DementiaGaming (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
DementiaGaming (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
||
Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
Should images collages be removed from articles about years (e.g. [[2005]])? [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 17:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
Should images collages be removed from articles about years (e.g. [[2005]])? [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 17:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
:@[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]],@[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]],@[[User:Austria Football 02|Austria Football 02]],@[[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]],@[[User:Chipmunkdavis|Chipmunkdavis]],@[[User:Deb|Deb]],@[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]],@[[User:GSK|GSK]],@[[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]],@[[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]],@[[User:Isaidnoway|Isaidnoway]],@[[User:JPxG|JPxG]],@[[User:Jay|Jay]],@[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]],@[[User:Koopinator|Koopinator]],@[[User:Loriendrew|Loriendrew]],@[[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]],@[[User:McSly|McSly]],@[[User:Nagae Iku|Nagae Iku]],@[[User:Some1|Some1]],@[[User:Ryanisgreat4444|Ryanisgreat4444]],@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]],@[[User:Thinker78|Thinker78]],@[[User:Yeoutie|Yeoutie]],@[[User:Voorts|Voorts]],@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]] |
|||
:Let it be known that I am permanently leaving this RfC due to the impacts it has had on my mental health and reputation. That’s the reason I’ve been acting terrible, and I’m sorry. |
|||
:I have opened a new RfC on the decades and hope they will be removed. [[User:DementiaGaming|DementiaGaming]] ([[User talk:DementiaGaming|talk]]) 22:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images]], [[Wikipedia talk:Image use policy]], [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard]], [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified --> |
{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images]], [[Wikipedia talk:Image use policy]], [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard]], [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified --> |
||
* '''Remove'''. These image collages are the result of several editors ranking what they consider to be the eight most "important" events of each year, doing so in a way that reeks of [[WP:OR|original research]] and [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]-violation. In addition, these collages are bloated and unsightly, using a lot of space to display small images and cluttered captions. It's common for broad topic articles to forgo a lead image because the topic cannot be adequately depicted in a single visual: that should be applied here as well. It makes much more sense to add images inline based on subtopics and spacial considerations, like we do with most other articles. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 17:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
* '''Remove'''. These image collages are the result of several editors ranking what they consider to be the eight most "important" events of each year, doing so in a way that reeks of [[WP:OR|original research]] and [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]]-violation. In addition, these collages are bloated and unsightly, using a lot of space to display small images and cluttered captions. It's common for broad topic articles to forgo a lead image because the topic cannot be adequately depicted in a single visual: that should be applied here as well. It makes much more sense to add images inline based on subtopics and spacial considerations, like we do with most other articles. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 17:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:00, 25 December 2023
Years Project‑class | |||||||
|
Collage Discussions
2006's collage
I think that Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 could be replaced with the 2006 Lebanon War because the latter event is more international in scope and resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians and hundreds of military personnel on both sides, whereas the former only caused 154 deaths and is more localized. Additionally, the entry for the Lebanon War is over 300,000 bytes in length. Nagae Iku (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- We could do this as a final wrap-up for editing the original collages made by the original collage team. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you edit it, i think twitter should be replaced as it wasn't a major event of the year. And I think the Wii should be on the collage. And i don't understand why is Saddam Hussein on the 2005 collage. Gennicyro4 (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Lead image
Should we depreciate the use of year collage in the lead section, unlike this current year (e.g. 2023), and past years until 1947. MirrorPlanet (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. I've removed the RFC tag for now, given that there has seemingly been no WP:RFCBEFORE on this topic. This current section is blank, except for the intial question. Carter00000 (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think deprecation is necessary, any more than we need to deprecate any other flawed form of image layout. It's a few WP:SPAs that exist just to try to force these collages into the article. If they try to edit war the collages back in, then they can be reported at the appropriate noticeboard. Editors need to be reminded that images should be placed throughout the article based on spatial considerations, just like in any other article. The main obstacle is the overly long sidebar, but there seems to be no interest in a discussion about changing it, as seen above, so I might just rework it myself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I removed some of photo collages from 1948, and 1950–1959, due to a lack of notable events. MirrorPlanet (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- At least don't remove all the collages past 1980. They are good collages and don't deserve to be removed. DementiaGaming (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just like they did in 2001 and 2002, some collages were removed due to lack of consensuses. MirrorPlanet (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- This thread has not been active for 10 days. As far as I understand, the proposal was to deprecate the use of lead collages altogether. I strongly oppose this. Individual collages made of years after i.e. 1900 may be deleted for a while like with 2001 and 2002 or 1950–1959 until a consensus is reached, but scraping them entirety, absolutely not. Marginataen (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Marginataen, if you want the year articles to have collages, then you need to convince the entire community. Right now, there are several editors challenging whether they should exist at all. The onus is on you to prove that the community wants them. Otherwise anyone can remove them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, at this point, I think they should be removed too. Ever since their creation in September of last year, there have been many conflicts on what to include. 1988, 2022, 1997 and other year's images were edited with absolutely zero consensus. 2012 was edited with the consensus of only the people who were editing them, and there are other discussions like 2021 and 2006 about how an image should be replaced. If only people let them be what they were originally, then they would not have to be removed. DementiaGaming (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- The consensus has already been proven by the fact that every single article between 2022 and 1960 with the exceptions of 2001 and 2002 have a collage. On many of those pages, the collage was heavily discussed and improved upon by Wikipedians. Never did a consensus to remove them emerge. The same is the case of 2001 and 2002 where the initial collages were removed due to ongoing discussions on what to include, not opposition to collages in general. @Thebiguglyalien, @User:Deb @DementiaGaming have on the 2001 stated their criticism of collages but have by no means achieved consensus. They're the minority. It's by all means them who have the burden of proof after +50 articles where the community have approved of them.
