendum of Feb. 26 be included in the article?
Ref:

– Plarem (User talk) 21:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

no ... when and if there is a change of leadership--68.231.15.56 (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects

How is this article a member of the Wikiprojects:

This is a WP:YEARS article, just because the Mesoamerican calendar ends in 2012, it doesn't mean that it belongs to the above WikiProjects... There is one event related to it, with a paragraph in the lede about it. I think that the above WikiProjects should be removed from the templates of this talk page. – Plarem (User talk) 19:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And assuming the world doesn't end then the reference to the Mesoamerican calendar should probably be removed at the end of the year anyway. If it does end then problem solved! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Please add the SOPA protests back in January. 184.146.115.213 (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done This doesn't seem notable enough. See discussion a few sections above.--McSly (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 March 2012

Add for 2012 : March | 3

The Szczekociny train collision occurred, with 15 deaths and 50 injured


PantherBF3 (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

the international is irrelavant to me - the problem is the low number of deaths - if 15 were suficient to accidents the year would have 10x if not 50x more info which would be a fairly low threshold for inclusion--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Nigeria attacks

These were a domestic event and should not be included. A high death toll does not mean a domestic event should be included. There are terror attacks with similar and higher death tolls in other countries, eg. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, which are not included on year articles. 89.194.8.3 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

you are wrong about comparable totals in other countries - that attack is one of the largest in the last decade--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
of the three countries you just named i can only remember one attack being even over 100 deaths in the last decade--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
these two are the largest i can remeber and both are less - 2007 Tal Afar bombings and massacre and 3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
this is the only one i know of that is larger and it is over a decade ago - 1998 United States embassy bombings--68.231.15.56 (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The 2007 Yazidi communities bombings on 14 August 2007 caused 796 deaths, the highest death toll of a terror attack in Iraq. I don't see why 2007 mentions them. They were also a domestic event and there is no rule to include events merely because of a high death toll; an international involvement is a criteria of inclusion on years articles. The 1998 US embassy bombings are rightly included on 1998 because they were an international event - an international terror group attacking US buildings in Kenya and Tanzania. The Nigeria attacks were carried out by a Nigerian group against Nigerians in Nigeria, hence no international involvement. If 2012 in Nigeria existed, the attacks should be listed on that article. 109.249.234.128 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
i found nothing in archive for 2007 and also looked at the logs of entries for the days just after the 2007 Yazidi communities bombings ... it appears to just have been accepted as an "other"-type event that if "talk" had discussed it would just have been included as an "other" event that would have been included upon consensus ... thus, i say this event, January 2012 Nigeria attacks, is another "other" event which i am guessing that if put up to a consensus would also pass under WP:RY#Consensus --68.231.15.56 (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
There has been consensus regarding several previous events that they should not be included if they are domestic events; a high death toll has been rejected as a reason to include it. For example, there have been long discussions about the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, which caused many times more damage and whose death toll is similar to that of the Nigeria attacks. What justification is there for including the Nigeria attacks? 109.249.124.9 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
natural=accident vs. man-made=murder ... natural threashold is running around 100 to 200 minimum from what i have seen ... from what i have seen NZ would have been included if, sad to say, 50 more people had died--68.231.15.56 (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Aspects of WP:RY that need to be discussed are:
  • Three-continent rule of Inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Disasters, assasinations, and other crimes of Inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Lead: The event must have a demonstrated, international significance.
OR
  • Consensus
– Plarem (User talk) 21:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
There is not international significance, nor is there consensus for including the Nigeria attacks. What has happened is that someone has added this domestic event and no-one other than us in this section have taken any notice. I don't see any evidence that something should be included because it is murder, not is there any minimum number of deaths which makes a domestic event eligible for inclusion. The Christchurch earthquake was not excluded beacuse the death toll was too low, nor because it was a natural disaster. It was because of lack of international significance. 109.249.209.137 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. — Yerpo Eh? 18:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

so far the vote is 2 exclude to 1 include:

exclude
(1) 89.194.8.3 = 109.249.234.128
(2) Yerpo

include
(1) 68.231.15.56

--68.231.15.56 (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Francisco Xavier do Amaral

The consensus has been that any state leader should be included even if they fail other WP:RY criteria. However the eception has been that leaders who were in office for such a short perod that they actually had no international impact could be excluded. I think this is the case here, someone in office for 9 days can hardly be considered internationally notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

i see what you are saying and yet he is also the 1st = usually a very distinguished thing to be numero uno in anything--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Robert B. Sherman

