TheScrubby (talk | contribs) |
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 == |
|||
== Death section pictures for July (Result: Robert Curl, Shinzo Abe, and José Eduardo dos Santos) == |
|||
there has just been room that has open up for a second image in July, and here's the contenders for death section pictures in July |
|||
<gallery caption="" heights="120" widths="120" mode="packed"> |
|||
File:Robert_Curl_crop_2009_CHAO.jpg|American Nobel chemist, [[Robert Curl]] |
|||
File:José Eduardo dos Santos-16062014-edit.jpg|2nd President of Angola, [[José Eduardo dos Santos]] |
|||
File:Luis_Echeverria_Smiling.png|57th President of Mexico, [[Luis Echeverría]] |
|||
File:F. Morales Bermúdez (cropped).jpg|12th Prime Minister and 51st President of Peru, [[Francisco Morales-Bermúdez]] |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
in my opinion the second picture should go to Robert curl, as we already have a world leader picture in the form of [[Shinzo Abe]], the third picture should go to dos Santos cuz of his longevity as the leader of Angola, I wonder what everyone's opinions is. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Should Shinzo Abe and Jiang Zemin be included in the lead? |
|||
:My money's on Curl too. At the end of the month, I think it would be Curl, Abe, Dos Santos (but please, not the pic you're proposing: I don't think it's appropriate to have the flag of a country that isn't his in the photo behind him) and a fourth one depending on who will die. And if no one more relevant dies, I would support Brook (for his important role in show business) or Echevarría (the Hispanic quota that I think the Year in Topic is missing). I "long" for some important woman to pass away...this Year in Topic is very masculinized. All this if there is room for four images. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsorian]] ([[User talk:Alsorian|talk]]) 20:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I noticed that their deaths were recently removed |
|||
::It should be Curl & Abe until there's space for a third. Abe is by far the most notable person & Curl by far the most notable non-politician to die this month. The pics should be of people from different fields; it's not justified for both to be of politicians when a highly-notable scientist also died. The other politicians shown here are nowhere near as notable as Abe. Japan is the world's third-largest economy. None of the other politicians are from countries which are developed or among the ten largest economies. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 22:46, 18 July 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) |
|||
: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 remember Jim Michael saying last year that if more than one highly notable head of government/state died in a single month, it would make sense for there to be an exception to the variety rule and that we should in that case prioritise these figures. In the case of this month, I feel quite strongly that this scenario applies - it goes without saying that Abe should get the first image (mainly due to the circumstances of his death), but the second image should instead go to dos Santos - given that he was head of his country for almost 40 years (and was the second-longest serving President of any African state) and was a highly significant and influential figure in the continent. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 16:04, 25 July 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) |
|||
::Dos Santos is nowhere near internationally important enough to be an exception. [[Angola]] is one of the [[least developed countries]], so despite his very long term as leader, he didn't have major international effects. Even if Abe had died naturally, he'd have a photo because he's by far the most notable person to die this month. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:01, 25 July 2022 (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) |
|||
:::I think you understate dos Santos's international significance, which global obituaries [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/10/jose-eduardo-dos-santos-obituary empasise], particularly with his [https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2022/07/14/jose-eduardo-dos-santos-who-plundered-angola-has-died involvement] in the Congo Wars - and Angola is one of the least developed countries in large part due to (arguably) the legacy of dos Santos, as well as the [[Angolan Civil War|civil war]] that he presided over until 2001. I'd be curious to hear what others have to say, but I thoroughly disagree with the premise that dos Santos was nowhere near internationally important enough to be an exception (I can't quite say the same about the other leaders who passed this month though). [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 17:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree that dos Santos kept his country poor, but that doesn't increase his notability. The [[DRC]] is also a LDC. The [[First Congo War|First]] & [[Second Congo War]]s are continued with the [[Ituri conflict|Ituri]] & [[Kivu conflict]]s, so I can't see how we can give him high notability based on his input into those. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[Fidel Ramos]] has been added, meaning that all 3 photos for this month are of politicians, which shouldn't be the case. Curl has a Nobel in Chemistry & should be one of the 3. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::in my opinion it should be the same as usual, Abe, curl, and Dos Santos. |
|||
:::::Ramos, does not have the same big affect on his country that, abe and Dos Santos had on theirs. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 19:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::While I have already expressed that this month should be an exception where the images should all go to the (highly notable) leaders who passed, if we were to omit one of the three I’d agree with 4me689 and prioritise dos Santos over Ramos. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I think that we should limit the month to three photos and those being Curl, Abe, and Zawahiri. I think these three have international notoriety that outpaces other people being considered.[[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 13:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Representing four different fields would be better: [[Peter Brook]], [[Robert Curl]], [[Shinzo Abe]] & [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Collage == |
|||
== Ongoing to describe COVID-19 Pandemic (Result: keep) == |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
It is unsure about the situation of the COVID-19 Pandemic which is either ongoing or not around but it is not so much of a big deal now. [[Special:Contributions/86.128.56.73|86.128.56.73]] ([[User talk:86.128.56.73|talk]]) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (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. |
|||
:While the impacts have been lessened since 2020 and 2021, it is clearly ongoing. It continues to evolve new variants, continues to affect society and the economy and public health in numerous ways, and billions of people still aren't fully vaccinated – all of which is more than enough to justify inclusion. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 08:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|title=Collage Suggestion}} |
|||
::Agree per Wjfox2005. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 09:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{Multiple image |
|||
| total_width = 300 |
|||
== David Warner inclusion (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
| image1 = Shinzo Abes statsbegravelse (beskåret).jpg |
|||
Just going to start this section for reference on his inclusion. I'm leaning towards '''include''' as he's won an Emmy, appeared in multiple renowned films (some international films at that) and (IMO) has just as much reason to be included as [[James Caan]]. [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image2 = Demonstration mod den srilankansk, 2022 (beskåret).jpg |
|||
:If we're including Caan, Liotta & Warner - all of whom have very few awards & aren't considered to have been among the best actors - we're going to include many each year. I think we should exclude all of them. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| perrow = 3/2/3 |
|||
:I'm inclined towards a '''neutral''' position, leaning towards opposing - from my point of view Warner's notability wasn't as great as that of either Caan or Liotta, and even those two are borderline inclusions at most. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 16:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image8 = VM i fodbold 2022, USA–Wales.jpg |
|||
:Using my usual metric of "proper" obituaries in international heavyweight sources, although many do exist a number of them are AP type copy and pastes. Compared (certainly) to Caan and (to a lesser extent) Liotta, there doesn't seem to be the coverage there. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image3 = Tonga Vulkanudbrud.png |
|||
| image4 = Volodymyr Zelenskyy took part in hoisting the State Flag of Ukraine in liberated Kherson. (52502054830).jpg |
|||
== Bill Russell (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
| image5 = Queen Elizabeth II's Funeral and Procession (19.Sep.2022) - 09.jpg |
|||
Should Bill Russell also be excluded from the 1934 article as well or keep him there? He lacks international nobility but I’m curious. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 20:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image6 = Kazakhstan-demonstrationer 2022, Aqtobe, 4. januar (beskåret).jpg |
|||
:'''Exclude''' from both due to insufficient international notability. The inclusion criteria for Births sections are the same as for Deaths sections. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image7 = Åbningsceremoni ved Vinter-OL 2022 i Beijing.jpg |
|||
::I agree with Jim Michael, this seems to be a trend when non-notable people die, they get added to the birth sections and they don't get removed cuz older years ain't as cleaned up. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| direction = horizontal |
|||
:::Ahh I see. I’d figure I ask cause I wasn’t so sure. I also added the importance tag on Pat Carroll because I’m not 100% sure if she should be here because not a lot of people even heard of her, aside from playing as the voice of Ursula in The Little Mermaid. I also don’t think Nichelle Nichols should be here either because she is only known for playing as Lt. Uhura on the original Star Trek series. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image_gap = |
|||
::::Neutral, leaning on '''exclude''' for Russell. Definitely '''exclude''' for Carroll, while Nichelle Nichols could possibly be a '''borderline inclusion''' due to the prominence and significance of her role in one of the most internationally notable television shows of all time - though I’ll wait and see what others have to say. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| width = |
|||
:::::Exclude Nichols due to a lack of international notability. Playing a major role in an internationally popular show is true of hundreds of domestic actors & doesn't create international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 10:26, 2 August 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]] |
|||
:Absolutely 100% '''include''' for Bill Russell. An 11-time NBA champion, more championships than any other individual in the history of American team sports. Beyond that he also broke down barriers for African-Americans in professional sports and was an icon of the American Civil Rights movement. I don't see how this could even be a question, frankly, especially when the article includes a "sprint canoeist," a sport no one has ever heard of, with a three-line long article, simply because they won an Olympic gold medal in 1956. As for Nichelle Nichols, I also say '''include''' because of the ongoing global cultural relevance of Star Trek, even if not everyone knows her name. Besides that, her deceased Star Trek co-stars were all included in their respective articles: [[DeForest Kelley]] in [[1999]], [[James Doohan]] in [[2005]], [[Majel Barrett]] in [[2008]], and [[Leonard Nimoy]] in [[2015]]. [[User:Dragonbacon|Dragonbacon]] ([[User talk:Dragonbacon|talk]]) 02:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
