Talk:2014/Archive 2

Historic elections in India - the largest number of people ever to have voted in a free and fair election.
A significant historical event in 2014 was the general election in India where 814.5 million people were eligible to vote - the largest in history. The election was held in several phases with a turnout of over 65%. The Bharatiya Janata Party, the BJP [translates into Indian Peoples' party] won an absolute majority in parliament based on mass appeal that shattered all religious and ethnic barriers. The new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi took office in May 2014.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.33.55 (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the claim that it should have an entry. Do we include each new election in India?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus of One, and it's gone? Wham, bam, thank you ma'm! -- André Kritzinger (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Try WP:BRD, specfically B'R'D. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not significant as per WP:RY. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 20:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Menino
Just makes the WP:RY minimum criteria but there's nothing in his profile to indicate any international notability. All the non-English wikis are stubs/clones and the only reference not from the English article is the Japanese NFL website (which I suspect is merely a translation of a US site). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree should not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * he was the mayor of Boston that's a big city its notable if it was a small town then I'd say remove him but because he was mayor of a big city I say keep him also I want to point out that saying "All the non-English wikis are stubs/clones" is not a good argument everyone else on the list have the same problem all the wiki articles will have the same information about that person, its not gonna have any different information in a different language. so please come up with a better argument. Dman41689 (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually you need to come up with a better argument! The fact that the non-English articles are stubs/clones is a strong indication that they were merely copied from the English. That, plus the content of his English wiki, is a strong indication that he is NOT internationally notable, as required for inclusion here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * @Dman41689 A better argument would be that he not notable because as a politician, he's only served in Boston. he didn't hold a higher political position in Massachusetts or anywhere else in the United States. Redsky89 (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * He was mayor during the terrorist bombing and was in charge of the response and apprehension of one suspect, this is notable internationally due to the ongoing investigation and possible ties to foreign terror organizations -- 68.14.152.218 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, far too much of a stretch. — Yerpo Eh? 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am absolutely shocked Derby that you did not support me

 * as per WP:Recent years the format is EXACTLY as follows "January 1 – Name, Nationality and very brief description ... etc" the template guidelines says that for the "Year in" article for obit give the name of the person and "their nationality" - thus THE PEOPLE are from the nation called The United Kingdom - there is no such nation at the UN called England - England has not been a nation since renassiance times (Acts of Union 1707) - those from the "Nation" of The United Kingdom are refered to as "British"--Wik20150113 (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It does NOT state that "British should be used instead of English, Scottish, etc" as your edit summary falsely in implyies. You have merely put your interpretation on what it actually says. Other Recent Years have a mix of "British" and "English". On the other hand Nationality of people from the United Kingdom states that "Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen 'British', or converting each of those labelled 'British' into their constituent nationalities—is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained."
 * Note that it says "strongly discouraged". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Phillip Hughes
Hughes must be included in the deaths section alongside P.D James (November 27 was the day both died) since his death shocked the whole of Australia and became one of the most talked about of the year. Other countries where cricket is popular were also affected. But some countries like the United States where the sport in rare were not devastated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.179.4.121 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He fails the minimum criteria at WP:RY: he did not have 9 non-English wiki articles at the time of his death. Dying tragically does not make anyone more notable and has never been successfully used as a justification for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 23:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Martin Place Siege
I see that people on the Martin Place Siege's page believe it was not a terrorist attack. I disagree, but that's not the point. At the time, everyone assumed it was a terrorist attack. Because of this is was being broadcast all over the world. Just like the Charlie Hebdo attacks, terrorism creates news all over the world and everyone tunes in to the rolling coverage, as many did in Australia. The Martin Place Siege was definitely a major event of 2015, regardless of whether anyone classes it as a "terrorist attack" or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt jobe watson (talk • contribs) 03:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It was only major for Australia, not elsewhere, so I believe it belongs to 2014 in Australia. — Yerpo Eh? 17:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Las Vegas and Ferguson shootings
I believe that the Las Vegas and the Ferguson shootings should in the Events section. Ptb1997 (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do think they should be added? they both appear to be local events more suited to 2014 in the United States rather than here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Elaine Stritch, James Garner, Tommy Ramone or Eduard Shevardnadze
Who's image is more suitable in the deaths section? I know this is tough, but James Garner's image is not right for some because he was American. Elaine Stritch could be, even though she was American as well. Tommy Ramone was an entertainer, but he was not born in America because he was born in Hungary. Eduard Shevardnadze is and is not my recommendation, since people wanted someone who was from a foreign country, since Tommy Ramone was from Hungary. Who's the best choice? 142.161.251.189 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Elaine Stritch
 * 2) James Garner
 * 3) Tommy Ramone
 * 4) Eduard Shevardnadze