- Again, as laid out in my thread "New multiple image format" below, I find a great deal of the issues with collages to have been caused by the fact that they were created not using the multiple image template. This has led to the need to replace a whole collage just to replace one image. The selution to imaged edited with "zero consensus" is to add an invisible comment. telling people that any edit without prior talk page consensus will be immediately reverted. Marginataen (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's not how this works. WP:ONUS says
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content
. These have been disputed by many editors since long before you started editing them. The fact that people keep inappropriately adding them does not mean there's consensus or that the community has approved of them, it means they need to stop and get consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)- Just to get things straight, this is a discussion about abolishing collages in general and not about any single collage? Marginataen (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- By posting this, you have violated two of Wikipedia's rules: personally attacking us by basically telling us our opinion in 2001 does not matter in bold, and borderline guilty of WP:CANVASSING by inviting Deb into this argument to influence the outcome of it. I would prefer not to post this, but if these arguments are causing this much conflict, we have little option besides deleting them, which I do not support myself DementiaGaming (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Telling you that you held the burden of proof is not saying that your "opinion in 2001 does not matter". I could have written it a bit more diplomatically, sorry for that. On the 2001 article, Deb argued in favour of the collages' removal which I'm against. That was not at all to "influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Marginataen (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's not how this works. WP:ONUS says
- Another reason they should be removed is that people mostly try to keep them only because they look nice, but as you look under the surface, they're unnecessary and are presented with major flaws and POV problems. That's why we are challenging them, you can't just keep them because they look good. DementiaGaming (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, but regarding the "zero consensus" point, your collages of 1969, 1967, 1961, and 1960 are also absolute zero consensus, although I think the events you chose are good. Nagae Iku (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I added those before I realized that these collages are unnecessary. I could remove them if you would like. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Now seven people have agreed to remove the collages. We were never the “minority”. It’s getting old, people editing these with little to no consensus, like 1989, 2012, 1997, etc DementiaGaming (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, at this point, I think they should be removed too. Ever since their creation in September of last year, there have been many conflicts on what to include. 1988, 2022, 1997 and other year's images were edited with absolutely zero consensus. 2012 was edited with the consensus of only the people who were editing them, and there are other discussions like 2021 and 2006 about how an image should be replaced. If only people let them be what they were originally, then they would not have to be removed. DementiaGaming (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Marginataen, if you want the year articles to have collages, then you need to convince the entire community. Right now, there are several editors challenging whether they should exist at all. The onus is on you to prove that the community wants them. Otherwise anyone can remove them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- This thread has not been active for 10 days. As far as I understand, the proposal was to deprecate the use of lead collages altogether. I strongly oppose this. Individual collages made of years after i.e. 1900 may be deleted for a while like with 2001 and 2002 or 1950–1959 until a consensus is reached, but scraping them entirety, absolutely not. Marginataen (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just like they did in 2001 and 2002, some collages were removed due to lack of consensuses. MirrorPlanet (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- At least don't remove all the collages past 1980. They are good collages and don't deserve to be removed. DementiaGaming (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I removed some of photo collages from 1948, and 1950–1959, due to a lack of notable events. MirrorPlanet (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
My first choice would be delete all the collages from the Year pages. If that doesn't occur? then keep them at a standard (px) size, so they don't take up too much room at the top of the pages. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Propose to remove all collages from all WP:YEARS pages for the time being, given the apparent lack of consensus for their inclusion shown in this conversation. The collages can be added back to the pages if the discussion closes as there being consensus to include the collages. Carter00000 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should add this guideline to WP:WikiProject Years/Style guide. MirrorPlanet 🪞🪐 03:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand which guideline MirrorPlanet is referring to when writing "I think we should add this guideline to [the style guide]. However, I think it's a fabulous idea to formalise collages and the procedure for them. I don't think the problem has been the collages themselves rather than the fact that they were introduced without any policy behind them. Also they should all be changed to multiple image format. Also, it seems extreme to remove all collages when, to my understanding, there's not been controversy on the vast majority of articles. The disputed ones are as far as I know 1948, 1950–1959, 2001, 2002 and 2012. These are getting solved. I myself am currently working on the 2001 collage. Marginataen (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. DementiaGaming (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I also support their removal. Nagae Iku and Marginataen, you need to stop opening up all of these discussions about collages until you can show that this is something most people want. Several editors have voiced their opinion against the collages. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I should also support the removal of collages in decade, century and millennium articles. For example, the recent decade, century and millennium articles does not have one in the lead section, including 2030s, 21st century and 3rd millennium. MirrorPlanet 🪞🪐 10:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- MirrorPlanet: Of course thoese don't have collages as they haven't ended. The 2030s haven't even begun. That's completely uncomparable to articles about years and centuries in the past. Marginataen (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien: How would you like the support to be measured? Some sort of vote? :) Marginataen (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, but if it comes to it, an RfC could be opened to get additional input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I believe an RFC is inevitable, concerning whether or not to keep collages in Year pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't believe that there is anything intrinsic in collages that makes them subject to controversy. The fact of the matter is that one guy single-handedly made and added +60 collages in the timespan of less than a year as far as I understand. When they are just made by one editor, others will naturally have other opinions. If collages are to be kept, each year from now one, they'll insted be made in a much more gradual and natural process with inputs from many different editors insted of just one. This is not a criticism of the individual in question. No one would be able to make +60 collags without other people having different ideas. I do belive he should not have made a post on the talk page first and then (if not objected to) waited a week before adding them, but with that said, he is not the problem. The struggle of having to make a completely new collage for every change as they we not created using the multiple image template is also a factor as I have pointed out. Right now, we are basically suffering from over 60 years of collage discussions all at once. I see this as a temporary problem.