::All you say about Russell is domestic, which supports excluding him from here & that his place is on [[2022 deaths in the United States]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
:::::To [[User:TheScrubby]] So I’ll exclude Carroll but can she stay in the 1927 article or exclude her there too? [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 02:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
--[[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 17:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::If one's death is excluded from a year article, it goes without saying that they would also be excluded on the year article for when they were born. So yes. And regarding the Star Trek cast, I have no real issue with the inclusion of Nicholls, though I would argue that Barrett ought to be excluded as she wasn't part of the core cast. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Thank you. If you need any help with anything, just message me on my talk page. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 03:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::With all due respect Jim, I don't know who made you the authority on what is "domestic" and what is "international." Please see my response to TheScrubby below for Russell's international notability. [[User:Dragonbacon|Dragonbacon]] ([[User talk:Dragonbacon|talk]]) 15:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::By what standard are we defining "international notability" here? I know this has been debated endlessly before but it really does feel like a fatally flawed system when it would have you exclude Bill Russell and include Yelizaveta Dementyeva. [[User:Dragonbacon|Dragonbacon]] ([[User talk:Dragonbacon|talk]]) 02:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Final point: if an Olympic gold medal is all it takes to be "internationally notable," then Bill Russell automatically qualifies because he did, in fact, win an Olympic gold medal. In the same year as Dementyeva, even. [[User:Dragonbacon|Dragonbacon]] ([[User talk:Dragonbacon|talk]]) 02:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's been discussed on-and-off over the last year and a half, but there has been a consistent issue when it comes to who should be included so far as sports figures go. The only real points of consensus we have r.e. the sports field is that those who won '''individual''' Olympic gold medals (not won in teams) are included and that the most prominent sports figures from the most internationally played sports (such as cricket, soccer and tennis) are included. Sports that are only popularly played regionally (such as baseball and rugby) or predominately domestically/one country (such as gridiron football or Aussie Rules football) are a lot less certain, though it'd be nice if we got some consistency and clarity regarding this. I'm largely staying neutral on Russell, though from my perspective his notability and significance seems to be primarily limited to the United States. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::A few points: basketball is absolutely played internationally. The NBA is followed internationally and its stars are known the world over. Virtually every country has its own basketball league, many of which are extremely popular stateside (e.g. China and Eastern Europe). It may not be "the most" internationally played but that is an arbitrary measure. Russell is well known internationally, there are obituaries in major newspapers all over the world, in many languages, and on Wikipedia there are at present articles on Russell in 53 languages. He is a titan of sports in the 20th century, omitting him from this article is basically the same as omitting Babe Ruth from the 1948 article, or Gordie Howe from 2016. He won more championships than anyone in the history of North American team sports, both as a player and as a coach, and is one of only five people inducted into the Hall of Fame (an institution with inductees from all over the world) as a player and coach. I understand that not everyone can be included but I don't think the admins here understand the degree of prominence Russell's shadow casts over international sports. With all due respect to Yelizaveta Dementyeva, who I'm sure was a nice person, people are not coming to this page to see her listed. She won a gold medal in one olympic games in a sport no one has ever heard of, and her wiki is 3 lines long. People come here to see Bill Russell. To not include him is to make articles from recent years less complete and informative than articles of past years, where athletes of far lower stature than Russell are included. [[User:Dragonbacon|Dragonbacon]] ([[User talk:Dragonbacon|talk]]) 15:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::His only significant international notability is an Olympic team medal, which by consensus is insufficient. Outside the US & his sport, very few people have heard of him. It's highly unlikely that the equivalent of him from any other country would gain support for inclusion. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Bernd Bransch was an Olympic gold medalist in a team event and he is in the section for deaths in June, so on those grounds Bill Russell absolutely should be included in deaths in July. [[User:Unknown artist|Unknown artist]] ([[User talk:Unknown artist|talk]]) 08:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:That’s not really much of an argument for inclusion, when another figure with insufficient notability falls through the cracks. If that’s his only claim to notability, being a non-individual Olympic gold medalist, Bransch should be excluded. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 12:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Exclude due to lack of international notability. Russell was a purely domestic sports figure with a cultural legacy that is textbook Americentric. [[User:PeaceInOurTime2021|PeaceInOurTime2021]] ([[User talk:PeaceInOurTime2021|talk]]) 16:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
When a sport's premier league is in a particular nation, it doesn't seem fair to discount the achievements of a person in that league. Say, a Spanish footballer with an entire career in [[La Liga]]. Would a basketballer with a very strong career between the [[Superliga Profesional de Baloncesto|Venezuelan basketball league]] and [[Liga Nacional de Básquet|Argentinian basketball league]] be given a place here, because they played notably in two countries? It seems short-sighted to discount playing in one league because it is domestic. |
|||
Specifically in the case of Bill Russell, I quote from his page: "Russell is widely considered to be one of the greatest basketball players of all time.", "he captained the gold-medal winning U.S. national basketball team at the 1956 Summer Olympics.", " In 2011, Barack Obama awarded Russell the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his accomplishments on the court and in the civil rights movement." In addition, he is tied with Michael Jordan for most NBA MVP awards. Tied. With the G.O.A.T.. He has more MVP awards than [[LeBron James]], [[Magic Johnson]] and "his prominent rival" [[Wilt Chamberlain]]. If he were a modern era player, he would have a greater international history through the Olympics, but in his playing career, the basketball was for amateurs only, not optional based on players as it was today. Russell CHOSE not to play in the NBA immediately, postponing his debut to play for the United States. Before he had played an NBA game, Russell captained the team to a gold medal. As a pre-rookie. By choosing to play the Olympics and winning a gold medal, in addition to the other achievements of Bill Russell, he deserves a place on the Deaths List. Sincerely, [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 00:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Russell is very notable in the US, but has little international notability. Some sports are much more internationally notable than others. Some sportspeople are very well known in one country, but little-known in the rest of the world. Try mentioning Russell to people who aren't American or basketball fans - they've very unlikely to have a clue who you're talking about. The only reason I've heard of him is because his death was added to this article. If I didn't read Wikipedia, I'd still not have heard of him. |
|||
:A solely domestic Spanish footballer wouldn't be included on main year articles. A basketball player would be unlikely to have a very high-achieving career in multiple countries, but if he did he could be eligible for main year articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I'll concede defeat on Russell, but one point you often make is that knowing who somebody is is not a criteria for inclusion. Take the debate earlier this year about [[Dwayne Johnson]] that spun off from the death of [[Scott Hall]]. You argued that it did not matter that Johnson was very well known, because he wasn't notable. Regards, [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 09:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::A person being well-known (even internationally) isn't enough for them to be on main year articles. If it were, many reality show participants, socialites & other 'famous-for-being-famous' people would be included. I didn't say Johnson isn't notable - I said he has little international notability. That's why I don't think he should be included, despite being known of by hundreds of millions of people across many countries. Some other frequent editors of main year articles have said similar things in regard to well-known people whose notability is solely or mainly in one country. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Fair enough. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 13:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Nichelle Nichols (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
There seems to be a lack of consensus on whether or not to include Nichelle Nichols. I believe for many of the reasons stated for other American actors and athletes who have died in 2022, we should '''Exclude''' her. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 17:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree. She's a domestic figure who, like many actors, also has fans in other countries. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I think she should be included. She was tremendously important in the history of television for being the first African-American woman in a significant role. Certainly better known abroad than James Caan, Richard Taruskin, and several others who appear on the list. Her death has been reported in lots of different countries. [https://www.google.com/search?q=nichelle+nichols+gestorben&rlz=1C1GCEA_enHU901HU901&oq=nichelle+nichols+gestorben&aqs=chrome..69i57.2999j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8] [https://www.google.com/search?q=nichelle+nichols+morte&rlz=1C1GCEA_enHU901HU901&ei=pBPzYs3qObuL9u8PnrmQgAE&ved=0ahUKEwjNzP7zmLv5AhW7hf0HHZ4cBBAQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=nichelle+nichols+morte&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIFCCEQoAE6BwgAEEcQsANKBAhBGABKBAhGGABQvAFYqgNghBpoAXABeACAAckBiAHbApIBBTAuMS4xmAEAoAEByAEIwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp] [https://www.google.com/search?q=nichelle+nichols+meghalt&rlz=1C1GCEA_enHU901HU901&ei=rxPzYvmfCcv97_UP1tiaqAM&ved=0ahUKEwi5s-34mLv5AhXL_rsIHVasBjUQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=nichelle+nichols+meghalt&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIFCCEQoAE6BwgAEEcQsAM6BQgAEIAEOgYIABAeEBY6BAgAEBM6CAgAEB4QFhATOgoIABAeEBYQChATOgQIIRAVSgQIQRgASgQIRhgAUOQCWKUIYMQJaAJwAXgAgAGdAYgB4AeSAQMwLjeYAQCgAQHIAQjAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp] [https://www.google.com/search?q=nichelle+nichols+%C3%B6ld%C3%BC&rlz=1C1GCEA_enHU901HU901&ei=BxTzYo65L-KW9u8PufaYoA0&ved=0ahUKEwjO2I6jmbv5AhVii_0HHTk7BtQQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=nichelle+nichols+%C3%B6ld%C3%BC&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIFCCEQoAE6BwgAEEcQsAM6CAghEB4QFhAdSgQIQRgASgQIRhgAUDpYowpgmA1oAnABeACAAaUBiAHvBZIBAzAuNZgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp] At a quick glance, popular culture (film&music) on the list is currently represented by 21 white men, 3 white women and Ms. Lata Mangeshkar as the single woman of color. On contrast, 52 athletes are included, even if they're not internationally known. We should include Nichelle Nichols. