m Reverted edit by 2409:40E0:101D:3A3E:4C99:F8FF:FE5E:F4DD (talk) to last version by Gioppolognomo Tag: Rollback |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{FAQ|collapsed=y}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Lists |
{{WikiProject Lists|class=List|importance=Low}} |
||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Years|importance=High}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{ |
{{Page views}} |
||
{{faq|collapsed=y}} |
|||
{{Archive basics |
{{Archive basics |
||
|archive = Talk:2022/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Talk:2022/Archive %(counter)d |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== Shinzo Abe & Jiang Zemin == |
|||
== [[Ice hockey]] players - [[Mike Bossy|Bossy]] and [[Guy Lafleur|Lafleur]] == |
|||
We've had short discussions on [[Mike Bossy]] and [[Guy Lafleur]], former ice hockey players who dies this April. Both are some of the best known and most successful NHL players in history. We ended up with no arguments against Bossy, but when I attempted to add him, he was removed. A short discussion ensued on Lafleur's notability, but came to an abrupt end. Can we continue this discussion? [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 07:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Include both. [[User:CountingStars500|CountingStars500]] ([[User talk:CountingStars500|talk]]) 17:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Sports really is not my main area of familiarity, but I think what's clear is that the question of whether or not the most significant players of regional sports (such as hockey, baseball, rugby, any "football" that is not soccer, etc.) ought to be included needs to be resolved - and that is something we have consistently struggled to resolve over the last year. That, I would say, is the more pressing matter to resolve, after which cases like Bossy and Lafleur will become much more straightforward to decide. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 04:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I have my doubts that they have to be included. Neither are they the most important in that sport, nor is the sport particularly popular outside that region. Comparing it to the Spanish soccer league is very foolhardy, as many players in European national leagues have more international popularity than any Canadian (or non-Canadian) ice hockey players. Obviously. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsoriano97]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 10:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I know very little about ice hockey & hadn't heard of either player until I saw on WP that they'd died. If I weren't on WP, I'd still not have heard of either of them. Their articles show that they each played for Canadian & American teams as well as [[Canada men's national ice hockey team|their national team]] & that they have important achievements/awards at the bottom of their articles. How important are their teams, performances & what they won? How international are they? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 10:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::The [[Montreal Canadiens]] (Lafleur)are the oldest team in the league, one of the oldest American sports teams in any code and a greatly respected entity in general. The Islanders (Bossy) have been around for half a century. Lafleur won five [[Stanley Cup|Stanley Cups]], three [[Art Ross Trophy|Art Ross Trophies]] (top points scorer), two [[Hart Memorial Trophy|Hart Memorial Trophies]] (MVPs), three [[Ted Lindsay Award|Lester B. Pearson Awards]] (player's player) and one [[Conn Smythe Trophy]] (Playoff MVP). These are the most prestigious awards given each year by the NHL. Bossy won four Stanley Cups, one Conn Smythe, one [[Calder Memorial Trophy|Calder Memorial Trophy (Rookie of the Year)]] and three [[Lady Byng Memorial Trophy|Lady Byng Memorial Trophy (Best and Fairest)]]. Whilst Canadian players make up a fair portion of the sport's players, other nations have produced very fine players. In the last thirty years, the NHL's MVP has gone to four different [[Russians]], two different [[Swedes]], two [[Czechs]], a [[Germans|German]] and an [[Americans|American]]. The NHL is also widely considered the strongest hockey league - European players like [[Alexander Ovechkin|Ovechkin]], [[Leon Draisaitl|Draisaitl]], [[Victor Hedman]] and [[Patrik Laine]] all played in their nation's leagues before immediately switching to the NHL clubs (or their minor teams) who drafted them. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 04:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Should Shinzo Abe and Jiang Zemin be included in the lead? |
|||
== Russia announces departure from [[ISS]] == |
|||
Is the event for May 2 – "Russia announces it may be pulling out of the [[International Space Station]] as soon as two years from now, because of the sanctions imposed on the nation after its [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine|invasion of Ukraine]]" notable enough to be included under events? I believe this is noteworthy news, especially because no other major members from the ISS have ever left before, and the fact that Russia confirmed that they they will be pulling out before their commitment to the station is up. Lastly, because this event directly relates to the war in Ukraine, I feel the event should be added. Thanks! --[[User:Johnson524|Johnson524]] ([[User talk:Johnson524|talk]]) 22:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I noticed that their deaths were recently removed |
|||
:in my opinion, it should be added cuz no member of the ISS (aside from China) has pulled out of it. and the International Space Station is a big thing. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 23:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&diff=1143852406&oldid=1143787314&variant=en] from the lead, but they seem to be of comparable notability to those already included in the paragraph. [[User:Carter00000|Carter00000]] ([[User talk:Carter00000|talk]]) 06:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''' Per 4me689 because pulling from the ISS is a big deal especially as a response to sanctions. [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 23:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:If you can find a source that establishes their deaths as a significant event of 2022 (as opposed to merely having occurred ''in'' 2022), then IMHO yes. “Year in review” sources would be ideal. [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 07:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I removed it on the basis they have been threatening this for months; this announcement is no more substantial than the other threats, ‘Russia *may* pull out of the ISS’ is too weasly to merit inclusion as an event in its own right. they were only ever committed to the ISS until 2024 anyway so even if it does come to pass, this isn’t even news let alone an important international event. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 07:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:You missed the point. I removed the ones that were unsourced. In my opinion, the whole paragraph should go, as it's completely subjective. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 14:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Done}}. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Collage == |
|||
There are articles supporting the view this may be a case of rumour or threats that aren't likely to be substantiated. "That's not an announcement of a departure from the program — just an acknowledgement that Roscosmos will give the other partners a heads-up if such a decision is made." [[space.com Will Russia leave the International Space Station? Take Roscosmos chief's words with a grain of salt|https://www.space.com/russia-leave-space-station-rogozin-threats]]. I really think such threats don't constitute an international event, and this article supports that. Very close to [[WP:Crystal]] as I don't think Roscosmos is a reliable source. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 14:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
I would like to create consensus – not exclusively on this place but on all articles on calendar years – to change using the multiple image template to make collages. Specifically for this page, I would like to suggest the current picture of the [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]] to be replaced by the one below of Zelensky. One of the great things about the template system btw is that one does not need to create a whole new collage just to change one picture. |
|||
{{u|4me689}} apparently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&oldid=prev&diff=1087265008 disagrees] that a Russian official's announcement of pulling out of the ISS program at some undetermined point in the future doesn't merit mention on its own. What do you think? — [[User:Yerpo|Yerpo]] <sup>[[User talk:Yerpo|Eh?]]</sup> 12:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|title=Collage Suggestion}} |
|||
:That is false, I agree with the inclusion of the event [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 12:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{Multiple image |
|||
::That's what Yerpo is saying. Why do you claim that an announcement that something may happen is important? If it happens, we'll include it then. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| total_width = 300 |
|||
:::{{ping|Jim Michael 2}} thanks for merging, I didn't see the existing topic. As for the topic itself, it's like you pointed out - the event of Russia pulling out will certainly be important if/when it happens, but this is not what we're talking about. We're talking about one official's (unsubstantiated) claim that the decision about this was made - even the cited source says that the same official has been saying different things days earlier. So can we please stop muddling the issue? Those supporting inclusion, you need to demonstrate why this claim is important on its own. — [[User:Yerpo|Yerpo]] <sup>[[User talk:Yerpo|Eh?]]</sup> 12:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image1 = Shinzo Abes statsbegravelse (beskåret).jpg |
|||
::::Yes, and even if the withdrawal happens, it won't be this year. It therefore makes no sense to include it in this article. As it's not certain to happen, it's not even important enough for [[2022 in Russia]]. We shouldn't include any vague statements. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image2 = Demonstration mod den srilankansk, 2022 (beskåret).jpg |
|||
:::::Thank you for the replies, I trust your judgement! [[User:Johnson524|Johnson524]] ([[User talk:Johnson524|talk]]) 17:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| perrow = 3/2/3 |
|||
| image8 = VM i fodbold 2022, USA–Wales.jpg |
|||
== [[Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk]] == |
|||
| image3 = Tonga Vulkanudbrud.png |
|||
It's very common for businesspeople to buy & sell companies. We rarely include them on main year articles. [[Twitter]] is a [[social networking service]]. It's not powerful, important or particularly influential. Most of its content is [[pop culture]], celebrities, sports coverage, trivia, gossip, [[propaganda]], [[self-promotion]], [[conspiracy theories]], [[trolling]], opinions & people posting photos of their food, their pets etc. Using Twitter coverage as a measure of importance, the minor attacks on [[Chris Rock]] & [[Dave Chappelle]] are among the most important world events of 2022 and are many times more important than the [[2022 Peshawar mosque attack]]. It has news coverage, but so do many other sites & it's not widely considered to be an important, [[WP:RS|reliable]] news outlet. Claims, speculation etc. about how [[Elon Musk]] may change it are akin to [[WP:CRYSTAL|looking into a]] [[crystal ball]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image4 = Volodymyr Zelenskyy took part in hoisting the State Flag of Ukraine in liberated Kherson. (52502054830).jpg |
|||
* I'm sorry, if you don't think Twitter is "''powerful, important or particularly influential''", you are clearly not familiar with it. Yes, it covers pop culture, but of course it does, because so does every type of media. The fact that Twitter is used by megacorps and politicians alike to release news, announce policy and discuss the issues of the day should tell you how seriously it is taken. Politicos - up to and including heads of countries - don't phone up the NYT or Reuters to give their opinions - they simply post them on Twitter instead. There was a survey recently - which of course I now can't find - that showed that something like 70% of adult Americans used Facebook and/or Twitter as the main method of acquiring their news. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image5 = Queen Elizabeth II's Funeral and Procession (19.Sep.2022) - 09.jpg |
|||
*:I am familiar with it. The amount of genuine, useful, reliable news on it is greatly outweighed by various junk of the types I list above. Compare how long the [[Will Smith-Chris Rock slap]] trended on there to how long the [[Peshawar]] mosque attack did. The former gained so much more coverage that you couldn't compare them on the same scale. No-one could genuinely say that an actor slapping another actor is worse or more important than an [[Islamic State]] [[suicide attack]]er killing over 60 people as part of an arrogant attempt to form a [[caliphate]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image6 = Kazakhstan-demonstrationer 2022, Aqtobe, 4. januar (beskåret).jpg |
|||
*:: And tabloid newspapers regularly sell more than heavyweight ones, and ''EastEnders'' has higher viewership ratings than ''Panorama'', but we don't exclude ''The Times'' or BBC TV as some of our most reliable sources. I'm not sure of your point here, to be honest. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image7 = Åbningsceremoni ved Vinter-OL 2022 i Beijing.jpg |
|||
*:::The Times is heavyweight, content-wise. It didn't go downmarket when it reduced its size. We don't use lowbrow sources such as [[The Sun (United Kingdom)|The Sun]] & the [[Daily Mirror]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| direction = horizontal |
|||
*:::: Er, yes, that's exactly my point. We don't define British newspapers by the fact that the ''Daily Mail'' is the best-selling one, we don't define the BBC by its most watched programme, and similarly we don't define Twitter as trivial because a lot of people post cat memes on it. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image_gap = |
|||
*"''It's not powerful, important or particularly influential''." -- Genuinely, one of the most ignorant things I've ''ever'' read on a Talk Page. And I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 12:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| width = |
|||
:In Twitter's defence it should be pointed out that [https://www.statista.com/statistics/303681/twitter-users-worldwide/ 329 million people still use the site] as of April 2022. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 16:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| footer = ''Clockwise, from top left'': former primer minister [[Shinzo Abe]] is [[Assassination of Shinzo Abe|assassinated]] at [[Yamato-Saidaiji Station]] in [[Nara]], [[Japan]] • [[2022 Sri Lankan protests|Anti-government protests]] in [[Sri Lanka]] • [[2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai eruption and tsunami|Eruption]] of the [[Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai]] [[volcano]] becomes the most powerful volcanic eruption of the [[21st century]] • The [[Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II|state funeral procession]] of Queen [[Elizabeth II]] of the [[United Kingdom]] • The [[2022 FIFA World Cup]] is held in [[Qatar]] and is won by [[Argentina]] • The [[2022 Winter Olympics]] are held in [[Beijing]], [[China]] • Protests in Almaty during a period of unrest in Kazakhstan • [[Ukrainian President]] [[Volodymyr Zelenskyy]] during [[Russia]]'s [[Russian invasion of Ukraine|invasion]] of [[Ukraine]] |
|||
::No-one's disputing that Twitter is popular, but even if it were one of the most important things in the world - rather than merely one of the most important & popular [[social media]] sites - that wouldn't mean that a change of ownership is an important event. Businesses, websites etc. undergoing changes of ownership aren't inherently important events. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
:::Come on jim Michael, it just seems that everyone disagrees with you at this point, Twitter is one of the biggest social media platforms out there, Elon Musk buying up Twitter could be a new era for social media, and for the online space as a Hole. So you should '''include''' it, cuz, it could end up being one of the biggest Story of the Year. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