- To Thebiguglyalien: Look at all the talk pages where people have commented on which images to include ect. By taking part in the talk page discussion is indirectly saying that they agree to the concept of collages. If they disagreed, they would say come with image suggestion. Marginataen (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- GoodDay, if it's going to happen, we may as well get it over with. Would this be an RfC for deprecation? Or would it use softer wording like "is there consensus to add image collages to articles about years"? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- I believe an RFC is inevitable, concerning whether or not to keep collages in Year pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, but if it comes to it, an RfC could be opened to get additional input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I should also support the removal of collages in decade, century and millennium articles. For example, the recent decade, century and millennium articles does not have one in the lead section, including 2030s, 21st century and 3rd millennium. MirrorPlanet 🪞🪐 10:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think, for now, we remove all collages with ongoing discussions until 7 November at 12:00 UTC. It would be the best way to get people's attention on them. DementiaGaming (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should add this guideline to WP:WikiProject Years/Style guide. MirrorPlanet 🪞🪐 03:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
New format
The collages for 2022 and 2023 are under a new format that has not had the proper consensus to be on the lead yet. In my opinion, we should learn from this edit and try a style akin to the collage on the Wikipedia page for animal, where there are many images on it, and you can click on one that will lead you to the Wikipedia page for it. For example, if there is an image for a beaver on the collage, it will lead you to the page for beavers. We should try this style on year collages. DementiaGaming (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think that would work. Take the image of the coronation of Charles III and Camilla. What would that photo link to? (Charles III, Queen Camilla, coronation of Charles III and Camilla). It creates too much speace for ambiguity IMO. Marginataen (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- I support this method, but it has actually been used before. The collages made by @The Ganymedian all had click coordinates, but the stretching and distortion of his collages were too severe. Later ,@The0Quester deleted all the click coordinates of the collages after fixing them, because changing the size and format of the collages required rewriting a set of click coordinates, and the original set would be obsolete. However, this is too difficult for me to write. Nagae Iku (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- "because changing the size and format of the collages required rewriting a set of click coordinates, and the original set would be obsolete". Even though I'm inclined to oppose the proposal, I think, without knowing the technical details, that reimplementing this would be made easier with my "New multiple image format" proposal. Is that right? Marginataen (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
1964
There is a discussion regarding the 1964 collage here. DementiaGaming (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
2012
It's a little late to say this, but I really don't like that the only consensus on the changing of the 2012 collage were the people who edited it, which is only 2 people. Any thoughts? DementiaGaming (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not too late at all. The existence of collages should be debated, as should their content, in every case. Such discussions should be notified to this project. Deb (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Firstly, both 4me689 and I have not been active on the collage thread for a while. Secondly, I apologize for including the collage without reaching a consensus of more than three people. Additionally, could you please point out the flaws you see in the 4.0 version of the collage?
- Let me explain my viewpoint:
- The 2012 phenomenon is essentially a baseless claim that did not lead to the end of the world, and @Jim Michael 2 also opposed this event.
- The Sandy Hook shooting was indeed a tragic massacre of children, but it seems too localization.
- The Costa Concordia disaster did have a significant international impact, but only in Europe and North America, and it only resulted in 33 deaths. I think it is very Western-centric because the East Asian world has hardly heard of this event. Nagae Iku (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. You always change everything for nothing.The 2012 phenomenon was one of the most important and memorable events of that year despite the fact that it was false and that it did not happen for real. the objective of the collages initially was first to describe in 8 images the important events of a year even if it concerns popular culture. Gennicyro4 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am sorry for the events that were replaced, but the collage only has 8 grid, and in order to include new and more important events, sacrifices have to be made. Alternatively, we could implement a plan that I have been proposing for a long time: expanding the collage to 16 grid. I believe that this would truly encompass the entire year's history, and we should ensure that at least one event from each continent is included in these sixteen events. Nagae Iku (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- The following is a list of candidate events that I have collected.
- 1、2012 phenomenon
- 2、Higgs boson
- 3、Gangnam Style
- 4、Curiosity (rover)
- 5、2012 Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip
- 6、Costa Concordia disaster
- 7、2012 Romanian protests
- 8、Dana Air Flight 0992
- 9、Bhoja Air Flight 213
- 10、MV Rabaul Queen
- 11、Hurricane Sandy
- 12、Typhoon Bopha
- 13、2012 Summer Olympics
- 14、Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
- 15、Innocence of Muslims
- 16、2012 transit of Venus
- 17、Red Bull Stratos
- 18、Mali war Nagae Iku (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with a 16-grid plan, it would be like a repeat of the events list. Regarding the dispute, again we have reached the peak intensity law - one candidate to replace is the Mali War, which reached peak intensity in 2020, where it was mentioned in its collage. Sandy Hook is my choice to put back in. DementiaGaming (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. You always change everything for nothing.The 2012 phenomenon was one of the most important and memorable events of that year despite the fact that it was false and that it did not happen for real. the objective of the collages initially was first to describe in 8 images the important events of a year even if it concerns popular culture. Gennicyro4 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
New multiple image format
Every single time some dude finds an image of an event in a collage that might actually be better than the current one, he rans into the same problem. In order to just replace one image with a better one, he must make a whole new collage using some external program. Also, when the original collage was made, its creator often cropped the images from Commons without uploading the cropped version, meaning he must also manually crob other images when he just wants to replace one with another. With a multiple image format one would, after creating consensus for the change on the talk page, much less tediously be able to simply replace it without having to make a brand new collage. Also, the images a clickable and can thus be viewed in a higher resolution. I would like to discuss making multiple image the norm. Although I'm not sure, I don't think one can today use multiple image without having the white border inbetween. It may be nice to have the option to unselect that. As an example of the multiple image template for year articles, my tentative draft for the 2023 one can be seen below.--Marginataen (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- This version is my favorite version, except for "Finland joining NATO," which I think is not as important. Perhaps it should be replaced with 2023 Brazilian Congress attack, 2023 United States banking crisis, or 2023 Chinese balloon incident. Nagae Iku (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- This thread is not for discussion of this specific collage, but for my proposal to change all lead collages on articles about years to the multiple image format. Please leave your comment on the 2023 talk page. Marginataen (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Irrational. This is the talk page, where people are supposed to discuss ideas like this. If you want people to do what you want, remove it from here and put it on your talk page. DementiaGaming (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- This thread is not for discussion of this specific collage, but for my proposal to change all lead collages on articles about years to the multiple image format. Please leave your comment on the 2023 talk page. Marginataen (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Collage Suggestion
|
---|
|
2001 collage
There is an ongoing discussion on the 2001 talk page about that to includee in the collage. Come join :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
General comments
I used to be heavily in favor of collages, but in the end, I've since changed my position: Images should be in the article, and whether it's done through a collage or in-line images doesn't matter. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Me too. It would be sad to see them go. DementiaGaming (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
2000 collage
There is a new discussion in the 2000 talk page. I have removed the collage to get people's attention on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DementiaGaming (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- It may not be necessary now.
- But I still to share some thoughts on the collage from the year 2000. You wanted the Bush v. Gore to be included in the collage, but Deb thought it was too US-centric.
- My suggestions:
- Kenya Airways Flight 431 (which caused the deaths of 169 people from 33 different nationalities, making it sufficiently international)
- Kaprun disaster (the deadliest cable car disaster in history). Nagae Iku (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Media
I believe that although collages should be removed from Wikipedia pages, they should still be made and edited because it appears most people like them.
I propose we change multiple events on collages to adjust for extremely popular media. This includes (for films): changing the collages for 1939, 2009, 2019, 1965, and 1956. These years included the release of some of the highest-grossing films of all time, and they were all immensely popular on their release. At least Gone with the Wind and Avengers: Endgame should warrant their own place.