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:1110:118:A377:15E1:DBE0:6326:5D9C|2A00:1110:118:A377:15E1:DBE0:6326:5D9C]] ([[User talk:2A00:1110:118:A377:15E1:DBE0:6326:5D9C#top|talk]]) 02:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:::She was important in the history of US TV only. James Caan is far more well-known outside the US. Millions of people outside the US know of Caan & his work, but few people outside the US, other than Star Trek fans, have heard of her. The deaths of both of them were reported in many countries due to them having fans in many countries, with the coverage of her being Star Trek-centred. We don't make exceptions for people based on their demographic, and Americans are over-represented. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::For once, I'd agree with including her. The reason she's not known by name is that she was the only regular female character in ''Star Trek'' (so most people would recognise her if you said "Uhura", even though a lot of them can't spell it). Thus she's important as a black woman on TV. I don't know about other countries, but she was practically the only black woman regularly seen on British TV in the 1960s, too. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 07:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::'''Exclude''', she wasn't as popular as her Star Trek co-stars, not to mention she barely even had any other major roles outside [[Star Trek]]. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 16:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Does Olivia Newton-John deserve a photo? (Result: yes)== |
|||
I think she does. She had a notable career in both music AND film. [[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF01:1840:F0C0:DFE3:49BD:3976|2601:204:CF01:1840:F0C0:DFE3:49BD:3976]] ([[User talk:2601:204:CF01:1840:F0C0:DFE3:49BD:3976|talk]]) 21:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Looks like someone's already put a photo in there. [[User:MadGuy7023|MadGuy7023]] ([[User talk:MadGuy7023|talk]]) 21:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, I’m thinking Newton-John shouldn’t have an image here as we already have Sidney Poitier in January, William Hurt in March and Jean-Louis Trintignant in June. I understand that Peter Brook and James Caan’s images aren’t in the July section and I don’t think Newton-John fits in the August category for images. I was going to say the same thing about Fidel Ramos as we have Benigno Aquino III in 2021, his mother Corazon in 2009, but apparently dos Santos died the same day as Shinzō Abe and it’s kinda silly to have three politicians since Robert Curl is the only one of the three who isn’t a politician that deserved to have an image. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 21:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Well we need to have a notable entertainer of some kind for August. And Oliva Newton John is highly notable; her acting career aside, her singing career had top ten hits in the US, UK, Australia, I mean that proves notability. [[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF01:1840:F0C0:DFE3:49BD:3976|2601:204:CF01:1840:F0C0:DFE3:49BD:3976]] ([[User talk:2601:204:CF01:1840:F0C0:DFE3:49BD:3976|talk]]) 22:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::She's by far the most notable person to die this month, so she should have a photo. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 22:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I highly agree with Jim Michael, she was a famous cultural figure that expired millions of people over Generations, she deserves a photo 100%. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 23:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Finally we can include the photo of a woman...and a very important one. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 23:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Yes! [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 10:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Honorifics such as Dame, Sir, etc. == |
|||
Lets get a consensus on the usage of honorifics and titles such as 'dame' or 'sir' for births/deaths. Neither should be included, it is not the reason why these individuals are listed in the deaths section. Even when it would be warranted such as for Presidents and other non-royal world leaders, we don't precede their name with their title. In 2018 under deaths, we have Bush 41 listed as [[George H. W. Bush]], 41st [[President of the United States]] (b. [[1924]]). Not as President [[George H.W. Bush]] (b. [[1924]]). Exclude them entirely. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 13:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* No, leave them out. [[MOS:PREFIX]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Exclude all - Sir, Dame, Dr, Rev etc. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:We’ve always included “Sir” and “Dame” when it comes to such figures (regardless of whether or not we want to change that now), and it’s a false equivalency to invoke Presidential figures, where such a title has '''never''' been included, especially in photo captions. So I don’t know why that point is consistently brought up by you. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 08:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Anne Heche (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
I don’t think Heche should be here although she was an Emmy winner. Should she be excluded? [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 20:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability. Most of the coverage surrounding her death are due to the (tragic) circumstances of it rather than the notability of her career itself. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 00:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' due to a lack of international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 05:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' due to a lack of international notability, I didn't even heard of her until she died. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 05:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|4me689}}, that qualifies you, not the actress. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990|talk]]) 17:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Tend to agree with exclusion. She was better known for her relationship with Ellen than for her screen roles. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 07:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Stabbing of Salman Rushdie (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
Can we add the stabbing of Salman Rushdie here? He is an internationally renowned figure who has gotten controversy from several countries governments. [[Special:Contributions/2600:100C:A203:16B3:3117:7804:B27A:9C3E|2600:100C:A203:16B3:3117:7804:B27A:9C3E]] ([[User talk:2600:100C:A203:16B3:3117:7804:B27A:9C3E|talk]]) 02:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&oldid=1104306062 Done]. --[[User:Gaois|Gaois]] ([[User talk:Gaois|talk]]) 04:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:An international figure indeed, and a notable event in 2022 that clearly deserves a mention here. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 16:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:International news, but with little international repercussion. I have my doubts that it should be included. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 21:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::See the [[Stabbing of Salman Rushdie#Political response]] section. Iran. Nuclear talks. "US Department of Justice's August 5, 2022 allegation that Iran had planned to assassinate US national security advisor John Bolton in 2020... Hezbollah supporters hailed the attacker on social media, calling him a hero, and using the hashtag "holy stabbing" in their posts". Sounds like international repercussions to me. --[[User:Gaois|Gaois]] ([[User talk:Gaois|talk]]) 20:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::But they aren't. The reaction of Hezbollah supporters (and Iranian authorities) is natural and that Bolton could be the target of an assassination attempt (nothing is confirmed) is not a reaction at all to the Rushdie stabbing. There've been no sanctions, no emergency meetings, no expulsions of diplomats...I'm missing things. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 14:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Persisting front page news worldwide. Include. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree with Alsoriano - plus Rushdie was wounded, not assassinated. '''Exclude'''. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 00:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' It received worldwide news coverage and the way I look at it, if it can make it to the Wiki's In the News section, there shouldn't be a problem with it being in this year's article. --[[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 13:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose/Doubtful''' It dropped off the news headlines very quickly. It would be different if it is definitely discovered that there was a political motive - and exactly what that motive was. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 12:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Piero Angela]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
Is Piero Angela notable enough for inclusion. this dude has already been added to the death section twice already, so I'm making the talk page just to see what everyone's thoughts is, any thoughts??? [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' due to a lack of international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 07:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' per Jim Michael. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 11:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - agree. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 12:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''', as per above [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Wolfgang Petersen inclusion (Result: inclusion) == |
|||