::: You are absolutely correct that changes of ownership are not necessarily important. However, since the new owner has promised to significantly change how the platform operates, ''that'' is what has driven the huge amount of coverage worldwide of his takeover - and that coverage is what makes the event notable. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
--[[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 17:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Exactly. I mean we're talking about a platform that literally influences global discourse, free speech and even democracy itself. It now has the richest person in history at its helm, who looks set to fundamentally alter its course. This isn't like the buying of Spotify or some dating app like Tinder. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 19:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Changes of ownership are common & we don't usually include them. There are many social networking sites which have a higher number of users. Musk being the world's richest person doesn't make his purchase inherently important. It's received a lot of international media coverage because he's a high-profile, fairly controversial person who seeks it. Him saying he's going to make major changes to Twitter doesn't necessarily mean that he will. We don't include things based on promises/claims/speculation. We also don't include things because they receive a lot of media coverage. If we did, we'd include the minor attacks on Chris Rock & Dave Chappelle, as well as many reactions to those overpublicised events. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 10:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: You keep saying this ("''We also don't include things because they receive a lot of media coverage.''") and it's simply not true - if there is sustained international in-depth coverage that's exactly the metric we use '''to''' include things. And this story has that coverage (it's still going a week later), unlike your other examples. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The Chris Rock-Will Smith slap received weeks of continuous, frequent media (including social media) coverage, including reactions from a ridiculous number of organisations & celebrities giving their opinions on the 'momentous' event. Some social media channels made & released their own series of videos during late March as well as April about it. Of all the events that have happened in the world this year, only the [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]] & the [[COVID-19 pandemic]] have received more media coverage. Using media coverage as a measure of importance, that slap was the third most important thing that happened in the world in 2022. However, no-one could genuinely say it was among the hundred most important events. We don't include the slap, nor should we. If Musk didn't have a high profile, there wouldn't be as much media coverage, nor support to include it. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: You're continuing to conflate celebrity gossip and lightweight media (the Rock story was pretty much gone from heavyweight media in 48 hours) with heavy and sustained coverage in actual news sources (Musk's takeover was a week ago and there are new stories ''today'' in the ''Guardian'', Bloomberg, the ''Wall Street Journal'', the ''Financial Times'', the ''Independent'', Al Jazeera, ''Fortune'', CNN, CNBC and that's just the English language sources on the first two pages of the news results. Just to re-iterate; that's a ''week-old story'' still getting new coverage in the highest quality of sources. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Come on, guys. Jim Michael is the only one arguing against inclusion. me, [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]], and [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] want inclusion, because Twitter can influence World politics, and it's one of the biggest social media platforms. This section should have a consensus already, and the consensus is 3 - 1 for '''inclusion'''. This section is about the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, not jim Michael versus black kite, the acquisition of Twitter is different than the slapping of Chris Rock, the latter happens every few award shows, and doesn't influence politics what so ever, the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk will influence politics a lot in the future, [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]], and [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] have not responded yet, but I would really love to see their opinion on this. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 13:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Saying that Musk buying Twitter will influence politics a lot in the future is mere speculation. We don't know how he'll change it; saying he'll make major changes is mere assumption. Many businesspeople, politicians, writers, sportspeople, entertainers etc. say they're going to do things but don't. This story is merely ''rich businessman buys big company'', which happens frequently. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: If the story was simply "rich businessesman buys big company" it would have died a death in the media by now. As I pointed out above, it hasn't (indeed the amount of coverage in serious heavyweight media has actually increased). This is obviously notable, ''regardless'' of what Musk does with the company. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Jim Michael is correct though when he invokes [[WP:CRYSTAL]] - and on that basis I think it would be wise to hold off on including the event until in due time the takeover has proven to lead to changes of significant consequence. At the same time, it is also absolutely correct that Twitter in this day and age is a platform of great consequence and influence as argued by Black Kite, among others. Overall though, in light of both of these factors, count me as '''Neutral'''. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 13:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::This seems reasonable. I'm happy to wait until "significant consequence" is proven. If leaning, it would be for inclusion. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 03:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree that waiting is wise. We should revisit in six months. [[User talk:Agtx|<span style="color:#8B008B">'''agt'''</span><span style="color:#000000">x</span>]] 21:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Do you mean include or exclude it for the next 6 months? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Ironically, what happens in six months is actually irrelevant here, as the intense media coverage that makes this notable enough to post is happening ''now''. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If media coverage is the measure of notability, [[Depp v. Heard]] is one of the most important events in the world this year, and this decade. It's receiving intense, sustained, international media coverage - in quality as well as low-brow media outlets. However, no-one would seriously claim it's any more than a domestic event which is receiving disproportionately high media coverage because of the 2 main participants' fame. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::unlike the acquisition of Twitter, Depp v. Heard is a local event that has absolutely has no effect on world politics and belongs in [[2022 in the United States]]. I said it earlier, the acquisition of Twitter will influence World politics in a big way in the future, as now these days Twitter has very big power in world politics. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 14:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Only if Musk makes major changes to it. You're assuming he will, as though if he says he'll do something, he certainly will. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Correct. Depp v Heard has no effect on anything except Depp and Heard, and the coverage is merely "this is what happened in court today", as opposed to the seriously in-depth analysis in heavywieght press of the Twitter story. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 16:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I’m in favor of keeping the Twitter acquisition here. Twitter isn’t some little know startup company, it’s extremely influential in our respective societies and Musk (being one of, if not the richest man in the world) purchased this influential company that made headlines globally I think is worth a mention. I think it’s kind of weird to compare the acquisition to “the slap” because sure it was more talked about in social life than the acquisition but it won’t really have much on an impact later on. I think the twitter acquisition is worth mentioning here (as I already believe we’re getting a little too picky about what’s warranted for inclusion in this article). [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 19:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Would we be considering including this if the buyer were a billionaire who isn't controversial & doesn't have such a high profile, such as [[Bernard Arnault]], [[Warren Buffett]] or [[Larry Page]]? Anything involving Musk - whether it be his business deals, his personal life or even what he says - is given a great deal of media attention. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::All of the discussion here assumes that it's a done deal, but it's in increasing doubt, and we don't include possible events. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Rupiah Banda]] or [[Ayaz Mutallibov]]? == |
|||
<gallery caption="" heights="120" widths="120" mode="packed"> |
|||
File:Rupiah Banda.jpg|[[Rupiah Banda]] |
|||
File:Ayaz Mutalibov 1992.jpg|[[Ayaz Mutallibov]] |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
both of these world leaders have been put up as pictures at one point and keep getting switched over and over again, which one should get the picture. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 04:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Obviously the Banda photo is better quality while unfortunately the only available photo of Mutallibov leaves much to be desired. But nevertheless, the latter figure is of greater historical significance, so I would prioritise his image over Banda's. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 04:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The Mutallibov pic is of such poor quality that it's almost useless, so it shouldn't be used. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::The main image on Mutallibov‘s article is much better, we should use that [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 06:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes, use that one instead. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Unfortunately, we can't use the main image on Mutallibov‘s article, because it's a "fair use" image that can only be used on his article. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 12:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::In that case, we should use the Banda pic. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Hotel Saratoga explosion]] == |
|||
The accidental explosion at the [[Hotel Saratoga, Havana|Hotel Saratoga]] in [[Havana]] is a domestic event & hence shouldn't be on this article. International media coverage doesn't make the explosion international. If it did, we'd include many domestic [[mass-casualty incident]]s in each year article. We'd also include domestic crimes such as the disappearance and [[killing of Gabby Petito]], which received undue media coverage primarily because of the victim's looks, age & gender. We'd also include overblown domestic trivia such as the [[Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident]] & [[Depp v. Heard]]. [[2022 in Cuba]] having not (yet) been created isn't a reason to put the explosion on here. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 00:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:how many times we have to say this, it's different for each case. the murder of Gabby betito, the slapping a Chris Rock, and Depp v. Heard, are all domestic things that belong to [[2022 in the United States]], because all three are a footnote in history barely anybody will look back upon. the Hotel Saratoga was built back in the 1880s, and it's one of the last few things that is a Revenant of pre-1959 Cuba, and because of that, it's one of Cuba's most historic buildings. the hotel Saratoga had a lot of celebrities that stayed there (ie [[Madonna]] and [[Beyonce]]). the blowing of the hotel Saratoga means that Cuba lost one of it's pre-communism symbols, and when it gets rebuilt, it will probably look nothing like it did before. look at other communist regimes, Mao Zedong destroyed or nearly destroyed a lot of ancient Chinese Shrines, just because he thought he can rewrite Chinese history in his name, that's called the [[Cultural Revolution]]. furthermore other governments like Afghanistan's [[Taliban]] destroyed a lot of old statues, like the [[Bamiyan Buddhas]], one of the world's oldest statues before it got destroyed by the Taliban in 2001. the Taliban also destroyed a lot of other old stuff just because they wanted to. the thing is, unless it's apparent that it's super not notable, it's good to go to talk first before removing it. now, I wonder what [[User talk:Black Kite|Black Kite]] has to say about this. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 01:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I disagree with Jim Michael on many edits, but on this particular one he is correct. It's a domestic event and shouldn't be on 2022. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 06:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Domestic events are routinely removed from main year articles. The Smith-Rock slap & Depp-Heard case will be talked about for years. They're among the most publicised events of their lives & careers. What you're saying about the hotel is important to Cuba, but not relevant to the rest of the world. What the hotel will look like when repaired/rebuilt is speculation & domestic. Those celebs weren't staying there on the day of the explosion, so they're not relevant. The comparisons you make to former structures in Asia isn't reasonable, because they were deliberately destroyed. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 07:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::: Neither the Smith nor Depp cases are in the article (correctly so in my opinion.) I don't understand why this is being brought up in relation to a hotel in Cuba. The explosion is not a significant enough event to warrant inclusion. Sounds like an industrial accident in a building site, these happen all the time. If it was an international terror attack, in a state building, or if the hotel had been full of international guests it may be different. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 10:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I mentioned the slap & court case in response to the claim that international media coverage warrants the inclusion in main year articles of domestic events. Like the vast majority of fatal accidents in buildings, this is a domestic event. I agree that if, for example, the explosion had been caused by an Islamic State bomb, it'd have been important enough to include. If the victims included people from various countries, it may have been important enough to include; that's what led to the [[Surfside condominium collapse]] becoming internationally notable. However, no RS is saying either of those things were true in regard to the Havana explosion. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think the topic is very internationally important, while the death toll is very high I don't see very much coverage from the media. When it comes to 2022 building disasters, the [[Changsha building collapse]] received far more coverage than the Hotel Saratoga disaster and had a far higher death toll but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&diff=1086344843&oldid=1086341414 didn't manage to make it to this page.] But I guess we can't all be [[Rana Plaza]]s. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 15:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Hey everyone, extremely new to this page and Wikipedia as a whole. Just learned about the Talk function. As I'm sure you all have figured out I strongly disagree on the explosion not being included on this page. It received a lot of media coverage in the US and Latin America. In addition, a Spanish tourist did die in the explosion, expanding its impact. The building was also very historic and internationally known. A comparison to the Changsa Building collapse is not fair as this occurred in a well-known building in the center of Cuba's capital (And just a few hundred steps from the center of government). There was also no coverage of the Changsa collapse in most western media as far as I'm aware. Also, there being no [[2022 in Cuba]] page in English is a good reason to add it. Events shouldn't not be included because they occur in smaller, non-English speaking nations. On a different note, the month of May is nearly halfway over and there are five events currently documented there. (For comparison, April has 13 events listed by the 12th and March has 23). Hope you all are open to changing your minds. [[User:Joshuaalee59|Joshuaalee59]] ([[User talk:Joshuaalee59|talk]]) 21:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree with the Joshuaalee59 statement |
