Talk:2015/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Paride Tumburus

I lean against inclusion; although he meets the requirement for number of articles, the en.Wikipedia article is a stub. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Only four caps is certainly marginal, although he did play in a World Cup. Many of the article seems to have been created more for completeness of creating articles on every international footballer than for any widespread notability. On the whole I would lean against inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

He did also play in the Olympics, though... — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Has there ever been a consensus regarding inclusion of sportspeople who played in international events, such as the World Cup and the Olympics, but didn't score any goals or win any medals etc? Jim Michael (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember any such discussion, but becoming an Olympian is very prestigious by itself. I wouldn't argue for their automatic inclusion, but I do think that it is a factor to consider when in doubt and when they fulfill the basic criteria. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents, 2015

As with all Recent Year articles there are a number of terrorist incidents each year, of which relatively few would appear to merit inclusion. The infobox should include a link to the above article, but under which section, Politics or Other (or somewhere else)? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Include INION Library fire in Moscow?

A fire in a library at the Academic Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences (INION) damaged 1 million rare documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Le Ho (talk • contribs) 02:40, February 2, 2015‎

I do not see an article about this on Wikipedia.--LL221W (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the US

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I thought there was consensus against inclusion. In any case, the text is both inaccurate and fails WP:NPOV

1. Inaccurate: The minimum accurate statement would be
   • SCOTUS required states to issue and recognize same-sex marriage.
2. NPOV: "Gay Marriage" (note the capital letter) inherently violates NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I though so too, but perhaps there was just no consensus to include (almost the same thing). I still see absolutely no justification for inclusion if this article is to only include internationally significant events; this is strictly US notable only. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I would think this is a notable event. Provided it is phrased correctly, the accuracy and NPOV concerns would be resolved. @Arthur Rubin: can you give me the link to that consensus? In the archive (item 44, archive 1) is a discussion from July that didn't reach a conclusion about whether to include it or not. Was the issue taken elsewhere for a vote? As for being internationally significant, that is mostly determined by attention (press) it gets, not where the event takes place. This has received a lot of attention internationally. Events like this in an influential country like the US have cultural and political consequences abroad. Gap9551 (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

" cultural and political consequences abroad"? Would you mind listing exactly what consequences can be directly attributed to the US enacting this law? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, being widely reported doesn't equal international significance. For that, it would have to have some tangible consequence. What "cultural and political consequences abroad" were there several months later? The attention simply died down after the news cycle. The Ireland's case was a significant first for the reason discussed before and explained in the entry itself. The US? Just one in the row. It's a poor assumption to say anything that happens there will automatically be world-shattering and USA is simply not the leader in this fight for human rights. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This argument could be made against many of the events on the list. I would say that same-sex marriage in the US has far more international and lasting significance than a school shooting, a plane crash, or debris from MH 370, just to name a few. Max0987654321 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Then make it. You know, WP:OTHERSTUFF and all that... — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I admit that it will be hard to concretely measure and prove consequences, certainly at this time. And if there is consensus then I have no problem leaving out this particular event. Are there specific guidelines about which events are to be included in the year articles? I would be grateful if one of you could point me to them. More important to me than including specific items is consistency. I'm surprised to see items in year articles that are vastly less significant than this decision on same-sex marriage (e.g. who won and lost a sports competition, and it's a lot worse for years in the future), but it appears that the article about the current year is held to different standards than many other years. And even in the 2015 article there are questionable events, as Max0987654321 pointed out while I'm writing this. I would propose to focus on consistency as well as observing the guidelines (that, by the way, are not easy to find -- a link to them at the top of this talk page would go a long way to avoid disputes like this one). Gap9551 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines are at WP:RY. I thought there was a message which appeared when editing the article which mentioned WP:RY, but if there was it no longer appears. They only cover recent years, approximately 2002 onwards, so content will clearly differ from earlieer years. The guidelines were established in early 2009 due to the massive amount of trivia in the 2008 article. There were attempts to apply them to earlier articles but it appears that there have been too few editors interested in applying/maintaining the guidelines so some may have "deteriorated" since then (the last time I looked, 2008 certainly had).DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I can definitely imagine these articles have a strong tendency to deteriorate, and a lot of events can be placed in the numerous '2015 in ...' articles. Gap9551 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add an RfC on this one? It seems to me that this issue might benefit from an outside perspective. Max0987654321 (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC on same-sex marriage

