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}} |
{{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}} |
{{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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
Should Shinzo Abe and Jiang Zemin be included in the lead? |
|||
== Ongoing to describe [[COVID-19 pandemic]] (Result: retain) == |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
::Agree per Wjfox2005. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 09:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I noticed that their deaths were recently removed |
|||
== [[David Warner (actor)|David Warner]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
[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) |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
:Tend to '''include''' as he was mega-famous in the UK in the 1970s for his Shakespearean work as well as screen roles. However, his profile fell off significantly over the years. As long as we are excluding Liotta, I'll support exclusion. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 08:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:If you can find a source that establishes their deaths as a significant event of 2022 (as opposed to merely having occurred ''in'' 2022), then IMHO yes. “Year in review” sources would be ideal. [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 07:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Bill Russell]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
:You missed the point. I removed the ones that were unsourced. In my opinion, the whole paragraph should go, as it's completely subjective. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 14:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::{{Done}}. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:'''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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
::::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) |
|||
:::::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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
:::::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) |
|||
::::::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) |
|||
== Collage == |
|||
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) |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (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) |
|||
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. |
|||
{{collapse top|title=Collage Suggestion}} |
|||
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) |
|||
{{Multiple image |
|||
| total_width = 300 |
|||
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. |
|||
| image1 = Shinzo Abes statsbegravelse (beskåret).jpg |
|||
| image2 = Demonstration mod den srilankansk, 2022 (beskåret).jpg |
|||
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) |
|||
| perrow = 3/2/3 |
|||
: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. |
|||
| image8 = VM i fodbold 2022, USA–Wales.jpg |
|||
: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) |
|||
| image3 = Tonga Vulkanudbrud.png |
|||
::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) |
|||
| image4 = Volodymyr Zelenskyy took part in hoisting the State Flag of Ukraine in liberated Kherson. (52502054830).jpg |
|||
:::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) |
|||
| image5 = Queen Elizabeth II's Funeral and Procession (19.Sep.2022) - 09.jpg |
|||
::::Fair enough. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 13:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image6 = Kazakhstan-demonstrationer 2022, Aqtobe, 4. januar (beskåret).jpg |
|||
| image7 = Åbningsceremoni ved Vinter-OL 2022 i Beijing.jpg |
|||
== [[Nichelle Nichols]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
| direction = horizontal |
|||
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) |
|||
| image_gap = |
|||
: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) |
|||
| width = |
|||
::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--> |
|||
| 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]] |
|||
:::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: photo included)== |
|||
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) |
|||
== [[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: borderline inclusion) == |
|||
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) |
|||
== [[Wolfgang Petersen]] (Result: borderline 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: case-by case basis; Miyake inclusion and Mori borderline inclusion)== |
|||
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: inconclusive) == |
|||
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) |
|||
:I've amended the result that was added by the proposer without proper discussion of the subject at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Years]], [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images]] or indeed anywhere else. In fact [[User:4me689]] has ignored repeated requests to raise this topic in the proper place. There is thus at present ''no'' consensus to include collages on main year articles. {{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, {{ping|TheScrubby}}, and {{ping|Black Kite}} for opinions. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 08:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree that [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years]] is the correct place to discuss this & that the discussion on [[User talk:4me689/collage discussions]] should be moved there. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::That discussion is still in the same place, but it's linked from Years. Is that sufficient? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:58, 7 October 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) |
|||
:::We don't have a threshold in terms of number of people killed or injured, nor amount/cost of damage caused. This is internationally notable, but not significant enough. It's fairly minor in world terms. Many storms, floods, wildfires, earthquakes etc. significantly affect multiple countries. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Milutin Šoškić]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
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) |
|||
== [[Ralph Eggleston]] & [[Kazuo Inamori]] (Result: Eggleston excluded and Inamori borderline inclusion) == |
|||
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. |
|||
Ralph Eggleston - '''borderline inclusion''', |
|||
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]]''. |
|||
Kazuo Inamori - '''borderline inclusion,''' was a Japanese philanthropist, entrepreneur and the founder of [[Kyocera]] and [[KDDI]]. He was the chairman of [[Japan Airlines]]. |
|||
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. |
|||
{{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, {{ping|TheScrubby}}, {{ping|Black Kite}}, {{ping|Wjfox2005}}, and {{ping|PeaceInOurTime2021}} i'm curious what you thoughts are |
|||
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) |
|||
:Never heard of these people. I'm neutral on their inclusion. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 17:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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) |
|||
'''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) |
|||
'''Exclude''' Eggleston, though count me as '''Neutral''' on Inamori. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 08:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' Eggleston. He's clearly accomplished, but ibid Jim Michael's arguments, he isn't as notable as other inclusions. <br/> |
|||
:'''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) |
|||
== August deaths (Result: Dean excluded and majority of astronauts excluded) == |
|||
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) |
|||
== [[Charlbi Dean]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
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) |
|||
: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. |
|||
:[[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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
:She has zero international notability, and she belongs in [[2022 in South Africa]] - not the main 2022 page or [[2022 deaths in the United States]], which for some inexplicable reason you’ve been trying to include her in. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:03, 4 September 2022 (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) |
|||
== [[Xinjiang report]] (Result: inclusion)== |
|||
{{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 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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
::::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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
== Re-[[election]]s (Result: case-by-case basis, but exclude if without significance) == |
|||
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) |
|||
== [[Don L. Lind]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
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) |
|||
== [[John Landy]] (Result: exclusion)== |
|||
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) |
|||
== [[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) |
|||
== [[Peter Straub]] (Result: exclusion)== |
|||
Is he internationally notable enough? How important are his awards? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
:Include. Fairly renowned author and it's fitting to include an author. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/146.200.180.226|146.200.180.226]] ([[User talk:146.200.180.226#top|talk]]) 18:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Include! [[User:Ingrid997|Ingrid997]] ([[User talk:Ingrid997|talk]]) 10:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::To those simply saying to include, none have made a sufficient argument in response to Jim’s question asking ''how'' he’s internationally notable enough. Straub was hardly a household name and his awards were domestic. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have no stake in it; so my observations will be just that observations. |
|||
:::The Genre of Horror Story Writing is very Niche. So much so; that many of the awards that Straub won for example; are mostly American/British based; because well the status of Horror Story Writing is so new. |
|||
:::Would Straub be notable for inclusion then ? |
|||
:::Well Maybe ? [[Special:Contributions/65.78.186.95|65.78.186.95]] ([[User talk:65.78.186.95|talk]]) 14:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Include. He won seventeen minor awards in five different countries. [[User:Ingrid997|Ingrid997]] ([[User talk:Ingrid997|talk]]) 19:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Why would minor awards be relevant? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:My opinion similar to TheScrubby; I'm not familiar with his work, and most non-bookworms have likely not read it. I think his inclusion all depends on the substance and quantity of awards; 17 smaller ones across five countries is certainly impressive, and the [[World Fantasy Award]] does seem influential (it's also a GA here), but I don't think it's a household name nor the subject of substantive media coverage. Unlike the Pulitzer Prize or the Emmys, I don't get CNN alerts about the World Fantasy Awards. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Elizabeth II]] (Result: photo included as soon as space was made available) == |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
: I don't see a space issue with the current image, honestly living with a minor formatting concern is better than leaving the image off at this stage. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 19:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:* Now there is no problem. But the format is the format, and we are not going to ignore it because we can't stand a few days without posting a photo. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 23:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::*There's now plenty of space for either of version of either photo, yet the edit war over which we should use continues. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 03:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::*:Why not we just include both? Maybe even scale all portraits down to 95 or 90px if space really is a concern? [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 07:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Lead (Result: inclusion)== |
|||
Should the deaths of [[Shinzo Abe]], [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] & [[Elizabeth II]] be in the lead? I think they should, because although heads of state/gov die every year, these three are particularly notable. Their deaths are among the most significant events of this year, and decade. Most main year articles having insufficient leads doesn't mean that this one should. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include.''' I agree completely. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 17:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''' But if we starting to flesh it out with useful information, I think we should consider dropping "The United Nations declared 2022 as the International Year of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture,[1] International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development,[2] International Year of Sustainable Mountain Development,[3] and the International Year of Glass.[4]" this is all trivia and undue weight in the lead. The UN just seem to pick these names out of a hat every year. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 22:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''', and I fully back JeffUK's opinion. The UN's actions are only really important if an action affects global affairs or does something as fabulous as making pigs fly. 2022 is the year of the historical death in a way. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 08:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree that Year of [ ] things shouldn't be included, no matter who designates them, unless something very important happens as a result. If it were the Year of [[Oncology]] & that resulted in a large increase in resources being dedicated to [[cancer research]] which led to a cure being found, that'd be worth including. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would also sponsor Jim's standard being implemented across all year articles, not just 2022. Unless we're dealing with year XXXX and the only notable event at all is Mr. Exampleton reaching the Billboard Hot 100, leave this stuff out. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::'''Include''' Jim Michael's idea, and I fully back JeffUK's opinion on removing the UN declared headers [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 02:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''' Gorbachev and Elizabeth II were influential global figureheads and Abe's assassination was not only covered heavily in the news, but it was in fact a rare event. --[[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 22:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:It is definitely appropriate to include the deaths of significant world leaders, particularly incumbents. I think including entertainers is a little bit of a hard sell for me and I think it may cause unnecessary jockeying for fans of an entertainer to try to get their person mentioned in the introduction if we have it become a standard. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 20:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' - There is absolutely no need to include any death twice. There is no objective way of deciding who to include, and we're just adding to systemic bias by doing so. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 19:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== 2 or 3 pictures (Result: 2)== |
|||
I've been trying to use the crop tool to get at least three pictures on the month of August, and MrMimikyu1998, thinks I shouldn't crop it and use the original, which I really want three because I don't really want 2 per month because it just be lame. I came here to stop a protential editing war and see what the consensus here on this subject. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 20:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Tbh, I think two is better so that you can see their faces. I mean sure I have a 20/20 vision and I can see Miyake’s face in this image but if it were to be cropped more, you can hardly recognize it from someone who has a desktop computer. |
|||
:[[File:Issey Miyake Tokyo 2016 (headshot) (cropped).jpg|thumb|100px|[[Issey Miyake]]]] [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 20:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree. Two pictures is more than good. Better a few photos that look good than many small ones that are not worthwhile. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 23:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Alain Tanner]] (Result: exclusion)== |
|||
is Alain Tanner notable enough for inclusion, just asking. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 01:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' he's unknown both in regards to international film and most common folks. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 07:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Include. He's super well known in Wales, though I never understood why. [[User:Redcoat1945|Redcoat1945]] ([[User talk:Redcoat1945|talk]]) 20:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Where's the evidence of that being true? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've never heard of him so I very much doubt that. Maybe in Chapter cinema in Cardiff - nowhere else. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Collage images == |
|||
I want feedback on the Collages images before I make a image Collage a thing I already did for [[2019]], a image Collage will be added when the queen's funeral happens, I want 8 at a minimum, so what 8 event should get a image. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:The [[2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption and tsunami]] should be removed. Its low death toll means it's not important enough. The [[June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake]] - which is also present - is a far more significant [[natural disaster]] & should stay to represent natural disasters. I think we should include the [[2022 Peshawar mosque attack]] because it's the worst [[VNSA]] attack that's listed in this article. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, there's no picture of the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack on Wikipedia. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 23:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::May I suggest the [[2022 abortion protests]]? Even though this may be a bit too domestic to the US, ever since the SCOTUS decided to overturn Roe v. Wade, there have been protests not only across the US but also across the world (see linked article for refs). We could potentially also include an entry in June saying something along the lines of "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that its constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion, inciting protests both across the country and the world." [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Those protests shouldn't be in this article at all. They didn't have any effect, and the protests outside the US were small. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Agree with Jim. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 19:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protection on this talk page ASAP (Result: not done)== |
|||
We need to semi protect this talk page until the end of the year, there has been three separate people using sock puppets to disrupt and waste others time. the first sock puppeteer is the what if 2020 person, which is a person [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/76.20.110.116|who has abused multiple IPs]] to ask useless and stupid questions like "what if 2020 came to your house" & "what if 2020 was a person" and use this talk page to ask trivial and very local questions. next there's Counting Stars 500, who's [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CountingStars500|used multiple accounts]] with easily made names like Emily Phillipson and Thomas Constable, he has demonstrated an obsession with [[Gilbert Gottfried]] and Canadian politics, and abused multiple accounts to get a consensus to include Gottfried as well as politicians like [[Jack Layton]]. and finally just today we have found another sock puppeteer in the form of Niko the Biko who is previously blocked in 2020 for harassment, Who [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niko the Biko| ban evaded and abused]] multiple accounts like Ingrid997 & Redcoat1945, to demonstrate a obsession with [[Marsha Hunt (actress, born 1917)|Marsha Hunt]], and used said multiple accounts to try to make a consensus to include her. you need to semi protect this talk page ASAP, we will not let this page go through more sock puppeteers, the only way to stop this is if we semi protected this talk page. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 23:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with semi-protecting this talk page again, for four months at least. 146 is now blocked for bad edits, but appears to also be a sock of CountingStars or Niko. I'm suspicious of Golden Matrix, whose focus, way of writing etc. appear to be similar to those of CountingStars500. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:: There's not really enough IP activity to justify it, to be honest. And the last two socks were both autoconfirmed so semi-protecting wouldn't have helped anyway. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Should [[Saul Kripke]] be included? (Result: borderline inclusion)== |