|||
:::the fact that one tourist dead made me support inclusion even more, [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael]], [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]], [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]], and [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]]. what's your status on inclusion. |
|||
:::also [[User talk:Black Kite|Black Kite]], [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]], and [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]], have not responded yet, but I would really love to see their opinion on this. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 00:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm inclined to agree with where Jim Michael, Wjfox2005 and JeffUK stand on this, for the record. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 10:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::The death toll is rather high so it might be available for inclusion. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 00:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::But international notability still needs to be proven. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 00:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'd argue for inclusion because of the high death count. A hotel explosion resulting in a massive death count (45) and a large injury count (over 95) is pretty rare. [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 01:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Already gave my opinion on this, earlier in the thread. Nobody is denying it's a tragic incident, but it just isn't notable or influential enough for 2022. The BBC and other UK outlets barely even covered it – the first I heard of it was on here. Sorry. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 07:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::We don't include domestic events on main year articles. One foreigner being among the dead is nowhere near significant enough to warrant its inclusion. It's death toll, being unusual & being reported by the international media don't grant inclusion. How large the country is, what language they speak there & whether or not it has a year by country subarticle aren't relevant. I'd oppose excluding it no matter where in the world it happened. Some months have more events in them than others; we don't include things to make the month sections of similar length. We're less than halfway through this month, so there being fewer events in it than in the previous months of this year is to be expected. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 08:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::According to the Associated Press a "major" Baptist Church was heavily damaged in the explosion.[https://apnews.com/article/religion-explosions-cuba-havana-baptist-6aef33e5a68e3adaf799b95318110f88]That's a significant cultural object affected. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 14:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It's of substantial significance for Cuba, but it's not international. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Definitely understand a lot of everyone's points. Seems there isn't much more to discuss. Let's just leave it off. [[User:Joshuaalee59|Joshuaalee59]] ([[User talk:Joshuaalee59|talk]]) 21:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Bob Lanier]] == |
|||
Hi everybody, excuse me if I'm starting this discussion but I think that a basketball player who was inducted in the NBA Hall of Fame should be listed here; moreover the statement "he lacked international notability" is quite questionable... Lanier's death was reported all over the world (see: [https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/11/sport/nba-bob-lanier-obit/index.html CNN], [https://sport.sky.it/nba/2022/05/11/bob-lanier-morto-nba Sky Sport], [https://www.marca.com/baloncesto/nba/2022/05/11/627b536346163f1ab58b4604.html Marca], [https://www.lequipe.fr/Basket/Actualites/Bob-lanier-grande-figure-de-la-nba-des-annees-1970-est-mort/1332418 L'Équipe]). He played in the NBA only, that's right, but if we use this criteria we should remove almost 90% of the greatest basketball players of all time. If you don't know who he was, no problems, but I sincerly don't know what "international notability" means if he did not have it. By the way, I'm not American and I wasn't a fan of Lanier, I wasn't even born when he was in the NBA, so I humbly think I'm not biased but I'm just unsure about the criteria used here. -- [[User:Nick.mon|Nick.mon]] ([[User talk:Nick.mon|talk]]) 15:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''exclude''' Lanier, International coverage does not equal inclusion. The MBA is a local League, that's only really a thing in North America. I'm American, so don't tell me I'm foreign and know nothing about American Sports, some basketball players get included mainly cuz they have higher honors (ie Olympic gold medals), the NBA Hall of Fame is not a higher honor, dus having said person inducted into the NBA Hall of Fame does not Merit inclusion on this article. Lanier belongs to [[2022 in the United States]]. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 15:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Ok but in the European leagues, players usually play both in national leagues and European cups, so they authomatically have "international notability". For an American player who plays in one of the North American sport leagues this will never happen. He was one of the greatest players of his generation, he never won a title, but he was an hall of famer. We've sources from all over the world reporting his death, but ok... -- [[User:Nick.mon|Nick.mon]] ([[User talk:Nick.mon|talk]]) 16:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::'''Exclude''' because he has no international notability. He should be on [[2022 deaths in the United States]], but not here. Being in halls of fame - even international ones - doesn't grant inclusion. Most players who've competed internationally aren't important enough for main year articles; they need to have major international achievements. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Vinnytsia International Airport == |
|||
Is the airstrike on the [[Vinnytsia International Airport]] really relevant? Ten people died, which is unfortunately a common death count for attacks during the war. I don't see a reason why it needs inclusion. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 16:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Definitely '''Include''', it seems to be a Russian attack, and there's a lot of events in the Russian invasion of Ukraine that is as notable as this. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 16:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Exactly- there's quite a lot of events in the war, including Russian attacks, and the vast majority are not notable for a main year article. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think there are too many Russia-Ukraine events in this article, but what should the inclusion criteria be for them? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Too many entries for [[Russo-Ukrainian War]]? == |
|||
I think there are, We have [[Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine]] for a detailed blow-by-blow account, I think events in this article should be significant events in the war itself (large numbers killed or injured in a single event) or high-level international reaction (not threats or announcements.) I propose removal of some that were more 'breaking news' than 'events', and some are not, on balance, important enough events in the war for the year article, this is just a start there may be others that could be taken out: |
|||
*February 28 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Football governing bodies FIFA and UEFA suspend Russian clubs and national teams from all competitions. |
|||
** UEFA is international but relatively minor. No real lasting impact. |
|||
*March 2 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: The United Nations reports that over a million refugees have now fled from Ukraine to other countries. |
|||
** Running totals hitting arbitrary numbers aren't 'events' the lead could contain the latest figure of refugees. |
|||
*March 6 – 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Vinnytsia International Airport is destroyed by Russian missiles, as President Zelenskyy calls for a no-fly zone to prevent further attacks in Ukraine.[77][ |
|||
** Relatively inconsequential attack. |
|||
*March 8 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Major global brands including McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Starbucks halt sales in Russia, in response to its attacks on Ukraine. |
|||
** Much less significant than the international sanctions. |
|||
*March 25 – 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Russia's defence ministry announces that the first phase of its military operation is "generally" complete, saying the country will focus on the "liberation" of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region. |
|||
** Russian Propaganda, announcements are not events. |
|||
*March 29 – 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Russia's deputy defense minister says that Moscow has decided to "fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernihiv" in order to "increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine". |
|||
** Russian Propaganda, announcements are not events. |
|||
*April 19 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announces that Russia's military operation has entered a new phase, focused on the entire front line of Eastern Ukraine. The city of Kreminna is reportedly the first to be captured. |
|||
** Russian Propaganda, announcements are not events. |
|||
*April 20 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Russian and Belarusian players are banned from the Wimbledon tennis championship. |
|||
** relatively little significance |
|||
*May 2 – Russia announces it may be pulling out of the International Space Station as soon as two years from now, because of the sanctions imposed on the nation after its invasion of Ukraine. |
|||
** As per section on the talk page, it's an announcement not an event. |
|||
[[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 17:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:None of the entries you've mentioned will be deleted. Can you and Jim Michael stop trying to ruin this page by insisting that literally every f***ing thing must be deleted. I don't think you've any idea how '''''infuriating''''' it is – for me to spend large chunks of my time carefully researching and adding entries (all of which are relevant and notable), filling in the references, etc. – and then coming on here and seeing some random little editor bleating and whining that ''eVeRyThIng mUsT nOw bE dEleTed''. It's getting to the point where I'm going to stop contributing here, because it seems like a waste of time and effort. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Editors' measures of what's notable enough to include vary. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:February 28 - Not notable, put that in [[2022 in sports]] |
|||
:March 2 - I don't see a problem with this part; [[2011]] for instance has an entry for the world's population hitting seven billion |
|||
:March 6 - Not notable at all, no important consequences and just one of many Russian airstrikes with a (relatively) small death toll. |
|||
:March 8 - No opinion |
|||
:March 25 - No opinion |
|||
:March 29 - increase mutual trust, no, but cut back in the direction of Chernihiv and Kyiv, yes. Keep the entry. |
|||
:April 19 - [[Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]] |
|||
:April 20 - [[2022 in sport]]; Wimbledon decisions are not notable |
|||
:May 2 - No opinion, when they withdraw from the ISS it will be newsworthy but I'm not sure about the announcement. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 22:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I think we should follow a timeline on the same format as [[1939]], which entries on the [[Spanish Civil War]] and [[World War II]] can be used as models. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 22:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The threat of the leaving the ISS is definitely not notable. They made the same threat multiple times in the previous weeks: [https://www.space.com/russia-threatens-leave-international-space-station-program-rogozin Russia threatens to leave International Space Station program (again)]. It will be notable if it actually happens. Right now it's just a bunch of worthless empty threats. --[[User:McSly|McSly]] ([[User talk:McSly|talk]]) 22:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Then the entry should be deleted. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 22:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:all of them, (except for the May 2nd one) should be kept. |
|||
:look at [[2020]] and there's a lot of covid-19 related stuff, every month of 2020, pretty much has 10 to 15 things about [[covid-19]], it's the same for 2022, but this time with the Russian invasion. removing it would be pointless since we already have the same thing but with a different topic on a previous year. and the same would go for late 1939 with the start of the Second World War. in my opinion the May 2nd one should be excluded cuz it has been threatened by Russia for a while now. every other entries should be included. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 00:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with your comparison only in that there are far too many COVID Timeline entries in 2020! I don’t find arguments based on entirely unrelated content convincing at all. The inclusion of COVID related entries has no bearing on the relevance of these entries. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 07:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Vladimir Zhirinovsky]] == |
|||
Why is he not internationally notable? He was one of the most well-known politicians in Europe, ran for President six times (in all cases as a major contender), was a symbol of the Russian/Eastern European far-right, took part in a [[1993 Russian constitutional crisis|coup d'état attempt]], etc. The extent of his popularity was significant enough it became a subject of concern by the international media. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&diff=1087443792&oldid=1087441937&diffmode=source argument] that [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]] wouldn't be placed on a main year article if he died doesn't make sense either, for obvious reasons. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 14:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Zhirinovsky & Le Pen are domestic figures. They've received a lot of international media coverage because of their political positions, but that doesn't make them internationally notable. Coup attempts, internal crises etc. usually aren't international. We include very few politicians on main year articles who haven't been head of state/gov. We've had long debates in regard to the inclusion bar for politicians, especially on here & [[Talk:2021]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' as per Jim Michael and TheScrubby. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 00:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' as per Jim Michael. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 21:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Any objections? Otherwise, I'll put it up on sunday :) [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 13:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Death of [[Shireen Abu Akleh]] == |
|||