I added him to the deaths section, but it was deleted. He is known (along with his brother) for writing the music to films such as Mary Poppins, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, The Jungle Book, and others. I find this notable, but I am confused why it was removed. --Puckingham (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read the criteria for in clusion here. The minimum for inclusion is 9 non-English wiki articles, Robert B. Sherman has 7. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
i see him as being included on the page but derbycountrynz says he does not merit it - although writing "its a small world" would seem good enough to get him included, derbycountrynz says he did not have enough non-english articles at the time of his death to warrant inclusion ... although we could push his inclusion under "consensus", the fact of the matter is that derbycountrynz is well versed in what criteria are required to make it into the "year in" articles, and i dont want to open the flood gates to all kinds of "lessor" figures by pushing the cop-out inclusion under "consensus" ... if we did, then the article would quickly mushroom into a frankenstein at least 5x if not 10x of not-so-deserving names--S-d n r (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sierre bus disaster

Why should this be included when many other road accidents, not to mention other accidents, with greater death tolls are not? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

it has been removed - cannot see how it even had a chance - now if the tragedy had involved the murder??--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Titanic Anniversary

I believe that the 100th anniversary should be included in upcoming events, because the sinking of Titanic was a major event that changed maritime history and had significant impact on safety regulations we imply today. Also, people from many different countries sailed died aboard Titanic, and many events will be held around the world in thier rememberance.Zyon788 (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Without an article for the anniversary it would not seem to be sufficiently notable for inclusion. Even with its own article it would need a greater demonstration of international notability than appears to be the case so far. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Sinking of the Titanic was a major event. The anniversary, by itself, isn't. That is the rationale behind exclusion of almost all anniversaries. — Yerpo Eh? 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Deepsea Challenger

Being the first mission to actually reach the Earth's deepest point is almost certainly notable enough for inclusion, it rivals ascending the highest point of Everest. (Perhaps not the first person, but it's the first again in 50+ years) Deepsea Challenger, here is the page for more details. --Kuzwa (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Being the first to reach the deepest point solo would be notable enough, being the first in 50 years less so (apart from mountaneers who would know who was on the second expedition to summit Everest?). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2 Entry, Correction

There is a typographical error in this sentence. The proper spelling is "resigns". --Ayelis (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The entry does not meet the WP:RY criteria for inclusion and has ben removed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Death of Chico Anysio

I think the death of Chico Anysio, one of the most famous Brazilian comedians of all time, should be present on the death section of the 2012 page. His date of death was March 23rd, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph.ruggiero (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He fails the inclusion criteria at WP:RY (9 non-English articles) and in any case does not seem internationally notable. He would belong in 2012 in Brazil (if it existed) or maybe 2012 in television. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Jim Marshall (businessman)

Should Jim Marshall's death be added in the death section? He has enough non-English articles. 71.201.90.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC).

He has enough non-English articles now, but only had 6 when he died, all except the French one are stubs with either no citations at all or only the English ones. Even the French article is only a straight clone of the English one with no local citations. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2012

April 7th - Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika dies in the capital Lilongwe. His vice president takes over.


Emperorconnor991 (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Included in Deaths section, insufficiently notable to be included in Events section. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
As above, the answer is:  Not done. Pol430 talk to me 22:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Mali coup d'état

Shouldn't the 2012 Mali coup d'état, when at the 21th of March renegade soldiers seized power and overthrew president Amadou Toumani Touré, be added to the article? and if added, make sure to also write that Mali's membership in The African Union was suspended due to the coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.242.255 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It should be I guess no one has gotten around to it yet. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
does it deserve inclusion? ... admittedly it is a change of power, it is an unexpected change of power, and yet, it was mostly bloodless (according to the wiki article), and can, for the life of me, in no way effect 3 continents--68.231.15.56 (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Include ... now that the country has declared to be a new state i think it now does indead effect 3 continents ... if only through the UN--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Proclamation of independence of Azawad is a different (although connected) event. And that is recognized by nobody yet, so it's not important or affecting anyone internationally at this point. It can be added if and when Azawad succeeds in becoming a country in its own right. — Yerpo Eh? 12:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ferdinand Alexander Porsche

Now meets the WP:RY criteria but well short at death. Most non-English articles are stubs, others are clones of English. This seems to indicate insufficent notability for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

like you said well short at death and only real accomplishment was "body"-type design of 911 porche--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible Addition

I can't edit this page yet, but I was thinking that perhaps this could be added:

The USCB estimates that the world population exceeded 7 billion on March 12, 2012. This is cited here: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Jason021388 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Included in 2011 (October 31) , as the UN designation for this milestone. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012/Archive_3&oldid=968582580"