|||
I would argue that he should. He seems to be notable in the field of Philosophy and has received international awards/memberships for his work. For example, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Schock_Prizes which are described as the equilvalent of the Nobel Prizes. [[Special:Contributions/65.78.186.95|65.78.186.95]] ([[User talk:65.78.186.95|talk]]) 05:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''', albeit as a '''borderline inclusion''', looking at his resume he was a big influence in math culture, his International nobility is equivalent to [[Yi-Fu Tuan]] or [[Richard Taruskin]] , this guy would probably look like a guy that will be put in these pages. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 06:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== 2022 collage candidate images and topic suggestions (Result: options A, B1, C3, D, F, G, I, K) == |
|||
Give your opinion on what topics should be included in the collage and what should be left out. On some subjects feel free to add in subject to the image gallery the minimum is 8. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
<gallery caption="" heights="120" widths="120" mode="packed"> |
|||
File:AfghanistanQuake.png|'''option A''' [[June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake]] |
|||
File:Destruction of Russian tanks by Ukrainian troops in Mariupol (4).jpg|'''option B1''' [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]] |
|||
File:Наслідки_обстрілу_дитячої_лікарні_та_пологового_будинку_в_Маріуполі,_9_березня_2022_року.jpg|'''option B2''' [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]] |
|||
File:20220908-Buckingham Palace Elizabeth II death reactions (09).jpg|'''option C1''' [[Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II]] |
|||
File:Elizabeth_II's_coffin_leaves_Holyrood_Palace.jpg|'''option C2''' [[Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II]] |
|||
File:Procession_to_Lying-in-State_of_Elizabeth_II_at_Westminster_Hall_-_72_(cropped).jpg|'''option C3''' [[Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II]] |
|||
File:Putin_attended_the_opening_ceremony_of_2022_Beijing_Winter_Olympics_(3).jpg|'''option D''' [[2022 Winter Olympics]] |
|||
File:Centro de vacunación en la provincia de Santa Fe.jpg|'''option E''' [[COVID-19 vaccine]] |
|||
File:The vicinity of Kintetsu Yamato-Saidaiji station northern entrance on 8th July 2022.jpg|'''option F''' [[Assassination of Shinzo Abe]] |
|||
File:Anti-government protest in Sri Lanka 2022 (cropped).jpg|'''option G''' [[2022 Sri Lankan protests]] |
|||
File:NZDF over Tonga January 2022.jpg|'''option H''' [[2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption and tsunami]] |
|||
File:2022_Kazakhstan_protests_—_Aqtobe,_January_4_(01).jpg|'''option I''' [[2022 Kazakh unrest]] |
|||
File:May_2022_abortion_protest_at_Foley_Square_08.jpg|'''option j''' [[2022 abortion protests]] |
|||
File:Monkeypox.gif|'''option k''' [[2022 monkeypox outbreak]] |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
'''A''', '''B1''', '''C3''', '''D''', '''F''', '''G''', '''I''', '''k''' of course the Russian invasion Ukraine and the death of Queen Elizabeth should get a image on the collage. the protest in Sri Lankan led to big changes over there, the assassination of sensuality was a big one in Asia, the Olympics has the biggest sporting event every year. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Prominently include at least one depicting the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because it's by far the world's biggest event of the year. Exclude the Tonga eruption & abortion protests because they're nowhere near important enough. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree with the Russian invasion, but something other than a drab green picture of a tank would be better. Do we have something with the Ukrainian flag or Russian 'Z', something clearly in Ukraine? [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 08:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
'''A, B2, C2, D, F, G, I'''. I realise that's only 7. I don't think H is notable enough (considering we've had an [[June_2022_Afghanistan_earthquake|earthquake that killed 1000]], [[2022 Pakistan floods|flooding in Pakistan]] that killed more, and a [[2022 European heat waves|heatwave that killed 12000 in Europe]] this year), J is domestic, and the COVID-19 vaccine is really a 2021 story. I suspect we'll get a better image for C after today as well. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 13:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Black Kite}} and {{u|Jim Michael 2}}, what about the monkeypox outbreak, is that a good idea, I certainly think it is. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 16:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Include monkeypox, in addition to Ukraine, the Olympics, the Queen's death/funeral & the Afghan earthquake. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:2022 collage V1.png|thumb|350px]] |
|||
:guys, what do you think about this collage I just made. I use the new picture of Queen Elizabeth II that I haven't brought up yet which is her lying-in-state. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I would swap the photo of Elizabeth II's coffin and change Tonga for monkeypox. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Death section pictures for September (Result: Godard) == |
|||
there's a dispute for who's going to get the 2nd picture for September so let's do a special section for this |
|||
<gallery caption="" heights="120" widths="120" mode="packed"> |
|||
File:Dr. Frank Drake.jpg|American astronomer and astrophysicist, [[Frank Drake]] |
|||
File:Jean-Luc Godard at Berkeley, 1968.jpg|French-Swiss film director, [[Jean-Luc Godard]] |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
here's my idea this is the vote for who should get the second picture, just sign your name under who should get it. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 04:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Either one works, but if there are no more extremely notable deaths this month that surpass both of them, let's go with both. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 00:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Frank Drake=== |
|||
# in my opinion the second picture should go to Frank Drake, because he accomplished more things. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 04:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Jean-Luc Godard=== |
|||
# IMO it should go to Godard - arguably among the most important and influential film-makers of his era. Would not be opposed to Drake getting the third pic if space opens up for it. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 09:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# I agree with Godard. Didn’t know about Drake until recently. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 01:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#Without any doubt. One of the most important film-makers ever. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# Yeah, Godard definitely, but if there's enough room for Drake he should certainly be next (at the moment). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 07:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# Godard - he's far more notable. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[PnB Rock]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
Is PnB Rock international notable enough to be included, he has already be added a couple times already, just asking before I put my opinion. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 15:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' Never even heard of him, sorry. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 18:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''', the only song I know from PnB rock is [[Cross Me|that song]] he did with [[Ed Sheeran]]. even with that, the song he did with Ed Sheeran did not go number 1 in any country. the fact that he made a song with one of the biggest artists of modern times does not make PnB rock internationally notable enough to be included because the song wasn't a number one hit. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
Is the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 notable enough to be included, just asking before I put my opinion. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 20:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - junior competitions of any description are nowhere near important enough for main year articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 21:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Exclude''' I agree with Jim Michael on this one. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::'''Exclude''' I agree with Jim Michael and InvadingInvader [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Louise Fletcher]] (Result: inclusion) == |
|||
Is Louise Fletcher notable enough to be included. in my opinion, '''Include''', looking at her resume she won an [[Academy Award]], a [[BAFTA Award]] and a [[Golden Globe Award]], some of the most prestigious Awards in Hollywood. but still MrMimikyu1998 is still questioning her notability and he is making her look as notable as [[Gilbert Gottfried]], Gottfried didn't really have any International Awards. like why are you trying to exclude someone with many of Hollywood's most prestigious Awards, that doesn't make sense to me. [[User:4me689|'''<span style= color:#CE5DAE; padding: 2px" lang="en">4me689</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 03:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree. Fletcher has won international awards. So she should be included. |
|||
:Sometimes, I think we go a bit too far; when it comes to narrowing the list down. [[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF81:B1A0:E5DD:A7C7:8176:9465|2601:204:CF81:B1A0:E5DD:A7C7:8176:9465]] ([[User talk:2601:204:CF81:B1A0:E5DD:A7C7:8176:9465|talk]]) 04:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:She won an [[Academy Award for Best Actress]] & a [[BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role]]. She's clearly internationally notable enough. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include'''. Award-winning actress, including a prominent role in one of IMDB's top 20 highest-rated films of all time. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 14:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include'''. Not a difficult one. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Mahsa Amini protests]] (Result: borderline inclusion) == |
|||
Perhaps someone should add something under “September” referring to the current protests in Iran? [[User:The ganymedian|The ganymedian]] ([[User talk:The ganymedian|talk]]) 08:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think they're quite notable enough for inclusion (yet), but let's wait and see. The situation appears quite volatile, so perhaps in the coming days/weeks they could be added. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 08:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::At what point do they become internationally notable enough? This is mostly a domestic event, but there have been smaller protests in some major cities of other countries. There's been an international reaction, but is it enough? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::If it leads to a change of government/regime, or deaths of protesters in the hundreds (it's currently ~50), or some sort of larger-scale uprising in the Middle East, it should be included IMO. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 14:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Any International reaction is better than no international reaction. I personally think that we're being way too exclusive with some of the biggest domestic events in countries (started a new thread about it below) [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:For now, I'd say no but it has the potential to boil into a larger event. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 14:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I'd include it if it causes a larger conflict or becomes martyred like the Tiananmen Square uprisings. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 04:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|The ganymedian}}, {{ping|Wjfox2005}}, {{ping|PaulRKil}}, {{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, and {{ping|InvadingInvader}}. should Mahsa Amini protests be in this years collage. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 13:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I would wait a little longer to see how it plays out @[[User:4me689|4me689]] Kazakh unrest is still bigger in terms of fatalities for now, but we will see. [[User:The ganymedian|The ganymedian]] ([[User talk:The ganymedian|talk]]) 15:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The Mahsa Amini protests aren't in the article, so they can't be in the collage. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I think not necessarily in the collage unless they result in a regime change, but certainly they should be mentioned in the article. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 01:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd agree with those who would like to take a '''wait and see''' approach, given that these protests are still ongoing and developing. We can always revisit this and include it once something major takes place as a consequence. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Image size (Deaths) == |
|||
I'm just wondering if we could increase the image size slightly? Obviously, that would increase the depth, but most of the names of the images bleed onto a second line of text, which of course increases them massively. With a larger width, many would fit on one line. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== How much detail? == |
|||
There have been repeated alterations to some entries, especially during this month. Most of this relates to [[Liz Truss]], [[Elizabeth II]] & the [[Russo-Ukrainian War]]. How much detail should we include? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, in my opinion, how much detail there should be is on if it's '''important'''. So, in my opinion the Biden excerpt that {{u|Wjfox2005}} have been pushing should be '''excluded''', cuz it's not that important. As for Queen Elizabeth, in my opinion it should only say Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, or something like that. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 14:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== The third picture for September (Result: Frank Drake gets third photo after Elizabeth II and Jean-Luc Godard) == |
|||
There's a lot of hesitancy on on Frank Drake getting a photo int he death section. My opinion the third photo should go to Frank Drake as we already have a Hollywood worker in the form of [[Jean-Luc Godard]], but in my opinion I fully support [[Louise Fletcher]] replacing Goddard, as fletcher is more notable. In my opinion it should be Frank Drake, Elizabeth II, and then Louise fletcher. Though I am still open for Godard to get the fourth picture, if they will ever be room for one. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 20:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* Louise Fletcher is absolutely ''not'' more notable than Godard. You'll note that Godard was one of the very few people each year to get a full entry at [[WP:ITN]] on his death. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* To Black Kite: I would not replace Godard for Fletcher but it was only a suggestion because of Hurt and Poitier being Oscar winners themselves. I could easily go to the 2007 article and change Deborah Kerr’s image for Jane Wyman because Wyman won an Oscar while Kerr did not despite being nominated several times. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 21:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:To @4me689 I do not agree with having Drake here. I only suggested Fletcher because she was an Oscar winner plus keeping Godard is important because he’s more well known than Drake. Plus, we already have William Hurt and Sidney Poitier in terms of Oscars so I’m thinking we should have someone else other than Drake. I never even heard of him until recently so if you want him so bad, have him. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:: Godard actually won an Academy award as well, an [[Academy Honorary Award]] which is awarded for "extraordinary distinction in lifetime achievement, exceptional contributions to the state of motion picture arts and sciences". [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Strong Oppose''' any notion that Fletcher is more notable and more image-worthy than Godard, as per Black Kite. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 07:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Cross-listing certain domestic events in main year articles == |
|||
I think that we might need to adjust some of the standards here for event inclusion. There are certain events that as of the writing of this article, are very significant in world history, especially in reaction, though only limited to one country primarily in what actually happened. These should be limited in inclusion to only include the defining events for each country, but included nonetheless as these events may not only stoke international reactions but also define countries for years to come. |
|||
There are a few of these events that come to mind for me: |
|||
* Mahsa Amini protests (assuming they either cause a full revolution or become martyred like the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests) |
|||
* ''Dobbs v. Jackson'' |
|||
* The one or two biggest Atlantic hurricanes of the year (once hurricane season is over, judging only by what we've run into so far though it looks like it's gonna be either Fiona or Ian) |
|||
* Iraqi political crisis |
|||
* If a North Korean nuclear test occurs, throw it in. |
|||
These are just a few ideas, but based on the immense amount of notability that these events (especially Dobbs v. Jackson) has gained outside of the United States (though dwarved by domestic searches on Google Trends [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fg%2F11nmlgpt0t as seen here]), we can't be comparing everything to apartheid, the invasion of Ukraine, or only the most notable events of the year. I encourage the discussion (or rediscussion) of these events. TLDR: '''We're being too exclusive and censoring a little bit too much from main year articles'''; it's about time we do something about it. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 04:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|Turns out that at one of the participants of this discussion thread was a banned sockpuppet.}} |
|||
:Exclude Dobbs v. Jackson protests. They led to nothing, the size of the protests was surprisingly miniscule, the cause was completely domestic and there is nothing realistically that would have happened if the protests had gone on. Congress would have attempted to codify Roe anyway, regardless of the protests. These protests were almost as useless and ineffective as the 2020 stop the steal election protests. <!-- Template: Signed IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/146.200.180.251|146.200.180.251]] ([[User talk:146.200.180.251#top|talk]]) 10:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::This is false. First of all, consider the mere fact we have an article on [[2022 abortion protests]]. They didn't lead to nothing; they led to action being taken in both directions. West Virginia and Idaho for example have banned abortion in their state, while many cities and activist groups are actively sponsoring interstate abortions. Electoral analysts additionally say that the repeal of Roe v. Wade costed the Republican Party their edge in the upcoming US Midterms. Reactions aren't limited to the US either; [https://thehill.com/policy/international/3537581-uks-boris-johnson-labels-supreme-court-abortion-decision-a-backward-step/ Boris] and [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/french-president-macron-abortion-is-fundamental-right-women-2022-06-24/ Macron] have all spoken against the decision, along with [https://en.as.com/latest_news/what-have-international-leaders-said-about-roe-v-wade-being-overturned-n/ Olaf Scholz, Justin Trudeau, Pedro Sanchez, as well as various world leaders/officials]. Boris Johnson put it best perhaps: "This is not our court, it’s another jurisdiction, but clearly it has massive impacts on people’s thinking around the world. It’s a very important decision". [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::The only international thing about that is mere criticism by political leaders, who quite often comment on domestic events outside their respective countries. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Any criticism or reaction is better than no criticism or reaction. Ceteris paribus, with such reactions, world leaders and the populations they represent see this as on the same level of importance as the death of Abe and Gorbachev, and much more important than Turkey and Israel restoring relations or the Whisky War, both of which are on the article as is. I'm not saying they should be removed, but <u>people</u> clearly care more about Dobbs v. Jackson than Canada and Denmark resolving an island dispute. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If the reaction is merely (written or spoken) words rather than military action or sanctions, it's not important. It's mere criticism, comment, conversation etc. |