::I've reverted the change of the college per [[WP:NOCONSENSUS]]. When discussions of proposals to '''add''', modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to ''retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal'' or bold edit. [[User:Carter00000|Carter00000]] ([[User talk:Carter00000|talk]]) 01:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Another editor added Abu Akleh to the article in the 'deaths' section. I believe her death merits inclusion as she is known across the middle-east, her death was remarkable due to her young age and being a journalist killed 'in the field' and she was a Palestinian-American who worked for a Qatari news agency killed during a conflict with Israeli forces makes this an undeniably international event. The further repercussions of her death (protests and attacks at her funeral) go further to merit inclusion in the article. The 'career' section of her article goes further to explain her 'international notability' with a career spanning multiple countries in the Arab world. I think the sum of all these factors means that her death merits inclusion. I'm not sure if as a 'Death' or as an 'Event' though. If the latter it may be worthwhile waiting on the outcome of any investigations or seeing what further repercussions there are specifically outside of the immediate area before adding it. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 00:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Do you disagree with my suggestion? [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 15:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:She isn't internationally notable enough for Deaths, nor is her killing internationally notable enough for Events. Thousands of journalists have worked in multiple countries. Journalists being killed isn't rare, especially in conflict zones. The reactions to it are significant, but not enough for her (death) to be on this article. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 07:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I accidentally reverted an edit related to this issue. This was because of an accidental misclick on the rollback button on my watchlist. I reverted my edit. Please note that my edits were accidental and I don't have a position on the proposed change. [[User:Aoi|Aoi (青い)]] ([[User talk:Aoi|talk]]) 17:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Exclude as per Jim Michael [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 20:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{reply to|Carter00000}} I'm not sure this policy should apply here and I think you're being a bit too eager to revert. There were no objections to the collage and it seems like a delightful bold edit that only adds to the encyclopedia. This was not some controversial talk page discussion that ended without consensus. I think {{user link|Marginataen}}'s collage should have stayed. [[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]] ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]]) 00:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' per Jim. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsoriano97]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 19:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
:'''Include''' because of her general notability in the Arab World (a multinational region). [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 13:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' as per Jim, 4me and Alsoriano. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 13:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: '''Exclude''' as not significant enough. --[[User:StellarNerd|StellarNerd]] ([[User talk:StellarNerd|talk]]) 20:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Collage depreciation == |
||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
is Lil Keed notable enough for inclusion??? |
|||
At [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image]], a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--[[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
:If the article is fully detailed, I don't see any notability outside the US. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Exclude due to him having very little international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah, this is a clear cut case where it belongs in [[2022 deaths in the United States]]. '''Exclude'''. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 01:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''', Lil keed does not have either a Billboard Hot 100 number one single, and/or a Grammy, he has none of those, so exclude him. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 02:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude'''. Never even heard of him until his death was announced. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 08:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' per above. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsoriano97]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 19:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Change to DMY date format == |
|||
== [[Supraorganisation]]s == |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
Changes in memberships of important international supraorganisations including the [[EU]], [[Eurozone]] & [[NATO]] are important enough to include, but applications to join, announcements of intention to join, referendums regarding joining etc. aren't. We should include an entry only for the date each country joins, such as the entry on [[2013]] for [[Croatia]] [[2013 enlargement of the European Union|joining the EU]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
All articles about generic years should use the much more global DMY date format. It does not make sense to make a separate discussion about this on every single year page.--[[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''', all three organizations are pretty big, it's a big deal if a nation joins all or one of the organizations. Cuz the policies that come with it could affect a lot of people. Joining the Eurozone would bring a new currency everyone has to switch to, joining the European Union with mean that you get to travel freely around too other members States, joining NATO means you're aligning more towards new allies, and the requirements for it will affect said countries military. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Joining is, no doubt. Applying or saying they'll apply isn't. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose''' mere application requests. That never guarantees that the State will end up being part of the organization it's applying to join. Noticiable, yes, but insufficient. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsoriano97]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 19:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: The date of joining such organisations will always merit inclusion, but as to whether announcements should be included it entirely depends on the context, I don't think we can say they will never be major events. We should be open to discussing any addition to the page. To take a hypothetical example, Switzerland ending their neutrality and merely applying to join NATO would be a huge international event. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 20:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:"joining the European Union with mean that you get to travel freely around too other members States" You can do that by joining the [[Schengen Area]], and five European Union members never joined it (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Romania, and the Republic of Ireland). [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 22:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Applications & gov statements of intention to join gain publicity, but we usually only include accessions because that's what's important. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed with all of the above. Joining such organisations ought to be included, but mere ''announcements'' about the intention to join is nowhere near important enough for inclusion here. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 16:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:For anyone else reading, Marginataen started a discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Change to the DMY date format]] about this issue. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Multinational companies]] == |
|||
::The main discussion is ongoing at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date format for year articles|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date format for year article]] [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 21:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Many multinational companies have taken actions in regard to Russia, such as closing their operations there. Are those actions important enough to include? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
:Very rarely, I would say. Major financial institutions that actively impair Russia's ability to trade might count. But McDonald's certainly not, as most of their operations there are franchisees anyway. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:The opening of McDonalds in Moscow in January 1990 was an iconic moment and symbolised a new bridge between Russia and the West. Huge crowds gathered on that day, and it received international coverage. Its closing is therefore notable too, along with similar global brands, as it reverses 30 years of progress in this area of commerce. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:: It is absolutely notable, and a major event for Russia, but it's not significant enough to be on the main year page. It should remain on [[McDonalds]] and [[2022 in Russia]]. The opening in 1990 was symbolic because pre-globalisation, McDonalds was very much a symbol of the United States, and of Capitalism, and the opening signified the ending of the cold war and was emblematic of the fall of the iron curtain. In reverse McDonalds is simply one of many corporations boycotting Russia at this time. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 19:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Date format == |
||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
there has just been room open up for a second image in may, though there is a lot contenders. here's a couple of contenders. |
|||
would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest. |
|||
<gallery caption="" heights="120" widths="120" mode="packed"> |
|||
File:Leonid Kravchuk (1) (cropped).jpg|the 1st [[President of Ukraine]], [[Leonid Kravchuk]] |
|||
File:Mottelson,Ben_1963_Kopenhagen.jpg|American-Danish Nobel nuclear physicist, [[Ben Roy Mottelson]] |
|||
File:The President, Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patil with the President of UAE, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahayan at the Ceremonial Reception, at Mushrif Palace, in Abu Dhabi on November 22, 2010 (cropped) (cropped).jpg|2nd incumbent President of the United Arab Emirates, [[Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan]] |
|||
File:VangelisElGrecopremiereDE2.jpg|Greek composer and musician, [[Vangelis]] |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
what should get the first and second pictures, and what is the order of the pictures any thoughts [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:The 2 presidents are currently there. They're from the same field, so one should be replaced with the scientist or the musician. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::If I were to go with one of the world leaders, I would go with Kravchuk [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 13:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think in due time once there's more space for additional photos (three at minimum), we ought to include both Kravchuk and Khalifa. But for now, I think it is '''essential''' to prioritise Khalifa over Kravchuk, given that he was a '''''incumbent''''' leader who had served 17 years in office. As for the second photo, while I think Mottelson is more deserving, due to a lack of space we should prioritise Vangelis for the time being. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 13:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Why do 2020, 2021, and 2022 have longer intros than all other year articles? == |
|||
These three years have intros which extensively discuss the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, while in comparison the years [[1939]]-[[1945]] only have one introduction sentence at most to discuss World War II. Shouldn't there be a consistency in the introductions of year articles, and what is it? [[User:Sk8erkid182|Sk8erkid182]] ([[User talk:Sk8erkid182|talk]]) 00:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:[[1988]], [[1989]], [[1990]] & [[1991]] also have long leads. The other years should have longer leads than they do. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::agreed, in fact, the longer the lead, the more important the year is. so some years have longer headers then others. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::88-91 are very important years, including the end of the [[Cold War]], so it's good for them to have long leads which include that. There are some other years that should have important events added to their leads. The [[September 11 attacks]] should be in the lead of [[2001]]. The [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] should be in the lead of [[2003]]. The [[Great Recession]] should be in the leads of [[2007]], [[2008]] & [[2009]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::We only perceive [[2020]], [[2021]], and [[2022]] to be extremely important years, even more important than [[1939]]-[[1945]], because of [[Wikipedia:Recentism]]. In any case I've started helping adding material to the leads of other year articles. [[User:Sk8erkid182|Sk8erkid182]] ([[User talk:Sk8erkid182|talk]]) 22:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Far more people edit the recent year articles than the older ones. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Well, that make sense. After all that's the reason why all the older Pages are kind of broken [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 12:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:It has now been more than a week since I posted my proposal about changing the date format for 2022 to DMY and no one has responded. If one more weeks passes without any response as well, I will consider it consensus and change it to the DMY format. By then, people would have had more than two weeks to respond. Should someone later on object, please discuss it here on the talk page before reverting. [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 08:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[June Brown]] == |
|||
:I'm pasting the same reply at all the 2020s talk page sections on this topic, with the exception of 2023. As of about a month ago, we had a situation in which all generic year articles had a consistent date format. Since both date styles are considered appropriate per the Manual of Style, it's unusual to see such solid consistency. Since I value consistency, I appreciated that rare situation. |
|||
Add June Brown to list of deaths? [[User:Yourlocallordandsavior|Yourlocallordandsavior]] ([[User talk:Yourlocallordandsavior|talk]]) 07:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:As of last month, ''only [[2023]]'' was changed via local consensus to be different than the rest. If this proposal passes for this article, it would join a tiny minority of articles that do not match the overall consistent style. I ''oppose'' for that reason. |
|||
:'''Opposed''' due to a lack of international notability. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 10:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I would be fine with ''all'' generic year articles changing to consistently use a different style, and that is the proposal on the table at [[WP:VPR#Date format for year articles]]. Currently, it seems we're at the tail end of a pre-RfC discussion with plans to move forward with an RfC in the next week or so. I would much prefer to keep discussing the overarching change rather than have individual discussions at each year article. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 13:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose''' for the same reason. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
