Jim Michael 2 (talk | contribs) |
m Reverted edit by 2409:40E0:101D:3A3E:4C99:F8FF:FE5E:F4DD (talk) to last version by Gioppolognomo Tag: Rollback |
||
(956 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
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 |
{{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 == |
|||
== 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) |
|||
Should Shinzo Abe and Jiang Zemin be included in the lead? |
|||
:Actually, I choose all of them as collages since they are a influence to the defining year and most people have heard of these events that happened recently. -- [[Special:Contributions/2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE|2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE]] ([[User talk:2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE|talk]]) 05:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I noticed that their deaths were recently removed |
|||
<gallery caption="" heights="120" widths="120" mode="packed"> |
|||
[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) |
|||
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> |
|||
: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) |
|||
'''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) |
|||
: |
: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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
:The photo that purports to show Abe's assassination does nothing of the sort, it just shows a road. These images need to be ''much'' more meaningful and relevant. The suggestion that certain options have been chosen by consensus in the very limited discussion above is ludicrous. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 17:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|deb}} FYI there was [[Talk:2022/Archive_7#NASA's_DART_on_collage_(Result:_inconclusive)|a later discussion]] that consensus said that we should replace the Assassination of Shinzo Abe with the 2022 World Cup [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|4me689}} So why is it still there? [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 08:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''D''', '''E''', '''K''', and '''A'''. But I believe that we should include most inventions that are created from science and technology. But, why not include the media and retail as well? It would be better though, as they are defining moments of this year. -- [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.195|204.129.232.195]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.195|talk]]) 22:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:4me689|4me689]] Any more ideas to be added besides this? -- [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.195|204.129.232.195]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.195|talk]]) 22:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have proposed [[Double Asteroid Redirection Test|NASA's DART]] in [[Talk:2022/Archive_7#NASA's_DART_on_collage_(Result:_inconclusive)|this discussion right here]] but most editors disagreed [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 03:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:"the minimum is 8". Once again [[User:4me689]] is pushing a personal view without consensus. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 05:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::There should be a discussion about how many images to include per collage. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Collage == |
|||
== The third picture for September (Result: Frank Drake gets third photo after Elizabeth II and Jean-Luc Godard) == |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
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) |
|||
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. |
|||
* 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) |
|||
{{collapse top|title=Collage Suggestion}} |
|||
* 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) |
|||
{{Multiple image |
|||
: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) |
|||
| total_width = 300 |
|||
:: 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) |
|||
| image1 = Shinzo Abes statsbegravelse (beskåret).jpg |
|||
:'''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) |
|||
| image2 = Demonstration mod den srilankansk, 2022 (beskåret).jpg |
|||
| perrow = 3/2/3 |
|||
== What should be the standards of inclusion for musical artists ? (Result: inconclusive) == |
|||
| image8 = VM i fodbold 2022, USA–Wales.jpg |
|||
International Awards ? Well that would exclude people like Tony Bennett, Coolio, Johnny Mathis, who had 0 awards outside of the US. |
|||
| image3 = Tonga Vulkanudbrud.png |
|||
| image4 = Volodymyr Zelenskyy took part in hoisting the State Flag of Ukraine in liberated Kherson. (52502054830).jpg |
|||
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) |
|||
| image5 = Queen Elizabeth II's Funeral and Procession (19.Sep.2022) - 09.jpg |
|||
:I think it's dependent on a case by case basis. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image6 = Kazakhstan-demonstrationer 2022, Aqtobe, 4. januar (beskåret).jpg |
|||
:: I agree with InvadingInvader [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
| image7 = Åbningsceremoni ved Vinter-OL 2022 i Beijing.jpg |
|||
: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) |
|||
| direction = horizontal |
|||
::Grammy awards should only be a factor if said musical artist is/was not from the US. |
|||
| image_gap = |
|||
::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) |
|||
| width = |
|||
| 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]] |
|||
== 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]]. |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
--[[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 17:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
== 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) |
|||
=== Remove === |
|||
#We don't need that section in these Year pages. We've already got an article with a list of Nobel winners. PS - This ''discussion'' should be an RFC. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[2022 Brazilian general election]] (Result: merged under one entry and put on October 30) == |
|||
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) |
|||
== Tense of the article == |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
:Speaking of tenses, the past-tense of the verb "to lead" is "led", as I mentioned with the Ukraine crisis; please go to the incident about Netanyahu in the November 2022 section and fix this. I cannot fix it, as I have no account. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C52:6E00:854:75B4:749C:F064:604C|2600:6C52:6E00:854:75B4:749C:F064:604C]] ([[User talk:2600:6C52:6E00:854:75B4:749C:F064:604C|talk]]) 19:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Robbie Coltrane]] (Result: no consensus/inconclusive, continued in RFC) == |
|||
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. His death is on [[2022 in film]], [[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) |
|||
:<s>'''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.</s> [[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 (British TV series)|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) |
|||
::I agree. Many year articles are far longer than they should be. They're meant to be international, so adding domestic events & people is dilution, padding, adding chaff to the wheat etc. The large majority of notable events & people belong on the many sub-articles. Coltrane's death is on three of 2022's sub-articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Personally, I do disagree occasionally on inclusion with Jim and Scrubby (usually when it comes to domestic events which trigger a huge international reaction like Roe v. Wade), '''but personal attacks are not the way to go, guys.''' Maybe instead of calling Jim and Scrubby "FANATICAL about deleting literally EVERYTHING", say "we're deleting too many notable events", and stay away from telling them to "go enjoy their little fiefdom". I'm not completely sold that "international coverage ≠ international notability" is true, but I do agree that the year articles are generally starting to get bigger, and something should be done about it, and I think that the argument "a lot of international coverage ≠ a lot of international notability" would be a better argument for Scrubby to use. |
|||
:::I would advise @[[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]], @[[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] to consult this flow chart, though, especially the section on changing the rules: |
|||
:::[[File:Diagram of IGNORE.svg|350px]] |
|||
:::Happy editing, [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 07:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Deb removes more people & events from main year articles than Scrubby & I do combined. I agree with the vast majority of those removals. Clearly insufficiently notable events & people are added to main year articles every day. Many people have complained that main year articles have a very small number of frequent, regular editors - but we welcome more. The problem is that very few people want to edit these articles regularly. A high proportion of those who edit them merely want to promote a particular event, law, person, place, demographic, organisation, sport, change, trend etc. They in most cases quickly leave due to those things being removed due to them being unsuitable for main year articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 08:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::: No. They leave the page because you and your acolytes have a different concept of notability than the rest of Wikipedia. I am fairly sure that this won't last for ever, but at the moment that's the situation, which is the reason that [[Deaths in 2022]] is a more useful page than this one. Perhaps it would also be useful if the page was "run" by people that don't do pretty much nothing more useful than update current news. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You know that being included on main year articles requires a much higher notability bar than inclusion in WP. That's why we have many subarticles. That's why you've removed domestic figures from this article, including [[Tony Dow]] & [[PnB Rock]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Just to add to Jim’s comment, [[David Warner (actor)|David Warner]] and [[Paul Sorvino]] had more notability than Coltrane, and they were still deemed not sufficiently internationally notable for inclusion here - something you had no qualms with Black Kite. It makes little sense that you’re making Coltrane a hill to die on. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{Ping|TheScrubby}}, {{ping|jim Michael 2}}, {{ping|Amakuru|}}, {{ping|Pawnkingthree}}, {{ping|The Rambling}}, {{ping|Politrukki}}, {{ping|Black Kite}}, and {{ping|Alsoriano97}} |
|||
::::::::I think David Warner and Paul Sorvino have lower notably than Coltrane imo, the reason I said include is because of his big roles as [[hagrid]] and a couple of roles of James bond villains, not because of the media coverage. |
|||
::::::::This discussion discussion getting too long, so I recommend contributing to other discussion like the one below about Angela Lansbury's death section photo, or [[Talk:2020#Photo_Montage]] which is about the 2020 college, or [[Talk:Angela_Lansbury#info_box_picture]] which is about Angela Lansbury's infobox in her article, I really love you too reply to those discussions instead of arguing about Robbie Coltrane here. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 13:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Both roles you mention were supporting roles in internationally notable franchises (and the Bond one was a particularly minor one in two films), and he won no awards in relation to either. [[Tanya Roberts]] had a bigger role in the Bond franchise as the main Bond girl in one film, and she was not included on these year pages. Coltrane being included would be an complete aberration. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 14:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::The discussion is long because it doesn't seem to be concluded yet. Some are arguing that Coltrane is an international star and warrants inclusion, based on sources covering him, others say he's not. Having those who voted against inclusion simply closing the discussion and ordering everyone to move on is not how [[WP:CONSENSUS]] decisions are made on Wikipedia. Cheers — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Except international sources do not automatically equate international notability - this has been established for these year pages for some time now, and Coltrane being included would be a massive exception to the rule when we have rightly excluded similarly notable figures such as [[David Warner (actor)|David Warner]], [[Paul Sorvino]], [[Tanya Roberts]], [[Estelle Harris]], etc. Coltrane won no major international acting awards, and actors do not automatically gain the notability of the films they appear in - and that especially applies to supporting actors. Few people outside of hardcore fans would recognise Coltrane’s name while recognising the character of Hagrid. How is any of that substantial international notability? This should be an open-and-shut case of somebody who belongs in Year In Topic - and nobody who has voted for inclusion has addressed these major points against inclusion. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 14:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' per the sources provided by Politrukki. Very clearly an internationally-recognized actor. Bit strange that this is even up for discussion. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 20:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::It's not strange. He's one of hundreds of internationally-recognised domestic figures. In his case, that international fandom is mostly due to him playing one supporting character, [[Rubeus Hagrid]]. He has no significant international awards. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 21:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::This. Most people who know of Hagrid would not recognise the name “Robbie Coltrane”. How is that sufficient international notability? [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' this is a frankly absurd debate. An internationally renowned actor who starred in some of the biggest movies ever made. This American hate is too much. