Jump to content

Talk:2018/Archive 1

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2018. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2018. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2018. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Universal Pictures' Hercules (1997)

On Groundhog Day 2018, Disney will no longer released Hercules (1997) due to Universal Pictures, that the studio released this animated film presented by Steven Spielberg for Amblin Entertainment and produced by Illumination Entertainment in 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.125.18 (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

New year automatic updates

I've made a template, Template:New year header, that will automatically update the lead sentence with the time zones in which it is 2018 as time progresses. As in past years, any text description of the relevant locations must still be updated manually (usually a description of what continents are fully or partially in the new year). Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete the Calendar

MOST Pages of Years don’t have the gregorian calendar picture for any year. So please delete it off the page. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:E415:A320:F4D2:D8DE (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Oceania

@Philroc, Ric36, and Max9874: It is not yet 2018 in all of Oceania. Oceania straddles both sides of the International Date Line, and most of Polynesia is to the ea9st of it, making these the last time zones in which it will be 2018. This should be accurately reflected in the lead sentence. (FWIW, the easternmost part of Polynesia and thus Oceania is Easter Island, which is UTC–5.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ref. 1 seems incorrect

Ref. 1 seems to lead to a Times of India article "India urges UN to declare 2018 "International Year of Millets"", not a UN page as the reference note indicates 49.207.189.171 (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games (RfC)

Editors support including the 2018 Commonwealth Games in the "Predicted and scheduled events" section.

Cunard (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I saw that the 2018 Commonwealth Games were removed from the "Predicted and scheduled events" section. The rationale was "Commonwealth Games is truly a non-notable sports event unlike (Summer) Olympics". It is a major sporting event with 70 nations competing. I believe that it should be included. Any feedback or opinions on this issue would be appreciated so that we can reach a final desicion on its inclusion. Jith12 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It is more notable than almost any other international sports competition, with the exception of the Olympic / Paralympic Games and the World Cup. Aridd (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Aridd: I am going to take this to RfC in an effort to get a few more opinions. Jith12 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Should the "Predicted and scheduled events" section include the 2018 Commonwealth Games as a scheduled event? Jith12 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Threaded 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.

Do we need an empty "Deaths" section?

NO ACTION
Moot because the deaths section is no longer empty. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

In my opinion, an empty "Deaths" section is not useful to any reader, while for some readers it may be emotionally slightly uncomfortable to see how the article is being prepared for deaths in advance (say, a person whose relative or friend is terminally ill or something like that). I have tried temporarily hiding it,[note 1] but my edit got reverted shortly, while the editor who reverted it did not specify any reason nor has responded to my question on their talkpage. I don't want to start an edit war obviously, but if such an empty section has to appear in the article, I'd like to understand the reasoning behind it (ideally based on the reader's needs rather than convenience for Wikipedians.) :) --Yury Bulka (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ When any content for that section arrives, obviously, we would unhide it.

@Юрій Булка: I'm not that familiar with the articles for years but there are unfortunately a number of deaths in the Deaths in 2018 article. Shouldn't they be in this article as well or do they have to meet extra notability criteria to be included in this article? If all deaths in the dedicated article are supposed to be here we wouldn't have the issue of hiding the section in the first place because it will have content to fill it. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

There are entries now. I see no reason not to close this section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2018 (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.

North Korea

I believe that was is happening with North Korea's 'Olive Branch' towards South Korea and the Olympics in important international politics, but I cannot think of a good way to fit it in a single event notation. If anyone has any ideas for how to do this, or any reasons to believe that I should not include this in, let me know at jesingermz@gmail.com. Techno Tron15 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC) comment added by Techno Tron15 (talk • contribs)

Date formats

There is one publication date in DMY format, and access dates are a mix of DMY (one abbreviated, partially my fault), MDY, and yyyy-mm-dd formats. The template says we should be using MDY. The script I have to update dates also unlinks the dates, contrary to current style guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

International Year of the Reef

This one seems close. The International Coral Reef Initiative is an international NGO, but it's not clear that the "year" has traction outside the organization. When we had guidelines, UN years were specifically included, but other years are excluded. It seems clear that years proposed by a single country are excluded. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Flu pandemic

Is this really notable? I've heard almost nothing on the news about it, and "dozens of deaths" is hardly a significant amount globally. This entry should be deleted IMO. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, only seems notable in the US. And the death count is quite low, so I don't see why this merits a spot on this page. JoeyRuss (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games

It is really sure that Commonwealth Games may not be a notable sports event competes countries from former British colonies and the United Kingdom itself. ApprenticeFan work 03:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ray Thomas

People keep removing him from the 2018 page, but he has received a lot of coverage worldwide. I think he definitely deserves a place on here. JoeyRuss (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Pegasus Airlines Flight 8622

I was reading through the 2018 article, since I haven't done it since I created the upload on the Iranian protests. Most things seem notable, but then I ran into this one. Is this really notable? It did affect the mentality of a few of the people, probably, but nothing else really came out of it except for the plane needing replacement. Techno Tron15 (talk) 9:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Eurovision