|||
:::::I've already stated my objections to the Whisky War being included. It was a petty, non-violent dispute over a small, barren, remote, uninhabited island. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
{{collapse bottom}} |
||
--[[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 17:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:The Mahsa Amini protests may become important enough, as they spread to other countries. [[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]] is domestic; it's highly unlikely that anyone would want something similar in another other country to be included. [[Hurricane]]s (& other disasters) are only included if they severely affect multiple countries &/or there's a major, physical international response (actually doing things on site rather than prayers, condolences, sympathy etc.). The [[2021–2022 Iraqi political crisis]] is domestic; political crises are common and should only be included if they result in changes of national government. Tests by N Korea (or any other country) should only be included if there's a major international response (sanctions, military action etc. rather than mere criticism, conversations etc.) [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The concept in question is not on those events specifically (those are just examples) but rather defining moments for nations as a whole. We're being too exclusive in our entries and filtering out too many events which have a notable impact on regions or the largest nations just because they're too domestic, so I'm proposing that we include some domestic events. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::None of those you mention have major effects on multiple countries. Defining moments for nations belong on year by country articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ''"Defining moments for nations belong on year by country articles"'' '''That's exactly what I think is not the best philosophy for this all of this article's potential inclusions and that should change when it comes to the inclusion of events here.''' |
|||
::::Why should an event which defines a country in such a way to cause various protests on both sides of an argument be limited to that country's article, especially if there is any newsworthy international reaction at all? [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Because they're domestic events. Such things happen frequently. Events that define countries & years should be on the relevant year by country articles. Many domestic events are widely reported internationally. It makes no sense to put them on main year articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::''"Many domestic events are widely reported internationally."''; what about only including the most important domestic events? I know that OSE isn't the best argument, but precedent in nearly every one of these year articles has been to include extremely significant domestic events which stoke international reaction, like January 6 in the US, China's Hong Kong National Security Law, the 2020 Belarusian protests, and numerous elections in many democracies. '''I agree that not every event should be included''', but we already do this in essence. As evidenced from prior year articles, Wikipedia consensus for the most part EXCEPT for this article under the exclusionist philosophy which is loudly pushed is that events which are widely covered internationally, no matter if domestic or international, is included. I'm interpreting from what you're saying, including Dobbs would relatively be as bad as summoning Godzilla and having him destroy San Francisco. What possible harm can be done from events as domestically significant as the overturning of Roe v. Wade which stoke ANY international reaction at all? |
|||
::::::''It makes no sense to put them on main year articles''...it does make sense. These events change countries vastly; states in the US are already rushing to pass laws banning or protecting abortion. I'm primarily using Dobbs v. Jackson and abortion in my arguments, but there are many other domestic events which have occurred and likely will occur. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Main year articles aren't meant to be inclusionist; they're meant to be selective. They're for important international events, births & deaths only. There are a huge number of year by country articles for domestic events. Like I said, if the international reaction is in the form of military action or sanctions, it becomes significantly international & is included. In the far larger number of cases in which the international reaction is in words only, it isn't significantly international & we don't include them. You again bring up abortion in the US. Yes, it's important - in the US. Which is why it's in the lead & body of [[2022 in the United States]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::You bring up exactly what should be changed, even if marginally to include domestic events which impact the world. I also think that you are severely underestimating the impact of words. It's a balancing act with this article, but ultimately, <u>in general</u>, '''''Wikipedia should be the people's encyclopedia which reflects what the people think is important''''', especially with regard to the press and world events. Of course we have people like us here to guide, but it has been proven to me that the world sees ''Dobbs'' as a major inflection point, even if it's primarily US centered. I would agree with you on excluding the Whisky island; it's not something people care about. But it's more important to create an encyclopedia which is useful to the people rather than one more useful to only society's most intellectual. |
|||
::::::::Like it or not, we are a popular and widely-used site, and we have other encyclopedias which are more tuned to the experts, nerds, or more academically or foreign-policy minded. The article would be better if we covered events that are notable using both in action and in press coverage, judging on a combination of coverage and effect. ''Dobbs'' can be a good benchmark and form the "Dobbs test": if a <u>domestic</u> event is on a similar impact within a country as ''Dobbs'' and gains international knowledge on the same scale and reaction as ''Dobbs'', include it on the international events list, as the international population thinks more about it and it has impacted a major country specifically. If not, throw it only in the domestic events list. |
|||
::::::::This "Dobbs" test would allow for an exclusive collection of events which define nations and gain international recognition to be included while excluding widely-covered events which are not as important or defining. I'm on the same page with you on events like ''Depp v. Heard''; it's just something that gained attention and had minimal impact on its country aside from giving the American populace to meme and talk about. This test would also ensure that less-notable events which you oppose inclusion of, like the Whisky War between Canada and Denmark, are topics that would be excluded, as only those who religiously follow geography would care about it. |
|||
::::::::Jim, I agree that we have to maintain some amount of selectiveness or exclusivity for lists. But what people care about is more important than a few editors. World leaders are a Wikipedia is for the people, by the people, so the best thing for us to do would be to serve the people. We're not Citizendium where everything is more so by experts for a more niche populace. '''This new standard would improve the article by allowing for events the world cares about to be included while maintaining selectiveness.''' We're excluding events that matter to quite a lot of the world; [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2022-06-20%202022-06-28&q=%2Fm%2F0g54wr7 Google Trends data for the days leading up to and after ''Dobbs''] showed a CLEAR spike in worldwide interest for the subject. I hope we can work together and agree on a middle ground instead of each retreating to "my way or the highway positions"; this can be a middle ground where we take into account your stance on maintaining exclusivity in this article while addressing important domestic events which are viewed with albeit lesser international importance but extremely significant domestic importance and reasonable international importance nonetheless. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::There won't ever be a 'Dobbs test'. The large majority of people outsode the US haven't even heard of Dobbs. We don't measure notability by Google trends. If we did, we'd have to include Depp v Heard, and in 2021 the [[murder of Sarah Everard]] & the [[killing of Gabby Petito]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::@[[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] (I'll respond both to your comment under Tests/attempts and here under this reply). You're comparing apples to oranges, Jim. The murders/killings of Gabby Petito and Sarah Everard, as sad as they turned out, are trends, just like Depp v. Heard or any other celebrity drama, or a minor mass shooting, again as sad as they are. |
|||
::::::::::''"We don't measure notability by Google trends"'' '''This is completely false. [[WP:GNUM]] verbatim suggests that Google Trends can help to establish notability.''' Please refrain from confusing your own philosophy and ideals with Wikipedia precent, guidelines, and policy. |
|||
::::::::::''"The large majority of people outside the US haven't even heard of Dobbs"''...'''This claim is factually inaccurate'''. Numerous sources from outside the US have ascertained the existence and role that Dobbs has played (see [https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/south-asia/article/3194282/indias-top-court-gives-all-women-right-abortion South China Morning Post], [https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4526251 Taiwan News], [https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/uproar-across-us-over-roe-vs-wade-reversal-101656182496942.html the Hindustan Times], [https://www.arabnews.com/node/2110431/world Arab News], and [https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-51/20220624-roe-v-wade-overturned-us-supreme-court-ends-constitutional-right-to-abortion France24]. Based on the above sources, '''it is impossible to reliably argue that most of the connected world has not heard of Dobbs v. Jackson in some capacity.''' |
|||
::::::::::From what I am seeing, I'm getting the impression that you are looking at only one aspect of my argument and ignoring everything else. I proposed a solution that took into account both my ideals and your ideals, yet you rejected it. Please try to reach middle ground more often rather than just rejecting everything you don't agree with in a "my way or the highway" approach; such mentality, comparable to [[WP:OWN|behaving as if you and maybe a few of your closest friends own an article]], only leads to more conflict and less stuff getting done. |
|||
::::::::::As an additional friendly reminder, please make sure to fact-check your arguments. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::That link about Google & notability refers to helping determine if something is notable enough for a WP article. Being included on main year articles has a far higher bar. |
|||
:::::::::::I'm talking about ordinary people, not journalists who report international news. Ask people who aren't American & don't live in the US what they think of Dobbs, and the vast majority won't have a clue who/what you're talking about. |
|||
:::::::::::You're trying to change the way things have been done on main year articles for years. The point of them is to document the international world. Year by country articles cover domestic events. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::''"Being included on main year articles has a far higher bar."'' how come we have had notable American events included in |
|||
::::::::::::''"Ask people who aren't American & don't live in the US what they think of Dobbs, and the vast majority won't have a clue who/what you're talking about."'' I have family and friends abroad. Dobbs was the gavel heard around the world. Everybody who is literate and is connected to the world has heard of Dobbs, either by name or knowing that abortion is no longer constitutionally protected in the US by some form. |
|||
::::::::::::We have covered significant domestic events in the past, and if anything, I'm returning us to a more informed precedent which you have tried to remove. You're making stuff much more exclusive than in past years. |
|||
::::::::::::I suggested the ''Dobbs Test'' as a middle ground which suits both of our opinions, and we do agree on quite a bit actually with regard to excluding trending domestic events. Yet when it comes simply to including a SMALL amount of domestic events which trigger an international reaction, you reject every proposal I make. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::I don't mean ask people outside the US what they think of the US abortion laws & protests. I mean if you ask them what they think of Dobbs, without telling them who or what Dobbs is. Say - without introduction or context - to ordinary non-Americans (not journalists, academics etc.): "What do you think of Dobbs?" The vast majority won't have a clue who or what you're talking about. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:here are my opinions |
|||
:Mahsa Amini protests - '''Include''', it will probably lead to political changes in iran |
|||
:Dobbs v. Jackson - in hindsight I do kind of agree with jim michael |
|||
:hurricanes - unless it's hurricane Katrina, exclude cuz hurricanes are normally domestic. |
|||
:Iraqi political crisis - same as jim michael |
|||
:a North Korean nuclear test - also same as jim michael. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 13:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude all''' except maybe the Mahsa Amini protests, which I'm neutral on for the time being but overall think we should wait and see the end result before making a final judgement on inclusion. Including Dobbs v. Jackson would be pure, blatant Americentrism. Hurricanes I would have to agree with Jim Michael's point that they should only be included if they severely impact multiple countries, and/or if there's a major, physical international response rather than mere "thoughts and prayers". [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::What is wrong with one or two domestic events per country, especially if it defined the country for the year? [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 02:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::If this is in reference to Dobbs, I’ll just say that there was already a firm discussion about it (that you can read under “Roe V Wade Overturning” in Archive 5) which resulted in exclusion; I gave my two cents there and my views on the matter remain the same. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's more so in for including one or two extremely important domestic events which have received an international reaction in this article. Dobbs was my suggestion for loosening standards since it was probably the most major domestic event in the US that gained international attention, but it's more about including some defining domestic events. If maybe North Korea had a Tiananmen Square like incident which became martyred and had world leaders reacting, sure. I used Dobbs as my primary suggestion since it gained attention outside of the US and reactions from world leaders. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 03:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You're the only person who's pushing for Dobbs. It's the thing you mention the most often on here, despite you having no support for it. The reactions were words only, which doesn't create international notability. World leaders often mention domestic events in other countries, including laws, crimes, disasters etc. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::World leaders are treating Dobbs on the same level as Gorbachev's death, which was a no brainer to include. '''And I'm not pushing for just Dobbs; I'm pushing for a small amount notable domestic events which gain an international reaction to be included.''' Events like these should all be no-brainers to include. And it doesn't just apply to the US; if India ruled on banning abortion. I suggested a middle ground in the ''Dobbs'' test, but you rejected it. I found logical fallacies in your arguments yet you just kept pushing them. Over and over and over again on this issue I suggested that we try to reach a middle ground. You just shrug me off. Start treating me better and my ideas more constructively, please. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Gorbachev's death isn't included in Events. All (former) heads of state/gov qualify for inclusion in Births & Deaths sections of main year articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:52, 2 October 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) |
|||
==Tests/attempts== |
|||
::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) |
|||
:So, from our beginnings as cavemen, to the early 21st century, humans have now advanced to the point where we're literally '''''altering the movement of astronomical bodies in space''''', but that's apparently trivial to you. https://twitter.com/fallingstarIfA/status/1574583529731670021 [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 19:24, 27 September 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) |
||
:::{{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) |
|||
::: Most tests aren't actually that interesting, groundbreaking or notable, though. This one is all three, and hence got worldwide coverage. It should stay. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 09:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
:::How is it trivial if it gained worldwide coverage? [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 07:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::International media coverage doesn't show international notability or importance. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::'''That partially seems like a logical fallacy.''' Wide international media coverage <u>practically equates</u> to international notability. Importance is a debatable thing, but this makes the cut for importance; nothing else like it has been done yet. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It doesn't - many things receive a lot of international media coverage without being internationally notable, including disasters, high-profile crimes (such as the [[murder of Sarah Everard]] & the [[killing of Gabby Petito]]), sports events in which the sports have many fans in many countries and the various activities of domestic but internationally known celebs such as The Kardashians & Jenners. |
|||
::::::This is only important if it's able to be done in a reliable, controlled way. We don't include things on the basis of them being firsts. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::FYI, my response is linked to the above thread at [[Talk:2022#Cross-listing certain domestic events in main year articles]]. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Collage depreciation == |
|||
== [[Coolio]] (Result: borderline inclusion) == |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
Should Coolio be included? I know some of his songs and was a Grammy award winner in 1996 but I think he should be excluded. What do you think? [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 01:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
:No idea who he is. Doesn't seem as notable based on what you're telling me. If you can prove he was liked notably in multiple world regions, I would support you on including him. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 01:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