Thoughts on [[Wolfgang Petersen]] being included in the death section? I'm creating a talk page discussion about this for reference. I'm leaning towards '''inclusion''' for the fact he made blockbuster films, was a well known director and was a two-time Oscar nominee. [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 13:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' because although he was a successful filmmaker in his native Germany as well as the US, he has no awards. Nominations aren't important enough. He isn't considered to have been one of the best filmmakers. His notability is significantly below that of [[Paul Verhoeven]], who likewise has been a successful filmmaker in his own country as well as the US but whom has significant awards from multiple countries. We don't & shouldn't include most of the European actors who have been in notable films on both sides of the Atlantic; I don't think we should treat filmmakers differently in that regard. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''', albeit as a '''borderline inclusion''', looking at his resume, it's safe to assume that this dude is famous in other countries outside of Germany and the United States and is successful in many other countries around the world. it looks like a dude who would be included in these types of articles. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 02:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I’d be inclined to include him as a '''borderline inclusion''', as per 4me689. Which naturally means I’d also be opposed to his image being included. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 03:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Did he have anything other than his films being popular in many countries? Thousands of people have popularity in multiple countries. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include'''. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 15:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include'''. I think he's pretty well known worldwide. I certainly knew of him. Maybe not quite a household name, but still very significant. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 12:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Fashion design]]ers (Result: )== |
|||
Where should the inclusion bar be for fashion designers? Are [[Issey Miyake]] & [[Hanae Mori]] internationally notable enough? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:both look they have enough International nobility for me to approve for inclusion, I mean they look like they have a pretty good resume. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 03:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Personally fashion designers are internationally notable enough and should be included (in terms of Miyake and Mori). [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 05:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::[[Issey Miyake]], yes, very widely known internationally; [[Hanae Mori]], no. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 07:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would agree with Deb; review the designer on a case by case basis. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 01:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Collages (Result: ) == |
|||
Can collages be added to main year articles, recently a discussion has been opened up in the [[Talk:2020]] page about collages an idea brought up by the user KoopaDaQuick, I also had this idea but just forgot about it until very recently. it would bring more originality to this pages and would make every main year article look unique, the idea is like the collages in the decade articles, we're a couple photos are in the info box and you can click on them to go directly to the article that picture is from. I want to see what everyone's thoughts on adding a collage are, and if yes list what pictures would be on a possible 2022 collage. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 00:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah, giving each year a montage would be a good idea. I don't know if we want to do one as plentiful as the one I did for [[2020]], but maybe we could do it in a similar manner as the ones we already use for the decade articles. [[User:KoopaDaQuick|KoopaDaQuick]] ([[User talk:KoopaDaQuick|talk]]) 04:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah I'd support this big time, especially given how extremely eventful 2021 and 2022 (so far) has been. [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 06:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't think so. We're not here for "originality", and the collage included on 2020 is pretty meaningless and not well-designed. I can see the point of making the main year article look unique, but we'd need something much better than the existing example. This should be raised at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Years]] if you want to proceed with it. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 07:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::We're probably not going to use the style of the collage that is currently on the picture on the 2020 article, we're more than likely going to use the style that is used in the decade articles. Also, {{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, {{ping|TheScrubby}}, and {{ping|Black Kite}} what do you think about this, they're the main contributors. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 16:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Jean-Jacques Sempé inclusion (Result: inclusion) == |
|||
I'd be leaning towards '''borderline including''' French cartoonist [[Jean-Jacques Sempé]] as it appears he's had some international notability, seeing how he has worked on publications not only in his native France but also the U.S., Germany and with his [https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220811-jean-jacques-semp%C3%A9-french-cartoonist-of-le-petit-nicolas-fame-dies-at-89 obit] saying he had "international acclaim". I feel like he'd be worth including here. [[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 05:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I also agree with '''borderline inclusion''', as looking at his resume, he was known for his unique drawings. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 06:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' due to him having little international notability. Thousands of notable people have worked in more than one country; that's not enough to justify them being on main year articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include'''. 100 ''New Yorker'' covers as well as being well known in a number of European countries. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 13:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' Published in at least 30 languages, and his children's book series has received several adaptations. To be honest, I was surprised that Sempé was still alive until this year. His most groundbreaking work dates to the 1950s and the 1960s, and his creative partner [[René Goscinny]] died back in 1977. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 16:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[2022 European derecho]] (Result: exclusion)== |
|||
is the 2022 European derecho notable enough for inclusion, just asking????? [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude'''. 12 deaths just isn't notable enough for this page, sorry. There's a bit more flexibility when it comes to terrorism/violent incidents, but we're talking about a natural disaster here. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 09:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:No it is not. Low casualty count. [[User:PeaceInOurTime2021|PeaceInOurTime2021]] ([[User talk:PeaceInOurTime2021|talk]]) 17:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Hold on. Citizens of three nations were killed. That is by definition international. There is no set threshold for casualties coming from a natural disaster, is there? Should we make one? [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 05:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== "LEAD", and "LED" == |
|||
In the summarization paragraphs at the top of this page, the text of the fourth paragraph reads: |
|||
"...has caused the displacement of 16.8 million Ukrainians (8 million internally displaced persons and 8.8 million refugees) ''and LEAD to'' international condemnations..." |
|||
The text that I've italicized should say, ''"and LED to"'', as the correct past tense of the English verb "to lead" is "LED". But, as the article is semi-protected, there is no way for me to correct it. Can someone with access please fix the spelling error? I've emailed Wikipedia itself, but nobody's fixed it. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C52:6E00:854:8DC:4F10:EA72:35E4|2600:6C52:6E00:854:8DC:4F10:EA72:35E4]] ([[User talk:2600:6C52:6E00:854:8DC:4F10:EA72:35E4|talk]]) 19:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* Done. Thanks. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Vesa-Matti Loiri]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
I think we should add [[Vesa-Matti Loiri]] to deaths. He was a legend in Finland, and we all are really shocked here. I think he was big enough to be added. --[[User:Ruttoperuna|Ruttoperuna]] ([[User talk:Ruttoperuna|talk]]) 15:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:No, because he doesn't have enough international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry for your loss, but I never even heard of him until now. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 15:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:in my opinion '''exclude''' because he wasn't really that prominent outside Finland [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 02:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Milutin Šoškić]] (Result: ) == |
|||
is Milutin Šoškić notable enough for inclusion, any thoughts????? |
|||
by the way please do not give a basic response like, no International nobility [[2022 in Serbia]], give a good detailed response. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 16:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:He's not internationally notable enough to include, because team medals aren't enough. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:in my opinion he is a '''borderline inclusion''' because he coached other countries other than the baltics like the USA and also has an Olympic gold medal. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 02:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::You mean [[Balkan]] rather than [[Baltic states|Baltic]]. He played in Germany & coached the US team, but didn't have any significant achievements when doing so. Team medals don't grant inclusion on main year articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 07:55, 31 August 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 the [[Man of the Hole]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
::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) |
|||
:::Do you disagree with my suggestion? [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 15:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''', he wasn't all that known outside of Brazil. Furthermore it wasn't the last uncontacted tribesman in South America or in Brazil for that matter. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:49, 29 August 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 due to having no international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:00, 29 August 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) |
|||
:It's an interesting (and sad) story, but lacks international notability. It could certainly be included on [[2022 in Brazil]]. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 17:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
== Collage depreciation == |
|||
== [[Ralph Eggleston]] & [[Kazuo Inamori]] (Result: ) == |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
Ralph Eggleston & Kazuo Inamori are two people that were added recently, and they both have importance inline tags who were added at the same time. |
|||
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}} |
|||
== Change to DMY date format == |
|||
Ralph Eggleston - '''borderline inclusion''', |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
an American animator, art director, storyboard artist, writer, film director, and production designer at Pixar Animation Studios. who won a oscar for writing and directing a short film called ''[[For the Birds (film)|For the Birds]]''. |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
Kazuo Inamori - '''borderline inclusion,''' was a Japanese philanthropist, entrepreneur and the founder of [[Kyocera]] and [[KDDI]]. He was the chairman of [[Japan Airlines]]. |
|||
::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) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
== Date format == |
|||