As I said in my edit comment, there must be dozens of "contests" with more importance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin There must be...... Go ahead and name at least 24 trans-European contests with "more importance". I look forward to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin still waiting for even just one dozen examples. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin alright, start with six. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin okay, okay, just three then. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Fredo Santana

Only marginally notable, even by Wikipedia standards. Probably not known at all outside the US, and not very well known inside. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Widely reported in the UK, the States, Ireland, Germany, Spain etc. Articles in Danish, Polish, Ukrainian... I think it's just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There is not a single story in any of those countries reporting his death, he can't go on. Unknown artist (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a dispute. If TRM were accurate, he should provide references from those countries. See WP:BURDEN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I presumed both of you are capable of using Google News, so I didn't bother. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and by all means add Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Italy, Greece etc to that list. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I see none of those. May be my Google personalization.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Or it may be that you are picking up Google translations of US news articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
No, not at all, all of those countries have their own news sources (not translations of US news articles) and they all cover Santana's death. It seems that you're having trouble using Google News properly. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
If people aren’t able to find those articles for one reason or another, how come you can’t be kind enough to show them that the evidence is out there instead of just saying there’s evidence without showing them? I know Wikipedia is supposed to be a collective effort, so how about you actually show the articles so their more likely to agree with you. Otherwise, this will turn into a very unnecessary argument. JoeyRuss (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
If you can't use Google News, then I think you probably shouldn't be trying to determine the notability of these individuals. I don't care who agrees or not with me. The fact of the matter is that almost every day someone or some people or some events are removed from these kinds of articles because an individual user appears incapable of either searching Wikipedia or Google for reasons why to keep them included. I have no idea why we can't help people who add these entries rather than just summarily remove them. Do you know why that happens? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Google is not a reliable source. If you claim there were news articles about Fredo, you should provide them. Articles about him before his death would have more weight.
What are you talking about? Google News produces results from various news sources, a vast number of which are reliable. I have no compulsion or requirement to feed you with items you can easily find yourself, but it does seem you're not sure even how Google works in this regard? Your claim of Probably not known at all outside the US, and not very well known inside. can be trivially refuted by you yourself if you typed in "Fredo Santana" into Google and switched to the News view. But I'm done trying to explain such basic concepts. You could even look at the article itself to see sourcing on his death from both the US and the UK.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
If you can't use Google News, then I think you probably shouldn't be trying to determine the notability of these individuals. Let's not comment on the competency of other editors. The burden is on the person seeking to include material to prove that these sources exist. Saying "I've found them, why can't you?" does not do that. -- irn (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
It's a statement of fact. Perhaps change it to "if one can't use ... then one probably ..." if you prefer. I'm sick and tired of providing basic links to basic information because others can't, won't or don't. There's enough in the article to support this, bye for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sick and tired of providing basic links to basic information because others can't, won't or don't. I'm sorry to hear that that's frustrating for you. I take it as a normal part of working collaboratively, especially since WP:BURDEN is policy. -- irn (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Burden, of course, relates to article content. This is not an article content discussion. Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
By the way, here's a link to Google News. Simply type "Fredo Santana" into the "Search" bar, and you will be presented with innumerable stories relating to the death of Fredo Santana, some in reliable sources, some in unreliable sources. Google News can be used for finding news on other items too. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Naomi Parker

I find the death of Naomi Parker to be a considerable death to be put on this Wikipedia page, but twice it has been deleted, both by unknown users. The first time it was under a no-longer active rule, and the second one I do not know. I still believe Parker should be on the deaths section, but if anyone is willing to state their argument to why she should not be on the page, I am all ears. Thanks. Techno Tron15, 11:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Re-added. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Re-removed. If she was still alive, it would have been a WP:BLP violation. It might be acceptable with "likely" (or "reported") and a citation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Re-added, this was reported across the globe, as the article itself notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
She didn’t even have her own Wikipedia page till after her death. Plus, we can’t be certain she’s the true model of the We Can Do It propaganda poster. I’m not sure if she should be listed for the reasons I mentioned. JoeyRuss (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
So? And that's why we have "probable". Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Next. There's no reason to be so rude.
It's a problem because her only claim to notability isn't even certain. She has no real achievement of her own and was barely even notable when alive. I don't think she should be listed here, either. -- irn (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not a problem at all. Even the little-known New York Times saw fit to give her a blazing obit. As did the minuscule television outlet the "BBC". Some American periodical, called Time covered it a bit, as did its UK namesake, a rag called The Times. The pesky Daily Telegraph wrote of her passing, while the nearly mainstream USA Today also mentioned her substantially. The Spanish version of National Geographic covered her, as did WaPo (right?), and bienvenue to Paris Match who also joined in. That's just the first three pages of Google. Yet people here are determining that she's not notable enough for inclusion?? Once again, next. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
That's just the first three pages of Google. Yet people here are determining that she's not notable enough for inclusion?? Once again, next. Yes, that's correct. Because we are using a different metric than you. Since there are no guidelines to help us here, we have to accept that we have a difference of opinion on how to measure this. That's fine, and there's no reason to be rude about it. -- irn (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not being rude, I'm being direct. If you interpret it differently that's because you're using a different metric. If someone is notable enough to have obit coverage in such mainstream newspapers around the world, they belong here. That's pretty straightforward, whichever "metric" you use. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
There's literally nothing direct about sarcasm. And concluding your post with "Next." isn't direct, either; indeed, it's entirely superfluous. You're literally adding an extra word to your comment just to be dismissive. That's disrespectful, and it shows no desire to collaborate.
I agree that your argument is straightforward; I just disagree with your argument. -- irn (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
You aren't even proposing any kind of counter-argument beyond "I don't like it", which holds no water anywhere on Wikipedia, as I'm sure you already know. If your metric is "I don't like it" and mine is "vast coverage in numerous reliable sources from around the globe", I'm sure I know which one holds more encyclopedic weight. If you want to demonstrate a lack of collaboration, you need look no further than those editors who summarily remove items from these pages using just edit summaries to sometimes explain their logic. That's about as far from collaboration as is possible. Start with those editors, and then move onto those of us who are actively seeking to add to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, my argument is her only claim to notability isn't even certain. She has no real achievement of her own and was barely even notable when alive. -- irn (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, forgive me, but if The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, the BBC, The National Geographic, The Times, etc etc etc and other such luminary publications around the world have decided she was notable enough for an obit in each of their works, then I bow to their better judgement. Of course, "I don't like it" also applies. YMMV. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