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus against inclusion. The majority opinion is that it is a US specific change in laws, and it was suggested that 2015 in the United States would be a better location. The discussion centered on the WP:RY guideline and both interpretations on what "international significance" is are reasonable. That being said the WP:RY guideline imho needs to better define its criteria, a discussion on the guideline talk page and possibly an RFC there are probably a good idea to help avoid long discussions in the future. AlbinoFerret 19:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the article mention the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States? There is a disagreement as to whether it is notable enough for inclusion. Max0987654321 (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:RY, the standard for inclusion is "international significance". Given the scale of the international reaction to the event (for example, making the front page of newspapers around the world), I think it definitely merits mention in the article. -- Irn (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It made the news, so what? There are lots of things which make the news, they are covered by Portal:Current events. Beyond that there has been no significance (that anyone has pointed out anyway). This event is of significance in the US, not globally as required for this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, it sparked a wave of media publicity around the world, bringing the issue to the attention of people in many countries where it is not legal. One Russian pundit, famed homophobe Dmitry Kiselyov, changed his stance from "burn their hearts" to "grant them civil unions." The US, as possibly the world's most powerful country, is definitely setting a precedent with this decision. I've said this before, but your argument could be made against half of the entries on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max0987654321 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, this event passes the three-continent rule at WP:RY with flying colors. Max0987654321 (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The statement "definitely setting a precedent with this decision" is pure conjecture right now. It may well turn out in a few years that this decision is the watershed event for LGBT rights, but assuming it beforehand doesn't make any sense. Again, the entry can be added later if and when that becomes clear. This page isn't set in stone. — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It didn't just "make the news". Internationally, it has been one of the most significant events of the year. More than 26 million people publicly reacted to the event by changing their Facebook photos. So much so that it was seen as being fashionable in Latin America. This wasn't just a news story; it was the headline story around the world. There's a huge difference there. -- Irn (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No better suited to 2015 in the United States as it doesnt really have any international significance, its not the first country in the world or even the last. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - I'm not really familiar with the standards for inclusion in this article, but it strikes me that the gay marriage ruling is on par with some of the other items currently in the list in terms of significance. Gay marriage is clearly a pretty major civil rights issue. The US is a pretty major country. NickCT (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• This is a complicated issue and I'm not wholly sure, but my inclination is Yes: this is a significant civil rights event and this decision in the U.S., which received international attention, will have international consequences. Good idea to hold an RfC. Update: based on discussion I think it's fair to ask for reliable sources discussing international significance as a precondition for inclusion. -Darouet (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

" will have international consequences"? Not only conjecture (as noted above by Yerpo) but violates WP:CRYSTAL. If and when there are demonstrable international consequences then it might be included. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

...I don't think my comment on the talk page really violates WP:CRYSTAL :) -Darouet (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This semantic point will be moot if we act on your comment in the end. Perhaps it would be a better idea to address counter-arguments instead, maybe then we can get somewhere. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ and Yerpo: I'm not familiar with inclusion criteria for this set of articles. But I think it's reasonable for you both to ask for newspaper/scholarly commentaries demonstrating international significance as a criteria for inclusion. -Darouet (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think is about time to elaborate on the current criteria. International significance must be demonstrated (this has been the de facto criteria applied by those editors who have an ongoing interest in these articles), though how we define that will no doubt be contentious. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ: Here and here, for example. By the way, do you object to Roe v. Wade being in the article on 1973?

Both sources mention "possible future impact". So far there has been NONE! I repeat, if and when demonstrable impact occurs, THEN it can be included. Roe vs Wade is irrelevant as it was 1973 which is not a Recent Year. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

May I ask, @DerbyCountyinNZ:, how you define "international significance," or, even better, what your criteria for inclusion are for this article? It seems to me that you have been given countless perfectly reasonable arguments, both in this discussion and the previous one (in the archive), and you have not been convinced by any. I would like to know specifically what standards you have that this does not meet. Max0987654321 (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ: If you do not have an answer to this question, then I believe that it is unreasonable for you to continue to argue your point and obstruct progress on this issue. If you do have an answer, I would be happy to read it and consider it fairly.