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Keep wearing the mask...]])</small> 21:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:What “American hate”? Coltrane was Scottish. What an absurd comment to make. Furthermore, as has been previously mentioned, Coltrane won no major international awards. He was never an A-list actor or among the most critically acclaimed of his generation. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include''' Everywhere else on Wikipedia we judge notability by coverage in reliable sources, and Coltrane's notability comes from a major role in one of the most internationally successful movie franchises of all time. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 22:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:He played a supporting role in an internationally notable franchise, and actors don’t automatically gain the notability of the films they appear in. That has been well-established here. Most people who are familiar with the character of Hagrid (beyond hardcore fans) would have no idea about what Robbie Coltrane’s name was or if he appeared in anything else. That is not what can be reasonably considered substantial international notability. Coltrane’s inclusion would be an aberration, and so far nobody who has advocated for his inclusion has sufficiently addressed these. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::@[[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] I think that to dissolve the mob and limit controversy, '''let's just let Coltrane in'''. In principle, I lean closer to you and Jim on this entry, but it seems like that too many people want him in, and inherently, <span style="color:#F17353">some people will stick to a position even if their argument for inclusion is not a "better" argument.</span> From what I'm seeing, the efforts to exclude Coltrane seem to be only "reverse-canvassing" in a way as the side of the debate you primarily advocate for to be increasingly scrutinized and attracting more controversy from all ends, even being viewed as borderline-authoritarian from the most extreme opponents. <span style="color:#0668E1"> For the sake of moving on from this, let's [[WP:Just drop it]] and move on to other discussions.</span> [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:::The bar is international notability here, and the majority of the people saying include have not addressed the primary points against inclusion - instead either just relying to a “international coverage” standard that has long been dropped on these pages, or making comments without substance such as “this is a frankly absurd debate”. Coltrane being included under the circumstances would be an aberration and would go against the standards we have for inclusion on these year pages. If we include Coltrane, that would open the floodgates for other minor character actors who won no major international awards and who are mainly known for one (supporting) role in an internationally notable franchise - advocated for by people who may or may not confuse the notability of the character with the notability of the actor itself. I don’t think any of that is acceptable. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I understand your reasons, but I think that by using a method of including stuff on a case by case basis in cases like Coltrane where is international notability is disputed but attracting a high level of support, we don't have to worry about opening floodgates. If someone attempts to include "Fooberton Foo" because we included Coltrane, we can immediately strike that point out by citing [[WP:OSE]]. By relying on popular votes to decide borderline cases of inclusion when there is a higher level of dispute concerning one of the standards, we can avoid long-swindled debates. Personally, I think that doing well for our readers and getting stuff done is more important than endlessly debating a few lines of text. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Given the level of debate that this has spurred, I will throw my opinion in and support a '''borderline inclusion''' for Robbie Coltrane.[[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 15:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Borderline Include'''. I'm changing my opinion from Weak Exclusion to Borderline Include because Coltrane has received levels of popular support on this talk page proportionally comparable to LeVar Burton for Jeopardy host. Our readers are more important than logic, and people have clearly demonstrated that he should belong. Moreover, those in favor of including him have shown what I see as sufficient international coverage to demonstrate an international level of notability, albeit maybe not as notable as Angela Lansbury or other deaths. For the purposes of [[WP:Just drop it|WP:Just dropping it]] and moving on to more important debates, let's just get on with this and throw him in. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Does anyone have an inclusion argument other than international media coverage in response to his death & the number of fans he has in many countries? International media coverage of people's deaths would give very high international notability to [[Sarah Everard]] & [[Gabby Petito]]. Number of fans would give more notability to [[Kim Kardashian]] than [[Gene Hackman]]. If they die on the same day, her death will gain significantly more media coverage than his. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree that international media coverage is not the end-all be-all, but Coltrane has been known for a long time, and his death wasn't like a Gabby Petito event where although very sad indeed, it was more so a media event than a person who had accomplishments. I'm afraid that if we continue this debate, we're inadvertently going to encourage more canvassing in favor of it, so Jim, as much as I agree with you and Scrubby, let's just drop it and let this dog have its day. [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] ([[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Number of deceased celebrities in lead (Result:) == |
|||
I think the number of deceased celebrities in the lead should also be limited to three as we limited it for world leaders. I think the current list can appear to add undue weight on celebrity deaths. IF we shorten it, we should have sidney poitier, olivia newton john, and jean-luc godard. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with PaulRKil, sidney poitier, olivia newton john, and jean-luc godard should be the only on the lead. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 15:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::We can also switch out one of the three and put in Meat Loaf just so we have some diversity as the three listed are in film. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 15:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree with you PaulRKil, replace Godard with meatloaf, cuz Godard is the least known of the three. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 16:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Inclusion should be on the basis of notability, not how well-known they are. If [[Gene Hackman]] & [[Kim Kardashian]] die during the same year, we'd include him, not her. We can't reasonably have a quota from each occupation for each year. In 2016, several very notable entertainers died. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Since the inclusion of figures in the lead as your idea, @[[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] who do you think we should have if we limit to three? [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 19:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::If you mean three entertainers who died this year: Poitier, Meat Loaf & Godard - but I disagree with specifying that number. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I just added "Micheal Jackson" on the Wikipedia. [[User:Blakelyelijahl|Blakelyelijahl]] ([[User talk:Blakelyelijahl|talk]]) 16:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I meant the 2009 page. [[User:Blakelyelijahl|Blakelyelijahl]] ([[User talk:Blakelyelijahl|talk]]) 16:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Godard is easily among the most notable entertainers to die this year, and certainly more so than Meat Loaf, who I actually regard as the least notable/the weak link of those listed. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 04:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Who would even think of replacing Godard... [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 08:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:This morning, someone added Coolio which brought the list in the lede to seven. We need to condense this.[[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 15:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Coolio is nowhere near important enough for the lead. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree, for now I've put a note asking for nobody else to be added to the lead without a talk page consensus. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 18:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Shah Cheragh massacre]] (Result: exclusion)== |
|||
is the Shah Cheragh massacre notable enough for inclusion, this event seems to be all over the news, I'm neutral and not really leaning to any side. but that's just me I'm curious on what other people think. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 00:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' unless there is confirmation of involvement from Iran in relation to the ongoing protests. Otherwise it seems to be a mass shooting or terrorist attack that would be included in [[2022 in Iran]] [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 14:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Weak exclude''' it doesn't seem that internationally notable from my research. If there is sufficient proof otherwise provided here, however, I'd be happy to switch my opinion. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Day of Eight Billion]] (Result:)== |
|||
Is this milestone important enough to include? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think so. As we've done with other items, we don't really include these kinds of milestones, records, anniversaries, etc. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 14:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I do support it being on the event section, tho I don't think it should be on the lead. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 03:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Can it be officially verified somehow? What source would we use? It seems a big milestone for humanity and the world, so I lean towards inclusion. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 16:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::It's impossible to prove on which day the human population reaches 8 billion, but 15 November has been designated by the [[United Nations]] as being the day on which it's recognised as happening. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm '''neutral''' on this issue...I'll probably lean towards whatever side is more widely supported, and if one side is about to attain consensus, for the purposes of speeding up the debate, I'll probably side with them. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, it is already important enough to include this because this is the day where a milestone reaches and it happened in every other year. -- [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.195|204.129.232.195]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.195|talk]]) 19:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I feel as though it should be '''included'''. It's a world milestone that has only been happening every decade and is likely to slow in the future. Also, the 2011 article includes the 7 billion milestone and the 2000 article includes India's 1 billion milestone. [[User:Julianstout|Julianstout]] ([[User talk:Julianstout|talk]]) 20:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Thích Nhất Hạnh]] or [[Meat Loaf]]? (Result:) == |
|||
<gallery caption="" heights="120" widths="120" mode="packed"> |
|||
File:Thich Nhat Hanh 12 (cropped).jpg|Vietnamese Buddhist monk and peace activist, [[Thích Nhất Hạnh]] |
|||
File:Meatloaf 1971 (cropped).JPG|American singer and actor, [[Meat Loaf]] |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