tags

Policy suggests the tags should remain in place, or the entry should be removed, while the discussion is active. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Which WP:POLICY? Refs are now then establishing everything you ever needed to know by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

People in the deaths section don't require links, I'm not being rude, I'm just pointing out the fact that nobody else has links next to their name. That's why the links are unnecessary to me, Davey2010 Unknown artist (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You're right. The problem is that another editor tagged that statement with [disputed – discuss] and [importance?] because of the doubts regarding her importance (see the above discussion). Another editor removed those tags and placed all of those sources, believing that that would adequately address the concerns. It doesn't, but instead of entering into an edit war while there is an on-going discussion, the unnecessary references have been left in place. -- irn (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
You're wrong. WP:V applies across all articles, it's now being imposed across WP:DOY, so expect it to be mandated here in due course. Better be prepared!]' If importance needs to be demonstrated, nine references to articles about the individual published from around the world suffices. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude Because we can’t be certain that she is the real person of the iconic poster, she shouldn’t be included. There’s already at least one other claim to that same poster, and someone else could potentially claim that they or a family member did it. JoeyRuss (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Include because all reliable sources have covered this discrepancy, and she is noted as such here too. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a point, and now it seems to have started a petty argument, I might as well remove her if you are going to continue saying she should or shouldn't have those unnecessary links next to her name. P.S I'm with JoeyRuss. Unknown artist (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No, you might as well not remove her. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
What's wrong TRM, are you upset that I don't agree with your views, I'm really not in the mood for petty arguments. Unknown artist (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Then don’t start one. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Your the one who started it, end of story. Unknown artist (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Whatever you say. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed he entry since we clearly don't have anything approaching a consensus for inclusion. -- irn (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please wait for a consensus to remove a fully referenced and highly notable individual who received significant coverage in many newspapers of record around the world. It would actually be much better for you to stop acting like this per INVOLVED and allow a neutral reviewer to make a decision once sufficient time has elapsed to allow proper discussion. And I think you meant "the entry", not "he entry". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, consensus is needed for inclusion. Per BRD, the entry was boldly included and then reverted out. We've been discussing for five days, and there's clearly no consensus for inclusion. You've edit-warred it in twice now, but you don't have consensus on your side. -- irn (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I've done the right thing and started an RFC, unlike you who has edited disruptively and made a declaration of consensus in favour of your own position. See WP:COI. Now we'll just see what the community thinks rather than you, Rubin, me and a couple of others, in the last few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC

Closing this RFC. Consensus is that Naomi Parker Fraley should be included. Fish+Karate 12:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should Naomi Parker Fraley be removed from 2018's list of deaths? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Include as mentioned above, her passing received global coverage, her role in the iconic image received huge discussion and debate, reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Times, National Geographic, The Daily Telegraph etc covered her death with a dedicated obituary, this is certainly something that our readers are interested in reading about. Concerns over whether she was or was not the inspiration are covered in the "probable" declaration along with at least half a dozen reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude - The RFC is poorly formulated. The question isn't if she should be removed; it's if she should be included. Since we have no guidelines on this, it's really just a matter of opinion regarding what makes one notable enough to be listed on this page. Her only claim to notability isn't even certain. She has no real achievement of her own and was barely even notable when alive. That's not enough for me. -- irn (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    No, but it's enough for The New York Times, The National Geographic, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, etc etc. So forgive us for conceding to the reliable sources over your personal preference. And no, it's not poorly formulated, she was added, the contention is that she should be removed. We're debating if she should be removed. That's why the RFC is perfectly formed and as a result of the innumerable reliable sources covered her passing. Of course perhaps we shouldn't trouble ourselves with what our readers expect to see based on reliable sources like The New York Times and The Daily Telegraph who allocated many column inches to her obituaries. Perhaps we should just stick with an some unwritten ruleset on personal preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Why are you being so sarcastic? This is just a small content dispute. There's no need to be so dismissive of people who disagree with you. -- irn (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why pointing you (for the third time) to substantial global coverage in reliable sources would be considered "so sarcastic"? You have your own reasoning for why we should deprive our readers of this fascinating story and incredibly interesting individual whose death was reported in complete and flowing obituaries around the world, and I don't understand them for a moment, because all I want to do is to improve Wikpiedia for our readers. It's not about disagreeing with me, it's about disagreeing with the vast majority of the reliably sourced news universe. You have no tangible argument beyond that which makes it clear you don't want this individual featured. All the objective parameters clearly indicate she has been sensationally newsworthy and deserves inclusion. It's time you stopped diverting the main message here onto your continual disagreement with me. Her entry should stay, for all the good and reasonable arguments already made. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Pointing to the coverage isn't sarcastic. I suppose I should have been more explicit: phrases like forgive us for conceding to the reliable sources over your personal preference and Perhaps we should just stick with an some unwritten ruleset on personal preference. are sarcastic and dismissive. -- irn (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Have you provided any objective evidence to support her non-inclusion then? You don't want her to be included, but there's nothing objective supporting it. On the contrary, her death has had massive reliable source coverage from newspapers of record. Can you explain why we wouldn't include her here based on that reliably sourced third party coverage which has a clear interest to our readers? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The objective evidence is her lack of individual achievement during her lifetime and the uncertainty regarding her claim to notability. -- irn (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
You mean you have no evidence? I have objective evidence that her death was published around the globe. That her notability has been discussed in newspapers of record. But you don't want her to be included. We all get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
You have objective evidence of her notability. But this decision isn't about just notability; it's about what makes an individual worthy of inclusion in this particular list. Ultimately, it's a judgement call. Our judgements differ. -- irn (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This list is supposed to be a synopsis of the year, that this individual received global news items for about a week around her death should be enough. Of course, if that's not enough for you then that's fine, but it is completely contrary to the basic principle of Wikipedia and including items that are of interest to our readers. Your personal aversion to this inclusion is noted but should not stop Wikipedia from featuring something that is of genuine interest to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Include as per nom - International coverage by notable wp:reliable sources, Obvious Include. –Davey2010Talk 21:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude. Most of what is said about her, even in reliable sources, is discredited by other reliable sources. Even if, contrary to guidelines, we accept short obituaries as reliable sources, all that is generally accepted is that she was a naval machiner, not that she was the inspiration for the poster formerly known as "Rosie the Riveter". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    "Most of what is said about her, even in reliable sources, is discredited by other reliable sources." please stop making blanket statements without evidence. You need to provide some substantial evidence here to match your claim. You apparently cannot technically use your phone etc to paste links etc, but in that case you must stop making unfounded claims. Please provide evidence to support your claim, in particular "Most of what is said about her, even in reliable sources, is discredited by other reliable sources". I find that very hard to believe when she has been given obituaries in The New York Times, The Times, National Geographic, etc. It seems that this is another example of "I don't like it" because in each "exclude" case, there's not a shred of actual reliably sourced evidence, just opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude Counting the number of obits seems to be a rather naive and poorly thought of way to establish notability for inclusion. For one thing, the overall coverage is going to be highly dependent on the other news happening on the same day. As mentioned earlier in this discussion, newspapers have indeed dedicated space for obits and such, but they are going to fill those columns no matter what. If a person death happen to coincide with the death of a celebrity, or if a big unrelated event, well, tough luck. That person is not getting an obit in the newspaper and we are not including them in this article. But, if the death happens on a slow news day, then any random person with a vague claim to fame is going to get its own obit because the space is available. Overall notability should be the criteria for inclusion here, not random external events to the subject's death. --McSly (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
    No, sorry McSly, but that's completely wrong. Works like The New York Times make assessments on notable individuals and prepare their obits well in advance of their death so they can be quick to post. A complete and rounded obit published across the world in notable sources is a sure-fire indication of notability. The publication and coverage of this individual's death had nothing to do with "slow news" or "random external events" (what are those in this context?) In this case, there were literally hundreds of news reports of her death which didn't include "vague" claims to fame, moreover they included substantiated claims to correlate her with the poster in question. I don't understand the remainder of your post, but I think it's clear hers is one of the "deaths of the year" per news coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