A country enacts a law as a directly attributable reaction to the US law; A country changes its diplomatic relations with the US as a direct result of this law; A measurable change in the international travel to/from the US as a direct result of this law. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You haven't defined "international significance"; you've given three examples. If we were to use those examples as an exhaustive definition of "international significance", we would eliminate over half of the events on the page. -- Irn (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I once proposed something like: "A foreign media outlet recognizing a direct causal link between a national-scale event in the foreign country and the event in the "home" country." Plus, keeping the current exceptions: significant firsts (such as important scientific discoveries) and disasters with 1000+ casualties. I think that would cover what Derby and I refer to as "international significance". — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yerpo: WP:RY says that international significance "can be demonstrated through several international news sources." WP:RY also specifically states that "high death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion into the article." Max0987654321 (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:UCR also says that disputed information should stay on a page unless there is consensus or obvious reason to remove it. Max0987654321 (talk) 12:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, but in this case, the sources don't demonstrate international significance because they only report what happened in some country far away, without saying why is it significant for anybody else (only why it might become in the future). Therefore, the obvious reason to remove this event is that it fails the criteria. Nothing inconsistent here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yerpo: As far as I can tell, there is no well-defined rule as to what constitutes "international significance." If there were a well-defined, agreed-upon rule that covered this, this discussion would not have occurred. Could you tell me what criteria this "obviously fails"? Max0987654321 (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yerpo: Besides, "international" does not only mean "involving multiple governments." Max0987654321 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

From a dictionary: significance [noun: 1. importance; consequence]. Another: the quality of being important : the quality of having notable worth or influence. By this definition, no demonstrable consequence/influence = no significance. By the way, this discussion would've occurred in any scenario where the event was excluded, regardless of how water-tight the definition was. Too much American patriotism around to let something like that slip. That's why it's good to have international perspective. And I don't talk about any government. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yerpo: Some objective facts: 1. The US is the largest country in the world (in terms of population) to make this decision. 2. The decision garnered significantly more media coverage outside of its country than did the same decision in most countries. 3. I feel insulted when I am accused of patriotism. 4. The primary definition of "significance" in both of the dictionaries you cited was "importance/worth," not "influence." 5. WP:RY, as I've said before, states that international significance "can be demonstrated through several international news sources." 6. Multiple significant international news sources have put this event on their front page.

@Max0987654321: Importance/worth is subjective, therefore useless to make a good criterion. What remains is consequence/influence. News attention by itself is also useless, because all sorts of trivia gets put on the front pages and is forgotten by the end of the news cycle. Being the largest by some margin is also useless, because then it would necessitate inclusion of the same event in every state that is larger than the last to be fair - and that would just turn out random, impossible to maintain and silly. Plus, nowhere did I accuse you of patriotism. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yerpo: Sometimes subjective criteria are more useful than objective criteria – the notability guidelines for Wikipedia, for example. If the criteria were completely objective for everything, then there would be no potential for interpretation This would mean that if the criteria had a problem, articles that were notable might not get included, and this would not be questioned. Besides, selectively interpreting the criteria comes dangerously close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

So, you want to have subjective criteria that mustn't be selectively interpreted. This would be a great example in the dictionary under "oxymoron". — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yerpo: What I meant by "selectively interpreting the criteria" was "assuming that one interpretation or aspect is correct, completely discounting another equally valid interpretation or aspect without any reason to do so." For example, taking the definition "importance or consequence" and interpreting it as "consequence."

Also, what makes you think that there has not been any consequence? Plenty of significant figures, groups, and newspapers have responded to the decision. There have been protests, celebrations, a great increase in public awareness, and announcements by presidents. Max0987654321 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

First, please read what I wrote. "Importance" is useless, so the only relevant interpretation is "influence". The two are not equally valid by any stretch. Secondly, words and feelings do not constitute significant consequence. For example, many people may express outrage at a corrupt politician, but this is just hot air unless/until the words come to actions and he's removed. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yerpo: My point (well, one of the more recent ones) is that "importance" is not useless. Please read what I said above about subjective criteria. Max0987654321 (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Max0987654321: I read it, but it doesn't really make sense in this situation, nor did you bother to explain what you mean in the slightest. A subjective ground rule will necessarily lead to selective interpretation because the majority of editors are young white male Americans, leading to systemic bias. Better to have an objective rule which can be bent by consensus - for which we have WP:IAR (also WP:RY explicitly states it can be bent). It's just that allowing inclusion by default will demonstrably lead to proliferation of useless trivia and other trash. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yerpo: Okay, let me address each of your arguments.