A little while ago, space for a 5th picture opened in January, I initially put Thích Nhất Hạnh, though now i'm beginning to have second thoughts as Meat Loaf has been more taiked about, I feel like I meat Loaf is more of a better candidate, so I have came to see what everyone thinks. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Remove [[Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta]] & include both of them. There's a photo of a substantially more notable politician than IBK in that month's subsection of Deaths. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Disagree - Keita was a long serving leader of his country who was taken down by a coup barely two years ago. African figures in general don’t get as much chance of image representation when it is usually Western-dominated, and that’s something we can’t double down on. I’d also prioritise Hanh over Meat Loaf. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 20:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[Mali]] is one of the [[least developed countries]] and Keita didn't do anything important. The [[Mali War]] began well over a year before he became president & is ongoing. We don't usually include photos of two people from the same occupation in the same month in Births or Deaths. Doing so to include someone from a particular continent isn't a good reason for making an exception. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with Jim here and would say '''Include both''' by removing Keita. Both figures' notability far surpasses that of Keita...this is comparable to [[Jang Song-thaek]] vs. [[Jennifer Lawrence]] assuming that (god forbid) they both died in the same month. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree with Jim Michael and invading invader on replacing Keita with Thích Nhất Hạnh and Meat Loaf, January had a lot of notable deaths, January deaths begs for variety. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 23:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Keita served as both head of government (Prime Minister) and head of state (President) of Mali, whose time in office ended in a notable coup (in 2020, no less) - he is easily more notable than Hanh and Loaf (or Jang Song-thaek, for that matter), and the development level of the country he led should not be a factor at all. Variety in terms of where people come from is important to take into account as well, and African figures are lucky to get representation in images compared to figures from (especially) North America and Europe. The exclusion of the image of a figure like Keita would be unacceptable on all those grounds, especially when excluded in favour of a white Western entertainer (one who is not an inductee of the [[Rock and Roll Hall of Fame]]). [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Its development level is relevant because Mali is an economic minnow. It's far less important than developed, small countries including Portugal, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium & The Netherlands. Being deposed by a coup doesn't increase his notability. We shouldn't prioritise the less notable on the grounds of ethnicity or nationality. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::To add on to Jim's arguments, coups are absolutely important for entries as part of a list, but if a regime change doesn't affect the world in ways that are more than tweets and foreign aid, it should be limited to just an entry. And we're not even talking about a coup itself; we're talking about the death of a figure who was central to a coup and not the coup itself. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::All I can further say beyond what I’ve already said (which as I have indicated I reject the premise of the arguments against Keita), is that the optics here would look atrocious if we prioritised against a long-serving leader like Keita (completely different story if he only served a short, forgettable term) from Africa in favour of [[Meat Loaf]], a white entertainer from the already (regularly) heavily represented United States, and who isn’t even an inductee of the [[Rock and Roll Hall of Fame]], the genre for which he was most associated with. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 06:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Keita's terms weren't short, but they were forgettable. The vast majority of people haven't heard of him & he didn't do anything important. Had he brought an end to the Mali War, there'd be a good case for including his photo. Likewise if he'd led his country into prosperity, industrialisation and development, greatly improving its life expectancy, literacy, education, housing conditions etc. whilst greatly reducing its birthrate & poverty, there'd also be a case for saying he's more notable than ML. Including ML would mean that he'd be the only white entertainer with a photo in the January subsection of Deaths, so how would that be disproportionate? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 10:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Moreover, the US can only really be remotely argued to be overrepresented in photos when looking at maybe August, September, and October. With the sole exception of Sidney Poitier, there seems to be zero Americans photographically represented in the earlier part of the deaths section. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Well just with your final point, I’m talking year pages in general, not specific months. Though having said that, in the last couple of years we have worked on addressing that and making it less skewed. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 22:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Death section pictures for October (Result: Jerry Lee Lewis) == |
|||
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:Antonio_Inoki_IMG_0398-2_20121224.JPG|Japanese professional wrestler and promoter, [[Antonio Inoki]] |
|||
File:Jerry_Lee_Lewis_1950s_publicity_photo_cropped_retouched.jpg|American musician, [[Jerry Lee Lewis]] |
|||
</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">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 01:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== Antonio Inoki === |
|||
# we need more variety in my opinion, we already have a Entertainer in the form of [[Angela Lansbury]], plus we need more sports figures represented in picture form. tho I'm open to Lewis getting the third picture, if there's ever room for that. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 01:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== Jerry Lee Lewis === |
|||
# While variety in terms of background is always important to keep in mind, I don’t think it’s something we should dogmatically stick to for every single month. There are always exceptions to the rule, and I think this month should be one of them. Lansbury and Lewis are easily the two most notable figures to die in October as of now, and Lewis in particular was one of the most important and notable musicians of his generation - and arguably the last surviving major rock and roll icon from the genre’s first generation in the 50s. It would be a mistake to exclude his image on what would amount to a technicality over variety of professions represented in images. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# I knew Jerry Lee Lewis more than Inoki. He was considered to be one of the last rock n roll stars of the 1950’s so I think he takes priority. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 18:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# There's no debate. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 23:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# He & Lansbury are by far the two most notable people to die in Oct, so their photos should be included. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# I concur entirely with Scrubby's opinion...so far, the exclusion of Jerry Lee Lewis looks like it falls under [[WP:SNOWBALL]]. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# Even as the resident professional wrestling fan, I cannot justify not having Lewis be listed here. I think once there is more space, Inoki's picture should also be displayed as I disagree with the idea he's a domestic figure.[[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 17:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== Discussion === |
|||
:{{ping|Alsoriano97}} what do you mean there's no debate, we need more Sports people pictures and we need variety. also I don't recognize the songs from Jerry Lee Lewis |
|||
:(also you mind go and reply at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey]]) [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 05:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't think we should specify a certain number of images per month so that we get into this kind of discussion. We ''could'' find a way to include all three, I think. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 17:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The number we have space for each month varies depending on the size of the month's section as well as the size of the images. As it is, there's only space for 2 in the October subsection of the Deaths section. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{u|Jim Michael 2}} What I'm saying is, maybe we shouldn't insist on limiting it by the month. Maybe we should go on two-month sections or even by the quarter. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 08:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with deb on finding a way to get all three, maybe we can get a good crop picture for Lansbury and if enough people die in the month I think we can get all three pictures [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 20:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I wanted to say that, in my opinion, there is no debate that it has to be JLL's photo that has to be included due to its unquestionable notoriety, superior to Inoki's. But '''please''', let's not get obsessed with adding cropped photos everywhere. Better two that look good, than three that only show the face. It's not the goal, so let's look at other months to see if more photos in that month is really necessary. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 16:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
On a separate note, I think it's ridiculous to try to balance the different fields. Choose the most notable people. The reason why photos are included is to see the most notable people on the list, to distinguish them and give them prominence to one who is browsing the list. If I'm the second most important Nobel laureate/entertainer/politician/sportsperson in the eyes of eight or so people and for that reason don't get a photo on the deaths list, I would be almightily put out. Except I wouldn't be able to be, as I would be dead. Sorry. Off topic. I'd be interested in getting some other opinions on this. Am I in the minority here? [[Special:Contributions/1.146.117.56|1.146.117.56]] ([[User talk:1.146.117.56|talk]]) 11:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:It's often difficult to compare the notability of people from very different fields. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== New removed section on Global goals and reports (Result: not added) == |
|||
Should section "Global goals and reports" (in any shape or form) about the state of developments regarding global goals in/as of a year be excluded from the article? 10:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Thought it may be good to create a section about it anyway, now the new section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&type=revision&diff=1119285490&oldid=1119274340 was removed] so let's talk: |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&oldid=1119274340#Global_goals_and_reports Here] I added a section on global goals in that year. For example, annual information reviewing the state of Paris Agreement progress during a year, a year's deforestation, or [[global health]]. Basically brief information about or from systematic progress reports on notable global intentional developments and goals. |
|||
This article is about the year 2022, what could be more significant and notable than these info on such issues? |
|||
----- |
|||
I think ''that'' is what for example future generations would care (more) about when they read about a year, rather than about some random terror-attack which (usually) doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things (and happens often, each with far lower casualties than probably all of the items of the new section), disasters like "collapse of a suspension bridge", or even national elections which (in many cases) don't have a lasting major global impact. The article currently is heavily biased towards such (typically rather insignificant) events, not including info on global developments (concerning issues/goals/challenges) that matter a lot. |
|||
Moreover, I think that it does make more sense to keep this in a separate coherent section instead of intermingled in the #Events section. It also shouldn't be in the article about a past year (like [[2019]]) if the newly released report pertains, as expected, to a past state of progress/an issue or the developments during an entire past year. In the future, some of it could get replaced/shortened drastically by charts. |
|||
It's not about "science" as the removing editor suggested, but progress on (or states of) global goals or issues, which have a lasting major global impact and are at the level of populations and whole of humanity rather than some small-scale event affecting a few individuals or even national electoral fate. There is no good reason to fully exclude it here and it's relevant to all of society and globally / the year in general. |
|||
I do see how it's a somewhat extensive change (it could get shortened a bit), but it shouldn't get rejected for the sake of it being a change. We shouldn't be ignoring these very [[WP:N]] notable, top important, [[WP:RS]]-covered, billions-affecting, partly civilization-affecting and partly (probably at least) centuries-impacting annual historic developments. |
|||
Should section "Global goals and reports" (in any shape or form) be excluded? Please comment. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 21:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Opposed''', this is just some science trivia that belongs to [[2022 in science]], not 2022 the main year article, and please don't open an RFC here right now, this page already has an RFC below. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 11:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::It's not about science, addressed that above, and it's not trivia, also addressed that above. |
|||
::I made this thread ''before'' you created a RfC after removing the content I added. |
|||
::Did you do so to hide my RfC or why did you do this right after removing my content, now also removing the RfC template from this talk page post and saying (why?) that it can't have an RfC too? Not okay. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 12:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|deb}}, {{ping|PaulRKil}}, {{ping|TheScrubby}} pinging you for your thoughts, is the above a good idea. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Prototyperspective brings up some good points, but ultimately, tradition has shown that we use year articles for events, and for that reason I '''oppose''' inclusion in the format which Proto promotes unless as part of an event. There are other places we could better adapt Proto's ideas; what Proto proposes in practice mostly would include science and philanthropy, and we can use either in-country articles (such as [[2022 in the United States]] or [[2022 in Brunei]]), or [[2022 in science]]. I think that there is more we could do to promote these articles, but although I haven't quite formulated the best way to do it, the method presented isn't really the best way to go about it. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Notified: [[WT:WikiProject Politics]], [[WT:WikiProject Environment]], [[WT:WikiProject Years]]. --[[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 12:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<!-- Template:Notified --> |
|||
:Pinging {{ping|deb}} & {{ping|jim Michael 2}} for thoughts [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 13:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