You’re constantly telling people that they’re wrong just because they don’t agree with you is completely unnecessary. Saying something once is fine cause you’re expressing your opinion. Constantly attacking people to prove your point makes people more inclined to disagree with you. JoeyRuss (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I've never said someone is wrong because they don't agree with me, please provide diff(s) that support your fallacious claim or else redact it immediately. Who have I "attacked"? Please provide diff(s) that support your fallacious claim or else redact it immediately. It appears to me that your position is founded on simply attempting to undermine my objective and principle-based arguments by accusing me of attacking people without any kind of evidence of said "attacks". I suggest you stop doing this, disruption of this nature normally results in indefinite blocks or bans from the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I've pointed out on numerous occasions on this very page where you've been sarcastic, rude, and dismissive. Obviously, that behavior doesn't constitute personal attacks, but for someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies to describe that as attacking those who disagree with you isn't unreasonable. And JoeyRuss is new. Demanding diffs or an immediate redaction because a newbie characterized your lack of civility as "attacks" is bullying. -- irn (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
That's actually funny coming from someone who repeats BURDEN. WP:NPA is a policy, and applies to all users, even apparently new ones. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
CIVIL is also policy. And, of course, there's the obvious relevant guideline. -- irn (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's all very fascinating, but I don't tolerate NPA from newbies or admins or Arbs. If you don't like that, tough. Anyway, this is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, so please continue this at your own talk page if you wish to indulge in a few more KB of chat, I'm no longer interested in this. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, why so much sarcasm? (To be explicit, I'm referring to Yes, that's all very fascinating.) I agree that this isn't relevant to the discussion, and I would have taken it to your talk page long ago. However, you know well that you've banned me from your talk page, so directing me to take this conversation elsewhere is rather disingenuous. -- irn (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, why so much discussion about something that doesn't relate to the matter at hand? It is all very fascinating, but I'm not interested in it. Take it to your talk page (that's what I said, check it out), but let's no longer bother the community with this ongoing turgid and unproductive diatribe. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Because civility matters. Incivility creates a hostile editing environment that's not conducive to collaboration. I'm not okay with that. -- irn (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Then I'm sure you'll talk to the "new user" and advise them that personal attacks are not acceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The issue for me isn’t making the page just having extremely notable individuals on the page, as I am all up for reading about more interesting individuals who aren’t that famous. My issue with her is that we can’t be certain that she is the real person of the iconic poster. I respect your opinion of course, but I just wanted to clear up that my reason for being against her isn’t because she isn’t super famous. JoeyRuss (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for asking a noobish question, but what does summon by bot mean? JoeyRuss (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
JoeyRuss, if you put yourself on a list as being willing to answer RfC questions (which many editors do), a bot (automated process), randomly summons editors to the RfC. It's a way of getting fresh opinions from editors experienced in the general topic area - but not involved in this specific article. So these editors(Summoned by bot) have been randomly summoned to this RfC. Pincrete (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Include I'm not going to pretend that she is madly notable in herself, nor that criteria for inclusion in a list of this kind can ever be wholly objective. However, the image with which she is associated (rightly or wrongly) IS iconic and represents a particular period. That association seems strong enough to me to include. In the last resort, her passing is trivially interesting. Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Include: The deaths section is meant to cover all deaths not just ones deemed by a few editors to be "notable". The "notability" requirement has already been filled by her having a Wikipedia article. --Deathawk (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Include - Summoned by bot. She is notable enough to include, especially since her death was covered in numerous reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 17:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably won’t change anybody’s opinion, but do we really need all those links by her? Because of so many links, things related to the 2018 articles are focused on things related to Rosie the Riveter, and that shouldn’t be the case. JoeyRuss (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Include (Summoned by bot) The BBC coverage is pretty much definitive; when you find other regional sources like the NYT and WP, i think that we can assume this is an obvious case. Happy days, LindsayHello 10:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we're done here, yet another timesink but at least we have a very clear consensus for inclusion which can no longer be disputed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Consensus does indeed seem clear at the moment, but not so absolute or drawn from such a large number of !votes that I would say it is advisable to close the RfC nearly two weeks earlier than the standard default of a month--especially if you want the issue "undisputedly" resolved. Snow let's rap 07:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
A month? I've seen many less clear cut RFCs closed sooner. This is obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Include. As a general matter, I don't believe that obituaries ought to be given as much weight as other sources when it comes to establishing notability; obituaries are written as a matter of course for a broad number of people, and the subjects of most would not meet even a generous application of our notability guidelines. That said, at some point a combination of obituaries can, through their collective detail, establish notability for GNG purposes. The question here is a little more nuanced, because we are talking about the notability of a death, rather than the underlying subject, and in specific relation to a given article which is not that subject's article. The project just does not have a guideline on point for that question. Honestly, lacking a policy to codify community consensus on the matter, I'm not sure it makes sense to bar the entry of any name onto year lists based on subjective criteria which add another layer of so-called notability, if said BLP already passed the bar of notability necessary to establish such an article. That said, I am satisfied that even if something extra is required of the sourcing for listing here, it has been established in this case via the aggregate weight/value of the sources covering the death in particular. Snow let's rap 07:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Include Sent here by bot. Include per Pincrete. The photo she is associated with is highly notable making her passing culturally significant.--DynaGirl (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This whole RFC is just bad, if the editors involved can't even respect each other's arguments then why do they expect others to come over here and respect theirs. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 22:58, 21 February 2018 (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.