Inamori was elected as a member into the [[National Academy of Engineering]] in 2000 for innovation in ceramic materials and solar cell development/manufacturing, entrepreneurship of advanced technologies, and for being a role model for relating science to society. |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
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 [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, {{ping|TheScrubby}}, {{ping|Black Kite}}, {{ping|Wjfox2005}}, and {{ping|PeaceInOurTime2021}} i'm curious what you thoughts are |
|||
: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) |
|||
by the way, this unrelated, but, theres no new replies on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022#Collages_(Result:_) Collages] section you guys mind going to reply into that section. [[User:4me689|'''<span lang="en" style="color:#CE5DAE;">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: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. |
|||
: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. |
|||
: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) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
== Zero images? == |
|||
:Never heard of these people. I'm neutral on their inclusion. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 17:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
*'''Exclude''' Eggleston because his awards aren't important enough. The Oscar mentioned by 4me689 was awarded to a film, not to Eggleston. |
|||
*'''Undecided''' on Inamori. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:19, 31 August 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) |
|||
'''Exclude''' Eggleston because of what Jim says (and let's remember that not everyone who gets Oscars is ever included) and I’ve my doubts about Inamori. He was chariman of Japan Airlines, a major company, but I don't think this is a direct ticket to be included. I tend to support his exclusion as well. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 06:45, 1 September 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) |
|||
'''Exclude''' Eggleston, though count me as '''Neutral''' on Inamori. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 08:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[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) |
|||
:::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 [[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. |
|||
:::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=== |
|||
:'''Exclude''' Eggleston. He's clearly accomplished, but ibid Jim Michael's arguments, he isn't as notable as other inclusions. <br/> |
|||
I hereby nominate the following images for inclusion in the article; |
|||
:'''Weak include''' Inamori. He's not a notable name in the world directly, but his accomplishments have proved that his work has influenced the world. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*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, --[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== August deaths == |
|||
Hi, please upload a photo of Charlbi Dean who died 29 August in the 2022 events - August deaths article . [[Special:Contributions/197.229.1.140|197.229.1.140]] ([[User talk:197.229.1.140|talk]]) 21:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:She doesn’t have the international notability to be included in the first place, and in any case we would be prioritising [[Olivia Newton-John]] for the entertainment figure portrait for August. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 01:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with scrubby, she didn't even star in any major films or TV series. [[User:4me689|'''<span lang="en" style="color:#CE5DAE;">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 04:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Dean was not as notable as Newton-John. Keep her off [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::agg, jou poes. [[User:Rhodewarrick471|Rhodewarrick471]] ([[User talk:Rhodewarrick471|talk]]) 20:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' all of "importance" tagged entries. We must also consider whether to add all the astronauts that exist and will exist. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 08:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:Personally, on the note of astronauts, only include them if they accomplished a first (like [[Mae Jemison]] being the first black woman in space), if they've had a substantial career outside of space (like now-US Senator [[Mark Kelly]]), have done something significant for space research, or have become media stars in their own right with regard to their astronaut work. If an astronaut is the subject of a movie which attained the success of ''[[Hidden Figures]]'' (as an example), I think it's okay if we throw them in. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::A small minority of astronauts, including [[Neil Armstrong]], are important enough for main year articles. The large majority aren't. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 21:06, 5 September 2022 (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. [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 16:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Charlbi Dean (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
::@[[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) |
|||
Why remove Charlbi for "not having international mobility' ? Im sure nobody knows who the hell [[ Richard Braggs]] or Briggs (cartoonist) is . Well, they might know Charlbi. She's relevant. Richard was 88. Nobody cares. [[User:Rhodewarrick471|Rhodewarrick471]] ([[User talk:Rhodewarrick471|talk]]) 20:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::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) |
|||
:because she didn't really star in any major movies, I mean, I didn't really know her until she was bought up in this very talk section. |
|||
*'''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) |
|||
:[[Raymond Briggs]] is notable because he was a really famous cartoonist, whos were very well-known and respected around the world. in contrast, Dean wasn't known that much around the world, she wasn't really that well-known outside her home of South Africa. [[User:4me689|'''<span lang="en" style="color:#CE5DAE;">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 23:45, 2 September 2022 (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) |
|||
:We don't include domestic figures, which she clearly was. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 07:43, 3 September 2022 (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) |
|||
::Probably because she died in the US. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:12, 4 September 2022 (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) |
|||
== [[Xinjiang report]] (Result: )== |
|||
: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) |
|||
{{ping|Jim Michael 2}} let’s bring this up here instead of reverting over and over again. <br/>I think that the approach you’re taking to Xinjiang is not helping the article, and the true magnitude the UN report isn’t fully understood. You’re comparing apples to oranges when you are bringing in the invasion of Ukraine; this event is defining of the year to the point where it’s in the lead. No event except maybe COVID reaches that level. Astronomy can’t be compared to Ukraine but yet it’s on this list and I support its inclusion. <br/> Additionally, in edit summaries, you did claim something along the lines of “crimes against humanity happen all the time”. When does the UN of all agencies make this sort of statement in such a public manner against one of the most powerful countries in the world? Not to mention that the effect of this report are wide-reaching. Countries around the world are being asked by the UN to keep Uyghur deportees away from China. H&M pulled out of Xinjiang even before the paper was released. World leaders of both China and are on this like crazy. The media treats this with the same level of importance as Gorbachev’s death. Heck, this even made the current events tab on the Main Page. And you’re saying that the genocide in Xinjiang (which even Wikipedia for all its neutrality acknowledges it as a genocide) doesn’t matter enough for the article 2022? [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 02:20, 3 September 2022 (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 support inclusion, this is one of the world's biggest countries were talking about. [[User:4me689|'''<span lang="en" style="color:#CE5DAE;">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 02:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::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) |
|||
::This is a report that's critical of a domestic situation in one country. The UN & other supranational orgs often make criticisms of various countries. Many countries have perpetrated and/or been accused of crimes against humanity. The vast majority of these instances aren't mentioned on main year articles & I don't see why this one should be. Unless some major international consequences (such as sanctions, military action or travel bans) result from it, it's domestic. So far, the only response to the report is a few countries agreeing with it & China rejecting it. Various complications in regard to refugee situations exist in many countries. The size &/or power of the country doesn't make this of major international importance. The media publicise various people, places, events & things because it gains them views/sales. Using media coverage as a measure, you'd have to conclude that many members of the Kardashian-Jenner family are among the most important people in the world. Being on the Current events portal &/or ITN doesn't grant a place on main year articles; the inclusion criteria for each are very different. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 07:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I can do this [[User:Indiana6724|Indiana6724]] ([[User talk:Indiana6724|talk]]) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The framing of a U.N. accusing one of its P5 of crimes against humanity as {{tq|domestic}} makes little sense on its face, especially when the [https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/report-09022022152932.html Secretary General of the United Nations] is anything but a domestic official. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">[[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: white">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: white">(nest)</span>]]</sub></span> 17:34, 3 September 2022 (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) |
|||
::::It's supranational criticism of a domestic policy, which is commonplace. It's not accompanied by any action. The only reason being given for including this but not the large majority of similar reports, speeches, criticism etc. in main year articles is that China is a large, powerful country. That seems to be implying that if the country the UN were accusing of human rights abuses & crimes against humanity were for example Eritrea, Haiti or Myanmar, we'd be agreed that we wouldn't include it. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:39, 3 September 2022 (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) |
|||
:I do not believe that the report being published is an international event that is on-topic for this article. The single biggest repercussion you can point to is "H&M pulling out", which, as you say, happened before the release of the paper, again proving the release of the paper is not itself a turning point. We can wait and see if there are more significant responses on an international level; we don't have to rush to publish anything! |
|||
:No-one is saying 'the genocide in Xinjiang doesn't matter' and it's unhelpful to use straw-man arguments like that. |
|||