:'''Oppose'''. Whilst ''EastEnders'' is indeed syndicated worldwide, it is mostly to countries with a British diaspora and thus the international notability aspect is diluted somewhat. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 13:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::She has an entry on the 1927 page for her birth. [[User:Yourlocallordandsavior|Yourlocallordandsavior]] ([[User talk:Yourlocallordandsavior|talk]]) 15:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::She <s>doesn't, and</s> shouldn't. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Then it would be appropriate to include her death in this article. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 15:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::No, she should be removed from 1927. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::[[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] She's there, you just have to F5 it. [[User:Yourlocallordandsavior|Yourlocallordandsavior]] ([[User talk:Yourlocallordandsavior|talk]]) 18:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose''' due to a lack of international notability. as per TheScrubby, Jim Michael, and Black Kite. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Zero images? == |
||
Why are there ZERO images on this article? 2022 was a notable year, infamously so, and photos should be included here to illustrate certain events. |
|||
How do we measure which sports events are important & international enough to include? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* Amount of international reliable sources covering them is the only metric, really. The list at [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Sports]] may be good starting point. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::We currently don't include most of those. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* I think almost none if they're an annual event (It adds little information to have an entry in every year article saying 'X annual event happened this year too, quelle surprise', short of any specific reason to add them on a case-by-case basis. an otherwise annual event NOT happening for some reason may be more significant. Inaugural or ultimate events may make them significant enough to add, but not in all cases. The first (in a long time) international event being held in a country may be notable if the sources back up the fact it is symbolic of a wider change in international politics (say North Korea host the international table tennis championship) [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 13:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
@[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] since when is a consensus needed to insert images in an article? Did I miss a new rule? Why was my edit reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&diff=prev&oldid=1189956664]? Which of these removed images are "controversial", and for what reason?--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Adding literature == |
|||
Should this article include literature works or books that are published this year? What about holidays? They gain international notability right? [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.191|204.129.232.191]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.191|talk]]) 14:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: If a book, in the future, becomes notable enough that it's year of initial publication is really significant, then yes. E.g. Lord of the Rings' publication is noted in [[1954]] . I doubt very much that will happen within the year itself though. An example of a holiday that you think should be added would help discussion [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 15:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Alright, does Christmas or Easter count if it gains status around the world? It will help other people learn new events as well. [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.191|204.129.232.191]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.191|talk]]) 15:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::: I think Christmas and Easter have very much gained status around the world already. Adding the *date* of Easter (and other major religious festivals) in a particular year is not something I would be particularly opposed to as they do change each year. Christmas is normally December 25th most years though.. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 15:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::But what would happen if I edited the article and added local and state events that do not gain any international notability? [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.191|204.129.232.191]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.191|talk]]) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Another editor might remove them if they didn't feel they fit within the scope of the article. Why are you asking, do you have a point you're trying to make? If so making it explicitly might be more productive [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 15:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I was asking because I was making a point about literature, holidays, and local events in general and overall. [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.191|204.129.232.191]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.191|talk]]) 15:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Books are rarely important enough to include. [[The Satanic Verses]] is a rare example of one that is, because of the major internation reaction to it. |
|||
:::::::As has been stated many times, we don't include domestic - let alone local - events. |
|||
:::::::Public holidays are usually regular. Most aren't international & even those that are shouldn't be included because they're not important events. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The publishing of literature is rarely notable unless it causes a huge world event that will affect the world for years to come. Books normally go in [[2022 in literature]]. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Even if I research literature in 2022 and there are even link and resources, do they count as reliable? Why not? [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.191|204.129.232.191]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.191|talk]]) 18:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::: You may be able to provide reliable sources that a book was published in 2022, the question is whether that makes it on on topic for this article. There is general consensus that the topic of the article is internationally important things that happen within the year. The publication of a book is unlikely to meet that definition on it's own. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 19:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::What does reliable sources for 2022 include? [[Special:Contributions/76.20.110.116|76.20.110.116]] ([[User talk:76.20.110.116|talk]]) 23:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::It may include almost everything, like the website that increases vocabulary and language skills. [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.191|204.129.232.191]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.191|talk]]) 14:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::No, [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] are well-defined. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::But how are reliable source are well defined? [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.191|204.129.232.191]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.191|talk]]) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::That link explains that in detail. The more relevant point here is that to be on main year articles, things have to be internationally important. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Recently, a [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Collage_Discussions|discussion]] and [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#RfC:_Removal_of_image_collages|RFC]] on the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years|WikiProject]] found near unanimous consensus to deprecate the use of image collages and the general inclusion of images. This centered on the arbitrary selection of images, which editors characterized as [[WP:OR]] & [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 18:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Reverts over the Ukraine entries == |
|||
::@[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] Yes, this refers to image ''collages'', but not '''images''' itself. It is thus not applicable to my edit, which did not contain ''collages''. Your claim of "arbitrary selection of images" could not be substantiated in the link you provided. Furthermore, years [[2021]] and [[2023]] contradict you entirely, since they also contain images. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, your revert was unnecessary.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
In regards to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&diff=1089572832&oldid=1089561700 this edit] that was reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&diff=1089576126&oldid=1089572832&diffmode=source here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&diff=1089576286&oldid=1089576126&diffmode=source here]– [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]]: |
|||
:::If you read the concerns raised by those commenting on the RFC, you will find they are not necessarily exclusively related to the collages, but images in general, despite the title of the RFC. |
|||
# What makes a technical complaint about refugee corridors internationally notable? This entry isn't about something important happening (like a new supraorganization being founded or a major military battle), just a complaint about a Russo-Ukrainian internal dispute. |
|||
:::I opened a [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Guidelines_on_Images_for_2023|discussion]] at the Wikiproject on this, where the editor commenting agreed consensus should be obtained before adding a image. Following this, a second editor agreed to open discussions ([[Talk:2023#Inclusion_of_File:U-2_Pilot_over_Central_Continental_United_States_(7644960)_(cropped).jpg|1]], [[Talk:2023#Inclusion_of_File:2023_Coronation_Balcony.jpg|2]]) for the inclusion of photos. In past years, images have also usually been selected through discussions - 2021 ([[Talk:2021/Archive_2#Milkha_Singh_should_get_his_image_on_the_list_(Result:_not_done)|1]], [[Talk:2021/Archive_2#Changing_image_(Result:_not_done)|2]]), 2020 ([[Talk:2020/Archive_1#Terry_Jones_death|1]], [[Talk:2020/Archive_1#Jean_Kennedy_Smith|2]]). The current images on 2023 & 2021 have either been added without consensus or edit-warred in recently by a few editors, I will be seeking administrative assistance for those cases soon. |
|||
#No, it's not. These kinds events are [[International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War|very common]] and don't usually have spots on main year articles. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 17:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I also remind you that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion|the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content]]. You have added content which has been disputed and reverted, so you should be seeking the necessary consensus to restore the content. [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::You need to provide exact citation for your claim. I could only find that the theme relevant for this discussion were '''collages''', not images [[per se]]. You are also confusing Wikimedia Commons images with external sources, since the former have nothing to do with [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. An image on Wikimedia is an image, not a source. Now, let's go through all these images I initially included and let's hear from you what is disputed in each and every one of them? --[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion for inclusion of images=== |
|||
== Robb Elementary School shooting == |
|||
I hereby nominate the following images for inclusion in the article; |
|||
Should the [[Robb Elementary School shooting]] be listed? I understand that mass shootings are all too common in the U.S., but one at an elementary school (with over 19 deaths; 18 children) is pretty rare. Sandy Hook is listed in 2012 and Parkland shooting is listed in 2018, the Robb shooting already exceeds the death toll of Parkland. Just curious about input, I know this might get heated. --[[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 00:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:2022 Kazakhstan protests — Aqtobe, January 4 (01) (cropped).jpg |
|||
:None of them should be included, because they're domestic events. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 00:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Движение колонны бронетехники ВС РФ 007.png |
|||
::That's what I was thinking in terms if this can't be posted then Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings shouldn't be either. [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 00:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Antonov_Airport_after_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_and_Mriya_(3to4).jpg| |
|||
:::It's common for things to be added to main year articles which shouldn't be. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 00:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - ua.svg |
|||
*After seeing the international reactions, high death count and though a common tragic event in the U.S., I feel that Stoneman Douglas and Sandy Hook do merit inclusion in their respective years and so should this one. Count me in as '''Include'''. --[[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 18:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Warsaw Central Station during Ukrainian refugee crisis 05.jpg |
|||
:Absolutely '''exclude'''. Of course these shootings are always tragic, but firstly they are purely domestic and secondly they happen so regularly in the United States. Unless it leads to meaningful change in the US, I don’t think they’d meet the bar - and even if it did, it’d be a borderline inclusion at most because it would still be domestic. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 01:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Bucha. Faces of War. - Ukraine War Photo Exhibition 2023 (52702841629).jpg |
|||
::Columbine should also be excluded. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 08:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Russian bombing of Mariupol.jpg |
|||
::: I think Columbine is the exception here, it made major headlines worldwide and of course spawned films etc., whereas nowadays US school shootings get a few headlines and then disappear. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 08:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg |
|||
::::Agreed. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 13:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:08.03 總統與美國聯邦眾議院議長裴洛西媒體互動會 (52259967861).jpg |
|||