::I could but I’m waiting for other responses too. Can’t just add him like that. He was a rapper best known for the albums, It takes a thief, Gangsta’s Paradise and My Soul. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|InvadingInvader}}, and {{ping|MrMimikyu1998}}. just curious, should Coolio get a picture. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 01:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Probably not. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 01:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::When a figure is a (strong) candidate for exclusion, it goes without saying that uploading an image of them is not an option. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 01:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::No. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 02:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:ahh I'm shocked to hear his death, he should be included 100%. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 01:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 01:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::seriously, {{ping|TheScrubby}} You would have to desert reality to even so much as suggest Coolio is not notable, he won a Grammy, he has one of the biggest hits of the 90s, and your as sill saying he is not notable. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 01:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I never claimed that he wasn't notable. I'm saying his '''''international''''' (i.e. outside of the United States) notability is insufficient for inclusion here. Belongs in [[2022 deaths in the United States]]. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::But his name is in the 1963 article however not his image. UPDATE: I removed him in the 1963 article. Should I remove Marsha Hunt from the 1917 article? [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 03:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::He has albums and singles that have charted in other countries. Shrug. [[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702|2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702]] ([[User talk:2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702|talk]]) 02:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::So do we include every artist of every country who happened to have albums and singles chart beyond their home country? [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::By that measure; Tony Bennett would not be included because he has no awards outside of the US. You see how crazy that sounds ? And with number one hits to boot in many countries. ( Same as Coolio by the way ). |
|||
::::And yet Jim Michael a few months ago, said that Bennett qualifies. Shrug. |
|||
::::I know we have issue with Americentrism here. But we're taking this a bit too far. Meanwhile, People like Gary Brooker have been included, and I support his inclustion too, but if he's included why not Coolio ? [[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702|2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702]] ([[User talk:2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702|talk]]) 02:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Gary Brooker was included because he was the main figure from [[Procol Harum]] which did achieve international notability, although in this case we would only include Brooker from the band, not anybody else. As for the point about Tony Bennett, I’ll let {{ping|Jim Michael 2}} speak for himself. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: {{ping|TheScrubby}} if you don't recognize Coolio, here's his most famous song, Gangster's Paradise, you probably heard it once or twice. |
|||
::::::[[:file:Coolio feat. L.V - Gangsta's Paradise.ogg]]. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 02:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Whether or not I or anybody else here recognises Coolio or his work is not relevant. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you for your response, Scrubby. Appreciate it. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 03:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I wonder what {{ping|Wjfox2005}}, {{ping|Black Kite}}, {{ping|PaulRKil}}, {{ping|Alsoriano97}}, {{ping|TDKR Chicago 101}}, and {{ping|Deb}}. thinks about Coolio inclusion. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 03:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Personally I would include Coolio because I know of him and I'm both old and living outside the US. It doesn't of course follow that others with similar career histories should be included. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 07:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Here it comes into play whether singers who have been globally popular for a single song are eligible for inclusion. For example, we would include [[Psy]]? In the case of Coolie, I remain neutral, but I tend to support his inclusion. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 08:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::This is hard for me as a big Hip Hop fan and as a fan of Coolio's. He certainly left his mark on Hip Hop in the 90s but he never reached the lasting legacy that rappers like Tupac or Jay-Z reached. I'd say, if anything, he would be a '''borderline include''' and I am basing that mostly on precedent as we included DMX in 2021. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 16:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''', the rules here are just ridiculous. I do not know an [[Dragan Tomić|acting Serbian head of state with ceremonial power]] or [[Dušan Čkrebić|another Serbian prime minister]], who held the office when Serbia was not a country but only a constituent republic of Yugoslavia, are why more "internationally" notable then Coolio, an iconic rapper of the '90s? --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990|talk]]) 08:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::you've got to be kidding us. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 08:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::What's funny is this system. "International notability" means "anti-US" attitude here. It must be acknowledged that the USA has a far greater influence on global culture than all other countries combined. Consequently, a Grammy-winner rapper is definitely "internationally" notable. If this guy had been French, there would be no question of his inclusion. Instead, there is this continuous effort to exclude well-known American (=US) persons from the lists. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990|talk]]) 08:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::It is precisely this kind of [[Americentrism]] which had until last year permeated these pages and which ought never to be revived. Even now, there’s more Americans on these lists than that of any other nationality. The fact of the matter is, until last year figures that came from the United States were more than a little disproportionately included - and when I say that, what I mean is that their foreign equivalents would not even remotely get a look-in, and would receive far greater scrutiny than those from the United States. What we’re now doing is making it more even and fair for everyone, and not have figures from one country have a lax set of standards for inclusion in contrast to those from every other country. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 10:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm glad that you at least admit that there is a double standard to the detriment of the USA. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990|talk]]) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Clearly you didn’t read what I said. There is no “detriment of the USA”, on the contrary beforehand they were disproportionately included. Minor, domestic US congressmen and celebrities unknown outside the US were being included without scrutiny while their exact international counterparts were being questioned and excluded. You call that fair? Get outta here with the [[Americentrism|Americentric]] nonsense. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Behave yourself and leave this tone, or I will report you. We are talking about Coolio or Donald Rumsfeld and not about domestic US congressmen. Of course, they have no international recognition. However, Coolio represents a different category, he is a well known musician outside US too. I can list maybe three or four rappers (I hate this genre) and Coolio has always been one of them. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990|talk]]) 07:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::<s>You're American, aren't you? Or maybe you have only been exposed to the English language through American TV, which would give you the impression that the US is more influential than "all other countries combined" - an impression that, to most English speakers, sounds ludicrous. </s>[[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 09:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I suggest, you should read [[WP:PA]]. --[[User:Norden1990|Norden1990]] ([[User talk:Norden1990|talk]]) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{U|Norden1990}} - read [[WP:WORLDVIEW]]. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 16:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
'''Strong include''' One of the most famous rappers of the last 30 years. Grammy award winner. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 11:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' Brooker, Bennett & Coolio, due to some of their albums & singles entering the top 10 in several countries' charts. Of those, only Bennett may qualify for a photo. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Change to DMY date format == |
|||
== What should be the standards of inclusion for musical artists ? == |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
International Awards ? Well that would exclude people like Tony Bennett, Coolio, Johnny Mathis, who had 0 awards outside of the US. |
|||
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) |
|||
Top Chart hits in other countries ? [[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702|2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702]] ([[User talk:2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702|talk]]) 14:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::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) |
|||
:I think it's dependent on a case by case basis. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
:: I agree with InvadingInvader [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Date format == |
|||
:Thanks for taking the initiative, in the wake of the discussions to do with [[Coolio]]’s inclusion. One thing I’d like to bring up in relation to this is whether or not being a recipient of a [[Grammy Award]] is automatically sufficient for inclusion here. The fact that Coolio was a Grammy winner was brought up multiple times as justification for inclusion, yet there seems to be no real consensus on whether we should include Grammy winners (there has been far more discussion on say, [[Rock and Roll Hall of Fame]] inductees, where they are included on a case-by-case basis and as a secondary point for inclusion rather than a primary, automatic point for inclusion). [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 00:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
::Grammy awards should only be a factor if said musical artist is/was not from the US. |
|||
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. |
|||
::Coolio IS from the US; so other factors should be considered such as does said Musical artists have multiple top ten hits ( albums or singles ) in more than just one country ? [[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF81:B1A0:E154:CDAE:75F8:C645|2601:204:CF81:B1A0:E154:CDAE:75F8:C645]] ([[User talk:2601:204:CF81:B1A0:E154:CDAE:75F8:C645|talk]]) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735]] (Result: inclusion) == |
|||
Can we re-visit inclusion for [[China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735]]? I think there tends to be a bias toward including significant events in China due to the closed off nature of its government. It is, regardless of whether or not the crash was intentional, a significant enough air disaster to warrant inclusion due to the scale of the disaster and the fact it involves one of China's largest international airlines. Additionally, based on precedent, air disasters contained to one country have been included in other years such as [[Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303]] in 2020, [[Aeroflot Flight 1492]] in 2019, the [[2018 Russian Air Force Antonov An-26 crash]] and [[Cubana de Aviación Flight 972]] in 2018. Many of these domestic flights had a lower casualty count than 5735 and lack any kind of extraordinary event as in the case of both Malaysia Airlines crashes in 2014 or any of the 737 MAX Crashes. |
|||
If a majority of you believe it should stay excluded, I would say that if the Chinese government finally ''does'' release their assessment and concludes that it was an intentional crash, then I think it should be included. Essentially every independent org along with the FAA in the United States believe the crash was intentional, but the Chinese government investigation is ongoing and it is unclear when those results will be released. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 16:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include'''. Based on what I know and what you're saying, this should be included. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''' as per InvadingInvader [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' this domestic event. Insufficiently notable things are added to & removed from year articles all the time; presence of similar events in other articles doesn't mean they should be here. We don't include domestic events in main year articles. Media coverage, being deliberate, having the highest death toll of the year for its type of event etc. aren't reasons to include. I say the same regardless of where such events take place. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::How is a significant aviation disaster with high cost of life, by one of the worlds largest airlines, during an era of air travel where such disasters are increasingly rare "insufficiently notable"? That is ridiculous. Air, rail, and maritime disasters with hundreds of lives lost are significant regardless of if it is "domestic" or not. This is equivalent to excluding the [[Sinking of MV Sewol]] based on the grounds it was a Korean ferry, sinking in Korean waters, and the dead consisting of only Korean passengers. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 18:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've said why - because it's domestic. Main year articles exclude domestic events. Disasters with triple-digit death tolls happen every year. Even if it were rare, we don't include things on that basis - nor do we for being the deadliest, biggest, fastest, most costly etc. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::If we stuck to such a rigid definition, then half the content in these year articles would be gone. Maybe that would look good in your view, but then the article would fail to serve its purpose to document significant events that occurred each year, including travel related ones. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 19:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Personally, I see the exclusion of notable domestic events with international coverage as censorship, and I imagine most of you have read or at least heard of [[WP:CENSOR|Wikipedia not being censored]]. This is just my opinion, and I can understand where Jim Michael and editors who think like him are coming from, but we are becoming WAY too rigid with events and standards. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::This comes to my point of the article being too exclusive. By letting in one or two of the most internationally-covered domestic events per country, we can increase the scope of this very tumultuous year for many countries. Simply too many notable events are being excluded, not just in the US but other countries. I agree with Scrubby on this not being an Americentric list, but including ONE OR TWO of the MOST NOTABLE AND INTERNATIONALLY COVERED domestic events PER COUNTRY should help. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::You're arguing to include things that don't have significant international effects. Adding one or two events per country wouldn't improve main year articles; it'd swamp them with things that shouldn't be there. People who are interested in particular countries by year read those relevant articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::How would one or two of the most important domestic events which receive significant international attention "swamp" an article? Plus, if people around the world care deeply about one country's domestic event and it has a notable impact on a country, it's a no brainer. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You said one or two domestic events per country, per year. Of course that'd swamp the article. Readers who are interested in particular countries & years will read the relevant subarticles. Loads of domestic events have a notable impact on the country in which they take place. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::One or two for the most significant domestic events should not be a problem. You're making it seem like that by adding a single domestic event to this article will cause Kim Jong-un to launch a nuclear attack against the Wikimedia foundation. There are always exceptions to standards. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::That's a ridiculous strawman. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm just using an analogy to compare how extreme I perceive the standards you push to be. How would the inclusion of internationally-releavant domestic events ruin the article? I'm in favor of limiting it to only one or two as long as the events are internationally known themselves. I'm only pushing '''''definingly notable domestic events which drew international attention'''''. ''Dobbs'' is my example since it gained the attention of world leaders and the world populace, an aspect of ''Dobbs'' you unsuccessfully tried to prove wrong above, and as seen [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62009477 in this BBC article], has caused smaller anti-abortion protests to spark in the UK. Please work towards a constructive middle ground instead of vehemently opposing every event for the sole reason of being domestic.[[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::They're not internationally relevant. Being domestic is the most common reason for excluding events & people from main year articles. Loads of domestic events receive international media coverage. Every year there are domestic protests which trigger much smaller, related protests in other countries, mostly by [[diaspora]]s &/or people who are already sympathetic to their cause. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I've said this before in my "Dobbs test" proposal (see [[Talk:2022#Cross-listing_certain_domestic_events_in_main_year_articles|this section of the talk page I started]]), but '''Wikipedia isn't Citizendium where it's by experts for nerds. It's supposed to be built for everyone and should be based on impactful and notable events which people care about''' (an idea I sometimes describe as '''''Wikipedia being the People's Encyclopedia, by the people for the people'''''). If people around the world care about ''Dobbs'' (which based on world reactions have shown that world leaders' reactions and populaces care about this and are demonstrating on both sides according to the article on [[2022 abortion protests]]), let it be included here. If people see that Canada and Denmark changed borders but no one cared about it, don't include it. We of course have to have SOME quality control (like Depp v. Heard; this should not be here as it had no major impact), but including events which people IN GENERAL care about and have a notable impact on a country or the world should be a no-brainer. The extreme internationalness that some editors are enforcing is just plain wrong when it comes to events people globally care about. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Moreover, the lack of internationalness for Hurricane Ian is '''factually inaccurate'''. Ian hit Cuba as a category 1 hurricane and Florida as a category 4. This is CLEARLY international. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Celebrity/entertainer deaths in the lead == |
|||
We recently decided to include deaths of significant world leaders as part of article leads for the years. I think it is a great idea and it helps create better article leads. |
|||