1. A subjective ground rule will necessarily lead to selective interpretation. This is why we have talk pages and the ability to revert edits. Besides, the main point of this discussion is not what the policy should be. I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but as of right now, you are the only one whom I have seen selectively interpreting the rules (claiming that the way you are interpreting them is the only way to avoid selective interpretation), as far as I can tell.
2. It is better to have an objective rule which can be bent by consensus. The problem with objective rules is that they are arbitrary, and being objective makes them seem more definite and unlikely to be challenged.
3. Allowing inclusion by default will demonstrably lead to proliferation of useless trivia and other trash. No argument there. I never said that we should allow inclusion by default – only that this entry was notable enough for inclusion.

It seems to me that neither of us is willing to budge, nor is there definitive community consensus. Do you think it might be a good idea to swap out the RfC for a request for mediation? Max0987654321 (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Max0987654321: This discussion is getting crowded, so I'll try to be concise, don't take it as dismissive:

1. "Selective", the way you use it, usually means "biased towards one of the equivalent options". Which is not the case. I am advocating for using a more selective meaning of the word "significance" instead of less, though - because we do have to filter events in order to keep this page from cluttering.
2. No, subjective rules are arbitrary, or at least their consequence is. Objective is the opposite of arbitrary.
3. Don't know about mediation, I was never involved in something like that. In any case, other people would have to agree to it, too. — Yerpo ^Eh? 21:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yerpo: I would agree that we have to filter events, but I do not agree that an arbitrary and selective interpretation of the guidelines for the purpose of making an "objective" rule is the way to do so. Subjective rules are more open to interpretation, but I would not say that the results are arbitrary. They are a result of consensus, which we seem to be lacking. Objective rules cannot be perfect and are therefore arbitrary, and are less likely to be challenged. Also, here is what we would do to submit a request for mediation:

1. Ask DerbyCountyinNZ and Irn to join.
2. Close the RfC.
3. Submit a request for mediation here with a concise, neutral description of the issue such as "Some editors believe that the United States Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage is internationally notable enough for inclusion on the 2015 article, while others believe that it is not, and should be placed in the article 2015 in the United States. This issue has been discussed extensively on the talk page, and an RfC has been opened that failed to establish community consensus." (If you believe that this is not neutral, please suggest another concise, neutral description.)
4. Wait for the mediation committee to decide whether to review this issue.

I think, given the fact that there is no community consensus and neither side is convincing the other, that this is a good idea. Let me know what you think. Max0987654321 (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think it would be a good idea and that others will agree, why not? But I think that it will not solve the problem of criteria. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• No.  for the reason cited by MilborneOne. (better suited to 2015 in the United States).
  Richard27182 (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• No, as per my comments above. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, as per my comments above and my interpretation of this event in terms of WP:RY, specifically international significance. Max0987654321 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  What do you mean? There is approximately zero international significance right now. How would that support an "include" opinion? — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  What I said earlier. I quote myself: "For one thing, it sparked a wave of media publicity around the world, bringing the issue to the attention of people in many countries where it is not legal. One Russian pundit, famed homophobe Dmitry Kiselyov, changed his stance from "burn their hearts" to "grant them civil unions." The US, as possibly the world's most powerful country, is definitely setting a precedent with this decision. I've said this before, but your argument could be made against half of the entries on the page." Max0987654321 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  I think it's pretty obvious that different people have different understandings of "international significance". Instead of repeatedly asserting that this event has no international significance, could you defend your definition? Why does "international significance" have to be understood in terms of consequences? And how would one measure such consequences? -- Irn (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  So, one notable person changed his mind from strong oppose to neutral/slight support. Hardly significant on the global scale, by any measure. For that, at least one but preferrably several countries would have to follow suit, with media commentators recognizing the direct link to the US' decision. In my opinion. It would be different if this had been a significant global first for some reason (as in the Ireland's case), but this is not the case. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  So, the United States, arguably the most powerful and influential nation on the world, made a long-awaited, much-anticipated, major decision on a current social and political issue. It sparked a media wave around the world. The decision was the cause for much more worldwide celebration than for other countries. If you don't believe me, look at this list and see how many of the decisions you remember hearing at the time. Max0987654321 (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Paraphrasing: A country established a law as many other countries before had done. Some people think this country, being rather large, is therefore very important and speculate that other countries will view the law as important and may enact similar laws or react in some other official way, though NONE have done so yet. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• No. local event, not the first time it happens nor the last. If there are international consequences in the future, we can revisit. --McSly (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• No. Not a "first" (even in the US, to some extent), no demonstrated international effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