:::Columbine should be kept. In addition to the points put forwards by Black Kite, I should note that it helped [[Columbine effect#Influence on other shootings|inspire]] mass shootings around the world , such as in the [[Kerch Polytechnic College massacre]] and the [[Erfurt school massacre]]. (See also [[:Category:Columbine High School massacre copycat crimes|here]]) [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 17:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude'''. Domestic incident. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 08:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::'''Include'''. Years can have domestic events, so you should add this to the article. There is nothing wrong with this. [[Special:Contributions/76.20.110.116|76.20.110.116]] ([[User talk:76.20.110.116|talk]]) 23:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::We have Year in Topic for a reason. Otherwise, why bother having pages such as [[2022 in the United States]]? [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::This may be a reason, but it gained attention throughout international and global. It also sparked some new measures. [[Special:Contributions/76.20.110.116|76.20.110.116]] ([[User talk:76.20.110.116|talk]]) 03:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::International coverage doesn't equate international notability - that's something which has been firmly established here for well over a year. As for "new measures", it is '''far''' too soon to make such a claim, and at this stage borders on [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. '''''If''''' this event leads to meaningful gun reform in the United States (as the [[Port Arthur massacre (Australia)|Port Arthur massacre]] did in [[Gun laws of Australia|Australia]]), then we could revisit this and maybe include this as a borderline case. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 03:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''' There are many and tons of reasons why it should be included. [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.191|204.129.232.191]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.191|talk]]) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''' because of the high death toll and the media coverage. I wouldn't completely call it domestic, as it also seems to have had an impact, albeit devoloping, on [[Mexico–United States relations]].<ref>https://www.gob.mx/sre/prensa/comunicado-no-195?state=published</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=World leaders ‘horrified’ by ‘murder of innocent children’ in Texas |language=en-US |work=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/25/world-reaction-uvalde-texas-school-shooting/ |access-date=2022-05-26 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 17:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agreed with you more, it had gain attention nationally and there are tons of new sources out there. [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.191|204.129.232.191]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.191|talk]]) 18:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:safe2say, I now think '''inclusion''', I now say inclusion because a lot of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XGHrYtDReI| world leaders] are talking about it. it's safe to say that a lot of people outside the United States are talking about it after all. I no longer think that it's a domestic event. I now think it's worldwide news. I think you can 100% no longer say that it's a domestic event. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 19:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Many events have a lot of media coverage & talk. World leaders have given statements after many domestic attacks/disasters. They don't make it internationally notable. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::you always think everything's not notable [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 20:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Include'''. Yes, shootings in America are common, but this is the horrific barbarity of gunning down innocent small children, attacking them for no reason but just out of hate of humanity. This is a very significant event. --[[User:StellarNerd|StellarNerd]] ([[User talk:StellarNerd|talk]]) 20:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:But the shooting itself has no impact on global affairs. |
|||
*:The main article is supposed to be about global events, or events that have significant impact between countries. [[Special:Contributions/73.12.209.248|73.12.209.248]] ([[User talk:73.12.209.248|talk]]) 23:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::Disagreed, any event can be included within an article no matter how local, national, or global it is. It is digital evolution, not limited. [[Special:Contributions/76.20.110.116|76.20.110.116]] ([[User talk:76.20.110.116|talk]]) 23:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Not in main year articles; they're for important, international events. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 05:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I don’t know how many times this needs to be said, but to all those who are saying include, international coverage doesn’t equate international notability. In response to StellarNerd, yes it was a horrific event but we don’t include events based on our own emotional reactions - we include them based on international notability and significance. It is '''way''' too soon for this event to be deemed one of international notability, given how many mass shootings there are in the US and how none of them really led to change in the US. It would be [[WP:CRYSTAL]] to add the event because one assumes this’ll lead to any change of international consequence. It is also wildly inappropriate that one of the users deleted the note on the 2022 page and added this event anyway without any firm consensus in favour of inclusion. This event simply doesn’t meet the bar at all - though again, we can always revisit it if it does indeed prove to have '''international''' consequence. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 00:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, any event can be added in to year articles if they recently happened, since there are many sources and newspapers are the sources. So the list can be longer to help a lot of people. [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.191|204.129.232.191]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.191|talk]]) 14:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::It certainly shouldn't. Making the articles much longer isn't the goal of main year articles, which are for international events. There are many subarticles for domestic events. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::To add to what Jim Michael has said, it's been demonstrated by several users over the last year especially that we actually need to be more selective with what should be deemed relevant for these pages, and that recent year pages especially have easily exceeded the [[Wikipedia:Article size|recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article]]. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 16:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::One of the arguments for including this is that some victims were (likely) foreign nationals. However, that's true of many domestic attacks, disasters etc. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::This massacre has riveted the world media for now nearly a week. It's a significant event on a global scale. --[[User:StellarNerd|StellarNerd]] ([[User talk:StellarNerd|talk]]) 20:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The [[Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident]] & [[Depp v. Heard]] have received a huge amount of international media coverage for a lot longer. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 23:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' per all above. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsoriano97]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 17:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:But honestly, it had gained international attention throughout media and the location. There are tons of reliable sources including the television news. -- [[Special:Contributions/76.20.110.116|76.20.110.116]] ([[User talk:76.20.110.116|talk]]) 18:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::No-one's disputing that it has received a lot of international media coverage, but that doesn't make it internationally notable. The same goes for Smith-Rock & Depp-Heard. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' Yes it is a tragic and barbaric shooting, but it doesn't affect much in global affairs. It is a purely domestic event. [[User:PaPa PaPaRoony|PaPa PaPaRoony]] ([[User talk:PaPa PaPaRoony|talk]]) 00:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Sincerely, --[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{ref-talk}} |
|||
:I '''oppose ''' the inclusion of any images on the page. Adding images can create a bias towards certain events, essentially becoming a ranking of events, contrary to [[WP:OR]] & [[WP:NPOV]]. Considering the broad scope of the article, images should be omitted altogether. However, if there is a consensus does form to include images on the page, I would be happy to participate in the discussions regarding the selection of appropriate images. [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 16:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Ray Liotta]] == |
|||
::@[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] I don't understand your reasoning here. What is the argument here? An image could make one event more important than other events, so we should have zero images? It makes little to no sense. Even if that were the case, you could add many images and then you would have almost an equal amount of "importance" among them. But you do agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is arguably the most major even of 2022 and that it therefore merits inclusion of at least some images, correct?--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 09:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
is Ray Liotta notable enough for inclusion? |
|||
::That is not a valid reason to oppose, it could be used to justify the removal of any image in any article. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' the addition of images as a general editing principle that every editor may do, no opinion on the usage of ''these'' individual images. The RfC that is still open is specifically in regards to top-of-the-page collages, it is not a bar on image use in general. Reverting image additions for no reason other than "any addition is biased" is disruptive, and should be treated as standard [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Proposal''' - I've proposed a suggested course of action [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Proposal_on_the_Selection_of_Collages_Images_for_In-Line_Images|here]]. Please add your thoughts or comments on the proposal. [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 17:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] I have to repeat it for the second time, we are not discussing '''collage''' images on this talk page. We are discussing what is preventing users from including ordinary, any images on this article.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support there is nothing wrong with using regular images, they add to illustration and a summary of major events that happened a certain year/decade/century.''' [[User:Indiana6724|Indiana6724]] ([[User talk:Indiana6724|talk]]) 01:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I and many others are confused as to why images have been removed from all wikipedia pages on years. There used to be photo collages of notable events for every single year and they have all been removed. Why??? [[User:Lightningbolt1|Lightningbolt1]] ([[User talk:Lightningbolt1|talk]]) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
he starred in a lot of very successful films, like [[Field of Dreams]], [[Something Wild (1986 film)|Something Wild]], and [[Goodfellas]] among many others. he also starred as [[Tommy Vercetti]] in [[Grand Theft Auto: Vice City]] |
|||
:Considering that a whole month has passed, that other users gave their opinion confirming my thoughts, and that no user gave any support to @[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]]'s arbitrary proposal of "no images policy" (for which no reasonable arguments were presented), I think we can conclude that images can freely be added to the articles about years, provided they are not collages.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree that the consensus is that images may be included on the page. However, I believe that there should still be a discussion on which images should be included. I suggest we use a [[Talk:2023#2023_Collage_Full_Discussion|similar system]] as used on the page [[2023]]. While the discussion is related to collages, we are essentially still selecting images which are representative of the year. |
|||
::I've added a [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Courtesy_Notification:_Discussion_on_Inclusion_of_Images_for_2022|note]] on [[WP:YEARS]] to gather more input on this issue. [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 10:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I can do this [[User:Indiana6724|Indiana6724]] ([[User talk:Indiana6724|talk]]) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] The very first sentence of this discussion I started on 18 December 2023, (@Discussion_for_inclusion_of_images) includes a list of nine nominated images I want to include. You failed in this entire month to address even a single image that I nominated. As such, unless no objections were made against any of these nine images, it should be considered as accepted to be included in the article by default.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 09:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Because there are no objections, i think its fair we reinstate these images. [[User:Indiana6724|Indiana6724]] ([[User talk:Indiana6724|talk]]) 12:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Why is the Robb Elementary School shooting not mentioned in “Events”? == |
|||
he is very notable enough for inclusion, I wonder what the talk page has to say about this. just please give a good reason and don't be too basic. mainly because most of the people here are getting too strict about inclusion. and give nothing other than "too domestic 2022 the United States" as their response. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 02:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:As I said on my edit summary, I think although he is not an Oscar recipient, Liotta should make the cut, albeit as a '''borderline inclusion'''. Because he’s borderline though, I don’t think he should be prioritised for an image. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::His only awards are minor, US awards. He has no international notability. Many thousands of actors have starred in internationally popular films. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 05:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I can see and support the argument for '''inclusion''' as he has appeared in some notable films, death is gaining international coverage and though he's no Eastwood, Pacino or DeNiro, he's not a nobody too. [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 07:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: I agree and would lean towards borderline inclusion. I see obituaries (proper ones, not copy and paste agency ones) in heavyweight newspapers from around the world. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
'''Include'''. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 12:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::That's all due to his popularity & unexpected death. He doesn't gain the notability of his films, nor become internationally notable because he has many fans in many countries, died overseas & his death was reported in many sources. Thousands of entertainers are domestic figures who have fans in other countries & whose deaths are widely reported. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::He is (was) a well-known actor, with a leading role in one of the most critically acclaimed gangster movies ever. That alone is sufficient, before you consider his roles in other movies/TV shows. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 15:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
It was an event that garnered months of media attention, international condemnation, and led to the [[Bipartisan Safer Communities Act|first gun law in the United States in 28 years]]. It was also featured on the front page. (Link:https://web.archive.org/web/20220525121908/https:/en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) [[User:MountainDew20|MountainDew20]] ([[User talk:MountainDew20|talk]]) 00:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Tennis == |
|||
As we don't usually include any tennis tournaments, it makes no sense to include [[Novak Djokovic]] being [[deport]]ed from Australia & not able to defend his [[Australian Open]] title, nor the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from [[The Championships, Wimbledon]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:<s>Jim, have you considered finding another hobby in life? i.e. something that doesn't involve deleting everything on Wikipedia, which you seem utterly obsessed with, to a frankly bizarre extent. Seriously, give it a rest.</s> Anyway, 2022 and indeed all years should provide a decent "overview" of the year's main events, to inform people looking back on them in the future. Djokovic and his deportation case received MASSIVE, WORLDWIDE news coverage, making it clearly a notable event for this year. I believe that's all that needs to be said on this matter. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 21:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::<small>Part of the comment [[Wikipedia:STRIKE|striked]] for violating the [[Wikipedia:NPA|No Personal Attacks policy]].[[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 03:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::Have you considered not adding so many insufficiently notable events & people to main year articles? You claim that the problem is me removing them, but I'm one of several editors who frequently remove insufficiently notable things, including those which you've added/reinstated. The biggest problem with main year articles is the additions of what shouldn't be on them. I don't remove most things, let alone everything. |