However, I think including entertainers in the lead is a slippery slope. My concern is that it may cause unnecessary back and forth editing for fans of an entertainer to try to get their person mentioned in the introduction if we have it become a standard. Most of the time there is debate on whether or not to include a celebrity in the deaths section to begin with because we've had difficulty establishing what makes a celebrity notable with many entertainers who have won at least one of the four major EGOT awards and gold medal athletes being excluded. |
|||
A person being the longtime leader of a major global power is a little bit easier to establish significance than entertainers and there's far less debate in doing so. |
|||
Feel free to discuss, I'm not going to fight what conclusion we come to, but I thought I'd share my concern with all of you. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I think that entertainers in lead should be on a case by case. Every figure is going to have a few unique differentiators, and only on a case by case can we decide. I think that it all comes down to impact. Were they listened to or watched around the world? Like world leaders, I'd limit it to three in the lead. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I think if there was a large debate in the talk section to even include them in the deaths section as we've seen with Coolio and (from what I can recall) Meat Loaf, we may not want them in the lead. I think Sidney Poitier and Olivia Newton-John are fine entries for now. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 20:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Include deaths of very internationally notable entertainers in the lead. For this year: Poitier, Meat Loaf, ON-J & Godard. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Agree with [[User:PaulRKil]]. When did we agree to include deaths in the lead, anyway? I would rather not include ''any'' - it's just duplication. Addition of entertainers is certain to exacerbate the problem of systemic bias. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 19:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The lead should summarise the year, so it makes sense to include the most prominent deaths. A lead inherently duplicates info in the body of the article. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Double Asteroid Redirection Test|NASA's DART]] on collage (Result:)== |
|||
should we add NASA's DART to the collage, it's one of the biggest scientific things of this year, and we don't have a scientific thing on this year's collage, in my opinion is should replace the [[2022 Kazakh unrest]] cuz it's the least notable thing on the collage. I'm just asking what's your opinion guys [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 02:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm neutral on both tbh. Either one works. Since Kazakhstan didn't end up like Tiananmen Square or a protest that caused changed, I'm full in for replacing it if something is more notable. 03:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC) [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 03:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|Turns out that at one of the participants of this discussion thread was a banned sockpuppet.}} |
|||
:I'd argue you should include the 2022 World Cup in Qatar in the collage (when the tournament is finished). [[Special:Contributions/146.200.180.251|146.200.180.251]] ([[User talk:146.200.180.251|talk]]) 15:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, add the World Cup in December. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes I agree with {{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, as for the picture to replace, ideally we want eight pictures on the collage. So what picture should we replace. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Exclude DART & the [[assassination of Shinzo Abe]]. Reinstate the Kazakh unrest. I've explained why I disagree with DART being in the article at all, so obviously I disagree with it being in the collage. [[Shinzo Abe]] ceased to be the [[Prime Minister of Japan]] in 2020, so his [[assassination]] didn't have much effect on [[Japan]] or [[government of Japan|its gov]]. The Kazakh unrest killed over 200 people & caused the replacement of [[Kazakhstan|its]] [[Prime Minister of Kazakhstan|prime minister]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
== [[Whisky War]] (Result: borderline inclusion)== |
|||
This has been brought up again, so what is the current consensus? Should this petty [[border dispute]] over the tiny, barren, remote, uninhabited [[Hans Island]] - which is covered by snow & ice for most of the year - be included? I obviously think not. Border disputes are commonplace, and this is about as minor as they can be - no military action, [[international sanctions]] etc. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''', it's very rare to have border dispute solved, we already had a consensus to include this earlier. And again this was in North America where it's normally peaceful. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 12:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::It's not rare & consensus can change. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' even though it is a peculiarity and certainly interesting, the land is uninhabited thus the decision does not effect the citizenship of anyone who lives there because nobody does. Compare this today's annexations by Russia or if, hypothetically speaking, a decision was made in regard to the [[Kuril Islands Dispute]] where 21000 people live. |
|||
:However, if a consensus was reached to include, it doesn't break my leg or pick my pockets but I think only border changes that actually effect the population that inhabits said land or has an incredibly high resource value should be included in main year articles. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 14:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, if thousands of people lived on Hans Island and/or there ware [[gold mine]]s there, it'd be a different matter - as it would if there'd been an armed conflict over it. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I would agree. My preferred metric is a combination of event substance (what actually happened and its impact) as well as how many people care about it, the latter of which is measured using press coverage. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 16:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm with Jim Michael on this one and would say '''Exclude'''. Slots should be dedicated to events which people around the world care about, and measuring by press coverage, this isn't a big deal to most people. It's more niche towards geography nerds, and closer to [[WP:TRIVIA]] than an actual event. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 16:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Let's see what the previous people in the original discussion think, {{ping|The Voivodeship King}}, {{ping|JeffUK}}, and {{ping|Dunutubble}} what is your thoughts right now. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I would say '''include''' for the reasons given in the last discussion as well as because it resulted in Canada and Denmark both having two land neighbours. Hans Island will likely become an important shipping stop in the future as [[climate change]] melts the ice caps covering much of the [[Northwest Passage]]. [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 19:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::That's one trivial thing & one speculative thing. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Eh, that is more speculation than anything else in regards to its potential to be a shipping stop. There are many nations that come to similar peaceful agreements regarding land sovereignty all the time as is the case of enclaves shared between [[India–Bangladesh enclaves|India and Bangladesh]] and those are barely noteworthy in spite of those regions being populated. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree that the Bangladesh-India enclaves were far more important, because tens of thousands of people lived in them. That issue was resolved peacefully & is not important enough for main year articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::With all due respect, that could fall under [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: I think '''Include''' as per the previous discussion, border changes are internationally notable almost by definition! And this one was widely reported, both the dispute and the resolution. Whilst border ''disputes'' may be commonplace, border changes are much less so, we have no more than one per year for the last decade at least. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 17:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::It is absolutely trivial, Jim Michael, but the fact remains that it changes the borders between two countries. It therefore affects both countries. It is international. While nowhere near as important as settlements over [[Kashmir]] or the [[Nagorno-Karabakh]] would be, it affects borders between two nations and by our criteria must be included. If you disagree, we must change the criteria for the page. Happy October, by the way. [[Special:Contributions/124.148.104.69|124.148.104.69]] ([[User talk:124.148.104.69|talk]]) 05:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::There's a difference between international and internationally notable. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: While I can understand why some would argue that this is a trivial event, I’d have to concur with a '''borderline inclusion''' as per JeffUK, among others. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 00:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Middle ground proposal for abortion-related events (Result: not done)== |
|||
@[[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] @[[User:4me689|4me689]] So recently, I've learned that India's highest court has ruled that [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/india-abortion-supreme-court-equal-access/ abortion is legal for all Indian women up to 24 weeks into abortion], and [https://fosfeminista.org/media/abortion-in-kenya/ a Kenyan court has ruled abortion to be a constitutional right]. This recent development has proposed me to suggest this, since Jim and I are in a very heated debate over the inclusion of landmark domestic events like [[Dobbs v. Jackson|when the US high court ruled against abortion]]. |
|||
Since these are domestic events which establish international trends both in favor of and against abortion, I suggest that we include a snippet in the lead as either its own separate paragraph or as a single sentence which summarizes that multiple large countries are ruling in favor or against abortion access. This single sentence would summarize events without having to put them into the mainspace and note an international trend appealing to both domestic and international audiences. It would also address Jim Michael's fear of overflowing this article with events that are too domestic. |
|||
The proposed sentence will look a little something like this:<blockquote>The year has also seen [[Abortion debate|abortion]] becoming an increasingly more contentious and addressed issue, with courts in [[India]] and [[Kenya]] ruling the practice as legal while the [[United States]] [[Hobbs & Shaw|removed constitutional protections to abortion]], sparking nationwide [[2022 abortion protests|protests]] which leaked into some European countries.</blockquote>Abortion is an international issue, and a growing one by the day, but I can understand if too many of these events would flood the article. The lead sentence would solve this; it addresses the internationalness of the issue while keeping things as concise as possible and not inserting domestic rulings on the practice into their own events. |
|||
Jim, I know you're not the biggest fan of domestic events, but the practice is increasingly becoming a more international issue with every court decision. Hopefully, a sentence will adequately cover abortion around the world, including the US, without flooding the article with more domestic events. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' due to there being no evidence of a connection between countries' changes/clarifications of laws. If most of the world were moving the same direction regarding abortion laws, there'd be a good case for including it. However, Kenya & India are moving towards allowing it, whereas Poland & the US are moving against it. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 21:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::It's becoming a more global issue increasingly dividing countries. That alone should warrant at least some mention. I don't think we need to judge its inclusion based on connection. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude'''; they're unrelated legislative changes in 3 countries; absent any sources identifying it as such, it's not a global 'movement' of any sort. you could find any subject and identify a handful of countries that have legislate more or less strictly for it over a couple of years. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 17:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's not specific to this year, so it's difficult to justify including it in this article. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 22:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Why not phrase it as a continuation of a heightened attention to the issue? [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That's not relevant enough for this article. The only two countries who've had major changes in abortion laws in the 2020s which have triggered major protests are Poland & the US. Poland's were [[2020-2021 women's strike protests in Poland|in 2020 & 2021]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::India's was actually a major expansion in abortion; previously abortions had marital and other related restrictions. Kenya was a reaffirmation, so not as notable but would likely fit if mentioned in passing as part of a trend. Poland wasn't in 2022, so we can leave it out of a sentence [https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/hungarys-government-tightens-rules-regulating-abortion-89804154 Hungary] was similar to Kenya but just for the opposite direction as the reforms. And don't forget the minor UK protests against and in favor of Dobbs. I'm leaning towards inclusion since it addresses an increasingly-important social issue which has mostly taken part in a large amount of minor and major domestic events not normally suitable for their own entries here. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose''' because it's not notable enough, I didn't even know that Kenya and India had ruled in favour of abortion until today. 2022 won't be remembered as the year in which abortion laws were changed but as the year Russia invaded Ukraine sparking a worldwide crisis, the year in which right-wing nationalist movements experienced a resurgence in Europe, and the year in which most countries subsided their COVID-19 policies. |
|||
:<small>And as for a more minor note: The US courts did not "rule against abortion" (implying a federal prohibition on the practice). What was ruled was that abortion does not fall under the category as a federally protected right (meaning it is up to the states and not the federal government to decide on abortion's legality).</small> [[User:Dunutubble|Dunutubble]] ([[User talk:Dunutubble|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Dunutubble|Contributions]]) 23:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' as per Jim Michael, JeffUK and Dunutubble. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 00:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Collage discussions == |
|||
this message is here to tell everyone that there has been a discussion on collages at [[User talk:4me689/collage discussions]]. |
|||
{{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, and {{ping|InvadingInvader}} has not responded to this discussion, so I recommend doing so. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 23:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the reminder. Personally, I’m not too focused on collages, but from what I read, most of your ideas seem to work. |
|||
:As a general guideline, for collages, balance regions. For example, if European event A is as significant as African event B but both are less important than European event C, include events C and B instead of C and A. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Far more interested people will see that discussion if it were on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Sacheen Littlefeather]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
Is Sacheen Littlefeather international notable enough to be included, she has already be added a couple times already, just asking before I put my opinion. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 13:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 14:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' due to a lack of international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' as per TheScrubby & Jim Michael [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 16:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== The [[Nobel Prize]]s section (Result: retain)== |
|||
Why do we have a Nobel Peace Prize section, I mean unless we have a section about the Academy Award winners, the noble peace prize section is useless cuz we have a [[List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates]], I made this talk this section to see what everyone's thoughts are. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 14:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:We’ve always had sections for Nobel recipients of the year, and I don’t think that a film awards ceremony is really comparable. Don’t really have issue with retaining the format for each year. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 14:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree with TheScrubby. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 15:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree, and I brought this up in November on [[Talk:2021/Archive 3]]. We don't include any other awards in main year articles. Nobels shouldn't have their own section; one entry in Events would be sufficient. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I Agree with Jim Michael 2, the Nobel Prizes aren't more important as than any other awards, that is why I think the section should be straight-up removed. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I think there is an argument to be made that Nobel prizes are highly prestigious and exclusive versus the dozens of Oscar categories or the hundreds of Olympic medals given out at each event, though I feel that in recent years they have been held to a lower regard. Perhaps it shouldn't have its own section but in events saying the "Nobel prizes in xxxxx,xxxx,xxx,xxx,xxx are awarded...." etc [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 18:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Vote=== |
|||
:I am pinging every that have edited this article so far this month cuz it's going to be a big change, {{ping|PaulRKil}}, {{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, {{ping|Alsoriano97}}, {{ping|TheScrubby}}, {{ping|أحمد توفيق}}, {{ping|Einbierbitte}}, {{ping|Keller Scholl}}, {{ping|Johnson524}}, {{ping|Wjfox2005}}, {{ping|Rodney Baggins}}, {{ping|Unknown artist}}, {{ping|Jtnav04}}, {{ping|Blaze Wolf}}, {{ping|Nikey05}}, {{ping|Elijahandskip}}, {{ping|Petrandreev13}}, {{ping|Tumford14}}, {{ping|Drewsky1211}}, {{ping|MrMimikyu1998}}, {{ping|Dunutubble}}, {{ping|deb}}, {{ping|InvadingInvader}}, and {{ping|The ganymedian}} |
|||
:Do we keep or remove the Nobel Peace Prize section [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Don't ping ''every'' editor that edited the article this month. Just ping ones who have made significant contributions. I myself don't really care about this subject. ― [[User:Blaze Wolf|<b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>]][[User talk:Blaze Wolf|<sup>Talk</sup>]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545</sub> 18:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:: Depends if the Nobel Prize section is in all previous years [[User:The ganymedian|The ganymedian]] ([[User talk:The ganymedian|talk]]) 18:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|The ganymedian}}, It's pretty much in every main year article [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 19:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I would say if Nobel Prize winners are in every year it would be better to just keep it because then you'd have to delete it from every prior year for the last 100 years, and that would be a pain @[[User:4me689|4me689]] [[User:The ganymedian|The ganymedian]] ([[User talk:The ganymedian|talk]]) 19:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::"because then you'd have to delete it from every prior year for the last 100 years, and that would be a pain " Not sure I care too much about this, but think it is worth noting that there is no requirement for all year articles to be identical; Nobel prizes may be more significant in some years than others. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 22:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::This discussion is about all year articles, not just this one. Obviously, whatever we decide in regard to these awards will apply to all main year articles. Moving them to a single entry in each article wouldn't be difficult. They're not the undisputed main event of each year, which is what giving them a dedicated section strongly implies. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::: Seconding Blaze Wolf on tagging: my contribution in this month was disambiguating a link in a January event. That said, I think that while the Nobel prizes should absolutely be mentioned in the relevant month, ideally with a sentence about what they were for, it's better to overload October than give this one event importance equivalent to an entire month. If we're going to keep them, they should get a little more description (at least comparing to 2021 and 2020, when there are only names).[[User:Keller Scholl|Keller Scholl]] ([[User talk:Keller Scholl|talk]]) 01:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Keep=== |