:[[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 10:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Oppose inclusion. The report presents only potential issues, with the wording being careful to only indicate that the the presented issues are a possibility, and not a direct allegation. Given the tone, it seems that notability requirements are not met. [[User:Carter00000|Carter00000]] ([[User talk:Carter00000|talk]]) 16:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I think it's necessary to include. The media and organizations in support of the Uyghurs do say that this report had months of unexpected delays and this was widely anticipated. (see [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/31/un-china-xinjiang-report/ WashPost], [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/china-long-delayed-un-report-must-spur-accountability-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-xinjiang/ Amnesty International], [https://www.reuters.com/world/china/exclusive-china-seeks-stop-un-rights-chief-releasing-xinjiang-report-document-2022-07-19/ Reuters], [https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2022/09/statement-by-minister-joly-on-un-report-on-human-rights-situation-in-xinjiang.html the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs], [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62744522 BBC News], [https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/25/china/un-china-xinjiang-bachelet-report-intl-hnk/index.html an article from CNN about the report before its release], and [https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/deadline-looming-china-vies-block-report-xinjiang-89117931 ABC News]). International coverage this wide of an organization as influential as the UN accusing a country as large as China should be mentioned, and any comparison to Ukraine would be comparing apples to oranges; not every event of the year has to define the world as widely as the invasion of Ukraine.<br/>I'm open to changing how its written, but the UN coming out with allegations and reports of this has very large ramifications for the future. The UN in itself is mired in controversy and editors may have different opinions on if the UN is effective, but its position in global affairs and its power over countries as the closest organization to international law and policing renders it as the most powerful organization in the world. If the world government says that you're possibly committing crimes against humanity after a thorough investigation and 48-page report is released, your reputation is screwed pretty badly, even for a country as large and as powerful as China. <br/> The report additionally calls for more brands and businesses to boycott Xinjiang (see [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/9/1/un-report-on-xinjiang-raises-pressure-on-firms-to-cut-ties Al Jazeera]), and the consequences for increased attention to China's actions in Xinjiang have already damned the country to half of the developed world. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Most of the discussion on [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) UN report on Uyghur genocide]] can be translated over here as well. A large majority of editors there support some sort of inclusion of the report on Main Page, and while not everything on Main Page should be here, something with this amount of international coverage and notability should. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::...''the UN coming out with '''allegations''''' .... '''''possibly''' committing crimes against humanity'' ... '''''calls''' for more brands and businesses to boycott ...'' How can that be worthy of a place on a main year article? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 23:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::'''With sole regard to inclusion on this list''', what matters ''more'' than the content of the report itself is how much the world cares about it and what the world does about it. By focusing more so on the content less than the impact, you downplay the ramifications. I'm personally against including ''Depp v. Heard'' here in its present form, but if for some reason it became crucial for international relations (for some reason, let's not get into the nitty gritty of the scenario), it should the here. |
|||
::::I'm not sure if you recognize that the official position of the world government, which the UN is the closest thing we have to a world government despite all its controversies, is that there is evidence for probable crimes against humanity (and alluded but not verbatim-mentioned genocide) happening in Xinjiang. The Uyghur situation is shifting foreign relations; western governments, most notably the United States, have acted legislatively or openly in protest against the Chinese government in Xinjiang. Now, the world in general recognizes that crimes against humanity are likely happening in Xinjiang, which is a first for a long-running, ongoing, and recent (5 years of substantial media coverage or less) event which can really only be superseded by some domestic affairs (George Floyd and Jan 6 in the US to be specific), Ukraine, COVID and the following economic events like inflation, and Afghanistan. |
|||
::::'''Additionally''', focusing now on Wikipedia itself, consensus is clear, as established by Polyamorph, that this report is worthy of being included in the current events page (see [[Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted,Closed)_UN_report_on_Uyghur_genocide|this discussion]]). ''The Current Events project and 2022 '''are''' two different things'', though notable international news that project-wide and Wiki-wide consensus thinks should be on Current Events, especially something like the world reacting to Xinjiang, absolutely should be listed here as well. |
|||
::::[[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 04:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's nothing like the world reacting. The vast majority of people have no interest in the Uyghurs, how the Chinese gov treats them, nor what the UN says about it. It's not a popular topic of conversation in factories, shops, offices, pubs, living rooms, parties etc. Despite this being reported in many countries & being on WP's main page, its peak daily views were less than 14,000. A supranational org has criticised China for it, and another supranational org as well as two countries have agreed with the report. China has rejected it & nothing has changed. If this results in China becoming a world outcast like N Korea is, then it'll be important enough for this article. As things stand, it's mere criticism. That's something the UN has given many times, including for human rights abuses, crimes against humanity etc. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Could you provide sources for other recent times when the UN HCR has stated crimes against humanity are possibly being committed a world government? [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I assume you mean national gov rather than world, because the Chinese gov is being accused of perpetrating abuses domestically. Another case this year is [http://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113972 Myanmar: 'Appalling' violations demand 'unified and resolute international response'] No-one added that to this article, nor indicated they thought it should be included. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 21:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Then why did the ITN group overwhelmingly agree that the Chinese report belongs on the Main Page? Between this talk page thread as well as the ITN candidate thread, only you and Carter (who btw is actually on [[WP:AE]] for disrupting community consensus) have valiantly opposed this being included. Most people only mentioned oppose once and never commented again, or switched from Oppose to comment/neutral or support, and a majority of the opposition only didn't think it was worth posting because the article wasn't ready at the time (which has been fixed)?<br/> What I think you're doing is looking at events solely based on internal context and not what the world cares about. It's a balancing act, but the world has shown me (as well as a lot of other people through media coverage and community consensus) is that ''people care about this.'' Is there another instance of the UN OHR making this sort of allegation within the past 2 years? [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 01:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::The ITN criteria are very different to those of main year articles. Inclusion on one doesn't grant inclusion on the other. Likewise with exclusion. Some other editors agree with me in this discussion, and in edit summaries. |
|||
:::::::::Like I said, the vast majority of the world doesn't care about any aspect of this. The large majority of countries haven't made statements about it. Look at how low the report's page views are, despite being on the main page. If you try to start a conversation about it with your colleagues or in a social gathering, you'll be met with awkward silence, then someone will quickly change the conversation. |
|||
:::::::::You asked for another recent UN criticism of another country for serious human rights abuses, so I linked a UN ref from earlier this year about Myanmar. Do you think that should be included in this article? If not, why include their criticism of China, but not of Myanmar? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::yeah there seems to be a huge argument here, not everyone who is editing these Pages has put their Mark here yet. |
|||
::::::curious on what {{ping|TheScrubby}}, {{ping|Black Kite}}, {{ping|Wjfox2005}}, {{ping|PeaceInOurTime2021}}, {{ping|The Voivodeship King}}, {{ping|TDKR Chicago 101}}, {{ping|Deb}}, and {{ping|Alsoriano97}} thinks about this |
|||
::::::this needs to have a consensus. [[User:4me689|'''<span lang="en" style="color:#CE5DAE;">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 03:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah I would say '''Exclude''' as per Jim Michael, and I don’t really have too much to add beyond what Jim’s already said. We can always revisit this as well, if this UN report leads to substantial consequences which directly affect the Xinjiang issue. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 03:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|4me689}} - very chuffed to have been thought of. Personally, I support '''inclusion'''. The main argument against this is that such reports regarding the Myanma (this is the demonym, not a spelling error) Government and the Rohingya people were not included. It is worth noting that merely because the Rohingya genocide has not been includes does not mean that it isn't notable. Were we resting on our laurels? In the Xinjiang camps, at least 1,000,000 have been detained, including some Kazakhs and Kyrgyz peoples who are also being sinicised by the Chinese government as they are also Muslim (according to the page). Another argument is that the Uyghur genocide is "not a popular topic of conversation", but earlier it was noted that by looking at popularity (or to be verbatim, views) would indicate that the Kardashians and Jenners are some of the most important people in the world, which is not reliable in terms of notability. But genocide is not a popular topic of conversation as it involves callous death. Nobody talks about it because it is considered polite in the majority of social circles to keep conversation "light" (vapid and meaningless). I conceded on Bill Russell last month, but I think this is an even stronger argument than that. I accept but disagree with the opinion that this genocide could not be notable. The only issue is that genocide occurs over time. We had an issue with too many entries regarding the Ukrainian Invasion and we would have the same issue here is documenting every action. These reports are the simplest and most notable way to note these events. By the way, I probably won't see your rebuttal for this until at least 08:00 Thursday, 08/09/22. Sincerely, [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 10:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::The UN's recent criticism of Myanmar's gov includes accusations of various frequent serious human rights abuses which aren't limited to the Rohingya. What reason is there to exclude that, but include the accusations the UN made against China's gov? No-one's claiming that these things aren't notable; the issue is that they're not internationally notable enough for a main year article. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::What people think is more important than what actually is. The morals are debatable, but if people care about something, they talk about it. The media is a reflection of this; I would not have sponsored the inclusion of ''Depp v. Heard'' in [[2022 in the US]] based solely on what was happening inside the courtroom, but because people care about both the people and the impact it has over future trials like it, I think it belongs. Same with Xinjiang. The UN has criticized Myanmar, but people don't really care about Myanmar for some reason, though when the UN criticizes Xinjiang, we care about it. We view this as the capstone (so far) of the allegations of what's going on in Xinjiang, and this is far more of an international event than ''Depp v. Heard''. Additionally consider how the world has awaited this report; multiple sources describe the report as '''''long awaited''''' or using similar terminology, by many groups.(see [https://www.economist.com/china/2022/09/01/a-long-awaited-un-report-condemns-chinas-actions-in-xinjiang The Economist], [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/world/asia/china-xinjiang-uyghurs.html The NY Times on the Uyghur diaspora], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/01/five-key-points-from-the-un-report-on-xinjiang-china-human-rights-abuses-uyghur-muslims the Guardian], [https://globalnews.ca/news/9107616/un-report-xinjiang-china-uyghur-canada/ Canada's Global News], [https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/25/china/un-china-xinjiang-bachelet-report-intl-hnk/index.html CNN (even prior to the report's release)], [https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2022/0902/UN-s-Xinjiang-report-A-stand-against-China-and-chance-for-justice the Christian Science Monitor], and [https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2022/09/02/2003784605 the Taipei Times]). [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::[[Depp v. Heard]] isn't international. The great interest in it by the media & public is due to both parties having long been famous. Even if that case sets precedents that are relevant for future cases, it's domestic - so it doesn't belong on this article. |
|||
:::::Far more people are interested in China than Myanmar because China is the world's most populous, second-most powerful & third-largest country. Myanmar is one of the [[least developed countries]], whose only significant effect on the world is its refugees. However, the vast majority of people also have no interest in the Uyghurs; the low page views of the report, despite it being covered extensively by the media & on our main page, prove that. They & the UN report about them aren't a common topic of conversation. Try starting a conversation about the Uyghurs & it's unlikely that anyone will know who you're talking about & even less likely that they'll be interested. If you're saying that we should include the UN harshly criticising a national gov for human rights abuses that possibly amount to crimes against humanity on main year articles, we should include their statements on Myanmar as well as China. If you agree with me that such criticism without significant international action as a result isn't of significant international notability, we should exclude both statements. It makes no sense to include one but not the other; the UN's criticism about both governments include some of the same type of accusations. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Read my argument again; I brought up Depp v. Heard with regard to [[2022 in the US]], not listing it here on the internationally-focused [[2022]]. We agree on not including Depp v. Heard here, but since US media cared about it, the trial belongs there and is notable enough. I'm comparing a ''domestic'' event and a ''domestic'' media reaction to a ''domestic'' 2022 list. |
|||
::::::I strongly disagree with the claim that people show little to no interest in Uyghurs; multiple sources have covered this actively. Just look at the media as of recent, and all the sources I've linked in my previous replies. Google Scholar shows [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2022&q=xinjiang+camps&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 over 1600 articles on Xinjiang Camps this year alone]. Google Trends shows [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=Xinjiang a spike around the beginning of September for Xinjiang queries]. In San Francisco (where I am as of writing), arguably the most international city in the United States save for New York and DC, we all know that this exists, but the same way I don't bring up Palestine and Israel with friends who hail from that region, or the Armenian genocide with my Turkish friends, I don't bring it up because it's a sensitive topic. Even if we wouldn't talk about it openly, we'd still search for it, explaining the spike in Google searches. |
|||
::::::Again, you're treating all UN reports equally, when reality shows consistently that not all animals are created equally. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Some media sources are interested in the Uyghurs, but the vast majority of people aren't. If 80m people are interested, that means 1% of the population are. The spikes you mention are due to the recent UN report. They're short-lived & are tiny in comparison to those relating to many other things that've happened this year. The vast majority of people who've read the main page during this week haven't ever clicked on its link to this report; its low page views prove that. Do you merely avoid mentioning the Uyghurs to your Chinese friends because it'd likely be a sensitive topic for them? Or do you not mention the subject to any of your friends, because you know it's highly unlikely that they'll be interested? The UN's statements this year on Myanmar & China are similar in many ways. If you want to exclude Myanmar, what are your reasons for that? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 23:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::"Some media sources"–nearly every reliable source in the world which covers international news have addressed the Uyghur genocide at some point, and most of them have covered the recent report. |
|||
::::::::80 million people is still a lot of people. |
|||
::::::::And I don't deny that the UN report created more recent notability for the Uyghur Genocide. However, it's not just the report's we have to take into account, but also the articles [[Xinjiang internment camps]], [[Uyghurs]], [[Uyghur genocide]], and to a lesser extent, [[Xinjiang]]. The middle two of those are hovering around 100,000 views each in the past few months, and all five articles' views combined (about 300K views) would be around 5/6 that of [[Microsoft]] and [[North Korea]], double the past 30 day views for [[The Walt Disney Company]], [[Kamala Harris]], [[COVID-19]], and the [[FBI search of Mar-a-Lago]], triple that of the [[2022 Saskatchewan stabbings]] and the [[Chinese Communist Party]], and ten times that of the [[2022 Luding earthquake]]. The article [[Crimes against humanity]] also received a spike in readings, which when factoring those views in, |
|||
::::::::BTW, I'm Chinese myself. I'm personally not comfortable talking about Xinjiang and the genocide there outside of online discussions like this. Extremist America gets "a little" crazy sometimes ;) |
|||
::::::::On a personal level, I would be okay with including Myanmar actually. The world, however, has paid more attention to Xinjiang, but if Myanmar is proposed on the talk page, I'd support it with Myanmar on this list because of the UN's role and its severity. When deciding between including one or the other, though, because of more coverage, media or otherwise, I'd include Xinjiang over Myanmar. If for some reason the UN released an exorbitant amount of crimes against humanity reports this year, then I think we might need to cut down on their inclusion here, but given the circumstances, unless the UN revealed that a massive genocide of some group people which rivals that of not only our worst genocides but even the loss of life under Mao Zedong, this is the most damning report for any country yet issued by an organization as internationally influential and powerful as the UN. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 02:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support inclusion'''. The arguments in support of inclusion note widespread coverage by both academic sources and news media of the [[Uyghur genocide]], as well as the importance of this event in the scheme of global affairs. The fact of the matter is that this is a major U.N. report that has been awaited for four years and is extremely significant in the U.N. treatment of a P5 UNSC member. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">[[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: white">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: white">(nest)</span>]]</sub></span> 06:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The arguments against include there being no action or consequences in response to the report, which the supporters of inclusion are ignoring. Are you in favour of including this year's UN accusations against Myanmar, or only those against China? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 08:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] The focus of the discussion is Xinjiang, not Myanmar. [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] is a bad argument to make unless we're making references to good or featured articles, and is best avoided not just in deletion discussions but most other discussions. Consider also reading about the [[Fallacy of relative privation]]. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Why is the Robb Elementary School shooting not mentioned in “Events”? == |
|||
== Re-[[election]]s == |
|||
Some editors, including me, think that re-elections shouldn't usually be included in main year articles because they don't involve a change of government & hence are usually of little or no international significance. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: I removed one, and it was reverted because other re-elections are on the article, so removed all of them to resolve the issue raised, before seeing this discussion. I definitely don't think re-elections are relevant. I'm actually not sure that changes of government are necessarily important enough to go on here either; take a country like the UK where power changes hands in a stable and normal way between one or two political parties every few years, I don't think it's actually a significant event in the scope of the year as a whole. Change of the type of government, e.g. 'First democratic elections' or an 'ousting' or 'coup' maybe. This is relevant as we're about to change the prime minister (not the governing party) and even though that does have effects on an international stage; I don't think that it's necessarily important enough for the main year article. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 09:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I think it depends on a case by case basis. I'm usually in favor of a larger and more influential country having their re-elections counted, or if a movement faces a significant defeat or setback. A good example would be Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide re-election where only the US state of Minnesota and Washington DC voting against Reagan in the electoral college, or Macron vs. Le Pen where the right-wing movement was defeated for the second time in a row. But if it's a country as small or as influential on the world stage as Tuvalu or Mali re-electing their president, I would support Jim Michael here and keep it off. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::So in other words, you would support including re-elections if we say, limit them to [[G20]] nations? [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 03:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Not exactly. It all depends on the election itself. Does it show that a significant movement was defeated or maybe even more popularly supported than before? Was it one most notable reelections in the nations' own history? I think it's ultimately a case by case basis where it all depends on the impact of the election. In general, though, if it's Obama v. Romney for instance, or when Merkel was reelected as chancellor for the second time, keep it off. |