|||
:::Djokovic is the best singles player in a sport which has millions of fans across many countries. That's why the media reported it. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Personally, anything that gets "global" coverage is worth mentioning here, so I think Djokovic's deportation is worth mentioning. [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 04:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::On that basis, the [[Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident]] & [[Depp v. Heard]] should be included. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Jim is doing a good job, and always seeks consensus before removing any content. We must take care to ensure that Year in topic is as less country-centrist as possible and not just another news portal. He doesn't need to search for "another hobby in life". We must insist that '''international coverage ≠ international notability'''. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsoriano97]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 08:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yes, and we don't usually include who won the [[grand slam (tennis)|grand slam]]s because tennis is considered to be insufficiently internationally notable for main year articles. Therefore, it makes no sense to include who can't enter them. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:We already have the [[2022 in tennis]] page. That would be the appropriate venue to include an entry on Djokovic. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 03:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::And the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from Wimbledon. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Collage edit war — Proposal in progress == |
|||
I'm going to present my points... in points. |
|||
Hey guys. I noticed the ongoing (fairly long) edit-war ongoing on the article over the collage. A few days ago, I proposed a process to be the standardized process for collage creations. This process is being experimented on for the 2023 collage amid the proposal discussion. If consensus get’s behind the proposal, the edit war and debate can stop. Anyway, it needs to stop and be solved one way or another. Feel free to participate here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images]]. |
|||
1) Novak Djokovic has won 20 Grand Slam titles. Therefore, he is notable. |
|||
Courtesy pings for people involved in edit war just in this article: {{u|3E1I5S8B9RF7}}, {{u|DementiaGaming}}, {{u|Indiana6724}}, {{u|33ABGirl}}, {{u|Setarip}}, {{u|Alalch E.}}, {{u|4BOTOX}}, {{u|Raksiyyyy}}. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 20:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
2) The most often case in which people are deported are illegal immigrants and various smugglers. These people are (bar a select few) not notable. |
|||
:{{u|WeatherWriter}} You obviously didn't even bother to read anything on this talk page since the discussion was not about '''collage''' images, but rather over '''zero images'''. After a month of discussion, the majority voted to include images in the article. If you want to contribute to the discussion, feel free after you have read the discussion and informed yourself about what you are talking about.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|3E1I5S8B9RF7}}, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&diff=prev&oldid=1197479151 this edit], you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, '''is''' being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on [[2023]]’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#RfC: Removal of image collages|against the consensus]] and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said, {{tq|See the talk page. Nine images were nominated a month ago, and everyone except 33ABGirl voted to include images in the article. The collage was not agreed upon, though.}} |
|||
::Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
3) If a notable person had an action taken against them (deportation) that almost no other notable people have had happen to them, that is a departure from the norm. |
|||
:::{{u|WeatherWriter}} Where exactly is the '''collage''' debate on this talk page?--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== The collage - why not restore? == |
|||
4) Based on Point 3, I find it notable that a notable person was deported. His inability to defend his title is not notable, so I'm fine losing that tidbit. |
|||
Why hasn't the pre-existing collage, seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&oldid=1183961343 here], been restored to this article yet as it has been for other articles? Per the re-closure of [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#RfC:_Removal_of_image_collages|this RfC]], {{tq|many collages were prematurely removed from year articles during the course of this RfC with at most limited discussion. Given the significantly wider scale of this discussion, any editor wishing to restore them may do so.}} There was some discussion and reverting here during and shortly after that RfC, but all movement on this has apparently stalled for a month and a half. Since a perfectly good collage was already created, I don't see a need for a new discussion like is being done for [[2023]] - and one isn't happening anyway. We should simply restore the previous collage and bring this article in line with other year articles. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 07:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks, [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 11:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Since the RfC has since been closed with overall consensus to keep them, I think it warrants restoring. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 09:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't see deportations as important enough, even if of internationally notable people, in unusual circumstances. The only exception would be if the deportee were a head of state/gov. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I see this collage as at least passably good, it makes the article better, I see no critical problems, and, therefore I have restored it. I stand by this collage. It is a good collage. When it comes to removing the entire collage, this is clearly incompatible with [[WP:PRESERVE]]. Incremental improvement is possible. If there is a certain someone who objects to something in the collage, well, edit it. Edit it out, edit something else in, I don't know. Find a solution that does not entail removing the entire collage. Ask for help and feedback on the talk page.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I understand your argument, but, as there are no written guidelines on the notability of deportation, I'm still in favour of inclusion. So far, its myself, Wjfox and TDKR Chicago for inclusion and Jim Michael, Alsoriano and Dunutubble. Can I get a tie-breaking vote from anyone? TheScrubby? PeaceInOurTime? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/The Voivodeship King|contribs]]) 11:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages ''can'' be included doesn't mean that they ''must'' be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Consensus does '''not''' necessarily equate to a majority of votes; having said that I'm inclined to '''borderline include''' the deportation of Djokovic due to the international nature of the competition as well as the international political and diplomatic consequences of said deportation. As for the Russian & Belarusian players being banned from Wimbledon, the argument for inclusion is a lot weaker, but count me as '''neutral''' overall. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 13:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::If I'm not wrong we've reached consensus already ([[Talk:2022/Archive 11#2022 collage candidate images and topic suggestions (Result: options A, B1, C3, D, F, G, I, K)|here]]), but it's outdated and it was still in November 2022. |
|||
:::If we included grand slams - and I'm not saying we should - then I'd be in favour of including the deportation of Djokovic & the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from Wimbledon. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Indeed, much happened since then ,like the release of [[ChatGPT]] and the death of [[Pope Benedict XVI]] however the latest doesn't seem very relevant and to represent AI in an image would be reductive. |
|||
:::: I don't think the two are related whatsoever, It's a false dichotomy, an exceptional event featuring the sitting world champion tennis player can be on topic for this page even if tennis events are not normally included. This was an internationally notable event involving government-level actors, which was highly publicised and discussed at the top of government in multiple countries. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 21:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::: |
:::<nowiki>However, to keep the current collage with some wrong notes underneath might not be the best solution and to remove it altogether definitely wouldn't improve the article. ~~~</nowiki> [[User:Gioppolognomo|Gioppolognomo]] ([[User talk:Gioppolognomo|talk]]) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::sorry forgot to sign [[User:Gioppolognomo|Gioppolognomo]] ([[User talk:Gioppolognomo|talk]]) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I think not, as always it's subjective but this was a unilateral decision made by a private organisation, not a government decision. Affected the 8th and 4th ranked players, not the world #1, and had significantly less coverage internationally. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 18:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: Regardless of which players it affected, the banning was notable for a major (international) sporting event like this. Surely we can include non-govermental events on 2022. It is partly "political" in any case, as it has a damaging impact on both Russia's and Belarus's image and reputation. And googling the keywords "russia belarus banned tennis", I also believe it received sufficient news coverage to merit inclusion. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 21:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Uvalde? == |
||
I think [[Angelo Sodano]] merits inclusion, he was the Vatican's longtime Sec. of State, influential cardinal within the church, a notable figure in the Church's sex scandal and was the Dean of the College of Cardinals for almost 15 years. I know we don't post cardinals that often here but I think Sodano makes an argument for '''inclusion'''. --[[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 04:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Inclusion''', cuz what I can see from this dude, this dude was kind of important, though I think this is kind of borderline. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 05:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Inclusion''' He was [[Secretariat of State (Holy See)|Holy See's Secretary of State]], the equivalent of "Prime Minister", so there is neither doubt nor debate. All of them should be included. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsoriano97]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 08:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Inclusion''' See this AP article for more information about his general importance:<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-05-28 |title=Angelo Sodano, once-powerful Vatican prelate, dies at 94 |url=https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis-covid-politics-health-744afe2eefc8d803f5992d557226d932 |access-date=2022-05-29 |website=AP NEWS |language=en}}</ref> [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 03:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I have no objections with his '''inclusion''', yeah. My reservation is more with regards to image, which I don’t think he should necessarily take priority over other prominent figures who have passed this month. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 07:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsoriano97]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 13:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''', because powerful in a very very small state with no army, well except the [[Swiss Guard]], and with no territory to speak of isn't a reason to include. Would you include Nauru government ministers? Nauru is a bigger state than the Vatican. --[[User:StellarNerd|StellarNerd]] ([[User talk:StellarNerd|talk]]) 20:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Except, The Vatican isn't just a city state, it is the political arm of the Catholic Church which is one of the most influential insitutions in the world, When Sodano was secretary of State for the Holy See, he is essentially the vice pope for the Church. [[Special:Contributions/73.12.209.248|73.12.209.248]] ([[User talk:73.12.209.248|talk]]) 23:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{ref-talk}} |
|||
Why cant we add Uvalde and why does it say 'don't add Uvalde'? [[User:CalfRaiser150|CalfRaiser150]] ([[User talk:CalfRaiser150|talk]]) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Jean Lèques]] == |
|||
President of [[New Caledonia]] briefly, but this is merely an overseas territory of France, not a country or state. His two-line article and the fact that [[Government of New Caledonia]] doesn't exist suggests that he shouldn't be included here. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{removed}} due to having no international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 10:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Move to [[2022 in Oceania]] or [[2022 in France]]. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 13:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed with the swift decision to '''exclude'''. If New Caledonia was an independent nation, then this would be a completely different story. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 13:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''exclude''', as per TheScrubby, Dunutubble, and Jim Michael. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 00:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I am very confused. UVALDE is on the list now but it still says 'Dont add Uvalde'. Very confusing for editors. [[User:CalfRaiser150|CalfRaiser150]] ([[User talk:CalfRaiser150|talk]]) 13:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protect article? == |
|||
During recent weeks, this article has been vandalised many times, and frequently had people & things added to it which are nowhere near notable enough to include. This has included blanking, obsessive fans repeatedly adding people & trolls writing insults. It has also included the nuisance who repeatedly asks 'what if 2020 was a person?', who is so persistent that he created an article relating to that. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 02:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Strong support''' this proposal - and am amazed it hasn't been done already as it is. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 04:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support''' per nom. [[User:Goodone121|Bettering the Wiki]] ([[User talk:Goodone121|talk]]) 05:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support''', that's a great idea, especially since in recent days this page has seen an uptick of vandalism and unnecessary revisions. [[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 08:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support''' [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 09:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Since writing this, the person who repeatedly writes nonsense about 2020 being a person using various IPs has vandalised both this article (using a deliberately very misleading edit summary) & its talk page, using yet another IP. Should this talk page also be semi-protected? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 10:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sure, it's a good idea to do that because we don't want more people doing it. though I don't know if the "2020 was a person" thing is only one person or just multiple people doing it. any proof???[[User:4me689|4me689]] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 11:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:30, 25 April 2024
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shinzo Abe & Jiang Zemin
Should Shinzo Abe and Jiang Zemin be included in the lead?