'''Oppose''' including this. It's trends, aims, plans etc. rather than actual events. It belongs on appropriate sub-articles, such as [[2022 in politics and government]] & 2022 in science. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Is this article called "Events of 2022" or "2022"? The article is heavily biased and incomplete. |
|||
:_ |
|||
:Moreover, the publications are events too and it's often things basically like "in year x, deforestation was at y" |
|||
:* -> is that off-topic and irrelevant just because it pertains to an entire year instead of being a, typically overall insignificant, event of a single day? |
|||
:The alternative would be to add it to the year article that it pertains to, instead of to the year when it was released but I'd oppose that for obvious reasons, and afaik there aren't yet good summary statistics charts to add instead. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 14:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::There are many publications each year. Well over 99% aren't important enough to include on main year articles. [[The Satanic Verses]] is a rare example of one that is, because of the extreme international reaction to it. How much deforestation happens during a year isn't important enough to include, nor is how many people died as a result of smoking, obesity, road accidents etc. This sort of info isn't in other main year articles. The total world population is important enough to include, as are the total number of births & deaths during the year. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I wasn't suggesting that 99% are important enough to include. Moreover, it's not about "publications", it's about (progress/development/current-state-of) global goals and issues. I disagree with "How much deforestation happens during a year isn't important enough to include", especially as that is part of global goals. I don't know if there is a chart that shows a breakdown of the [[List of causes of death by rate|causes of death]] during a year. Most of this article's contents are not important to include here if most of the critical info contained in the new section is kept out. It would probably even be due to add these [[WP:N]] [[WP:RS]] items if the article featured only content at the scale of total world population, but it doesn't do so anyway and, for example, features lots of random disaster events (and I'm not saying such should get excluded). [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 17:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Different orgs have different goals. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::This does not address any of my many (counter-)points there, is not a reason to exclude, is irrelevant and I'm aware of that. The section was about (notable, large-scale, significant) ''international/global'' goals. --[[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 17:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|Prototyperspective}} - I am ''not'' in favour of including such a section in the main Year article. However, a separate Year in Topic article would be acceptable as long as it can be kept objective and well-referenced. The Year articles are much too long now (see [[Wikipedia:Article_size#Readable_prose]]), and this is largely because of recentism and the determination by some editors to add minor events, births of current celebrities, etc. So please look at this idea again in that light. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 04:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:So far, I see only '''two [[WP:NODEMOCRACY|reasons]] to exclude''' this highly notable, top-significant, [[WP:RS]], year-related/spanning, globally-relevant, content: |
|||
:* it's a change: the prior year articles did not include this info (what in the opinion of some "tradition has shown") – I addressed this (so far unrefutedly) in the original post above |
|||
:* the article is already (too) long – a point you made |
|||
:To address the latter: that's not a good reason to exclude this info rather than keeping it as short as possible and/or removing other items that are far less significant and notable than it. |
|||
:Moreover, there can be exceptions to the article size guidelines and prior months could get collapsed. It's a valid point in principle, but again I don't see how it's a reasonable rationale to exclude this content in specific. |
|||
:I think the best option would be to replace as many items of the new section as possible with summarizing graphics containing charts, but these don't yet exist afaik so until they do, the brief items should not get irresponsibly and unwarrantedly excluded. The content belongs here, in this article called "2022", even in the case that it's also(!) relevant to some other existing or potential article like "[[2022 developments]]" (and/or [[2020s]] and/or "[[Humanity in 2022]]" and/or "[[Global issues in 2022]]" and/or "[[Progress in 2022]]") (from which it could transclude the content ''if'' the article is not renamed to "[[2022 events]]"). --[[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 17:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Such a section would be very large, with different goals from different orgs being stated. They're not usually important. Actual major results, such as wars ending or diseases being eradicated, are. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::* As said, only a) global / extensively-international b) highly significant ones would be added there (basically just like it's already being done for the Events section). |
|||
::* The section as was added would already be its entire length, it's not short but some items could be shortened and maybe one or three removed, while another one or three (not far more than that) may be missing. |
|||
::* Nonprogress on top-significant global goals such as Paris Agreement goals and pledges are major results too, just not good results. |
|||
::* There are many intermediate steps to diseases getting eradicated and such may often be impossible or nearly impossible at least in the near future. The other items are no less significant. Moreover, wouldn't you say it would be significant if cancer deaths were reduced to a tenth? What I meant earlier is that the article is biased towards ''events'' (and also slightly towards overall relatively insignificant events) and does not include [[WP:N]] [[WP:RS]] content on ''developments'' (which often can't be added well in the form of events plus those report releases could be considered events too). |
|||
::* Reports about health (and [[List of causes of death by rate|main causes of death]]) are somewhat more difficult than the other items in the context of the article, they'd be far more useful or due if it was (a) chart/s, showing the changes during the/a year for example (overall plus notable special changes like unique trend reversals or slowdowns). Furthermore, there could be too many at least at some point. Maybe the health-related text items should be excluded. |
|||
:::[[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|talk]]) 20:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::well I'm still opposed, you been rehashing the same arguments, and the article is already long enough we don't need this to make it longer. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 20:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Non-progress is a lack of change & is nowhere near important enough for main year articles. There's no chance that they'll be anything like a 90% reduction in cancer deaths in a year. If they reduce by 5% during a year, that's not important enough to include. No-one here has backed the inclusion of the content you want added to the article. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== RFC: [[Robbie Coltrane]] inclusion vote (Result:) == |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 22:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1670277673}} |
|||
{{rfc|soc|bio|rfcid=46B9B1A}} |
|||
should [[Robbie Coltrane]] be included in the 2022 article '''Yes''' or '''No''' [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== Comments === |
|||
should [[Robbie Coltrane]] be included in the 2022 article yes or no [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==== Yes ==== |
|||
#Looking over the current list for 2022, he's as notable internationally as others who are included. It's close, but his inclusion seems justified. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 23:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#He is as notable as some of the others in the list. [[User:Mnair69|Mnair69]] ([[User talk:Mnair69|talk]]) 08:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#I'd say yes, because his most notable role was not as a supporting character in the Harry Potter films but the lead role in ''Cracker'', for which he won the BAFTA for Best Actor an unprecedented three times in a row. I believe that it was widely seen around the globe. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 13:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#I agree with Deb on this one[[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 14:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#Per above. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 09:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#Notable and should be included. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 10:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#Robbie Coltrane is a notable actor whose death was covered by numerous news sources such as ''[https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2022/10/14/robbie-coltrane-death-celebrity-reaction-harry-potter-co-stars/10497344002/ USA Today], [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/arts/robbie-coltrane-harry-potter-dead.html The New York Times],'' and ''[https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63261204 BBC].'' [[User:Pickalittletalkalittle|Pickalittletalkalittle]] ([[User talk:Pickalittletalkalittle|talk]]) 17:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#Coltrane is internationally notable. I constructed a sample list based on Black Kite's and my own sources from the initial discussion: [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], [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], and [https://naine.postimees.ee/7627085/suri-harry-potteri-staar-robbie-coltrane Estonia]. The coverage of Coltrane's dead is significant. How much more is needed? Coltrane has been internationally notable at least since ''Cracker'' gained recognition. BAFTA awards contribute to notability, but they are not the main factor. [[User:Politrukki|Politrukki]] ([[User talk:Politrukki|talk]]) 17:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#Sure why not. Politrukki has provided a number of reliable sources for international notability of death. Based on the random nature of the people on the list, the result comes down to the editors who make the effort for inclusion. --[[User:Guest2625|Guest2625]] ([[User talk:Guest2625|talk]]) 03:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==== No ==== |
|||
#As per everything I said in the original discussion. He won no major international acting awards, and his most prominent roles internationally were supporting roles in internationally notable franchises (one of which, the Bond franchise, was as a minor character in two films) - and as has been long established here, actors don’t automatically gain the notability of the films they appear in, and international coverage does not automatically equate international notability. Most casual fans of Harry Potter or people in general who would recognise the character of Hagrid wouldn’t be able to name the actor or other roles he was in. Other actors of comparable levels of notability to Coltrane are routinely excluded here without controversy, and I don’t think this should be any exception, and making it an exception would be an aberration and would set a bad precedent here. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 22:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
#I tend to agree with TheScrubby. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 11:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# {{sbb}} Although I'm a Briton and close to Coltrane's age ''(and therefore have known him as a capable character actor since [[The Comic Strip Presents]] and [[Tutti Frutti (1987 TV series)|Tutti Frutti]]'' ), I'm inclined to agree with TheScrubby - he isn't THAT well known to an international audience. Dare I say that I've never seen a Potter film, though I've seen clips of Coltrane's [[Mummerset]]-ish eccentric. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 15:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
# He's not internationally notable; he merely has fans in other countries, largely due to playing a supporting character in the Harry Potter films. We shouldn't include people on the basis of demand from fans. If we did, we'd include [[Technoblade]] & [[Leslie Jordan]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
=== Discussion === |
|||