Dave Barrett

Is being premier of British Columbia adequate? I'm not sure, in the absence of guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I don’t doubt he was notable enough in Canada. However, the main 2018 page is looking for people who are notable enough in many countries. For example, I supported the inclusion of Gord Downie because he wasn’t just a great band, but he also received coverage throughout the world, which is evident that he’s a significant individual. Here, Barret only received coverage in Canada, so I’m not convinced that he deserves a spot on here. Definitely deserves a spot in Canada 2018 though. JoeyRuss (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting

Is this really internationally notable? Unfortunately, high school shootings are not uncommon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • According to our article there have been over 100 in the last five years, so I'd say they're not notable unless there's something particularly unusual about them. THis one has a higher death toll than usual, it depends whether that makes it more notable or not, really. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I’m not sure if it’s that notable to get a mention on Wikipedia, as it’s not even the deadliest school shooting ever, so I’m leading towards no. I can be persuaded on this one however. JoeyRuss (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It was the deadliest American secondary school shooting.Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Death of Stephen Hawking as event

I'm not going to supply an adjective, as it might look as if I was assuming bad faith rather than concluding bad faith, but Stephen Hawking's death is clearly not a notable event. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  • My apologies SarekOfVulcan - My fault entirely I hadn't realised this was to list him under Events - I thought you both were !voting to exclude him from the entire page which is why I took an offense, I've since redacted the comment, Again my apologies, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Davey2010, just a clarification, please: do you still support including his deaths under events or no? — Yerpo Eh? 14:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry for the confusion yep I still support, –Davey2010Talk 15:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Louise Slaughter

I know the guidelines are not that clear but if we are not adding every body and only those of some international note then we shouldnt list unknown (outside of USA) American domestic politicians. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

March for Our Lives

A number of editors have added March for Our Lives as an event on various dates in March 2018. I don't think it belongs here, for at least two reasons, both sufficient for exclusion:

  1. It's a domestic (US) march about a domestic issue (gun control) which has no international significance, and few parallels in other countries. Most other countries either ban guns (with few exceptions) or have mandatory firearm training and ownership (Switzerland and Israel).
  2. We don't know if it's actually going to happen. Many organizations plan protest marches, sit-ins, etc., but few actually occur.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Include it's obvious that a huge march against the mentally retarded gun laws in America is going to be a wholesale inclusion here, a claim that US gun law has "no international significance" is borderline absurd since we have to go through the "loads of kids have been shot" paradigm time after time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    P.S. If you're worried about "we don't know if it's actually going to happen", then just wait. I imagine it will happen, in spades, yet the rest of the United States and the NRA will summarily ignore it and the children being slaughtered every single day. Perhaps just give them some guns to shoot each other? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    It is also more than a domestic issue due to many guns making their way across the border into Mexico where they also inflict much suffering. So to call gun control a purely domestic affair seems rather absurd. 91.49.67.228 (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
    That would require a citation if it were to be in a Wikipedia article. I think you'll find that most guns in Mexico belong to either the government or criminal organizations, which would not be significantly affected by US gun control laws. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Even the Feds are helping move guns to Mexico!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, and that article you were looking for? Try Smuggling of firearms into Mexico. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    I thought that was a fairly uncontroversial statement actually. I assumed that it was common knowledge and common sense that guns made it across the border in large quantities. But thank you The Rambling Man for providing the references here. 91.49.65.161 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Oh and "I think you'll find that most guns in Mexico belong to either the government or criminal organizations"... Where do you think those criminal organizations get part of their stock from? The US with its vast quantities of guns perhaps? Those guns are not brought across the border so Jose the binman can boast he has a pistol or whatever. They are brought across to be used in criminal activities. Some references here. And how would those organizations not be affected? Less guns = less guns making their way across the border. Stricter gun control in the US would obviously not stop violence in Mexico, but it would mean less easy availibility of even more of guns to be used for crriminal activities. So again, to claim gun control is a purely domestic affair with no consequences internationaly is absurd. 91.49.65.161 (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    After reading your edit summary Arthur, it seems your "comment about Mexico is not consistent with facts". Hopefully the references provided will show how misguided your notion in regards to that is. 91.49.65.161 (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Final note, it does affect more than Mexico as well, "98% of crime guns in Canada originate in the U.S." and "from 2014 to 2016, more than 50,000 guns originally purchased in the U.S. were recovered in criminal investigations in 15 North American, Central American and Caribbean nations." (from same article). And the latter is of course only the tip of the iceberg with guns recovered, not the total number of US guns on the streets in those nations. So... certainly US gun control, or rather lack thereof, is affecting an entire continent. 91.49.65.161 (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Any comment about gun control affecting an entire continent and not solely being a domestic issue Arthur? 91.49.69.67 (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    Probably relevant to Canada, as it appears that most of the guns in Canada are carried by Americans, and most of those were legal in America. Would only be relevant to Mexico if, not only many of the guns in Mexico came from the United States, but many of them were obtained by means that would have been stopped by gun control laws. Criminal syndicates that bring illegal firearms to Mexico wouldn't be significantly deterred by illegality in the US. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    This is weird, the point, I think, is that because firearms are so readily available in the United States, it's trivial to buy them legally there and then transport them over the border. Therefore of course it would be more difficult to bring firearms to Mexico from the United States if gun control laws actually worked. I think you've completely missed the point, and by the looks of it, haven't even bothered reading the articles linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    Wow Arthur, i am speechless. THAT is what you got from all those articles linked above? At least you did not use another Trumpism and call the points raised fake news, or "not consistent with facts" to use your own words, just because they do not fit in with your personal narrative. I am still shocked by the attitude. 91.49.95.30 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • IMO, the best way to cover this would be as some sort of take-off or sub-point of the Douglas school shooting, which provoked these marches. pbp 18:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    That makes sense: whether or not the march actually happens, it's a valid subpoint. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    No, this is a general outcry against retarded legislation, it isn't all about one shooting. It's about frankly ridiculous proliferation of arms (which as we've seen above, leaks handily into neighbouring countries with near impunity) which is killing hundreds if not thousands of children every year. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Include I usually do not take a vote but will in this case. As long as the 'events' are somewhat attended, which seems likely, mark me down as include. By the way, it appears there even are marches planned in quite a few other countries like Canada, Germany, the UK etc. It seems large parts of the world are tired of the US not getting its act together and letting its children get killed on weekly basis. I most certainly am tired of it despite never having lived in the US, am a citizen though(not that that should even matter). Otherwise it clearly is more than a domestic issue with US guns killing thousands of people in nearby countries as shown above. School shootings within the US happe on average 1.5 times per week this year... 91.49.73.244 (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
And it appears that hundreds of thousands of people took part according to the bbc. So that is a definite include for me. Arthur raised two valid points, but 1) it is more than a domestic issue and 2) it did happen and was well attended. Are you still opposed Arthur? If you are, would you be so kind as to say why? 91.49.78.155 (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
No complaints, now. Two marches in foreign countries. Even if it is a local issue, it was an international event. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Putin's "reelection"