This also included other media such as TV shows, books and possibly even YouTube videos/social media posts. For example, it is hard to believe that the Notre-Dame fire was more of a popular event than the release of Endgame if you consider it. Please post your opinions below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DementiaGaming (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
RfC: Removal of image collages
There is consensus to remove image collages from year articles because selecting a group of particular images as representative of a given year is OR and violates NPOV. In response, editors argued that such collages are useful and that they illustrate important events in a given year—but there is consensus that that is precisely the kind of OR that should be avoided. I note that nothing in this discussion touched upon whether single images should or should not be included in articles based on years. To editorialize briefly: I think that one could find RSes that support inclusion of particular images in particular year articles. For example, I think there's no question that Earthrise was seen around the world in 1968 and that that image is highly representative of that particular year. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC) |
Should images collages be removed from articles about years (e.g. 2005)? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl,@Amakuru,@Austria Football 02,@Barnards.tar.gz,@Chipmunkdavis,@Deb,@Firefangledfeathers,@GSK,@HiLo48,@InvadingInvader,@Isaidnoway,@JPxG,@Jay,@Khajidha,@Koopinator,@Loriendrew,@Marginataen,@McSly,@Nagae Iku,@Some1,@Ryanisgreat4444,@Thebiguglyalien,@Thinker78,@Yeoutie,@Voorts,@WeatherWriter
- Let it be known that I am permanently leaving this RfC due to the impacts it has had on my mental health and reputation. That’s the reason I’ve been acting terrible, and I’m sorry.
- I have opened a new RfC on the decades and hope they will be removed. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Remove. These image collages are the result of several editors ranking what they consider to be the eight most "important" events of each year, doing so in a way that reeks of original research and NPOV-violation. In addition, these collages are bloated and unsightly, using a lot of space to display small images and cluttered captions. It's common for broad topic articles to forgo a lead image because the topic cannot be adequately depicted in a single visual: that should be applied here as well. It makes much more sense to add images inline based on subtopics and spacial considerations, like we do with most other articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Remove - They appear as decorative & have possibly become a source for image content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Remove. Too much drama for me. Decapitation to solve a dandruff can work sometimes, and this may not be just a dandruff but more so a tumor. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Remove. This is hopelessly original research. As already mentioned in a previous comment. we just a few random editors selecting what they think is important with complete disrespect for any WP policy. Looking at those discussions, I'm not seeing any attempt to ever bring any WP:RS to any of them to justify selection or ranking. Not of that is allowed. --McSly (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Remove I have seen so much bickering to select such a limited number of images. What is meaningful to some is irrelevant to others. You know what would be great.. a random collage where each pageview picks a random set of images from a dedicated pool, but then again, who fills the pool with what. Let us leave it blank, there is really no need for some events to be highlighted whilst others ignored. Drama and edit war prevention for sure, and it may turn some to help with content improvement.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Remove Collages add little to any article. They really don't work at all on smaller device screens, and even on larger screens, those of us who are of mature years and others with associated vision challenges get nothing from them. Achieving agreement on what to include is rarely a positive experience for most of the involved editors. (Do those discussions somehow attract a higher proportion of highly opinionated POV pushers than discussions about text comment?) Anything included in a collage is automatically implied to be of more importance to the world (in Wikipedia's opinion) than things not included. That's unhealthy because some "events" cannot sensibly be represented with a picture. Leave the pretty pictures to the articles about the respective events. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Remove - Coming from a person who has made collages himself, they present way too many POV problems. There is so much fighting, no consensus making, and there are many problems that come with it. I say we begin removing them. It will be sad to see them removed, but it is necessary. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Why not just remove them from contested pages? Marginataen (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Because no matter what, someone in the future will always oppose an event on the collage. They will always be contested. DementiaGaming (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- So, should we remove them today? It’s clear that the majority says to remove them, and it appears there is no rule in Wikipedia that says they should stay. If so, I volunteer to depreciate them, starting with 1962 onwards. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - I strongly oppose the deletion of collages. They provide the most intuitive visual impact and first impression of a particular year. In my opinion, the only problem with collages is that the 8-grid format is too limited to fully summarize a year's history. A 16-grid format can truly summarize a year and should ensure that each continent has at least one grid in the collage. Additionally, 3-2-3 format only focus on the two middle event grids, while a 16-grid collage would treat all 16 event grids equally. Attached is a sample of a 16-grid collage that I created. Nagae Iku (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is a nice 4x4 grid for a desktop monitor. On a mobile device (phone) it is a collage of 16 total images which is literally the size of my thumbnail.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Non sequitur - a 16-grid plan would be like a copy of the events list. Also, they go against multiple WPs, such as WP:RS, WP:NOCON (which you violated yourself), WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nagae Iku - I am looking at your sample collage on my standard sized laptop screen, WITH my reading glasses on, and I find it quite useless. The images blur into one another. They are far too small. It tells me absolutely nothing about that year. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is a great Idea - a 4x4 Collage-Format is much better than all the other Formats. Austria Football 02 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Remove. I cannot think of a way of agreeing these that is practical and objective. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Remove. I don't have anything of value to contribute to the discussion, but do agree with aforementioned reasons that the collages should be removed. GSK (talk • edits) 04:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Update: Per consensus, I have removed all collages from the year pages, as some of you have already noticed. People need to realize that, if only people left the collages as they were, they would not have to be removed, so it is, to a point, the people's fault. This has turned me against the keeping of collages, and this is why I removed them. Objections will be noted. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
People need to realize that, if only people left the collages as they were, they would not have to be removed, so it is, to a point, the people's fault
. What? Is this literally just WP:POINT? jp×g🗯️ 13:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)- Wikipedia:Collage tips#Other considerations DementiaGaming (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Remove per all of the above well reasoned arguments, and a nod to HiLo48's point about us folks with "associated vision challenges [that] get nothing from them". Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 02:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Keep — Collages are like an essential part of yearly articles. They help show the most significant events of that year. Heck, even some of the best and most searched articles on Wikipedia, like World War II, have an amazing collage. Removing collages from years just seems like it will actually harm article improvement for those yearly articles. And before someone comments, yes I know this is specifically about yearly articles, not articles like WW2. But I make my point just as well. Imagine removing the collage from the WW2 article. It would be absurd. That is how I feel about removing them from the yearly pages. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I find the collage on WWII to be absurd and feel it should be removed. An entire war cannot be encapsulated in a single image. And smushing a bunch of images together until none of them can be fully appreciated works even less. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Khajidha: The WW2 collage is not a single image. It is a multi-image collage, with each individual image being clickable. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- It still acts as a single image when looking at the page. The pictures would be better used individually at different point in the article, where they could be larger, more easily seen, relevant to the material of the section, and given better captions. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Khajidha: The WW2 collage is not a single image. It is a multi-image collage, with each individual image being clickable. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- I find the collage on WWII to be absurd and feel it should be removed. An entire war cannot be encapsulated in a single image. And smushing a bunch of images together until none of them can be fully appreciated works even less. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Remove - POV, OR, accessibility issues... --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Collages provide a good look about main events of a year. Removing them would make the Year-Articles soulless/boring looking Articles.