International effect isn't the standard; it's international significance. -- Irn (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes A major issue around the world, settled definitively in the US: it's clearly noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in this list. International significance is taken for granted by most off-wiki observers: CBS-News, Foreign Policy, Public Radio Int'l, Int'l Business Times, etc. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Defining "international significance"

As far as I can tell, the debate isn't so much about this specific court decision, but rather differing ideas of what constitutes "international significance". Yerpo offered the following: "'A foreign media outlet recognizing a direct causal link between a national-scale event in the foreign country and the event in the "home" country.' Plus, keeping the current exceptions: significant firsts (such as important scientific discoveries) and disasters with 1000+ casualties." I think this is a really good starting point, but I disagree strongly. I don't think events need to have an impact on other countries to be significant. The events listed on the article for any given year should reflect the most notable events of that year. Why do we need the causal link? Why not just a recognition that the event was important on an international level? -- Irn (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing the issue and splitting this debate. My opinion is that notability isn't enough, because, as stated in several previous discussions, many trivial events garner huge media coverage and are soon utterly forgotten. Thus, media coverage doesn't equate importance and can be only used as one of the criteria. Secondly, national-scale events belong to "2015 in _country_" pages, so there usually is no need to duplicate, unless it's something world-shattering - and for that, saying one other nation should be impacted sets the bar very low. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm really interested in furthering this conversation, but I just don't have the time right now. Plus, it doesn't look to me like many other people are interested, and I think it would be better for it to take place over at WT:RY (to put more explicit language in the guideline, whatever the consensus may be), so I'm going to leave it alone for now, but hopefully I'll be able to come back to it relatively soon. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Akatsuki

Akatsuki is a Japanese space probe which intended to study the atmosphere of Venus. It was launched in June 2010, however due to a blockage in the nozzle, it failed to inject itself into Venusian orbit. On the 7th of December 2015, Akatsuki will make another attempt to do so.

Because the spaceflight is a interplanetary mission, and with the fact that all other interplanetary missions in 2015 are listed on the page, it will also be reasonable to list this one on the page as well. Please consider this request. Thank you. --LL221W (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Apart from WP:OTHERSTUFF, the spaceflights that have been included are firsts; Akutsuki is not. The proper place for this and all other, less notable, spaceflights is 2015 in spaceflight. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Akatsuki is an interplanetary. The spaceflights listed in 2015 in spaceflight are mostly Earth-orbit spaceflights. This is a notable spaceflight since interplanetary spaceflights are on average, very uncommon (Akatsuki was scheduled to enter orbit in 2010, however, failed to do so due to an engine malfunction.) --LL221W (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

All of which is appropriate for listing in the Spaceflights sub-article. This mission is so non-notable it has received no front-page news coverage. It is essentially just another spaceflight. And unless there are further contributions from other editors on this, there is no consensus to include it here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015

Thecheerfulextrovert (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Please state that 2015 is not the current year in some parts of the world

If we just wait a few hours, the issue will resolve itself. Rwessel (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2016

The editors should consider adding the date June 26 under the headline "June" because the government legalized same-sex marriage on that date. 96.241.114.43 (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@96.241.114.43:  Not done: I presume the country you're referring to is the United States? This date does not belong in the 2015 article, as it refers to a U.S. event – not a global event. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2016