Why is the result of a fake election news? We all knew the outcome in advance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Include head of a nuclear superpower, re-elected regardless of anyone's personal opinion of the fakeness or otherwise. I begin to wonder what people think this encyclopedia is all about, this isn't a social media experiment, we're here to report facts, and then allow our readers to learn more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Include – Must we go through this tiresome "review" process yet again? Please, just leave these entries alone and let people form a summary of the year's events, which this entry adds to. Whether it's a "fake" election or not is irrelevant. One of the world's most powerful leaders has been re-elected and it's clearly notable, with international news coverage across a multitude of media outlets. Wjfox2005 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. That it's a fake election is certainly more notable (and more reported) than the percentages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Include. I don't accept an unadorned claim of "fake news" as a valid argument, either on this site or elsewhere. If there's some kind of legitimate international body that publicly questions the validity or fairness of the election, we can include that too. But the event is clearly noteworthy. agtx 23:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment are we done here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, we shouldn't be. If I can find reliable news sources that state Putin tampered with the election, should the information be included? There are some international election monitoring boards, but I'm sure all of them would have come to the conclusion that they would have been killed if they had found any evidence of tampering, so they wouldn't bother. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid this is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. It should be included, full stop. If your opposition is posited on the concept of finding an RS to state that the election was tampered with, feel free to go and find one. In the meantime, the article should be included, obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
        • The source used stated that the result was expected. Any rational person would expect that to be in the event description. What more do you want? I'm not saying, necessarily, that we can prove that Putin tampered with the election, but we can assert that the result was expected, and any rational person would consider that more notable and significant than the approximate percentage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
          • What more do I want?? Are you joking? I'm the one that's content with the status quo that Putin's win is listed amongst the 2018 major world events. You're the one making the fuss about whether it was rigged or not. It is not the place of Wikipedia to make editorial commentary on whether a result was expected or not, especially in these annual synopses, leave the analysis to the articles and the reliable sources. Now then, this has wasted more than enough time, you're completely on your own again here, so I'm not wasting another moment on this topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Mitzi Shore

She is considered the godmother of American comedy, so I would argue that she is quite influential to the careers of many people, so I think she should be included. JoeyRuss (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Akaka

Akaka's highest position was a US Senator, so I don't really see how he was internationally notable, and I highly doubt a similar individual in another nation (even China or India) would be included. Unless there is evidence of his notability beyond being a Congressman I think he should be excluded. EternalNomad (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 IS NOT THE FINAL YEAR.

Some wacko thinks that the world end on June 24th of this year. I think that is hogwash and not true.