- Austria Football 02 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Remove - Most of these seem to be created by contributors who have little or no interest in any other aspect of the project. That's allowed, of course, but not when the content is biased to those contributors' personal views of what is and isn't significant. Deb (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep. The way it was done in the past was wrong. Look at the 2022 or 1924 articles as examples of how it should be. Marginataen (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)- Again you have violated a rule by stating your opinion twice in the same section in a talk page. Please delete this comment and merge it with your other one. DementiaGaming (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @DementiaGaming: I don't know why you are responding to every single "keep" comment on this page, but I would advise not doing that. jp×g🗯️ 13:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Again you have violated a rule by stating your opinion twice in the same section in a talk page. Please delete this comment and merge it with your other one. DementiaGaming (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. These are pretty important in my opinion. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- You can't just say that. Wikipedia's rules explicitly say that talk pages are not for your own personal opinion. You must give a reason. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oops! Silly me. I forgot to mention that I agree with everyone who wants to keep it. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Proposal
- You can't just say that. Wikipedia's rules explicitly say that talk pages are not for your own personal opinion. You must give a reason. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have removed the 2022 and 1969 collages and hope they will stay that way (they were the last collages on year pages). I propose an agreement that would be beneficial to both sides of this disagreement, under two terms:
- All collages will stay removed from WP pages forever, and under no circumstances will they be added back in.
- The collages will still be allowed to be developed by the editors who still want to make them and may be added to galleries (such as 4me689's), shared with other editors, etc. as long as they stay off official WP pages.
- DementiaGaming (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I just wanted to step out and say that the hate I've been getting from removing collages is pathetic. My user and talk pages has been vandalized many times because apparently I'm the bad guy. People have even vandalized pages to mock me. This is very frustrating to deal with. Stop, it's getting old. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment/Question: Several editors have expressed that the collage worsens the article. Here is a screenshot of 2022, with a collage, and I wanted to ask, more specifically those who think it worsens the article, on exactly how it worsens the article. This question is one I want answered and, reading other "Keep" comments, one I figure several others would like answered as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Visually, I find these image collages remind me of a rubik's cube, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Might not be the best analogy, since a Rubik's Cube is one of the best-selling toys in history...That might be a reason to keep it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Visually, I find these image collages remind me of a rubik's cube, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Because it is just a checkerboard pattern of images that can't be clearly seen. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- The collages should be removed, as per above comments. Choosing a lead image is hard and imperfect, expanding it to a collage creates multiple hard and imperfect decisions without resolving the underlying cause. That said, I don't see why there aren't images spread throughout these articles at more appropriate points. CMD (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Important Comment - WP:SNOW closure or not? I was recent recently told in a weird passive-aggressive manner (from DementiaGaming) that there is a "overwhelming consensus" to remove collages. If that is the case, this needs to be WP:SNOW closed within the next 24 hours, otherwise I hope (maybe) I get an apology or explanation for why an "overwhelming consensus" does not mean the discussion can be SNOW closed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- My comment was not weird or passive-agressive, it was a message telling you to please stop adding the 2022 collage back. One thing about the collages is that they shouldn't have ever been added in the first place. No matter what the consensus is, they're going to be removed, because the images violate the following rules:
- WP:NOCON
- WP:POV
- WP:RS
- WP:ONUS DementiaGaming (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Likely best to not re-add the images collage to the 2022 page, as it appears other editors will keep reverting you. AFAIK, there was never a consensus to add them to the Year pages, to begin with. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment – I've placed a closure request @ WP:CR. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Request for the closer. I don't have any opinion on this RfC question, but I would like to know if the consensus here (or lack thereof) is relevant to inclusion/removal of all images from year articles or just image collages. This discussion is being used at Talk:2022#Zero images? to support the removal of all images from the article, and it would be helpful to hear from an uninvolved closer whether that is an accurate reading of this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I am re-opening this RfC and I will give notice to the following: MOS:IMAGE, IMAGEPOL, OR/N, and NPOV/N. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, and please let's leave this open for a couple more weeks due to both the lack of notications and to the holidays where much less attention is given to these issues. Notices should also be on each of the decades and years talk pages which will be affected. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk)
- I don't understand. Why has this RFC been re-opened? For goodness sake, it's been nearly two full months, since it was begun. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- That’s what I’m saying. They refuse and refuse and refuse and refuse to believe that they are wrong and these collages violate rules and should be removed. DementiaGaming (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have reopened the RfC because univnovled editor @Koopinator has advised me that there was not sufficient notification to appropriate projects or talk pages. I am working on notifying the talk pages for each individual year article. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've put in another closure request & asked an administrator to perform it. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Given that there are almost 3,000 articles on individual years, I've decided not to notify each and every individual year article. If anyone feels compelled to do so, I won't stop them. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Voorts, alerts to the decades talk pages should be all that is needed, and to all of the WikiProject talk pages listed on those pages. You were correct in reopening this, and let's let it run for a couple weeks until we clear the holidays. This is Christmas weekend for Christ's sake (pun intended, referring to that one time at band camp that Jesus turned water into wine and then the wine into sake). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Remove collages, as the order and the selection gives rise to bias that cannot be sufficiently remedied. "X is a more important event than Y" will always be purely opinion. This should apply only to collages, not images elsewhere in the article. Those can be decided by normal editorial consensus. Zaathras (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Remove per pretty much all of the above. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Keep on the Decades pages and on other historical pages such as the World War II page collage. Each and every choice of image anywhere on any page is essentially original research, a choice made by one or more editors. Choices which usually stand the test of time and discussion. As for the decades pages (and things like WWII), the collage summaries seem quite important long-term pathways to Wikipedia readers who get a quick summary of somebutnotall of the decade's most important and iconic events when approaching the page. I haven't read and taken in all the points here, and this is Christmas weekend. I reserve further comments until I have time to take in all the viewpoints presented. Merry Christmas to all who've read this far into my post (and also to those who haven't). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Beyond year articles, the arguments for Remove call into question collages across a variety of articles. Why do the year articles deserve this special treatment when a vast range of Wikipedia articles use collages from Space Race to Education to Natural Science to Computer or in infoboxes like World War II or Marrakesh. I understand that this RfC does not impact these articles directly but again I wonder why year articles shouldn't have them when these random articles I've pulled apparently share the same issues (unsightly, pure decoration, POV concerns, opinion, etc.). Yeoutie (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Strong keep for the following reasons:
- The "Remove" arguments misconstrue WP:OR. The core issue of WP:OR that Wikipedia does not publish original thought, but it does not concern the presentation of information. Instead, the debate should've revolved around whether the use of collages abides by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. The argument that choosing the most important events of a year constitutes WP:OR boils down to saying "judging the most important aspects of a topic is WP:OR". This contradicts several existing guidelines, including WP:SUMMARY and MOS:INTRO - these articles establish that leads must concisely summarize a topic and go in less detail than the body text. For example, the year 2022 still has a lead that states the events that editors have judged important enough for the lead. Editors have to judge what details are less important in order to write leads - this is an essential part of the encyclopedia. I don't see why this would be WP:OR for images, but not for leads.