I am going to open an RFC on the inclusion of Robbie Coltrane because the other discussion was disputed, I'm going to Ping everyone who was on the other discussion {{ping|PaulRKil}}, {{ping|Black Kite}}, {{ping|TheScrubby}}, {{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, {{ping|Alsoriano97}}, {{ping|InvadingInvader}}, {{ping|Politrukki}}, {{ping|Wjfox2005}}, {{ping|Dimadick}}, {{ping|Amakuru}}, {{ping|The Rambling Man}}, and {{ping|Pawnkingthree}} to let them know this is discussion exist. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:4me689|4me689]] please refrain from pinging me in discussions. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::ok I thought I would let everyone know from the previous discussion [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm '''neutral''' on this...I think that he isn't as internationally notable as a few other entries, but he remains immensely popular around the globe, so I'm honestly stuck. If he remains popular across the globe and many editors are in favor of his inclusion, then I don't see a problem with him being included, and I would choose to include/exclude Coltrane if a majority of editors support one side for whatever reason (aside from "I'm voting for/against inclusion just to make some editor mad"). <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The thing is, Coltrane was never “immensely popular” around the globe. His character of Hagrid was internationally recognised, and Harry Potter is obviously internationally notable. But actors, especially supporting actors, don’t automatically gain the notability of the roles they played, and most casual fans or people in general who would recognise Hagrid would not recognise the actor’s name. Essentially, we can’t confuse the notability of a character with the actor who played him. Furthermore, Coltrane won no major international acting awards, be it as Hagrid or as anything else. At this point, it almost feels like rehashing of all the points said in the original discussion, to which I don’t have much more to add. But the inclusion of Coltrane would be an aberration when other actors of his level of notability are regularly excluded here. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 22:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Also why is this RFC being added to unrelated fields such as politics and religion? [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 22:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't know, I just copied it from the one on Wikipedia years. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's only relevant to the first two of the six - society & biographies. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I’m a little confused about something: Deb says that Coltrane “won the BAFTA for Best Actor an unprecedented three times in a row” however TheScrubby says Coltrane “won no major international acting awards.” Which one is it? [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 13:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::BAFTA, like the Emmys and the Logies, is a primarily domestic award and wouldn’t be what we’d count as a major international acting award. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 18:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::He means no major awards from countries other than the UK. The people who vote for awards favour their own country's people, films, TV shows etc. Having this RfC will likely lead to fans of other people of a similar notability level - [[Gilbert Gottfried]], [[Paul Sorvino]], [[David Warner (actor)|David Warner]], [[Marsha Hunt (actress, born 1917)|Marsha Hunt]] etc. - asking for the same ridiculous amount of debate in regard to their inclusion. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::The BAFTA jurors are selected from multiple countries though. Doesn’t this solve bias towards British only actors? [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 16:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm an American and I'm very familiar with the BAFTA's as a prestigious award. What are the major international acting awards? I'd put BAFTA right behind the Academy Awards. The Golden Globes are a bit of a joke. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The BAFTAs are clearly Anglocentric. We shouldn't include people whose only awards are from their own country. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::There’s non-British people that has won BAFTAs though, and the juries are multinational. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 21:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yes, but there's a pro-British bias & most of the foreign jurors will be Anglophiles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Sadly, this is also true of the Academy Awards. Winners of the two have been almost identical for most of their history. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 10:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Awards' juries usually have a bias in favour of people, films etc. of their own country. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Going by the BAFTAs discussion, it looks like the outcome is that we would tend to include non-British recipients and that it is otherwise considered a predominately domestic award - which means that the point against Coltrane's inclusion on the basis of lack of major international acting awards still firmly applies. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 00:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Also pinging {{ping|Wjfox2005}} for an elaboration of his comment - given his only other comment with relation to Coltrane was accusations of trolling against those who have (very good reason to have) firm reservations about Coltrane's international notability and suitability for inclusion here. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 00:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Just to add - I'm not trying to claim that BAFTAs are not primarily domestic awards. Coltrane's Best Actor award was [[British Academy Television Award for Best Actor|a TV BAFTA]], not a Film BAFTA, and it's unknown for anyone from outside the UK to win that. As with the Emmys, I imagine. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 09:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The primarily domestic nature of the BAFTAs, Emmys & Logies are the reason that people from their respective countries winning them doesn't indicate international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Pickalittletalkalittle}} read the top of this section, before you put down you comment. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|4me689}} would you kindly remove {{tq|(Just Note: international coverage ≠ international notability)}} from the RFC question per [[WP:RFCNEUTRAL]]? I think I could do that myself, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I don't think that minor infraction has affected anyone's opinion so far, so no need to notify participants. [[User:Politrukki|Politrukki]] ([[User talk:Politrukki|talk]]) 17:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I put that there cuz I want people to know that they need to think about his Awards, not his international coverage. and there's a long-held consensus here that international coverage ≠ international notability, nevertheless I will remove it [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Pickalittletalkalittle}} {{ping|Politrukki}} We are not going to include Coltrane on the basis of international coverage. That has long ceased to be a criteria for inclusion on the yearly pages - how many times does it need to be said that international coverage '''does not''' automatically equate international notability and '''in no way''' leads to automatic inclusion? That is a consensus that has long been established here (and indeed has now also been '''included in the FAQs on the top of the page'''), and we are not going to overturn it for a minor actor like Coltrane. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Noting that I have reverted a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022&diff=1120263199&oldid=1120238855 premature and involved close] by [[User:TheScrubby]]. Per [[WP:RFCEND]], RfC's should generally run for 30 days, unless a consensus is determined before that (which in this case, it has not). Additionally, as TheScrubby has been a participant in this RfC (and is thus involved), it is highly inappropriate and borderline dishonest for them to determine consensus in their favor in such a split discussion. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 03:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Curbon7}} Okay, I wasn't aware of the 30 day rule for RFCs, though having said that discussions over Coltrane had been taking place intermittently since the 14th of October (granted, also not 30 days since but still a fair while) and it's clear that there is no consensus in favour of inclusion and that those that spoke in favour (and the onus is on those arguing in favour of inclusion) have completely disregarded and failed to address the very substantial arguments against inclusion and Coltrane's level of notability - and instead either just saying he's notable without backing it up or using only international media sources when international coverage does not automatically equate international notability, as has been established for some time here. There was no indication that any of that would have changed, and that at this point both sides were merely repeating and rehashing the same arguments already made - and that consequently it's clear that no consensus can be reached, which is also why the original discussion started on the 14th also ended. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 04:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Curbon7}}, should I re-add the "Just Note: international coverage ≠ international notability" thing on top of the question that was there before or is that a violation of [[WP:RFCNEUTRAL]], cuz there's a long-held consensus here that international coverage is not equal to international notability |
|||
:(also you mind go and reply at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey]]) [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Takeoff (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
I am seeing the makings of a needless edit war over the inclusion of Takeoff. Lets settle it here instead. Should [[Takeoff (rapper)]] be included in the article? For me, it is '''borderline inclusion'''. He is not as prolific as [[Quavo]] or [[Offset (rapper)]], but the trio has been a pretty substantial fixture in Hip Hop, in the US and internationally, for the better part of the 2010s and now. I think his death is notable enough to be included. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 17:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' due to lack of international notability. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 17:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: '''include''' albeit as a '''borderline inclusion''', if we include [[Coolio]], we must include Takeoff as well both are on the same level of notability, not to mention he was part of a very popular group, just like [[Ronnie Spector]], if we include Ronnie Spector we must include Takeoff, include Takeoff. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::There is no comparison. Ronnie Spector was a highly influential frontwoman who was also inducted into the [[Rock and Roll Hall of Fame]], arguably dwarfed only by [[Diana Ross]] in her field of her era - and even then that’s in large part because [[Phil Spector]] intentionally sabotaged her career, as has been well-documented. Not remotely comparable levels of notability. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 18:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::What do you mean no comparison, ronnie spector was part of a pop group that was as big in the 60's as Migos was in the 2010's. Tell me, if spector died in the 1970's instead of 2022 would you say include, going by your logic she wouldn't be included. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::If she died in the 70s she would still be included as her primary period of notability in terms of her work was in the 60s and she would still be inducted in the RRHOF whether or not she would be dead or alive. Furthermore, Spector wasn’t just another member of [[The Ronettes]]; she was the frontwoman, the face of the band and the band’s namesake (we wouldn’t include her bandmates, for example). Yours is not an appropriate comparison; Takeoff did not achieve a comparable level of notability to Spector, and making such comparisons don’t help your case for Takeoff. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 18:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm curious what about [[quavo]] and [[Offset (rapper)|offset]] the other two members of Migos [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - Takeoff has very little international notability & is nowhere near the level of Coolio or Spector. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Neutral'''...but I will say that 4me689's arguments heavily rely on [[WP:AON|WP:AON (all or nothing)]] to the point where it does seem to be like a textbook example of AON. I'm fully aware that AON is primarily dealing with AFDs, but I personally think that AON also applies to other scenarios outside of AFDs, like this one. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::This is a perennial problem on this page to some extent. We definitely need to remember that consensus is still key, and all the inclusion decisions we make here are objective editorial decisions, even if we have 'precedent' to refer to. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 12:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' - never even heard of the guy. Never even heard of Migos. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 08:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' per all above. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 09:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The large majority of people haven't, and we shouldn't have our inclusion decisions made by fans. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''', and I ''have'' heard of him (and Migos). Takeoff released a single solo album, which was top 10 in the US and Canada but in no other country with reliable chart statistics. The two singles from that album reached #54 and #99 in the US. He featured on a few other singles by other artists which didn't do much either. So not much doing there. His work with Migos is more well known (including international success), but IMO being one-third of that group doesn't push him over the line for this. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::You know? I agree with that take. '''exclude''' [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 17:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::well, you win, '''exclude''' [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022 (Result: not done) == |
|||
{{archive top| there's already [[Talk:2022/Archive_6#Should_Technoblade_be_included_under_Deaths?_(Result:_exclusion)|a talk page consensus]] to exclude [[technoblade]] [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 23:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|2022|answered=yes}} |
|||
In the june section a new sentence should be added stating "June 30 - Youtuber Technoblade is declared dead from cancer in a video titled 'so long nerds'". [[User:SkyHorseBoy|SkyHorseBoy]] ([[User talk:SkyHorseBoy|talk]]) 22:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''no''', there's already a consensus to exclude [[technoblade]], closing this down and updating the FAQ. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 23:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{archive-bottom}} |
|||
== BAFTAs (Result: secondary factor for inclusion if the recipient is not British) == |