Please add to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015#Deaths

November 14 - Nick Bockwinkel, American professional wrestler (b. 1934)

72.140.49.29 (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Eteethan(talk)🎄 16:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2016

Please add to the 2015 page the Charlie Hebdo attacks, under events, which took place in January, and the Paris terrorist attack in November. Ashwinr136 (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Ashwinr136 Ashwinr136 (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed at Talk:2015/Archive_1#Charlie Hebdo shooting back in January-April 2015. Consensus to add it was not reached at that time, so we should not add it now without reaching a consensus to do so. FWIW, I'd strong support adding it, while the scale of the attack was not exceptionally large, the geopolitical implications have been significant. (getting my terrorist attacks confused) Rwessel (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd point out that this was added to January 7. Rwessel (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Eteethan(talk)🎄 16:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there any progress on this? The article looks really strange without the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Regardless of number of deaths, this was one of the events of the year most visible in the media, and made a huge political impact. I would like to edit the article, but it says one should not add the attacks in the Edit section. (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)YngveHorvei

Charlie Hebdo

I'd like to raise the issue of the absence of the Charlie Hebdo shooting once more. It's now been nearly two years, and the global notability of the event has not waned. On the one-year anniversary of the attacks, stories were published in France, the UK, Ireland, the United States, Argentina, South Africa, Japan, Sweden, China, and India. The attack is frequently referenced in news worldwide ([1], [2], [3]) and at the end of 2015, was described as one of the most important global events of that year by The Indian Express , CNBC, The Sydney Morning Herald, and Newsweek. We now have reliable sources calling this one of the most important events of the year. Frankly, I'm not sure what else we're looking for. agtx 15:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you. I have no idea why airplane crashes (most have brief notoriety) are listed in Year articles but the Hebdo shooting is not. The shooting is also significantly more notable than the United States airstrike on a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital for example. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I also strongly agree. The attack (and the international reaction to it) was one of the most important events of the year. -- Irn (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Arthur Rubin, DerbyCountyinNZ, Yerpo, Wjfox2005, Rizalninoynapoleon, and MelbourneStar were involved in the original discussion, I want to make sure they're aware of this one. agtx 20:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inclusion of this, if that is the consensus. I think it best that the wording of the entry be agreed to here so that it appropriately reflects the international significance of the event. (P.S. In about 2 hours I will be too busy to get back to this discussion, or any Wiki editing, for about 2 days.) 20:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerbyCountyinNZ (talk • contribs)

I believe that the consensus is that, if international significance is indicated, the event should be mentioned here. Being among the most important events of the year, as reported by reliable sources, seems to qualify. I'm on my smartphone, so cannot easily check the sources to see what they actually say. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support its inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed language

How about:

• January 7 – Two gunmen belonging to Al-Qaeda's Yemen branch kill 12 people and injure 11 more at the Paris headquarters of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in response to its publication of cartoons featuring Muhammad, prompting an anti-terrorism demonstration attended by over a million people and more than 40 world leaders.

References

agtx 18:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the section "in response to its publication of cartoons featuring Muhammad" is appropriate. This gives undue emphasis to a theory that, however likely, is not certain. There should also be a mention of the associated attacks in other countries. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about either of these. Can you suggest a rewording? agtx 16:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's been a week, so I'm going to take out the reference to the cartoon and add it to the page. If folks want to edit it later, that's clearly ok. agtx 18:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

And don't forget...

There was a famous sign saying "Class of II0IV." Please add this event to the article. 108.71.123.105 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. That doesn't seem to have the international scope and importance to justify inclusion. Gap9551 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.expo2015.org/en/learn-more
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208212802/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a7713a35e7314dd7824326f3ee5638f1/iran-holds-funeral-diplomat-killed-saudi-hajj-crush to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a7713a35e7314dd7824326f3ee5638f1/iran-holds-funeral-diplomat-killed-saudi-hajj-crush

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

2015 Beirut bombings

This is a domestic event, so should be excluded. Jim Michael (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Per this link I was provided, it is " demonstrated through various international news sources". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not demonstrated that it's of global or near-global importance, which is the bar for inclusion, stated in the same section. Jim Michael (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It should be excluded. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Beau Biden