  1. NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY JUNE 24, 2018.
  2. There is no way God would end the world so early.
  3. Those are just rumors.
  4. Jesus is going to come down to change the world, not destroy it. If the world would really end, Jesus wouldn’t go all out peaceful on it. C’mon.
  5. Why would Jesus use 666 to count up the months until the world ends? That’s wicked.?--Nemoleeexe (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

So yeah, you can rest easily. --Nemoleeexe (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

There have been claims the world would end in almost every year in the 21st and 20th century, and possibly earlier. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Yet we all are pretty much alive. And it will stay that way for almost 8000 years.--Nemoleeexe (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, to add on, I found out the passage of the Bible, and it was talking about a beast, not God himself. Why would he use that algorithm? Really sketchy...--Nemoleeexe (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


We don't know that yet. Some wacko may accidentally start nuclear war or we might get hit by a big asteroid coming from behind us. We don't know that for certain. Unlikely, yes, but not impossible. JoeyRuss (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't possible, then the world would just stay in the universe forever.--Nemoleeexe (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to take serious any claim that the world will end on a specific date based on Biblical math calculations, and any such claim added to this page or any other year should be treated just like other vandalism. Elassint Hi 02:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to remove them as Wikipedia:Fringe theories, not vandalism. "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose... the sum of all human knowledge." (Wikipedia:Vandalism) We may question the true believer's sanity, but his intent is to warn us that the rest of the page doesn't matter at all. Art LaPella (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

YouTube headquarters shooting

As time goes by, it's becoming less and less important. Not a terrorist event, 2-5 deaths. A woman complained that her YouTube channel was censored.

Probably got a lot of coverage on YouTube. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Vittorio Taviani

As long as we've had these articles, it was a requirement of the selection process at WP:YEARS that, for births and deaths, there be a Wikipedia article about the individual person. If you want to seek consensus to override that, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

And it’s still as annoying as before. Perhaps an interaction block may do you both some good. Rusted AutoParts 05:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe refraining from making unfounded accusations would be a good start. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Not unfounded at all I’ve seen you and Rubin trading barbs for well over two years now. It’s pathetic and incredibly apparent you two don’t get along and thus should have zero interaction. Rusted AutoParts 19:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to your "accusations", clearly. Rubin was desysoped for unfounded accusations, and he continues to indulge in them. What's "pathetic" is when numerous questions are asked and yet receive no response. Also, I don't think your contribution here is at all helpful, perhaps try to focus on the issue at hand, that of the unfounded accusations time and again. I'm more than content to continue to protect Wikipedia's integrity from such things. Are you? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I could indicate the same for you by asking you to stay on point and not keep making it about Rubin not grasping the guidelines in your opinion. If the sites integrity is important to you surely you’d be willing to drop the Rubin stick? Just my two cents. Rusted AutoParts 19:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no Rubin stick, I have a 5P stick which means I have a clue and that I will not allow individuals like Rubin or anyone else to ride roughshod over guidelines and policies. His abject refusal to answer the hard questions saw him desysoped, now he's doing exactly the same thing again. It's not "in my opinion", it's objectively factually accurate. I stay on point always until Rubin makes a false assertion and then moves on to some other debate. If you have any evidence to counter that, please bring it to me. If not, then I'd suggest your input here is of limited value. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe refraining from insinuating my input is “of limited value” is a good start cause it’s pretty rude. You’re getting off the discussions point btw. Thought you didn’t do that. Rusted AutoParts 02:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't insinuate it, I stated it as fact. Your input is not helpful to the progression of this discussion. You were the one diverting the actual debate over the actual content of the actual encyclopedia. I note you also failed to provide any evidence. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Include We've posted people with a joint article at ITN before, and that has (or should have) a higher bar for inclusion than this page. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    Irrelevant. ITN doesn't have detailed standards, either, and its standards are independent of those for this page. ITN's standards are that the subject has significant news coverage; the standard for this page is supposed to be international importance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Carl Kassel

If his retirement gets a recorded message from the sitting President, I would think that indicates a strong degree of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There, International notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
More international coverage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

He only seems notable in the USA. Unknown artist (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Which is why he got an obit in the UK. Silly me, thinking that was international... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Cornelius Jakobs

Goodnight. I would like to be able to receive help before some debate that I have. Today, April 19, 2018, Cornelius Jakobs, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church in Estonia, has passed away. I have proposed to include him in the list of deceased, but certain do not consider it. To my mind, although it does not have a great international recognition (we already know that in this list there are cases accepted by the relevance in the countries themselves), it does, because it is the most important religious figure in the country, the same so is Cyril in Russia. Thank you very much and greetings. -User talk:Alsoriano97 23:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Larry Harvey

I have seen plenty of coverage from many news sites around the world, yet people are calling him not notable. I think there’s enough coverage to support his inclusion. JoeyRuss (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

GP Bullhound and cryptocurrency

When GP Bullhound talks, why should we listen? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

See EF Hutton commercials.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2018 // Satujamedit

2018: July 4 Death: Ronnie "Oni" Edwards, YouTuber/Video editor. Suicide.

Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWTEE4SkCLY

Terima kasih. Satujamedit (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done, the person is not important enough to be listed. — Yerpo Eh? 08:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2018

add Rosa Bouligone death 79.72.90.8 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Saucy[talk – contribs] 21:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018/Archive_1&oldid=1136475243"