|||
Where do we stand on the [[BAFTA Awards]], and its recipients? Should it be considered a major international acting award on a comparable level to the likes of the [[Academy Awards]] and the [[Palme d’Or]], or should it be considered a predominately domestic acting award not unlike the [[Emmys]] and the [[Logies]]? As I indicated in the [[Robbie Coltrane]] discussions, I lean towards the latter and that as with other similarly domestic awards, it should not be regarded as an automatic inclusion criteria for actors and film-makers. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 06:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Neutral''' I think it's a major award, but alone doesn't prove beyond discussion that someone should be included on this page. We could still agree to include someone who has only been awarded BAFTAs if there were otherwise still internationally notable. (For reference, there are many, many [[List of film awards|national film industry awards]]). [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 12:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Neutral''', well not as powerful as a Academy Award, it's more powerful and relevant then the emmys and/or a logie I don't know how more important that is, though I could argue that we could include some Bafta award winner.[[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 13:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:They're one of the more important awards, though less important than the Oscars. More weight should be given to BAFTAs given to non-Brits. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I have little objection to that, yeah - with more significance given to BAFTAs awarded to non-Brits, especially for more international productions. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Overall, I'm '''Neutral'''. I just noticed conflicting points in regards to BAFTAs. I want to thank TheScrubby for opening this discussion to solve this. Much appreciated. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 15:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I would vote to '''Include''' the BAFTAs in a majority of instances (though there might be occasional instances where a certain lack of justifies some exclusions); those two ceremonies are generally considered to be the gold Standard. I'm also on the same page as Jim Michael when non-Brits win BAFTAs. BAFTAs are between the Logies and Oscars on the rank of notability, but they lean closer to the Oscars. I'm American and The NY Times app notified me of the BAFTAs but not the Logies. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::We're not going to list the winners each year of any entertainment awards; this section is about the importance of awards in deciding who we include in the Births & Deaths sections. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks for the clarification; I would say that a BAFTA isn't deprecated like the golden globes are. I'd say that they could be considered major awards. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 16:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't dispute that they're major awards, but winning them doesn't grant international notability to Brits. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Neutral''' But I'm far from convinced that Academy Awards automatically convey international notability either. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 08:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::They only do for non-American winners. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Powerball Jackpot (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
In the US, the [[Powerball]] has reached a $1.5 Billion USD jackpot. ''If'' (and only if) this jackpot sets a world record, should we include it? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''', the lottery is obviously domestic. I mean no one else outside of the United States is going to win it. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' as per 4me689. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 00:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Agreeing with thescrubby and 4me689 [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 04:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''', no way. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 08:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' because it's nowhere near important enough. It's trivia & we don't include things on the basis of them being world records. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I realize this is technically closed now however I think that if it does set a world record it might warrant inclusion in the US specific 2022 article. ― [[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> 19:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I would agree. I've already listed it in [[2022 in the United States]]' predicted and scheduled section. And being American myself, I've already bought my tickets ;) <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::<small>I don't gamble. It's why I hate lootboxes in video games.</small> Yep. Although there is an issue with one of the sections of that article which I have added a template to with a reasoning. Doesn't seem to hard to fix but it makes readability difficult. ― [[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> 19:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' But deserves a mention on [[2022 in the United States]]. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 08:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Gerben Karstens]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
is [[Gerben Karstens]] notable enough for inclusion, the importance tag on this dude has been removed and re-added over and over again, just asking before I put my opinion, any thoughts????? |
|||
by the way please do not give a basic response like, no International nobility [[2022 in the Netherlands]], give a good detailed response. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:The importance of him has been removed from his article? Well, it comes down to if the information is true and supported by reliable sources. Did editors remove the important points about him because it was untrue/unsourced? Or it was true and they simply vandalized his article by removing true information? [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 18:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:He was really only known in Europe, and most Americans, Asians, Africans, and Australians can be comfortably assumed to have not known Karstens. For this reason, I would say '''Borderline Exclude'''. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Yeah, I would concur with InvadingInvader. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 19:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::And he was hardly known in Europe. '''Exclude him'''. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 13:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' because his only major accomplishment is an Olympic gold medal in a team event. There's a consensus that team medals grant insufficient international notability for main year articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' as discussed above. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 13:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Interim leaders (Result:) == |
|||
Should interim heads of state/gov who didn't do anything significant during their time in those posts - such as [[Balakh Sher Mazari]] (who was [[Caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan]] for five weeks) - be included? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:yes, all people who have been heads of state/gov at least once should be included, that is including interim heads of state/gov, just like [[Balakh Sher Mazari]]. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''' they still were head of state and exercised those powers thereof. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 14:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Did they lead governments or states? Yes. Interim, yes, but they did. I think so even if it had been PM 15 hours. It doesn't matter if they did something significant, the important thing is the office they assumed. There are some HoS and HoG who have ruled with full executive powers and left no significant legacy! [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 20:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022 (Result: not done)== |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|2022|answered=yes}} |
|||
Would you like to add this following line to the introduction paragraph above, "''2022 marked many prominent deaths of...''": |
|||
'''It is also expected for this year to reach 8 billion people at end of 2022, according to released projections from the United Nations. It is also even projected to reach 8.5 billion people by the year 2030. World population growth is starting to slow down, despite it continuing to increase.''' |
|||
Source of this info: |
|||
* https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf |
|||
* https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/07/21/global-population-projected-to-exceed-8-billion-in-2022-half-live-in-just-seven-countries/ |
|||
* https://worldpopulationreview.com/ |
|||
--[[Special:Contributions/2601:205:C001:EA0:D2E:95F5:7A12:B8D7|2601:205:C001:EA0:D2E:95F5:7A12:B8D7]] ([[User talk:2601:205:C001:EA0:D2E:95F5:7A12:B8D7|talk]]) 05:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:This is poorly written and can't be added as is. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 08:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:We already have [[Talk:2022#Day of Eight Billion (Result:)|a discussion]] on this. I recommend you put your comments there. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022 (2) (Result: done) == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|2022|answered=yes}} |
|||
Please add this event to this article: |
|||
6 August – [[Terrance Drew]] is sworn in as [[List of prime ministers of Saint Kitts and Nevis|prime minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis]]. [Reference supplied] [[Special:Contributions/2600:1010:B12A:AE74:F835:F68:51C5:4C62|2600:1010:B12A:AE74:F835:F68:51C5:4C62]] ([[User talk:2600:1010:B12A:AE74:F835:F68:51C5:4C62|talk]]) 07:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Done''' [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 08:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022 (3) (Result: Not done)== |
|||
{{Edit semi-protected|2022|answered=yes}} |
|||
I would like to request for an new timeline event to be added: |
|||
*2022 – A study estimates the [[air pollution]] impacts on climate change and the ozone layer from rocket launches and re-entry of reusable components and [[space debris|debris]] in 2019 and from a theoretical future [[space industry]] extrapolated from the "[[billionaire space race]]". It concludes that substantial effects from routine [[space tourism]] should "motivate [[space law|regulation]]".<ref>{{cite news |title=Space tourism from companies like SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin could undo work to repair ozone layer, study finds |url=https://news.sky.com/story/space-tourism-from-companies-like-spacex-virgin-galactic-and-blue-origin-could-undo-work-to-repair-ozone-layer-study-finds-12640296 |access-date=19 July 2022 |work=Sky News |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ryan |first1=Robert G. |last2=Marais |first2=Eloise A. |last3=Balhatchet |first3=Chloe J. |last4=Eastham |first4=Sebastian D. |title=Impact of Rocket Launch and Space Debris Air Pollutant Emissions on Stratospheric Ozone and Global Climate |journal=Earth's Future |date=June 2022 |volume=10 |issue=6 |pages=e2021EF002612 |doi=10.1029/2021EF002612 |pmid=35865359 |pmc=9287058 |bibcode=2022EaFut..1002612R |language=en |issn=2328-4277}}</ref> |
|||
I agree that it should be on year 2022 article. [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.195|204.129.232.195]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.195|talk]]) 16:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:This would be better placed on [[2022 in science]], but I'd like to get other editors' opinions first <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with InvadingInvader on this [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 19:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] Any reasons why? -- [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.195|204.129.232.195]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.195|talk]]) 19:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::What I'm primarily concerned about is [[WP:DUE|undue weight]] given to space tourism. If the industry becomes mainstream in 10 years, I would not be opposed to inclusion, but space tourism here and now is too small. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
**Without mentioning who carried out the study, it's impossible to decide whether it was a reputable source and/or a particularly significant report. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 05:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> People seem to disagree with it being included here. Not done for now until consensus to either include or exclude it is presented. ― [[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> 17:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:It's nowhere near important enough for this article. It includes ''theoretical future'' & ''extrapolated''. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{ref-talk}} |
|||
== 2022 featured article requests (Result:) == |
|||