 * That one's a no-brainer - Shevardnadze, of course. He was a key figure in the cold war, which was a global phenomenon. All other options are American entertainers (regardless of the birth place), a category of people hugely overrepresented in RY pictures. — Yerpo Eh? 10:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me. I feel like Eduard Shevarfnadze is good since I add an image of him the 1928 article. 142.161.251.189 (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Christine Cavanaugh
People keeps adding in Christine Cavanaugh and she fails the minimum criteria of the Recent Years. What do you think? Should there be a note? 142.161.251.189 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, she fails nothing. She died, she's notable and she's on more than ten different language Wikis. So she's been added. --ThylekShran (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * She fails the minimum criteria at WP:RY, 9 non-English articles at the time of her death. For her to be added there needs to be consensus here and at the moment there is no such consensus and I have therefoe removed her. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 17:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's 10, not 9. And 'At the time of her death?' I don't recall reading that. Is there even a way keep track of how many language articles they had at the time of their death? She certainly has the minimum requirement now. --ThylekShran (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see that idiotic rule now, one of many Wikipedia has adopted. So they can have 10+ language wikis but if they didn't have them when they died, they're screwed? No matter how notable or iconic their status? Are you saying no more names can be added to this list? And I must ask again, is there actually a way to confirm how many language wikis they were on when they died? (I'm betting no.) --ThylekShran (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If the person died before Wikidata, you can view the version of the article at the person's time of death and check the inter-wiki links at the bottom (I think you have to view the source text for that, by clicking "edit"), or if they died with a Wikidata entry, you can check the version of their Wikidata entry at their time of death. For example, Christine Cavanaugh had only seven other language articles at her time of death. -- Irn (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thanks; that's good to know. Now why was this rule even implemented? I mean, I can understand the need for such a rule to a certain extent -- it prevents the section from becoming no different than the main deaths page -- but it also prevents the addition of some truly notable people. Dick Smith may not have had 10 language wikis at the time of his death, but he was a pioneer in his field and a significant influence in the film industry. Ann B. Davis, Ralph Waite and Christine Cavanaugh may not have had 10 language wikis, but that doesn't make their work any less iconic and their names any less deserving of being added here. It's not like I'm trying to add some average Joes here; these are people who had an undeniable impact on their profession and the world. And you're saying they can't be added because a few wikis hadn't bothered to create a page for them before they died? I'm sorry, but that just can't be. --ThylekShran (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to exactly why the rule was implemented because I wasn't part of the conversation, but you can check the archives and read the discussion yourself. However, the "at the time of death" makes a lot of sense because people receive a lot more attention as a result of their death, resulting in more articles, and so if we restrict it to before that moment, we have a better idea of the person's significance in life. Also, if it weren't time-restricted, it could easily be gamed by Google-translating articles into other languages.
 * Also, just to be clear, it's 9 non-English articles (plus English), so Simple English doesn't count. As such, Ralph Waite still doesn't meet the requirement, but Ann B. Davis would appear to. However, if you notice, the date of death was added the day after she died, and so was the link for the Scottish article. If you check the history of the Scottish article, you'll see that it was created the day after she died, meaning she only had 8 non-English articles at the time of her death.
 * As for the people you've named (and anyone else who doesn't meet the 10-language test), if you can formulate a convincing argument, demonstrating that they did have a significant impact, and thus gain consensus for their inclusion, they can be included in the article. Granted, it's an uphill battle, but it's not a foregone conclusion. -- Irn (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying things. Yes, the guideline does make some sense, but at the same time, it prevents genuinely notable people from being added to the page and for the most ridiculous of reasons. I mean really, using the number of wikis that have pages on people to determine their notability? Surely there must be a more sensible way -- or, if we must do it that way, how about reducing the requirement to 5 non-English articles to allow for certain deserving people to be added? That should still allow for only the most significant people to be included.
 * I guess I should bring this up on the Recent Years talk page instead of here. As for arguing for their inclusion, I really shouldn't have to as their work speaks for them, but I just might do that whenever I have the time and energy... and that would not be right now. :) Thanks again for the response. --ThylekShran (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed many times before, yet noone has ever come up with an easy-to-use alternative to the current rule. The one you propose (5 interwikis) would balloon the section exponentially and make it completely useless, since it's already many (physical) pages long and getting longer every year. If anything, the bar will need to be raised. But if we ditch this system altogether, how do you define "genuinly notable"? Will only the people known to English-speaking users who happen to come by and argue inclusion represent the whole world of knowledge? — Yerpo Eh? 09:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Abdirizak Haji Hussein
I don't get why he has nine non-English Wikipedias (as of now), but at the time of his death, he had only four other languages (according to a revision on Wikidata). I respect WP:RY quite well and it's one thing I focus on. And because of this, it's ridiculous how with most [notable] names who meet and did not meet WP:RY at the time of their deaths. Then again, I would be wrong otherwise. 206.45.9.182 (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The minimum number of articles is only one criteria. The intention of WP:RY is to include internationally notable people in the Deaths section. State leaders are by default internationally notable, unless their tenure is so short that they did not have time to achieve anything of internationally significance, e.g. a caretaker Prime Minister/President in office for a few weeks. This is a long-established consensus for Recent Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 05:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Was he added before like last year or not really? 206.45.9.182 (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea. How is that relevant? DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 05:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know. But I guess we can keep his name in here. Agree? 206.45.9.182 (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

2014 year resemblance
2007 2002 1988 1996 Palmount45 (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Your point? DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 02:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2014. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140929051526/http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/solidarity.htm to http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/solidarity.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140412190337/http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A%2FRES%2F68%2F262 to http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A%2FRES%2F68%2F262

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ken Jones (actor)
I've removed Ken Jones (actor), recently added by User:Matt Campbell. Jones was very little known even within the UK - certainly not deserving of an entry here. His article is a tiny stub. Deb (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Gabriel Garcia Marquez.jpg