|||
:::I bring up Macron vs. Le Pen Round 2 because even though Le Pen lost, she and her movement gained a lot more of a foothold as observed by independent analysts and Le Pen herself (see [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/french-election-emboldens-far-right-candidate-marine-le-pen-undercuts-macron PBS] and [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61218171 BBC]) I also brought up Reagan in 1984 because aside from Minnesota and DC, the entire country voted Republican on the electoral college level. Some fictitious elections which should be included would be if Gavin Newsom defeated Ron DeSantis for presidential re-election by a 48 point margin in the popular vote, a J6 style event happens in Russia the day after Putin is re-elected, or any of the instances Deb mentioned in her comment. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 07:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Comment''' I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, the main person that updates these things on the year articles his name is RookieInTheWiki. {{ping|RookieInTheWiki}}, what's your opinion on this. [[User:4me689|'''<span lang="en" style="color:#CE5DAE;">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 19:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I would agree that there's not much point in including them in countries that aren't major powers where there's no change of government. Exceptions might be where the re-election comes as a big surprise - for example, if the previous President of the United States had been re-elected - or where there is suspicion of corrupt practices, resulting in political unrest. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 06:47, 6 September 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) |
|||
== [[Don L. Lind]] (Result: ) == |
|||
is Don L. Lind notable enough for inclusion, just asking????? [[User:4me689|'''<span lang="en" style="color:#CE5DAE;">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 23:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I would '''support''' his inclusion if no one else of better notability died within the surrounding days. He is a very accomplished astronaut. His article is ready to be even posted on [[WP:ITN]] if you want to go ahead and do that as well. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 01:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::ITN has very different inclusion criteria. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Unfortunately we've got into the habit of including every astronaut, and I strongly feel it's time we stopped, unless they are particularly important for something else. In this case, I see no particular significance and I would '''oppose''' his inclusion. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 06:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, like most astronauts he has no international notability, so should be excluded. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Collage edit war — Proposal in progress == |
|||
== [[John Landy]] (Result: )== |
|||
Is John Landy notable enough for inclusion. He's been added over and over again. |
|||
In my opinion, '''exclude''', because he's a very local figure. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 15:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability. His athletics career wasn't important enough & his political career was local. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, he wasn't even a politician - he was made [[Governor of Victoria]] (my home state), but that's a ceremonial role that he was appointed to in recognition of his athletic achievements. At most he ought to be maybe considered a borderline inclusion, but only on the basis of world records he achieved in his athletic career. Otherwise, I've got no issue with his exclusion. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 17:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' ibid Jim Michael's reasoning [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
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]]. |
|||
== Top Thrill Dragster closing? (Result: exclusion)== |
|||
I'm not sure whether to include its closing. While it is an American roller coaster, it is (or should I say ''was'') the #2 world record holder in terms of height and #3 in terms of speed. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:yes the coaster is big, and yes the park it's in [[Cedar Point]], is one of the biggest amusement parks in the world, with Millions visiting it per year. however the closing of Dragster is pretty much domestic. and I would rather Exclude it. |
|||
:with that being said, world record-breaking coaster openings are notable in my opinion, you got to represent all aspects of media when it comes to these articles including amusement parks, we tried to bring the variety from every sorts of stuff, from gaming to Sports and even amusement parks. and I would argue the opening of [[Top Thrill Dragster]] in [[2003]] is notable in itself, as it was the first full circuit 400-foot coaster and in my opinion it should go for every time a coaster surpasses the height or speed record, like the opening of [[Kingda Ka]] in [[2005]] or the opening of [[Formula Rossa]] in [[2010]]. |
|||
:maybe someone can make [[2022 in amusement parks]] perhaps, just saying. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Kind of busy with other things both on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia, but when I get a spare moment, I'm wiling to help make that list. I might go retroactively add the Dragster to [[2003]] if it's not already there.[[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Opening & closing of amusement parks & anything within them are domestic & are nowhere near important enough to include on main year articles, even if they break records. Main year articles don't include people, groups, places, things etc. on the basis of them being the largest, smallest, tallest, shortest, heaviest, lightest, fastest, richest, most popular, longest running, most publicised etc. - regardless of location or field. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 23:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Wouldn't a list dedicated to theme parks designate this? [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 01:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Articles such as [[List of amusement parks]] & [[List of amusement parks in the Americas]] don't include any info about them. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 10:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
== [[Coronation of Charles III and Camilla]] == |
|||
:{{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) |
|||
This should not be listed in the 2022 article, it is not yet scheduled, and it could be as late as 2024 before it happens. Suggest it is removed until such time as a date is announced. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 11:14, 9 September 2022 (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.}} |
|||
:{{removed}} [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:14, 9 September 2022 (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 [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Peter Straub]] (Result:)== |
|||
:::{{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? == |
|||
:'''Include''', albeit as a borderline inclusion, looking at his resume, he was well known writer [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 13:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
:I would lean towards '''exclusion''', though I’m closer to neutral than anything. But I don’t think he had the international notability for inclusion here. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 13:01, 10 September 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) |
|||
== [[Elizabeth II]] == |
|||
: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) |
|||
There's an edit war over whether to use the larger photo, the smaller one, or neither. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:14, 9 September 2022 (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. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:For consistency, all thumbnails in the Deaths section should be kept the same width, i.e. 100px. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 13:07, 9 September 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. |
|||
:Beyond belief that Alsoriano97 believes there shouldn't be '''''any''''' pic, when the Queen is arguably the most notable death of the entire year so far, and possibly the last 10-20+ years. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 13:11, 9 September 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 think Alsoriano made it perfectly clear in his last edit summary that there simply isn't the space for her image ''yet'' - which I agree with. I don't think anyone here's seriously arguing that Elizabeth shouldn't get a photo here ''ever''. We can afford to wait until more space is made available, there's no need to rush-include an image before there's even space for it. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 16:14, 9 September 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) |
|||
:I agree with Wjfox. The only deaths that remotely could be considered bigger within the past 20 or even possibly the next 5 years than Her Majesty are Gorbachev, Shinzo, and Michael Jackson, and Trump or Putin if they died in the next 5 years. I’d even go as far to suggest a photo from her funeral be featured in the montage at the top of the page. I’d support using the same size for photos. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 15:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::sorry forgot to sign [[User:Gioppolognomo|Gioppolognomo]] ([[User talk:Gioppolognomo|talk]]) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I actually believe that ''for now'', no image of Elizabeth should be used. Just until there's enough space - after which she 100% ought to be prioritised first and foremost. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 16:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I made a good cropped photo that will fit. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 16:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Even then, with [[Peter Straub]] a candidate for exclusion, I’d be surprised if even a heavily cropped photo would still fit at this time. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 16:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Wjfox2005 and InvadingInvader, I am really amazed. Either I'm not explaining myself well, or you don't understand how this works. Photos will be added '''as long as there is enough space to include them'''. Whether it is the Queen of England, the Pope or Putin. It is even insulting that you think that my last editions are because I question the notability of Queen Elizabeth II. You should have read the explanation of my last edit first. The croop made by 4me689 finally allows a photo of Elizabeth II to be included, and if there are no changes to the list of deceased in September, it's going to stay (even if she's not my favorite). I insist: no space, no photo. Period. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 20:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Uvalde? == |
|||
== [[Marsha Hunt (actress, born 1917)|Marsha Hunt]] == |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
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)