in my opinion, I feel like we should nominate the [[2022]] article for the feature articles, [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests|we should nominate]] the 2022 article for the 31st because that's the end of the year and it will serve as a retrospect of the year, it'd be pretty cool but I'm going to get a talk page consensus here first so no one will complain, any thoughts??????. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 02:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm not opposed <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 03:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I would agree with you, beside being a current year, it is also the most important years like previous ones. -- [[Special:Contributions/2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE|2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE]] ([[User talk:2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE|talk]]) 05:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE}} This comment makes absolutely no sense. It seems like you are trying to derail discussions on this page by making nonsensical interventions. Please stop that. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 05:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Deb|Deb]] I agree with you that the comment makes no sense. But, I think it might be a language-barrier issue a translation gone awry? Does this IP have other such comments that makes you think that they're trying to derail discussion? [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 17:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{u|FireInMe}} I'm concerned that, in recent days, we've had a number of IPs turning up on the talk pages to intervene in discussions without anything useful to say. I don't know what's behind it, but it's an unusual pattern of activity. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022&diff=1120752288&oldid=1120750239] (harmless in itself, but look at this IP's other contributions), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022&diff=1120606076&oldid=1120590597], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022&diff=1119594112&oldid=1119579836]. Some of these sound like the same person. It's not unusual for people to come to the Talk page to ask for the addition of items we might not agree with, but this type of random comment is making me suspicious. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 19:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::some of those IPS may look like sock puppets on one of the sock puppeteer like Niko the Biko or Counting Stars 500. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 19:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::@[[User:Deb|Deb]] Oh, I see. Yeah, I can see your point of view if a pattern is emerging. Thank You for the clarification. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 19:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{u|FireInMe}} And now appearing on other Talk pages: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021&diff=prev&oldid=1120787658] Coming from exactly the same part of the world. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 07:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm not sure if it's good enough for FA quite yet. ― [[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> 17:14, 8 November 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) |
|||
== Activision excluded (Result: no consensus either way in the first place; new discussion thread opened) == |
|||
::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) |
|||
I removed a domestic event [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&diff=1120669050&oldid=1120640740 here]. [[User:4me689]] immediately reinstated it, claiming that there was consensus to include. I checked the talk page and found no mention of it, so I removed it again. [[User:4me689]] reinstated it again, referring me to a nonexistent archive entry. I checked the archive and found that there had indeed been a discussion, in which he insisted it should be included and the only other participant said it should not. The discussion was then closed with the heading "Microsoft & Activision Blizzard (Result: inclusion)", which was clearly not the case. I would now be guilty of breaking the 3-revert rule were it not that this is vandalism by [[User:4me689]] and an apparent attempt to push his own preferences. This is only one of several discussions where he has misrepresented consensus. If I see this again, we will have to go to ANI. I should add that if someone can point me to a discussion where there ''was'' consensus to include this event, I will take back what I just said. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 09:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:::Do you disagree with my suggestion? [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 15:25, 31 October 2023 (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) |
|||
:@[[User:Deb|Deb]] But why do you think that Microsoft and Activision Blizzard are a domestic event? Are they an influence on internationals? Or do company mergers happen in one country or continent? -- [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.195|204.129.232.195]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.195|talk]]) 16:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{reply to|Carter00000}} I'm not sure this policy should apply here and I think you're being a bit too eager to revert. There were no objections to the collage and it seems like a delightful bold edit that only adds to the encyclopedia. This was not some controversial talk page discussion that ended without consensus. I think {{user link|Marginataen}}'s collage should have stayed. [[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]] ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]]) 00:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::The fact that this "event" is already listed in [[2022 in the United States]] is a pretty good clue. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 16:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
:I'm on the same page as @[[User:Deb|Deb]] and @[[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]]. Who decides to put the result down? Seems like it's closing down the discussion prematurely without further discussion. I think Deb is in her right to remove it unless proved otherwise. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 17:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Deb|Deb]] I found this: [[Talk:2022/Archive_1#Microsoft_&_Activision_Blizzard_(Result:_inclusion)]]. This was from March, but I'd be willing to re-discuss Activision's inclusion <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::After further examination, it looks like to me that Deb is in the right. Consensus was never established, and closure was "reached" by assumption by 4me689, who added "Result" tags to all discussions. I'm confident that most of us are aware you shouldn't close discussions you're involved in. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]] Are "Result tags" allowed on Wikipedia? I never see them except for this talk page. To me it seems like it shuts down discussion. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 19:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm personally unsure...it's seemed like that consensus so far has allowed for them but I personally don't think that they contribute too much either. I'm opening to ending the practice. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with invading invader, I'm also willing to re-discuss this. sorry for me reverting a lot, when I initially reverted it I did it by the previous March discussion. I'm also sorry for closing discussion early, we need to talk about this event now. in the meantime I'll be happy to revert any re-adding of the Microsoft and Activision event. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 18:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Have no issue with the practice of adding a “Result” tag in and of itself, at the end of a discussion - though in this specific case it really should have said “no consensus/inconclusive”. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 20:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::When and How can we determine a result has been reached? And if a result has been reached can nobody contribute to discussions? Days, Weeks, Months, Years, Decades, even Centuries can pass and users can't contribute towards greater consensus? That's what concerns me. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 21:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don’t think there’s necessarily a set time and I wouldn’t necessarily overthink it (especially in cases where the outcome is a foregone conclusion as per [[WP:SNOW]]), but if there’s enough demand and the decision on a particular event or figure is controversial, you can always re-open it if the consensus against it isn’t overwhelming. I think in this case, it would be appropriate to reopen and start a new discussion on whether or not the Activision event should be included. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 21:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I completely agree with you that it's appropriate to reopen and start a new discussions such as in regards to Activision. It's just when I think of the word "result" I think of set in stone no changes can happen once there's a result. So, what if someone makes an edit on the 2022 page on pick a day, say August 20, 2038 but the consensus during 2022 says X should be excluded or included. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 21:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Funnily enough, although most of the time they don’t necessarily add the “Result” on the title of the discussion, I have over the years come across various Wiki talk pages where what you describe actually does apply. I think in such cases, it’s perfectly valid to restart discussions after some years (well, the amount of time really also depends on the strength of said consensus) and seek change if you feel your case for it has sufficient merit and would be supported (so long as there’s no [[WP:CANVASSING]] involved). [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 21:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*The practice of adding a “Result” tag before the discussion has concluded is certainly unusual and for the editor who began the discussion to pre-judge the result is definitely bad practice. There are proper ways of closing a discussion and these haven't been followed in the case of any of these collage discussions. By all means open a new discussion, but it should be made clear that it has re-started by creating a new section header. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 09:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Collage depreciation == |
|||
== [[Microsoft]]’s acquisition of [[Activision Blizzard]] (Result:) == |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
There was briefly a discussion about this event months ago that proved inconclusive, as per above. So consider this a revival of the discussion, with the central question being do you think Microsoft’s acquisition of [[Activision Blizzard]] has sufficient international notability/significance for inclusion here, or is it a primarily domestic event? [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 21:40, 8 November 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) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
:'''Borderline include'''. Yes, they're both American companies, but their influence is of a worldwide importance within the gaming industry. Assuming this deal is completed, this deal will put Microsoft and their franchises in a position where they can better compete against Tencent specifically. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 02:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Borderline include''' both companies have massive global reach and I believe it is one of the largest videogame acquisitions [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 13:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' because it's a domestic event due to both companies being American. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::If two American companies have major international impacts on an industry, it should be listed as an international event. It's domestic in technicalities only, and this view ignores effect in favor of solely looking at identity. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 06:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::What major international impacts has this acquisition caused? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' - Obviously a domestic event, and the fact that there's money involved isn't relevant. Incidentally, when [[User:InvadingInvader]] expanded this event (introduced into the Year article by the well-meaning [[User:The Optimistic One]]), they may not have realised that you are not really supposed to copy text word-for-word from another article ([[2022 in the United States]]) and you are supposed to mention this in the edit summary as well - see [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia]]. A strange rule, I know, but there it is; you'll know next time. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 15:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' with the possibility of a future '''Inclusion'''. It's really a wait and see of how impactful the acquisition is. So, while I'm not downright opposed, I do think it should be placed on the back burner for the time being. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 03:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I can agree with this take, yeah. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 07:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include'''. For the reasons I gave previously. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 08:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Change to DMY date format == |
||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
Does [[Aaron Carter]] have sufficient international notability to be included? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 04:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