@Arthur Rubin: Show me where there's consensus on excluding Beau Biden. I see a single discussion where I got steamrolled because of the former RY guideline. Nowhere near enough people weighed in to be considered a consensus. Here's international news sources covering him in life and death: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] agtx 14:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Just add him again, there's no good reason not to. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

To Arthur's credit, he didn't revert this time. Just a tag, which I'd say is an appropriate way to start this discussion. agtx 15:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Exclude: Biden was a minor politician of no international significance. (His highest office was Attorney General of Delaware.) The only reason his death received the attention it did is because his dad was the vice president of the country. -- irn (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The birth of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge is on this page too, and she's never done anything notable that's unrelated to her famous parents. What's important is international significance and coverage, not the reason for that significance. agtx 15:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Receiving coverage doesn't necessarily indicate significance. Biden's death received coverage, but he wasn't internationally significant. (As a state attorney general, he wasn't even nationally significant.)

For what it's worth, I agree that Princess Charlotte's birth shouldn't be included, either. -- irn (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Then how do you propose we figure significance, if not by reference to reliable sources? As I have argued before, media outlets cover what is of interest to their readers. If media outlets worldwide cover someone's death, then it's highly likely that person was of interest to those readers and therefore significant. Do you have anything supporting your view other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? agtx 17:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I've made several proposals over at this conversation, but that conversation isn't going very far. TRM suggested moving it somewhere else. Perhaps WT:YEARS? Or a subpage of WP:YEARS with a notice at Template:Centralized_discussion? The most important thing to me is that we have a clear set of criteria that takes systemic bias into account.

As for using reliable sources to support a claim of international significance, that sounds good but is a bit tricky. If we're going with sources, then the sources need to state it. That is, the sources themselves would have to somehow make that claim of international significance. I think that could be open to interpretation, but mere mention in international sources wouldn't suffice – it would need to be more explicit than that. Something more along the lines of reliable sources remarking upon the international significance of the individual. (I see a parallel here with making a claim in an article that "X person was famous around the world" and sourcing it to news articles about that person from five different continents. It comes close to being okay, but it's still SYNTH.)

Just to give you some extra insight into where I'm coming from, the inclusion of Beau Biden really strikes me as systemic bias (a state-level attorney general with no real accomplishments beyond simply holding that post, from just about anywhere beside the US, even if he were the son of a vice president, would not be included), and I think we need to create a system to deal with that. RYD was imperfect, but it did that to a limited degree. Now we need to come up with something better, but all we're doing is arguing about individual entries. -- irn (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment yet another example of timesinking. There are too many personal opinions here, claims such as Biden "was of no international significance" and "The only reason ...." are unverified and original research but are great examples of why this cherry-picking "super notability" approach is deeply flawed. Bin this section, point to Deaths in 2015, job done, everyone, especially our readers, win. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Australian leadership elections?

Do we include all changes in Australian party leadership? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think at the very least only those that lead to a change in Prime Minister - which includes Paul Keating in 1991, Julia Gillard in 2010, Kevin Rudd in 2013, and Malcolm Turnbull in 2015. Changes in the Opposition leadership - such as John Howard in 1995 and Kevin Rudd in 2006 - I'd agree is not relevant enough to be included regardless of whether or not they do end up becoming Prime Minister in the long term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.96.204 (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Jocelyne Ouellette

I misread WP:POLITICIAN, so she probably should have an article. However, we did exclude a Premier of British Columbia from his year of death. I see no evidence of international notice, not to mention the slightly higher standard of international significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Eclipses

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Verteidigungsminister Helmut Schmidt.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional Images

@4me689 I just realized I forgot to add New Horizons to this collage. May you have one other event that can go into this collage to make it 8 images? The ganymedian (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe something with Iran? Let me know your thoughts The ganymedian (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@The ganymedian: maybe we can add something about Yemen on the collage, also I do agree with the Event Horizon telescope being on the collage. 4me689 (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Wjfox2005 Out of the events listed on your Future Timeline website (besides New Horizons as I will be including it), which event for 2015 would you want to see as the last image on this new collage? The ganymedian (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)