|||
# Keep, please. No convincing argument has been given for removing it. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 19:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#The contribution to humanity made by Nobel Prize winners is incomparable to all other prizes. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 19:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#These represent the pinnacle of scientific, intellectual, and other achievements by humankind, and are highly notable. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#Nobel Prizes are very exclusive and measure major contributions to the world in incredibly crucial fields. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 19:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# I agree with keeping a separate section. It avoids cluttering the events columns, and are far too notable to be sent into somewhere like [[2022 in Science]]. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# Retain, as I’ve indicated in my previous comments. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 22:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# The event is of international and unquestionable notability and requires a level of detail in naming the award winners than the events section couldn't provide. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 10:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== Remove and add to event section instead === |
|||
#Nobel Peace Prize ain't as more prestigious as any other award, that means it shouldn't get its own section though I don't mind getting it added to the event section [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:What award is more prestigious than a Nobel Prize? With all due respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 19:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::One entry, in the main body of the article, is sufficient for all main year articles. A separate section is unwarranted. It's portraying them as being by far the most important event of the year. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[2022 Brazilian general election]] == |
|||
How should this be reported in this article? I'm no expert when it comes to the politics of Brazil. The October 2 entry says: The [[2022 Brazilian general election]] is held to elect the offices of [[President of Brazil|the president]] and [[Vice President of Brazil|vice president]], one third of the [[Senate of Brazil|Senate]], the entire [[Chamber of Deputies of Brazil|Chamber of Deputies]], and numerous [[Federative units of Brazil|state legislatures]] and [[Lists of Brazilian state governors|governorships]]. |
|||
The offices of President and Vice President are still disputed and will be concluded on October 30 via runoff. As of now, I added underneath upcoming events: [[2022 Brazilian general election]]: Incumbent [[President of Brazil|President]] [[Jair Bolsonaro]] will face opponent [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]] in a [[2022 Brazilian general election#Candidates in runoff|runoff]] election after neither candidate secured a majority in the first round of voting. |
|||
Do we keep it as is? Meaning an entry for October 2 for the General election and another separate entry for the October 30 runoff in upcoming events or should we combine them into one entry for October 2 where it is mentioned that the runoff for President of Brazil will be decided on October 30. |
|||
The general election without a decision on the President just makes it an election regarding regional and local officials and wouldn't be included on year articles. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 18:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I would favour combining them into one entry, but for October 30, rather than October 2. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 01:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 09:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, we have too much election coverage in main year articles. We shouldn't include multiple rounds of the same election in separate entries. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Made the changes per this discussion, thanks all. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 18:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Legalization of [[same-sex marriage in Cuba]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
Citation: [https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cubans-approve-gay-marriage-by-large-margin-referendum-2022-09-26/] |
|||
I see a couple people tried to add it already and were reverted because it's a "domestic event", but I feel like that could describe a lot of entries on here. I see no reason it should be excluded from this article, there's precedent for the rest of the world caring when another country legalizes gay marriage. [[User:Wpscatter|<span style="background:maroon;border-radius:9999px;padding:1px 8px;color:white;"><span style="font-weight:bold">WP</span>scatter</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Wpscatter|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Wpscatter|c]]</sub> 02:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' this, along with all changes in domestic laws; there are many each year. We don't include domestic events in main year articles. People who are interested will read the relevant year by country articles. Being the first change in particular types of law in a communist/conservative/Slavic/Mediterranean/Muslim/Buddhist country, or in a particular hemisphere or continent does not make these events international. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' because I don't think it is notable on the international stage. If the Vatican, Saudi Arabia, or Iran ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, I'd think that would be main year article worthy versus a secular nation in the Americas that already had largely tolerant attitudes toward LGBT+ people. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 15:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Exclude, as per PaulRKil and Jim Michael 2. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 16:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|Turns out that GoldCheddar30 was a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Niko the Biko|banned sockpuppet]].}} |
|||
:'''Exclude'''. You can't possibly believe that the passing of a law in Cuba is notable enough for inclusion in main year articles. [[User:GoldCheddar30|GoldCheddar30]] ([[User talk:GoldCheddar30|talk]]) 14:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Taiwan's passing of same-sex marriage is included in [[2019]]. Based on the consensus here, it should probably be removed there as well. So yes, based on that, I did think it was notable enough. I suggest you have a read of [[WP:AGF]] because this comment is needlessly hostile. [[User:Wpscatter|<span style="background:maroon;border-radius:9999px;padding:1px 8px;color:white;"><span style="font-weight:bold">WP</span>scatter</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Wpscatter|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Wpscatter|c]]</sub> 16:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::That should be removed immediately. I don't believe my comment was hostile, but if it was then I apologise. [[User:GoldCheddar30|GoldCheddar30]] ([[User talk:GoldCheddar30|talk]]) 17:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Insufficiently notable events & people are frequently added to main year articles. We need more editors to remove them. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's fine, I'm not making a [[WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST]] argument. Just stating part of why I thought it would be notable for inclusion. [[User:Wpscatter|<span style="background:maroon;border-radius:9999px;padding:1px 8px;color:white;"><span style="font-weight:bold">WP</span>scatter</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Wpscatter|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Wpscatter|c]]</sub> 19:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
: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) |
|||
== Tense of the article == |
|||
: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. |
|||
I'm sorry if this has already been discussed, but why is the article, at least the events section, in current tense (is) and not past tense (was)? If that is how the majority of Wikipedia is structured including most 'year' in 'country' articles, why is this page differnet? If this is a mistake, I would be happy to change it, but if it is not I am curious to know the reason why. [[User:Johnson524|'''<span style="color:orange;">Johnson</span><span style="color:blue;">524</span>''']] ([[User talk:Johnson524|Talk!]]) 14:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:As of last month, ''only [[2023]]'' was changed via local consensus to be different than the rest. If this proposal passes for this article, it would join a tiny minority of articles that do not match the overall consistent style. I ''oppose'' for that reason. |
|||
:Unlike most WP articles, year articles are written in the present tense. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I would be fine with ''all'' generic year articles changing to consistently use a different style, and that is the proposal on the table at [[WP:VPR#Date format for year articles]]. Currently, it seems we're at the tail end of a pre-RfC discussion with plans to move forward with an RfC in the next week or so. I would much prefer to keep discussing the overarching change rather than have individual discussions at each year article. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 13:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Please don't ever change this. The present tense is used for all year articles, from the dawn of time until the present day. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 09:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
::But articles of future years are in the future tense. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: The use of [[historical present]] tense seems quite common in other 'year in review' sources too, it's not just here [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 21:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Zero images? == |
|||
== VK Software removal, Moai statue damage, and OPEC oil cut (Result: ) == |
|||
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. |
|||
There seems to be a multitude of entries with importance inlines added so lets discuss: |
|||
@[[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) |
|||
* [[September 28]] – [[Apple]] has deleted all [[iOS]] applications developed by VK, the software company responsible for Russia’s Facebook alternative, [[Vkontakte|VKontakte]].{{importance-inline}} |
|||
* [[October 3]] – Several [[moai]] statues at the [[World Heritage Site]] on [[Easter Island]] are charred by fire that affected nearly 60 hectares (148 acres), with the damage reported as "irreparable".{{importance-inline}} |
|||
* [[October 5]] – [[OPEC+]] imposes a production cut of up to 2 million barrels per day. |
|||
: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) |
|||
Should we include or exclude these events? I think the first two should be '''excluded''' as the first is just one of a long line of things Russia has been removed from which has been documented in the relevant pages and the second (at this time) seems to be related to a forest fire and seems to have caused damage to only a handful versus when the Taliban deliberately blew up entire major Buddhist cultural sites in the 90s. |
|||
::@[[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) |
|||
:The third one is a '''borderline inclusion''' in my perspective, we still need time to see the effects but it is a major development in energy production nonetheless. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (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. |
|||
:'''Exclude all''' due to a lack of importance. One of many anti-Russian actions, a fire in a very remote location & the latest in the oil market. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::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. |
|||
:'''Exclude''' the September 28 & October 3 entries |
|||
:::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) |
|||
:I agree with PaulRKil on '''borderline inclusion''' for the October 5 entry. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 20:13, 7 October 2022 (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=== |
|||
== [[Technoblade]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
I hereby nominate the following images for inclusion in the article; |
|||
please add technoblade. [[Special:Contributions/27.114.166.90|27.114.166.90]] ([[User talk:27.114.166.90|talk]]) 07:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:2022 Kazakhstan protests — Aqtobe, January 4 (01) (cropped).jpg |
|||
:{{not done}} because he has little international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Движение колонны бронетехники ВС РФ 007.png |
|||
:Not enough notability on an international scale [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 12:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Antonov_Airport_after_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_and_Mriya_(3to4).jpg| |
|||
::I agree with PaulRKil & Jim Michael, there's already a consensus to exclude him [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 19:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - ua.svg |
|||
:What is the criteria for content creators such as YouTubers or Tik Tokers? Technoblade’s inclusion or exclusion hinges on that. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 21:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Warsaw Central Station during Ukrainian refugee crisis 05.jpg |
|||
:As has already been discussed, '''exclude''' due to lack of international notability. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 00:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Bucha. Faces of War. - Ukraine War Photo Exhibition 2023 (52702841629).jpg |
|||
::TikTok has such a short history, I think any person primarily known for TikTok has no business even being discussed on this page. YouTube would only be in special cases. Most famous YouTumers are very young and depending on what they do in the future would be the decided. [[MrBeast|Jimmy Donaldson]], for example, has made a large number of charitable donations and could be said to have altered Western culture to a small degree so far. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 11:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Russian bombing of Mariupol.jpg |
|||
:::I can't see a case for main year articles including anyone who's merely Internet famous, regardless of which sites they're on. [[Philanthropy]] is rarely important enough to grant someone a place on a main year article. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg |
|||
::::I’d argue that there are a handful of celebrities who began on the internet who have reached superstardom or are important in other fields. For example, the Paul Brothers, PewDiePie, Ninja, Mr. Beast, etc have become notable on an international level. I think older generations, even millennials like myself, tend to have a bias toward believing that internet personalities are notable. |
|||
*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 |
|||
::::The people I mentioned are not dead, but their births in other main hear articles wouldn’t be controversial to add. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 12:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Sincerely, --[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Vance Amory]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
I noticed that [[Vance Amory]] isn’t included in the deaths, is there a reason for this? [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 19:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:From what I understand about the government structure of the country, being a premier of Nevis means being the leader of a subnational entity of Saint Kitts and Nevis. So equivalent to a state or territorial government within a federation. We only include the deaths of national leaders ie heads of state and heads of government. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 20:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, it makes sense now. I was just curious. Completely agree with having some standard for inclusion, having the list incredibly long will lead to it being impossible to navigate. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 02:17, 9 October 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) |
|||
== Indonesia disaster, Thailand massacre and Crimean Bridge explosion (Result: ) == |
|||
::@[[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) |
|||
There has been some back and forth about the inclusion of the crowd crush in Indonesia, the Mass shooting in Thailand, and the bombing of the bridge in crimea. Some users have marked these with the importance inline. |
|||
::That is not a valid reason to oppose, it could be used to justify the removal of any image in any article. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' the addition of images as a general editing principle that every editor may do, no opinion on the usage of ''these'' individual images. The RfC that is still open is specifically in regards to top-of-the-page collages, it is not a bar on image use in general. Reverting image additions for no reason other than "any addition is biased" is disruptive, and should be treated as standard [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Proposal''' - I've proposed a suggested course of action [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Proposal_on_the_Selection_of_Collages_Images_for_In-Line_Images|here]]. Please add your thoughts or comments on the proposal. [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 17:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] I have to repeat it for the second time, we are not discussing '''collage''' images on this talk page. We are discussing what is preventing users from including ordinary, any images on this article.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support there is nothing wrong with using regular images, they add to illustration and a summary of major events that happened a certain year/decade/century.''' [[User:Indiana6724|Indiana6724]] ([[User talk:Indiana6724|talk]]) 01:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I and many others are confused as to why images have been removed from all wikipedia pages on years. There used to be photo collages of notable events for every single year and they have all been removed. Why??? [[User:Lightningbolt1|Lightningbolt1]] ([[User talk:Lightningbolt1|talk]]) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''Include''' Indonesia as it is a pretty notable accident that has gripped the sports world and has received reaction around the world and has impacted football games in Asia. |
|||
:Considering that a whole month has passed, that other users gave their opinion confirming my thoughts, and that no user gave any support to @[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]]'s arbitrary proposal of "no images policy" (for which no reasonable arguments were presented), I think we can conclude that images can freely be added to the articles about years, provided they are not collages.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree that the consensus is that images may be included on the page. However, I believe that there should still be a discussion on which images should be included. I suggest we use a [[Talk:2023#2023_Collage_Full_Discussion|similar system]] as used on the page [[2023]]. While the discussion is related to collages, we are essentially still selecting images which are representative of the year. |
|||