I noticed that their deaths were recently removed [1] from the lead, but they seem to be of comparable notability to those already included in the paragraph. Carter00000 (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you can find a source that establishes their deaths as a significant event of 2022 (as opposed to merely having occurred in 2022), then IMHO yes. “Year in review” sources would be ideal. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- You missed the point. I removed the ones that were unsourced. In my opinion, the whole paragraph should go, as it's completely subjective. Deb (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Collage
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
I would like to create consensus – not exclusively on this place but on all articles on calendar years – to change using the multiple image template to make collages. Specifically for this page, I would like to suggest the current picture of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to be replaced by the one below of Zelensky. One of the great things about the template system btw is that one does not need to create a whole new collage just to change one picture.
--Marginataen (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Collage depreciation
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
Change to DMY date format
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
All articles about generic years should use the much more global DMY date format. It does not make sense to make a separate discussion about this on every single year page.--Marginataen (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Date format
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest. On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s Marginataen (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Zero images?
Why are there ZERO images on this article? 2022 was a notable year, infamously so, and photos should be included here to illustrate certain events.
@33ABGirl since when is a consensus needed to insert images in an article? Did I miss a new rule? Why was my edit reverted [2]? Which of these removed images are "controversial", and for what reason?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Recently, a discussion and RFC on the WikiProject found near unanimous consensus to deprecate the use of image collages and the general inclusion of images. This centered on the arbitrary selection of images, which editors characterized as WP:OR & WP:NPOV. 33ABGirl (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl Yes, this refers to image collages, but not images itself. It is thus not applicable to my edit, which did not contain collages. Your claim of "arbitrary selection of images" could not be substantiated in the link you provided. Furthermore, years 2021 and 2023 contradict you entirely, since they also contain images. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, your revert was unnecessary.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you read the concerns raised by those commenting on the RFC, you will find they are not necessarily exclusively related to the collages, but images in general, despite the title of the RFC.
- I opened a discussion at the Wikiproject on this, where the editor commenting agreed consensus should be obtained before adding a image. Following this, a second editor agreed to open discussions (1, 2) for the inclusion of photos. In past years, images have also usually been selected through discussions - 2021 (1, 2), 2020 (1, 2). The current images on 2023 & 2021 have either been added without consensus or edit-warred in recently by a few editors, I will be seeking administrative assistance for those cases soon.
- I also remind you that the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You have added content which has been disputed and reverted, so you should be seeking the necessary consensus to restore the content. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- You need to provide exact citation for your claim. I could only find that the theme relevant for this discussion were collages, not images per se. You are also confusing Wikimedia Commons images with external sources, since the former have nothing to do with Wikipedia:Verifiability. An image on Wikimedia is an image, not a source. Now, let's go through all these images I initially included and let's hear from you what is disputed in each and every one of them? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl Yes, this refers to image collages, but not images itself. It is thus not applicable to my edit, which did not contain collages. Your claim of "arbitrary selection of images" could not be substantiated in the link you provided. Furthermore, years 2021 and 2023 contradict you entirely, since they also contain images. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, your revert was unnecessary.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion for inclusion of images
I hereby nominate the following images for inclusion in the article;
- File:2022 Kazakhstan protests — Aqtobe, January 4 (01) (cropped).jpg
- File:Движение колонны бронетехники ВС РФ 007.png
- File:Antonov_Airport_after_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_and_Mriya_(3to4).jpg|
- File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - ua.svg
- File:Warsaw Central Station during Ukrainian refugee crisis 05.jpg
- File:Bucha. Faces of War. - Ukraine War Photo Exhibition 2023 (52702841629).jpg
- File:Russian bombing of Mariupol.jpg
- File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg
- File:08.03 總統與美國聯邦眾議院議長裴洛西媒體互動會 (52259967861).jpg
Sincerely, --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose the inclusion of any images on the page. Adding images can create a bias towards certain events, essentially becoming a ranking of events, contrary to WP:OR & WP:NPOV. Considering the broad scope of the article, images should be omitted altogether. However, if there is a consensus does form to include images on the page, I would be happy to participate in the discussions regarding the selection of appropriate images. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl I don't understand your reasoning here. What is the argument here? An image could make one event more important than other events, so we should have zero images? It makes little to no sense. Even if that were the case, you could add many images and then you would have almost an equal amount of "importance" among them. But you do agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is arguably the most major even of 2022 and that it therefore merits inclusion of at least some images, correct?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- That is not a valid reason to oppose, it could be used to justify the removal of any image in any article. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support the addition of images as a general editing principle that every editor may do, no opinion on the usage of these individual images. The RfC that is still open is specifically in regards to top-of-the-page collages, it is not a bar on image use in general. Reverting image additions for no reason other than "any addition is biased" is disruptive, and should be treated as standard disruptive editing. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Proposal - I've proposed a suggested course of action here. Please add your thoughts or comments on the proposal. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl I have to repeat it for the second time, we are not discussing collage images on this talk page. We are discussing what is preventing users from including ordinary, any images on this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support there is nothing wrong with using regular images, they add to illustration and a summary of major events that happened a certain year/decade/century. Indiana6724 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I and many others are confused as to why images have been removed from all wikipedia pages on years. There used to be photo collages of notable events for every single year and they have all been removed. Why??? Lightningbolt1 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Considering that a whole month has passed, that other users gave their opinion confirming my thoughts, and that no user gave any support to @33ABGirl's arbitrary proposal of "no images policy" (for which no reasonable arguments were presented), I think we can conclude that images can freely be added to the articles about years, provided they are not collages.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the consensus is that images may be included on the page. However, I believe that there should still be a discussion on which images should be included. I suggest we use a similar system as used on the page 2023. While the discussion is related to collages, we are essentially still selecting images which are representative of the year.
- I've added a note on WP:YEARS to gather more input on this issue. 33ABGirl (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I can do this Indiana6724 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl The very first sentence of this discussion I started on 18 December 2023, (@Discussion_for_inclusion_of_images) includes a list of nine nominated images I want to include. You failed in this entire month to address even a single image that I nominated. As such, unless no objections were made against any of these nine images, it should be considered as accepted to be included in the article by default.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Because there are no objections, i think its fair we reinstate these images. Indiana6724 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I can do this Indiana6724 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Why is the Robb Elementary School shooting not mentioned in “Events”?
It was an event that garnered months of media attention, international condemnation, and led to the first gun law in the United States in 28 years. It was also featured on the front page. (Link:https://web.archive.org/web/20220525121908/https:/en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) MountainDew20 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Collage edit war — Proposal in progress
Hey guys. I noticed the ongoing (fairly long) edit-war ongoing on the article over the collage. A few days ago, I proposed a process to be the standardized process for collage creations. This process is being experimented on for the 2023 collage amid the proposal discussion. If consensus get’s behind the proposal, the edit war and debate can stop. Anyway, it needs to stop and be solved one way or another. Feel free to participate here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images.
Courtesy pings for people involved in edit war just in this article: 3E1I5S8B9RF7, DementiaGaming, Indiana6724, 33ABGirl, Setarip, Alalch E., 4BOTOX, Raksiyyyy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- WeatherWriter You obviously didn't even bother to read anything on this talk page since the discussion was not about collage images, but rather over zero images. After a month of discussion, the majority voted to include images in the article. If you want to contribute to the discussion, feel free after you have read the discussion and informed yourself about what you are talking about.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- 3E1I5S8B9RF7, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In this edit, you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, is being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on 2023’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually against the consensus and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said,
See the talk page. Nine images were nominated a month ago, and everyone except 33ABGirl voted to include images in the article. The collage was not agreed upon, though.
- 3E1I5S8B9RF7, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In this edit, you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, is being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on 2023’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually against the consensus and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said,
- Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- WeatherWriter Where exactly is the collage debate on this talk page?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The collage - why not restore?
Why hasn't the pre-existing collage, seen here, been restored to this article yet as it has been for other articles? Per the re-closure of this RfC, many collages were prematurely removed from year articles during the course of this RfC with at most limited discussion. Given the significantly wider scale of this discussion, any editor wishing to restore them may do so.
There was some discussion and reverting here during and shortly after that RfC, but all movement on this has apparently stalled for a month and a half. Since a perfectly good collage was already created, I don't see a need for a new discussion like is being done for 2023 - and one isn't happening anyway. We should simply restore the previous collage and bring this article in line with other year articles. Crossroads -talk- 07:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since the RfC has since been closed with overall consensus to keep them, I think it warrants restoring. jp×g🗯️ 09:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see this collage as at least passably good, it makes the article better, I see no critical problems, and, therefore I have restored it. I stand by this collage. It is a good collage. When it comes to removing the entire collage, this is clearly incompatible with WP:PRESERVE. Incremental improvement is possible. If there is a certain someone who objects to something in the collage, well, edit it. Edit it out, edit something else in, I don't know. Find a solution that does not entail removing the entire collage. Ask for help and feedback on the talk page.—Alalch E. 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages can be included doesn't mean that they must be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. Deb (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- If I'm not wrong we've reached consensus already (here), but it's outdated and it was still in November 2022.
- Indeed, much happened since then ,like the release of ChatGPT and the death of Pope Benedict XVI however the latest doesn't seem very relevant and to represent AI in an image would be reductive.
- However, to keep the current collage with some wrong notes underneath might not be the best solution and to remove it altogether definitely wouldn't improve the article. ~~~ Gioppolognomo (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- sorry forgot to sign Gioppolognomo (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages can be included doesn't mean that they must be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. Deb (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Uvalde?
Why cant we add Uvalde and why does it say 'don't add Uvalde'? CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am very confused. UVALDE is on the list now but it still says 'Dont add Uvalde'. Very confusing for editors. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)