- MOS:IMAGE. Collages help illustrate key aspects of years, and are thus useful and abide by MOS:IMAGE.
- WP:WRONGVENUE & WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. There has been no discussion about whether collages are appropriate for the topic of years specifically. The entire discussion so far has been essentially running with a single, dubious interpretation of WP:OR, and using that as basis to ban collages from year articles (and then decade and millennia articles). Therefore, I believe the RFC falls afoul of WP:WRONGVENUE. If the problem solely regards the idea that collages violate WP:OR, there should have instead been a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images about collages. Since there has been an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS on articles such as World War I, World War II, and Seven Years' War to have collages, deciding that collages are WP:OR would fall afoul of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."
Koopinator (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Remove all and have no image, including (and perhaps even more esepcially) decade pages . I was originally minded to think there might be some use for these, similar to how city articles have a collage, but looking at the 1960s page it becomes clear why attempting to sum up such broad swathes of history in one set of editor-chosen images is a fool's errand. What some deem "important" will always differ from others, and with six of the eight 1960s images pertaining to the US (nothing about the decolonisation of Africa?) it's clear that this decision can't be left to individual pages while maintaining NPOV and avoiding systemic bias. I'm also unsure why the original close permitted single images to be retained. The same principle applies there. As was already noted above, not all pages need images at the top, and these are the ones that should not have them. — Amakuru (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- "what some deem "important" will always differ from others"
- This argument can be made about every lead section on this site, images or not. Koopinator (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Remove, seems like a similar situation as the one that led to MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This is patently bizarre. Let me see if I can work through the reasoning here: it's possible for people to argue about which of several things is best to have in an article, so we should simply remove all of them and have nothing instead? Really? Okay: why don't we go blank Israel, Palestine, abortion, immigration, Donald Trump, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, Xi Jinping, and Narendra Modi? Why don't we replace Joe Biden with the single sentence "Joe Biden is the President of the United States.[1]"? That would be easier to maintain, which means it must be better, right? Come on, let's be serious for a minute — are we really just demanding that the entire concept of illustrating articles with pictures be justified from first principles? If disagreeing about stuff sometimes is too much of an inconvenience, we're all free to just go do something else. jp×g🗯️ 13:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, this seems like a completely bizarre way to have this discussion -- it's an obscure WikiProject talk page. If it's too much of a hassle to individually notify talk pages or try to get broader consensus, then it's obviously too much of a hassle to make giant sweeping content decisions on behalf of all those pages. jp×g🗯️ 14:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Koopinator has said that they will work on notifications to individual talk pages. If you think that notifying every year, decade, century, and millennium page is required, someone who's more proficient at AWB than I will need to work on doing that. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- No strong opinion on collages, though leaning towards keeping them. It seems strange that these articles about years are completely devoid of images. Couldn't a few be placed in the body of the articles? Some1 (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- When these collages of the years were made and placed on the homepage, some people stepped forward to express strong objections, believing that these collages violated Wikipedia's guidelines and should be split into separate images evenly distributed throughout the article. However, after the collages were split, others voiced objections to these images, feeling that their selection lacked a consistent standard and believing that all of these images should be removed. Nagae Iku (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- (Previous discussion closer before I reopened it) Keep (for now) I agree with several of the remove !votes that including a collage on a particular year page runs into OR problems in that it presents a series of images as representative of that particular year (cf. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES). And, in particular, the images that are selected will likely be Western-centric. I disagree with those editors who say that this is not OR. It is OR to bring together a disparate set of facts (e.g., images) for the purposes of reaching a conclusion. As OR notes: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Bringing together several images and calling them representative of an entire year or decade without sourcing to substantiate that conclusion qualifies as OR in my book. That said, there are ways to craft these galleries without engaging in OR. RSes routinely mark particular images as representative of a given year, or make clear that an image was seen worldwide (e.g., Earthrise). Those images can and should be included in individual year articles. Regarding JPxG's slippery slope argument, I disagree. There is a distinction between illustrating a person (and, indeed, there are already routine RfCs about what the infobox image for a particular person should be), a nation, and a concept or practice, as opposed to an entire year. All of that said, I think this should be handled on an article-by-article basis, and editors should be given the opportunity to substantiate why particular images belong in particular year articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- "I disagree with those editors who say that this is not OR. It is OR to bring together a disparate set of facts (e.g., images) for the purposes of reaching a conclusion. As OR notes: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Bringing together several images and calling them representative of an entire year or decade without sourcing to substantiate that conclusion qualifies as OR in my book.""
- Would you also say that selecting key details as being important enough for the lead, in 2022 or actually - any article for that matter, constitutes OR? Because when writing any lead, you're selecting facts that are most crucial to represent in a topic. And also, when writing the body text of any article, editors have to use their own judgement as to what information is helps represent or describe the topic. Is that also OR?
- There is a distinction between illustrating a person (and, indeed, there are already routine RfCs about what the infobox image for a particular person should be), a nation, and a concept or practice, as opposed to an entire year.