::I've added a [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Courtesy_Notification:_Discussion_on_Inclusion_of_Images_for_2022|note]] on [[WP:YEARS]] to gather more input on this issue. [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 10:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I can do this [[User:Indiana6724|Indiana6724]] ([[User talk:Indiana6724|talk]]) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] The very first sentence of this discussion I started on 18 December 2023, (@Discussion_for_inclusion_of_images) includes a list of nine nominated images I want to include. You failed in this entire month to address even a single image that I nominated. As such, unless no objections were made against any of these nine images, it should be considered as accepted to be included in the article by default.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 09:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Because there are no objections, i think its fair we reinstate these images. [[User:Indiana6724|Indiana6724]] ([[User talk:Indiana6724|talk]]) 12:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Why is the Robb Elementary School shooting not mentioned in “Events”? == |
|||
'''Exclude''' the Thailand shooting as we have had a pretty strong consensus on Mass shooting inclusions after Uvalde in main year articles (don’t necessarily agree but I will go with established precedent) |
|||
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) |
|||
'''Exclude''' the Crimean Bridge explosion as we have a lot of entries regarding significant events that have unfolded in this war. We’ve yet to see if this has caused a significant escalation in the conflict. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 21:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Collage edit war — Proposal in progress == |
|||
:Based on this discussion it appears that include, borderline include, and include. I think the crimean bridge attack should be included due to how it has escalated the conflict and the direct retaliation by russia. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 16:27, 13 October 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]]. |
|||
'''Include'''. Since all three have received massive, worldwide media attention, they are clearly notable and significant events in 2022. Sometimes, due to its severity and/or international reaction, an event can't simply be dismissed as "domestic". These three fall into that category. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 10:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:We don't include events on main year articles based on severity. The international reactions have merely been condolences, nothing physical or legal. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:35, 9 October 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) |
|||
'''Exclude''' the first two because they're domestic. We don't include based on death toll, media coverage, condolences or something being the most x in y. The latter is of uncertain significance. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{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) |
|||
:I disagree that Kanjuruhan shouldn't be included. This is an event that affected the international perception of our footballing culture, which could have ripple effects regarding our future footballing prospects. I say Kerch should be included as well, because it is much internationally significant event given that it is not just the longest bridge in Europe, it is also a Russian achievement that just got destroyed in an accident during the context of war. [[User:MarioJump83|MarioJump83]] ([[User talk:MarioJump83|talk]]) 00:21, 10 October 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.}} |
|||
::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) |
|||
'''Include''' all, and Kerch explosion should be made a part of [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]. The Kanjuruhan disaster got a lot of international attention and it is not just a domestic event. As an Indonesian, we know how much disaster has scarred us and our football worldwide. Regarding Thailand, while I have my doubts, I put that in the scale of [[Owo church attack]], which is notable. [[User:MarioJump83|MarioJump83]] ([[User talk:MarioJump83|talk]]) 00:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{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 [[Kanjuruhan Stadium disaster]] is for [[2022 in association football]] & [[2022 in Indonesia]], but it's of no relevance to anything else. The international responses were merely media coverage & condolences. |
|||
:The [[2022 Nong Bua Lamphu attack]] is nowhere near as notable as the Owo church attack. The former was carried out by a lone madman without an ideology. The latter was probably carried out by an international [[terrorist group]]. |
|||
:The [[Kerch Bridge]] has been badly damaged, but not destroyed. Part of it is back in use and it'll likely be quickly repaired. We can't say that this has been a major turning point in the [[Russo-Ukrainian War]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 08:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree with Jim Michael's designations. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 11:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::In light of Russia's retailiation, Include the Kerch Bridge attack and Russian retaliation in combined entry. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 11:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
'''Weak exclude all'''. As stated earlier, consensus is usually not to include mass shootings, and if it were to change, it should be only the two or three deadliest of the year (excluding Russia and Ukraine). So far, I think that this article is being too lenient on including Ukraine-related events, and even though it's an unprecedented war, it's not the only thing that's happened this year. We already have a discussion going on with Ukraine events. These are tragic, but domestic, and while I'm in favor of including ''some'' notable domestic events, consensus seems to be against this. I recommend that we maybe consider improving the individual country articles, or if necessary, merging some countries into regions (like [[2022 in Thailand]], [[2022 in Vietnam]], and [[2022 in Indonesia]] into [[2022 in Southeast Asia]]). [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Based on this discussion it appears that '''include, borderline include, and include'''. I think the crimean bridge attack should be included now due to how it has escalated the conflict and the direct retaliation by russia has caused it to be a more notable incident. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 16:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::There's no consensus for any of them, but the Crimean Bridge explosion has become significantly more notable due to the Russian response. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::You think? It seems like anyone who'd want to comment on it has and the rough tally seems to agree to include all three being included, at least in the case of crimea and indonesia. I'm open to more discussion, however. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 17:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Neutral''' on the Indonesia disaster, '''Exclude''' the Thailand massacre, and '''Include''' the Crimean bridge explosion given the significance of the consequences that have come out of the attack. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 00:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== The collage - why not restore? == |
|||
== Semi-protection & blocking (Result: supported but not done) == |
|||
Please semi-protect this talk page & block GoldCheddar for socking & vandalism. Also, Golden Matrix is likely a sock. It's likely that Niko, GM, CountingStars & all their socks are the same person, sharing a focus on this page & Canadian politics. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I second this. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 13:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreed. This has gotten way out of hand, especially since said sockpuppet is openly saying he will simply continue to create more accounts. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 14:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:100% agree with the scrubby And Jim Michael, This page needs to be at least semi-protected until the end of the year [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::As I said in an edit summary at the time, I was suspicious of the most recently blocked IP on here because the second edit from it was to argue that [[Barbara Walters]]' 93rd birthday should be added to the Events section, for which good faith can't possibly be assumed. The IP address was very close to one that had been recently blocked for disruption. |
|||
::The persistent 'what if 2020' troll will likely return, which is another reason for protecting the page. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Since it's so easy to get past a semi-confirmed account with the 10-edit threshold, I wouldn't rule off recommending temporary EC protection if shit goes down again. This is one of the articles I see the most frequent instances of sockpuppetry on, both on the article and on the talk page. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::: [[WP:RFPP]] is your venue for asking to protect pages. By the way, if you think this page has "frequent" issues, you clearly don't spend time at some of our ''really'' contentious articles. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There are many articles which are more badly affected, but this talk page has been unusually badly disrupted by trolls & sockpuppets compared to talk pages of previous year articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:41, 14 October 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) |
|||
== [[Russo-Ukrainian War]] == |
|||
Which events of the war in Ukraine should be included? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:To prevent this article from being a limited clone of [[Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]], I recommend that we only include events where masses of people die, events where there are major retakes or captures in territory (like Kherson), and stuff as notable as the mobilization or anything which gains condemnation or otherwise reaction from multiple international figures. This would leave room for other events. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:To me its this |
|||
:Conclusion of major battles at least on a citywide scale so we should include the conclusion of the <nowiki>[[Battle of Kherson]]</nowiki> versus the conclusion of the skirmishes over airports within cities. |
|||
:Changes of territories so the referendum that happened toward the end of last month |
|||
:Significant breakthroughs ie the sinking of the Moskva |
|||
:Events that lead to the escalation of the conflict so the Crimean bridge bombing along with the Russian retaliatory strikes would now be appropriate for inclusion [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 12:40, 11 October 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) |
|||
== Does [[Angela Lansbury]] deserve a photo? (Result: photo included) == |
|||
:I see this collage as at least passably good, it makes the article better, I see no critical problems, and, therefore I have restored it. I stand by this collage. It is a good collage. When it comes to removing the entire collage, this is clearly incompatible with [[WP:PRESERVE]]. Incremental improvement is possible. If there is a certain someone who objects to something in the collage, well, edit it. Edit it out, edit something else in, I don't know. Find a solution that does not entail removing the entire collage. Ask for help and feedback on the talk page.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I say yes. She's prominent in many fields of entertainment in both the US and the UK. [[Special:Contributions/130.86.97.1|130.86.97.1]] ([[User talk:130.86.97.1|talk]]) 20:40, 11 October 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) |
|||
:::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. |
|||
:::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. |
|||
:::<nowiki>However, to keep the current collage with some wrong notes underneath might not be the best solution and to remove it altogether definitely wouldn't improve the article. ~~~</nowiki> [[User:Gioppolognomo|Gioppolognomo]] ([[User talk:Gioppolognomo|talk]]) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::sorry forgot to sign [[User:Gioppolognomo|Gioppolognomo]] ([[User talk:Gioppolognomo|talk]]) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Uvalde? == |
|||
:Does Angela Lansbury deserve a Photo, I say yes |
|||
:though in my opinion, [[Antonio Inoki]] should get the first photo, and then Angela Lansbury gets the 2nd, because we need more Sports people to have photos, and Lansbury's photo is not a priority. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Same here. Although Lansbury never won an Oscar (honorary awards don’t count as wins but they are lifetime achievements), I think she deserves the second image even though I am borderline between the two as I wanted Fletcher in September because she was an Oscar winner like William Hurt and Sidney Poitier. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 23:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I would have no qualms with her having a photo - and IMO she is far better credentialed than say, [[Loretta Lynn]] (who is a borderline inclusion) for an image. For my money the most notable death of October 2022 so far. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Absolutely yes! [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 08:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Certainly, once there is more space we should include Inoki's image again. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 12:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
== Bicentenary of the Independence of Brazil (Result:) == |
|||
2022 is the year of the bicentenary of the [[Independence of Brazil]] on its 7 September. On the eve of the death of Queen Elizabeth II she congratulated Brazil by its bicentenary. She died on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. [[Special:Contributions/189.98.242.194|189.98.242.194]] ([[User talk:189.98.242.194|talk]]) 14:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:That's a domestic event for [[2022 in Brazil]]. Anniversaries are never important enough for main year articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with Jim Michael. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 16:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Simply not. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 17:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I am very confused. UVALDE is on the list now but it still says 'Dont add Uvalde'. Very confusing for editors. [[User:CalfRaiser150|CalfRaiser150]] ([[User talk:CalfRaiser150|talk]]) 13:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Robbie Coltrane]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
Should Robbie Coltrane be included in the main year article or 2022 in the United Kingdom? He seems notable enough but I simply don't know enough about him or his accolades. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 17:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
* Main article. Less than 3 hours after his death was announced, I can see articles and obituaries from every continent. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:* BBC (and every other UK source), CNN, Variety, [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/arts/robbie-coltrane-harry-potter-dead.html New York Times], [https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20221014-scottish-actor-robbie-coltrane-who-played-hagrid-in-harry-potter-films-dies-at-72 France24], [https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/10/14/robbie-coltrane/ Belgium], [https://www.nrk.no%2Furix%2Fharry-potter-stjerne-robbie-coltrane-er-dod-1.16140071&usg=AOvVaw1CR-Wi5xLMa8kRlWRYHQlJ Norway], [https://oglobo.globo.com/cultura/filmes/noticia/2022/10/robbie-coltrane-daqui-a-50-anos-infelizmente-nao-estarei-mais-aqui-mas-o-hagrid-estara.ghtml Brazil], [https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/robbie-coltrane-obituary-1.6616829 Canada], [https://www.abplive.com/entertainment/bollywood/actor-robbie-coltrane-who-played-hagrid-harry-potter-films-passes-away-at-72-2238112 India], [https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2022/10/14/harry-potters-star-robbie-contrane-is-dead/ Nigeria], [https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/harry-potter-actor-robbie-coltrane-has-died---pa/47980312 Switzerland], [https://www.aljazeeranewstoday.com/robbie-coltrane-comic-performer-who-played-hagrid-in-harry-potter-movies-dies-at-72/ Al Jazeera], [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/uk-actor-harry-potter-star-robbie-coltrane-dies-at-72/W6FKP46VOAQXCLXCE3GRKHC5CE/ New Zealand], [https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/harry-potter-actor-robbie-coltrane-dies-aged-72/ South Africa], [https://elpais.com/cultura/2022-10-14/muere-a-los-72-anos-el-actor-britanico-robbie-coltrane-hagrid-en-harry-potter.html Spain], [https://gulfnews.com/entertainment/hollywood/actor-robbie-coltrane-harry-potters-hagrid-dies-at-72-1.1665769102398 Gulf News] etc. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::'''Include''', albeit as a '''borderline inclusion''', looking at his resume he was known for playing [[Hagrid]] in Harry Potter, he also had roles on other movies like the James Bond movies, this person looks like an actor who would normally be included in these pages. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::He won no major international film awards and his most prominent roles were supporting, not lead roles - yes, in internationally notable franchises, but as is well established actors (particularly supporting actors) do not automatically inherit the notability of the films they appear in. His situation is not unlike that of [[Tanya Roberts]], who was ultimately excluded at the end. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' due to having very little international notability. He should be on [[2022 in Scotland]] & [[2022 in the United Kingdom]]. The wide reporting of his death & the obits are due to him being in every [[Harry Potter film]], all of which are popular in many countries. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:* I've just given you the links above. International coverage == international notability. That's how Wikipedia works, on every page. This one isn't excluded because a few people have their own ideas. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::They're links to articles about the death of a domestic figure who's internationally known for his supporting role in the HP films. If international media coverage proved international notability, we'd include a large number of domestic bombings, mass shootings, civil war battles etc. which have been reported internationally. We'd have to include internationally reported deaths - such as that of [[Anne Heche]] - in the Events section as well as the Deaths section. There'd be a [[Death of Anne Heche]] article. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::: If he's internationally known he's not a domestic figure, is he? [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Like many other entertainers, it's only his fans who are international. The international media's interest is due to them knowing that many of their readers/viewers will want to know, because of the large number of HP fans there. A similar thing is true of many sportspeople, such as many players of baseball, basketball & American football who only play in the US, but have many fans in other countries. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:*:international coverage ≠ international notability [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 22:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:*:same here, international coverage ≠ international notability. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:*::I wouldn't entirely agree with that. Any International coverage = Any International notability, but a LOT of international coverage ≠ a LOT of international notability. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::* [[WP:N]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If that were true, [[James Michael Tyler]] would have international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: No he wouldn't. Not even close to the same level of coverage. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Then JMT would have a lower level of international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability, as per Jim Michael. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 22:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Neutral''' honestly, I don't know. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 22:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' as per TheScrubby and Jim Michael. Should I remove him in the 1950 article too? [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 00:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Borderline Exclusion'''. He was "a wizard" of his time, but he's only really notable for Harry Potter, and there are many people, myself included, who are not big Potterheads. That being said, though, most of the connected world has heard of Harry Potter and seen at least part of one of the movies, either in full, as part of a trailer, or as a meme (especially Coltrane's "You're a wizard harry" scene, so he has that going for him. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::He's notable for other things, but internationally he's known primarily for HP. Most international obits & reports of his death include HP &/or Hagrid in their titles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::: International press in "mentioning what the person is most famous for" shock! See also: every other actor's obituary. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include'''. Coltrane is internationally notable. Add [https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/seneste/hagrid-skuespiller-robbie-coltrane-er-doed Denmark], [https://www.telegraaf.nl/entertainment/1248106093/harry-potter-sterren-rouwen-om-robbie-coltrane-je-was-familie-voor-ons Netherlands], [https://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/art-2000009136820.html Finland], [https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/der-britische-schauspieler-robbie-coltrane-ist-tot-18388890.html Germany], [https://www.repubblica.it/spettacoli/cinema/2022/10/14/news/morto_robbie_coltrane_hagrid_di_harry_potter-370063783/ Italy], [https://www.svt.se/kultur/skadespelaren-robbie-coltrane-dod-harry-potter-rubeus-hagrid-cracker Sweden], [https://hvg.hu/kultura/20221014_Meghalt_Robbie_Coltrane_a_Harry_Potter_Hagridja Hungary], [https://www.milenio.com/espectaculos/cine/robbie-coltrane-murio-actor-hagrid-harry-potter Mexico], [https://naine.postimees.ee/7627085/suri-harry-potteri-staar-robbie-coltrane Estonia], and many others to the list. Coltrane has been internationally notable at least since the 90s through having a lead role as "Fitz", winning three Bafta award in three consecutive years. Years before Harry Potter. [[User:Politrukki|Politrukki]] ([[User talk:Politrukki|talk]]) 12:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Many non-British media sources include HP &/or Hagrid in their titles, but very few - if any - of their titles include Cracker. The show didn't win any awards outside the UK. The number of Cracker fans outside the UK couldn't be compared on the same scale as the number of HP fans outside the UK. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[WP:HEADLINES|Headlines]] are irrelevant; they don't contribute to notability. The content in reliable sources does. SVT News (see above) gives in its lead equal weight to Coltrane's role in Cracker and Harry Potter {{tq|"bland annat genom den brittiska tv-serien Cracker och som Rubeus Hagrid i Harry Potter"}}. Most sources give the most attention to Potter role. Of course Harry Potter has more fans than Cracker. I don't understand your point. Coltrane was notable before the Potter role. [[User:Politrukki|Politrukki]] ([[User talk:Politrukki|talk]]) 14:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::He was notable before Cracker, but he never gained international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Fine'''. I think it's time to give up with this page, as it appears to be run by people who dont actually understand how Wikipedia works. Enjoy your little fiefdom. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 14:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, I'm close to giving up too, as this page is dominated by people who seem FANATICAL about deleting literally EVERYTHING. It's borderline trolling at this point. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 19:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't know why you keep reading the page. When I want information, I check the [[Deaths in 2022]] list. The main year page has nothing that I really care about. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 22:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:The bar for inclusion here is international notability, and as has long been established, international media coverage ≠ international notability. The Harry Potter films (which everybody here knows Coltrane was most notable for) are obviously notable, but actors from internationally notable franchises don’t automatically gain the notability of the films themselves. Most people would know of Hagrid, but would have no idea what the actor’s name was. Coltrane won no major international acting awards and his most prominent roles were supporting roles. We don’t include minor character actors on these main international year pages, be it Coltrane, [[Tanya Roberts]], [[Estelle Harris]], or other such examples. Actors from the English-speaking world make up a significant portion of inclusions as is - not just among entertainers, but in general. Furthermore, recent year pages especially have easily exceeded the [[Wikipedia:Article size|recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article]], and that is something we need to keep in mind when it comes to who’s included on these main years pages. Once again, just because somebody is not included here doesn’t mean they totally lack notability. Obviously they would, otherwise they wouldn’t have a Wiki article to begin with. But that doesn’t automatically mean they are entitled to a place in the main '''international''' yearly pages. And cheap jibes about “fiefdoms” and bad faith accusations of trolling don’t exactly help your case for Robbie Coltrane. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 05:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:30, 25 April 2024
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shinzo Abe & Jiang Zemin
Should Shinzo Abe and Jiang Zemin be included in the lead?
I noticed that their deaths were recently removed [1] from the lead, but they seem to be of comparable notability to those already included in the paragraph. Carter00000 (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you can find a source that establishes their deaths as a significant event of 2022 (as opposed to merely having occurred in 2022), then IMHO yes. “Year in review” sources would be ideal. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- You missed the point. I removed the ones that were unsourced. In my opinion, the whole paragraph should go, as it's completely subjective. Deb (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Collage
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
I would like to create consensus – not exclusively on this place but on all articles on calendar years – to change using the multiple image template to make collages. Specifically for this page, I would like to suggest the current picture of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to be replaced by the one below of Zelensky. One of the great things about the template system btw is that one does not need to create a whole new collage just to change one picture.
--Marginataen (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Collage depreciation
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
Change to DMY date format
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
All articles about generic years should use the much more global DMY date format. It does not make sense to make a separate discussion about this on every single year page.--Marginataen (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Date format
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest. On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s Marginataen (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Zero images?
Why are there ZERO images on this article? 2022 was a notable year, infamously so, and photos should be included here to illustrate certain events.
@33ABGirl since when is a consensus needed to insert images in an article? Did I miss a new rule? Why was my edit reverted [2]? Which of these removed images are "controversial", and for what reason?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Recently, a discussion and RFC on the WikiProject found near unanimous consensus to deprecate the use of image collages and the general inclusion of images. This centered on the arbitrary selection of images, which editors characterized as WP:OR & WP:NPOV. 33ABGirl (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl Yes, this refers to image collages, but not images itself. It is thus not applicable to my edit, which did not contain collages. Your claim of "arbitrary selection of images" could not be substantiated in the link you provided. Furthermore, years 2021 and 2023 contradict you entirely, since they also contain images. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, your revert was unnecessary.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you read the concerns raised by those commenting on the RFC, you will find they are not necessarily exclusively related to the collages, but images in general, despite the title of the RFC.
- I opened a discussion at the Wikiproject on this, where the editor commenting agreed consensus should be obtained before adding a image. Following this, a second editor agreed to open discussions (1, 2) for the inclusion of photos. In past years, images have also usually been selected through discussions - 2021 (1, 2), 2020 (1, 2). The current images on 2023 & 2021 have either been added without consensus or edit-warred in recently by a few editors, I will be seeking administrative assistance for those cases soon.
- I also remind you that the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You have added content which has been disputed and reverted, so you should be seeking the necessary consensus to restore the content. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- You need to provide exact citation for your claim. I could only find that the theme relevant for this discussion were collages, not images per se. You are also confusing Wikimedia Commons images with external sources, since the former have nothing to do with Wikipedia:Verifiability. An image on Wikimedia is an image, not a source. Now, let's go through all these images I initially included and let's hear from you what is disputed in each and every one of them? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl Yes, this refers to image collages, but not images itself. It is thus not applicable to my edit, which did not contain collages. Your claim of "arbitrary selection of images" could not be substantiated in the link you provided. Furthermore, years 2021 and 2023 contradict you entirely, since they also contain images. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, your revert was unnecessary.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion for inclusion of images
I hereby nominate the following images for inclusion in the article;
- File:2022 Kazakhstan protests — Aqtobe, January 4 (01) (cropped).jpg
- File:Движение колонны бронетехники ВС РФ 007.png
- File:Antonov_Airport_after_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_and_Mriya_(3to4).jpg|
- File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - ua.svg
- File:Warsaw Central Station during Ukrainian refugee crisis 05.jpg
- File:Bucha. Faces of War. - Ukraine War Photo Exhibition 2023 (52702841629).jpg
- File:Russian bombing of Mariupol.jpg
- File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg
- File:08.03 總統與美國聯邦眾議院議長裴洛西媒體互動會 (52259967861).jpg
Sincerely, --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose the inclusion of any images on the page. Adding images can create a bias towards certain events, essentially becoming a ranking of events, contrary to WP:OR & WP:NPOV. Considering the broad scope of the article, images should be omitted altogether. However, if there is a consensus does form to include images on the page, I would be happy to participate in the discussions regarding the selection of appropriate images. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl I don't understand your reasoning here. What is the argument here? An image could make one event more important than other events, so we should have zero images? It makes little to no sense. Even if that were the case, you could add many images and then you would have almost an equal amount of "importance" among them. But you do agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is arguably the most major even of 2022 and that it therefore merits inclusion of at least some images, correct?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- That is not a valid reason to oppose, it could be used to justify the removal of any image in any article. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support the addition of images as a general editing principle that every editor may do, no opinion on the usage of these individual images. The RfC that is still open is specifically in regards to top-of-the-page collages, it is not a bar on image use in general. Reverting image additions for no reason other than "any addition is biased" is disruptive, and should be treated as standard disruptive editing. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Proposal - I've proposed a suggested course of action here. Please add your thoughts or comments on the proposal. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl I have to repeat it for the second time, we are not discussing collage images on this talk page. We are discussing what is preventing users from including ordinary, any images on this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support there is nothing wrong with using regular images, they add to illustration and a summary of major events that happened a certain year/decade/century. Indiana6724 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I and many others are confused as to why images have been removed from all wikipedia pages on years. There used to be photo collages of notable events for every single year and they have all been removed. Why??? Lightningbolt1 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Considering that a whole month has passed, that other users gave their opinion confirming my thoughts, and that no user gave any support to @33ABGirl's arbitrary proposal of "no images policy" (for which no reasonable arguments were presented), I think we can conclude that images can freely be added to the articles about years, provided they are not collages.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the consensus is that images may be included on the page. However, I believe that there should still be a discussion on which images should be included. I suggest we use a similar system as used on the page 2023. While the discussion is related to collages, we are essentially still selecting images which are representative of the year.
- I've added a note on WP:YEARS to gather more input on this issue. 33ABGirl (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I can do this Indiana6724 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl The very first sentence of this discussion I started on 18 December 2023, (@Discussion_for_inclusion_of_images) includes a list of nine nominated images I want to include. You failed in this entire month to address even a single image that I nominated. As such, unless no objections were made against any of these nine images, it should be considered as accepted to be included in the article by default.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Because there are no objections, i think its fair we reinstate these images. Indiana6724 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I can do this Indiana6724 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Why is the Robb Elementary School shooting not mentioned in “Events”?
It was an event that garnered months of media attention, international condemnation, and led to the first gun law in the United States in 28 years. It was also featured on the front page. (Link:https://web.archive.org/web/20220525121908/https:/en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) MountainDew20 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Collage edit war — Proposal in progress
Hey guys. I noticed the ongoing (fairly long) edit-war ongoing on the article over the collage. A few days ago, I proposed a process to be the standardized process for collage creations. This process is being experimented on for the 2023 collage amid the proposal discussion. If consensus get’s behind the proposal, the edit war and debate can stop. Anyway, it needs to stop and be solved one way or another. Feel free to participate here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images.
Courtesy pings for people involved in edit war just in this article: 3E1I5S8B9RF7, DementiaGaming, Indiana6724, 33ABGirl, Setarip, Alalch E., 4BOTOX, Raksiyyyy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- WeatherWriter You obviously didn't even bother to read anything on this talk page since the discussion was not about collage images, but rather over zero images. After a month of discussion, the majority voted to include images in the article. If you want to contribute to the discussion, feel free after you have read the discussion and informed yourself about what you are talking about.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- 3E1I5S8B9RF7, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In this edit, you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, is being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on 2023’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually against the consensus and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said,
See the talk page. Nine images were nominated a month ago, and everyone except 33ABGirl voted to include images in the article. The collage was not agreed upon, though.
- 3E1I5S8B9RF7, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In this edit, you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, is being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on 2023’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually against the consensus and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said,
- Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- WeatherWriter Where exactly is the collage debate on this talk page?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The collage - why not restore?
Why hasn't the pre-existing collage, seen here, been restored to this article yet as it has been for other articles? Per the re-closure of this RfC, many collages were prematurely removed from year articles during the course of this RfC with at most limited discussion. Given the significantly wider scale of this discussion, any editor wishing to restore them may do so.
There was some discussion and reverting here during and shortly after that RfC, but all movement on this has apparently stalled for a month and a half. Since a perfectly good collage was already created, I don't see a need for a new discussion like is being done for 2023 - and one isn't happening anyway. We should simply restore the previous collage and bring this article in line with other year articles. Crossroads -talk- 07:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since the RfC has since been closed with overall consensus to keep them, I think it warrants restoring. jp×g🗯️ 09:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see this collage as at least passably good, it makes the article better, I see no critical problems, and, therefore I have restored it. I stand by this collage. It is a good collage. When it comes to removing the entire collage, this is clearly incompatible with WP:PRESERVE. Incremental improvement is possible. If there is a certain someone who objects to something in the collage, well, edit it. Edit it out, edit something else in, I don't know. Find a solution that does not entail removing the entire collage. Ask for help and feedback on the talk page.—Alalch E. 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages can be included doesn't mean that they must be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. Deb (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- If I'm not wrong we've reached consensus already (here), but it's outdated and it was still in November 2022.
- Indeed, much happened since then ,like the release of ChatGPT and the death of Pope Benedict XVI however the latest doesn't seem very relevant and to represent AI in an image would be reductive.
- However, to keep the current collage with some wrong notes underneath might not be the best solution and to remove it altogether definitely wouldn't improve the article. ~~~ Gioppolognomo (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- sorry forgot to sign Gioppolognomo (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages can be included doesn't mean that they must be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. Deb (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Uvalde?
Why cant we add Uvalde and why does it say 'don't add Uvalde'? CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am very confused. UVALDE is on the list now but it still says 'Dont add Uvalde'. Very confusing for editors. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)