- I would appreciate an explanation for why you think years are distinct from these other topics in a way that is relevant to this discussion. Koopinator (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- When you're writing a lead, you're summarizing the article content by providing a high level overview, not deciding what facts are most important to highlight. Regarding your second comment, I was responding to JPxG, who used those things as an example in his slippery slope argument. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- When you're writing a lead, you are deciding what facts are most important to highlight. Deciding what facts are most important can not be separated from summarizing the article. For example, why is Donald Trump being president of the United States more crucial to mention than him being confirmed in 1959 at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens? It's more relevant, more crucial to understanding the topic at hand - i.e. more important.
- In regards the the second comment, I understand you were responding to JPxG, and I was asking you to explain what aspects of years justified distinct treatment. Koopinator (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- You're misapprehending MOS:LEAD and policies like OR. Editors do not determine what is important. Reliable sources determine what is important, and editors determine what important things to include in the lead by reference to DUE. From MOS:LEAD (emphasis added):
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic [citing DUE], according to reliable, published sources.
- The same logic applies to point 2 and I am going to turn off notifications for this thread because it's becoming deeply toxic over a truly insignificant issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I understand that you're going to turn off notifications for this thread. You are not obligated to participate. However, for the interest of other editors, I will still respond:
- It is definitely useful when reliable sources explicitly state what is most the important aspect of something. However, those sources do not always exist - and even if there are, editors would still need to evaluate those sources on their own accord. That is what happened at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_93#RfC:_Birtherism_in_the_lede. If we could only write long leads if they had sources, it would be impossible to abide by MOS:LEADLENGTH - "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." - therefore, although RS can help inform the process of selecting facts to highlight, it is still ultimately the editor's discretion. I believe this is the reason why WP:DUE says " the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic [citing DUE], according to reliable, published sources." and avoids making it into an absolute statement. WP:ONUS also backs this by saying "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article" - we roughly, but not strictly, provide emphasis based on reliable sources.
- The same logic does not apply to point 2, which was a different topic altogether. I was requesting you to explain what the "distinction between illustrating a person (and, indeed, there are already routine RfCs about what the infobox image for a particular person should be), a nation, and a concept or practice, as opposed to an entire year" was. Koopinator (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- When you're writing a lead, you're summarizing the article content by providing a high level overview, not deciding what facts are most important to highlight. Regarding your second comment, I was responding to JPxG, who used those things as an example in his slippery slope argument. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment.
- Per WP:COLLAGE,
If a gallery would serve as well as a collage or montage, the gallery should be preferred, as galleries are easier to maintain and adjust better to user preferences.
- Per WP:GALLERY,
Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.
- Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE,
Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.
- Per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY,
Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Think carefully about which images best illustrate the subject matter.
- Per MOS:LEADIMAGE,
It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. For some topics, selecting the lead image can be difficult.
- Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Closure
This RFC has been open now for nearly two full months. It's time for a consensus to be declared & accepted. I've requested that the closure be done by an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think 30 more days, with proper notice, will hurt. There's NORUSH. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also the !votes coming in seem to be remove, and if that trend continues, I don't see why there couldn't be a SNOW close after a few days. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- After two months, with plenty of time to contact multiple WikiProjects. Requesting this RFC be closed, isn't rushing things. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- GoodDay, with all the comments you have here, I should remind you about WP:BLUD. I am not saying you are bludgeoning, but you should be careful commenting the same thing multiple times in the same overall discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- After two months, with plenty of time to contact multiple WikiProjects. Requesting this RFC be closed, isn't rushing things. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- First I heard about it was when the collages were removed from the decades pages. Those are the talk pages that should have been notified, and were not. Not everyone is a member of WikiProject Years. Voorts is correct in that the discussion on his talk page presented enough of an argument to re-open, and since it is reopened let's give it a couple of weeks to clear the holidays. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- p.s. and since this has been reopened can someone please put the collages back on all of the decades articles? There has been no decision to remove them. Thanks. I'd do it but an editor has taken me to the edit wars page for adding the collage back to 1960s. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- 100% agree as I also discovered this discussion when the collage was removed from 2020s. The lack of a proper notice to high traffic year and decade articles is insane as so many users add to collages that probably haven't even heard of this wikiproject. Yeoutie (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Same here. I became aware when DementiaGaming threatened me on my talk page that he'll report me for edit warring if I add back the collage to the 2010s page. Jay 💬 05:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, fine, undo my edits (for doing the right thing), edit war these images in and break more rules (WP:ONUS, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV) by letting them stay. They'll be removed again anyway after someone finally does the right thing and closes this worthless RfC. DementiaGaming (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- The existence of images on a page does not break any rule I'm aware of. jp×g🗯️ 14:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Then you are missing the whole point of this RfC. 136.228.103.197 (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Highlighting specific information in a gallery is not WP:OR. If choosing what information warrants highlighting is WP:OR, not a single lead section on this website could be written on this website, because all lead sections require lesser details to be omitted. Koopinator (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- If this is even true, then it still violates those 3 rules. 136.228.103.197 (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, fine, I will address these other 3 rules.
- 1. WP:ONUS. "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." - In decade articles, collages have been arrived at through consensus and dicussions in talk pages.
- 2. WP:RS. If we're not making up the information that we're choosing to highlight, we are not falling afoul of this rule.
- 3. WP:NPOV. This seems to regard the coverage of disputes, such as the existence of god, the morality of abortion, or the sphericity of the Earth. I don't believe this policy is relevant to the topic at hand.
- 4. Editors choosing what facts are more important simply cannot be against the rules, because it is the entire premise of lead sections.
- 5. I will make the case that this very RFC violates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." - pages on subjects other than years have collages highlighting the most important aspects of topics, and they have stayed there with WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, so arguing that such collages are against the rules, but only going so far as to ban them for this topic, is using the wrong venue.
- If this is even true, then it still violates those 3 rules. 136.228.103.197 (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- The existence of images on a page does not break any rule I'm aware of. jp×g🗯️ 14:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Koopinator (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- It’s your job to prove to us that these collages can stay without breaking these 3 rules, @Koopinator. If you can prove this, maybe we can add them back in. In fact, it’s not just your job. It’s @JPxG, @Randy Kryn, @Voorts, and @Jay‘s job, who are somewhat experienced editors, to prove to themselves and to everybody that these can stay without controversy. 136.228.103.197 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I’ve been out of the discussion loop for a while. I didn’t know it got closed and honestly caught the re-opening on my watchlist (like I do most things). I am not accusing anyone here, but I did notice User talk:GoodDay#ICYMI: RfC: Removal of image collages via my watchlist (after commenting above) and if I may make an Among Us reference, the opening to it is sus. InvadingInvader Said to GoodDay,
I think you are going to be very pleased with the result.
Again this is not an accusation by any stretch, but that does sound awfully sus of WP:CANVAS. No evidence though, but I felt like I needed to mention that here in case there was somehow a canvassing event going on. Either way, I’m out of the discussion. I commented above earlier and I have 0 care for the closure/re-opening aspect. Cheers y’all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I saw neither hide nor hair of this until just now when a notice was posted to WP:NPOV. I don't this was advertised all that well. jp×g🗯️ 13:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your comment on WP:RS is completely absurd. That's not how it works. We need to add RSs to all content on Wikipedia. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Just a note, I found an article like this “Ten Most Significant World Events in 2023. That could be RS for a collage for 2023. Problem solved. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Adding global warming for 2023 is also crazy, it's representative of the past couple centuries. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Well that isn’t your call to make. That would be based on RS, not violating a single rule on Wikipedia. That reasoning is legit WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Adding global warming for 2023 is also crazy, it's representative of the past couple centuries. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Just a note, I found an article like this “Ten Most Significant World Events in 2023. That could be RS for a collage for 2023. Problem solved. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The RFC was initially closed declaring a consensus for deleting collage images from only the Year pages. Not the Decade pages or Century pages. So again, I don't understand why the closure/decision was undone. The closure should been left alone & then two separate RFCs opened - one for Decade pages & one for Century pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- At the time that I had asked for this RFC to be overturned, User:DementiaGaming had removed the collages from the decade articles, and interpreted the RFC result to prohibit all collages on years, decade, century and millennia articles. I felt like, if I challenged him on the basis that "the RFC only applies to years", he would say something about the "spirit of the RFC" or that I'm taking the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. And, to be fair, not a single person here has made an argument about why image collages are inappropriate for years specifically, all the arguments thus far boil down to "importance is subjective and WP:OR" And given how malformed the "remove" arguments seemed to be, I felt I had a better shot if I tried to overturn the result outright. Koopinator (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Seeing as you've put out multiple notifications on pages & talkpages. I'll be pinging all editors who've already participated in the RFC, that haven't commented since the re-opening. They deserve to know the latest happenings. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Fine with me. Koopinator (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Seeing as you've put out multiple notifications on pages & talkpages. I'll be pinging all editors who've already participated in the RFC, that haven't commented since the re-opening. They deserve to know the latest happenings. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien:, @InvadingInvader:, @McSly:, @Loriendrew:, @Nagae Iku:, @Austria Football 02:, @Barnards.tar.gz:, @GSK:, @HiLo48:, @Isaidnoway:, @Khajidha:, @Deb:, @Firefangledfeathers:, @Ryanisgreat4444: & @Chipmunkdavis:, as they haven't chimed in since close was undone & so may not be aware of it. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- My opinion has not changed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Mine is also unchanged. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Proposal on the Selection of Collages Images for In-Line Images
This proposal aims to fulfill the preference for in-line images resulting from the discussion of the removal of the collages. Editors have expressed that in-line images improve the visual appeal and engagement of the years pages, providing better context for readers.
To save time and ensure consensus-based selections, I propose directly splitting and placing the exact images used from the collages in-line.
- This applies specifically to collages where the content was agreed upon through active discussions on the relevant year's talk page.
- If the image selection was made unilaterally or only discussed by a limited number of editors in a secondary location, discussions should be initiated on the relevant talk page of the year article to determine the appropriate images for inclusion.
Utilizing previously removed collage images, ensures that they have already undergone a consensus-based selection process, saving effort. It also ensures that the effort invested in deciding the images for the previous collages is not wasted.
The proposed steps to do this is summarized below.
- Identify collages that were previously decided through consensus on the talk page of the relevant year page.
- Open on the talk page of the relevant year page to determine the images if there was insufficient consensus previously.
- Identify the images from the removed collages and place images in-line, following chronological order, where the relevant entry is.
- Update captions and alt-text for accurate descriptions.
- Seek community feedback and make necessary adjustments based on consensus.
- Document changes and update relevant guidelines.
33ABGirl (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is essentially a stylistic change that is not really relevant to the topic of the RFC. Koopinator (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Guidelines on Images for 2023
I was viewing the 2023 page and observed that, unlike other pages for specific years, this page appears to have many images scattered throughout the article. Based on an examination of the pages' edit history, it appears that these photos were posted relatively recently by one or two users without any discussion or consensus. With reference to the RFC on collages above, this appears to be essentially the same issue, with the same policy violations. Would it be appropriate to remove all the images first at this stage? 33ABGirl (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- IMHO, if there was no consensus to add'em? Then they should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I think we should make everything as boring, sterile, and uninformative as possible. Because it's absolutely paramount that we follow The Rules™ and don't ever attempt to improve anything. So yes, let's delete everything. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
TOC with Vector 2022
Hello! The new Vector design has moved the TOC to the left sidebar, but in year articles (1924) there's a NOTOC code that prevents it from appearing. Do you think we need the TOC back? (I think so, but I want to hear other opinions). Theklan (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The decades college captions (such as in 2010s) could make use of the {{multiple image}}'s captionX= parameter. This will make individual captions to be directly under the image which will make the collage much cleaner. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'd rather we delete the images collages entirely from the decades pages. They appear like a decoration. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Good. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- best way to decorate would be using images for significant events in-line. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
RfC: Removal of image collages from decades and centuries
OK, here you go. Apparently, the other RfC was re-opened because I removed the images from the decade pages, and many people didn’t like that because they want them to stay (only because they look good), and they didn’t think the RfC counted for decades and centuries (which, it did). Please place your comments below. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose (Keep on articles) — There is for sure sources for decade and century top events. Example is this article titled “14 Major Events of the 2010s”. A college with those events would not break any rules and would not be WP:OR. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- I would also like to note that I am permanently leaving this worthless argument as of now. It has been surprisingly detrimental to my mental health and has ruined my reputation on this website. I have tried to use logic here but have been blasted back by other editors.
- And yes, I don’t want them back.DementiaGaming (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)