All articles about generic years should use the much more global DMY date format. It does not make sense to make a separate discussion about this on every single year page.--[[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''', he didn't really have any famous songs [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 05:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 06:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' due to his lack of international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I would have to say '''Include''' because I have heard of him many, many times and always wondered why he seemed to be considered so important to younger people. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 15:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::how do you even say include for Aaron Carter if he never had a hit song, if we were to include Aaron Carter then we would have to include takeoff or [[Leslie Jordan]] [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree that Carter & Takeoff have a similarly small amount of international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::While I don't exactly disagree with this, many of your arguments are carbon copies of [[WP:AON|WP:All or nothing]], which is an argument one should avoid in discussions. All or Nothing arguments also assume that case-by-case decisions are something that should rarely be used, which is inherently incorrect because nearly every situation has unique circumstances which are likely good for comparison in quality but not on inclusion/exclusion. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 04:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with Deb, I think we should '''include''' given his notability along with what InvadingInvader mentioned below as well. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 16:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Personally I never heard of him until he died. No strong feelings towards inclusion or exclusion. I might know some of his songs if I heard it. Sometimes I know songs without knowing the singer by name. Open to any arguments one way or the other. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 03:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The one song he's done that most people have heard of is his 2000 cover of [[I Want Candy]]. He's also generally well known amongst people who were teenagers or tweens during the early to mid 2000s because of his generally high-profile relationships with Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan. Carter is a figure where it would not be a bad assumption to make that most people of the time would have known, and both [https://www.google.com/search?q=was+aaron+carter+popular+in+britain&client=safari&biw=1298&bih=799&ei=GoFsY9m7FbGq0PEPi96u0Ag&ved=0ahUKEwjZsNGn5qL7AhUxFTQIHQuvC4o4FBDh1QMIDw&uact=5&oq=was+aaron+carter+popular+in+britain a Google search for "Was Aaron Carter popular in Britain] combined with [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Aaron%20carter this Google Trends data] shows that not only he was extremely popular in the United States and Canada but also had substantial popularity in the rest of the main Anglosphere countries and Germany, as well as notable attention (especially his death) in all of the Western World (especially the European Union), many South American countries, India, the Philippines and Japan. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 04:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Carter merely had fans in many countries, which is the reason for the international media coverage. That's true of thousands of people. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's proof that he's had an impact across the world. By far and away he isn't the most notable, but given that he's had fans all over the world, that would suffice for international notability, albeit not to an extent as Lansbury or Meat Loaf. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::He isn't even known in all countries, let alone had an impact on all of them. He, like thousands of celebs, has fans in many countries. That's not substantial international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Someone re-added Carter in the 1987 article and removed him. Should he also be excluded from the 1987 article too? [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 00:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::If they're not important enough to be in Deaths, they're not important enough to be in Births. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 01:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:For anyone else reading, Marginataen started a discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Change to the DMY date format]] about this issue. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Ales Bialiatski]]'s Nobel flag (Result: done)== |
|||
The |
::The main discussion is ongoing at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date format for year articles|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date format for year article]] [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 21:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
:{{done}} [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|The Voivodeship King}}, thank you for noticing the mistake, I didn't notice until right before I went to bed but I didn't know the flag icon code for the belarusian flag. |
|||
:(also you mind go and reply at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey]]) [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 14:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Date format == |
|||
== Too many people with importance inline tags (Result:) == |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
There has been too many people with important inline tags in November deaths section here are all of them |
|||
would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest. |
|||
On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Ela Bhatt]], Indian social activist and chancellor |
|||
*[[Gal Costa]], Brazilian singer |
|||
*[[Kevin Conroy]], American voice actor |
|||
*[[Gallagher (comedian)|Gallagher]], American comedian |
|||
: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) |
|||
We need opinions on these people any thoughts??? [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm pasting the same reply at all the 2020s talk page sections on this topic, with the exception of 2023. As of about a month ago, we had a situation in which all generic year articles had a consistent date format. Since both date styles are considered appropriate per the Manual of Style, it's unusual to see such solid consistency. Since I value consistency, I appreciated that rare situation. |
|||
:*[[Ela Bhatt]]: '''Borderline'''. I really don't know if which way it'll tilt. |
|||
: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. |
|||
:*[[Gal Costa]]: '''Borderline Inclusion'''. Notable in the Latin music world, which spans multiple countries. |
|||
: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) |
|||
:*[[Kevin Conroy]]: '''Inclusion''', awarded voice actor and well known on every inhabitable continent. |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
:*[[Gallagher (comedian)|Gallagher]]: Unsure, the reason I say that is because of unsourced part on his article which states: "Gallagher's 13 TV comedy specials is second most all-time, behind only [[George Carlin]]", if confirmed by a reputable source then Gallagher will be a clear inclusion as George Carlin ranks highly on comedians and if Gallager's specials are second to Carlin then he is in the top also. |
|||
:[[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 21:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''' Costa, '''Exclude''' Conroy, '''Neutral''' on the other two. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 22:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] Yeah, I got to agree with you in regards to Costa. Looking into her a little more I'll shift my stance from Borderline Inclusion to clear Inclusion. I do however disagree with you on Conroy he should be included. I would like to see others thoughts. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 22:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Firm disagree with Conroy; he had scant international notability, won no major international acting awards, and his name would not be recognised outside of hardcore fans of his work. Nowhere near say, [[Mel Blanc]] levels of notability. Belongs in [[2022 deaths in the United States]]. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I wouldn't say scant as a Trend search stretching back nearly two decades (2004-present) lights up multiple countries in regards to Conroy. But, I could agree with that it's not sufficient enough and switch my stance from Inclusion to '''Borderline Exclusion'''. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 23:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude all''' - Only Bhatt has significant international notability, and I don't think that's sufficient. |
|||
:I agree that Conroy's notability is domestic & well below that of Blanc. |
|||
:Costa's article doesn't indicate that she was successful in any country other than Brazil. |
|||
:Doing the second-most of something doesn't indicate any international notability; Gallagher is nowhere near as notable as Carlin. |
|||
:We shouldn't become led by pop culture & fans. Thousands of entertainers have fans in multiple countries & the media coverage they receive is because of that. If we were to include people & events on that basis, we'd include [[James Michael Tyler]] for being in most eps of one of the world's most popular & successful sitcoms of all time. People don't gain the notability of all the works they've been involved with. The pop culture & fan route would also lead to us including a large number of socialites & reality show participants (such as [[Jade Goody]], for appearing in reality shows in two countries), actors who've appeared in notable works in multiple countries (such as [[Rachel Blanchard]] & [[Ed Westwick]]), celebrity weddings & high-profile murders such as those of [[Sarah Everard]] & [[Gabby Petito]]. Fans of entertainers - including [[Bob Saget]], [[Louie Anderson]], [[Gilbert Gottfried]], [[Technoblade]], [[Marsha Hunt (actress, born 1917)|Marsha Hunt]], [[Robbie Coltrane]] & [[Leslie Jordan]] - have been very persistent in repeatedly adding them to this article. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Let's focus on [[Gal Costa]] both TheScrubby and I see notability in her, but you say differently. There's too many opposing takes on the same person. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 22:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::We need to go by the WP articles of each person. Costa's doesn't indicate significant international notability. If she performed, won awards, charted etc. in other countries, that should be stated. Brazil is the only country in the Americas which has Portuguese as its main language. In order to be popular in other countries in the Americas, she'd have had to sing in Spanish, but her article doesn't even say if she spoke Spanish. If she sung at concerts, charted or won awards outside Brazil, that should be stated in her article. It's no good for someone on here to - for example - claim that 5% of people in Argentina & 2% in Chile thought she was great. The article would need something like: ''she frequently performed in concerts at large venues in [[Bogotá]], [[Caracas]] & [[Lima]], at which she sung in Spanish''. Compare to [[Shakira]]'s article, which makes clear her great international notability & the fact that she often performs in both Spanish & English. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 23:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::"She recorded four more albums in the '70s. In the '80s, she gained international exposure, touring through Japan, France, Israel, Argentina, the U.S., Portugal, Italy, and others." Source: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/gal-costa-mn0000191699/biography [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 12:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::And she was scheduled to play in London, England on April 22, 2023: https://www.songkick.com/concerts/40521133-gal-costa-at-union-chapel [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 12:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Is [[AllMusic]] a RS? If so, that info should be added to her article. The Career section of it says she recorded songs in Portuguese, Spanish & English, but there's no ref to back that. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::AllMusic is not a source for establishing notability, but it's good as a source for information with other sources. It's not the best source, though. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 01:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Exclude all. Internationally notable, but not enough to meet our threshold compared to our other entries. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 01:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::If she sang to large crowds at concerts in several countries, that'd make her internationally notable enough - but her article doesn't say she did. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Zero images? == |
|||
Why are there ZERO images on this article? 2022 was a notable year, infamously so, and photos should be included here to illustrate certain events. |
|||
sign your name and put '''yes''', '''no''', or '''neutral''' on all the people listed below, also know that the James foebertin responses are not my responses\and not my opinions they're only there for examples [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
@[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] since when is a consensus needed to insert images in an article? Did I miss a new rule? Why was my edit reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&diff=prev&oldid=1189956664]? Which of these removed images are "controversial", and for what reason?--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:pinging everyone from the other discussion {{ping|FireInMe}} {{ping|Jim Michael 2}} {{ping|TheScrubby}} to come down to this discussion [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::When all averaged out I'm '''Neutral''' on all four. In regards to Gal Costa I'll let Jim Michael and TheScrubby debate it out. But obviously someone else will need to intervene to reach some agreement. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 23:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Recently, a [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Collage_Discussions|discussion]] and [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#RfC:_Removal_of_image_collages|RFC]] on the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years|WikiProject]] found near unanimous consensus to deprecate the use of image collages and the general inclusion of images. This centered on the arbitrary selection of images, which editors characterized as [[WP:OR]] & [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 18:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
==== [[Ela Bhatt]] ==== |
|||
::@[[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) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - more international notability than the other 3, but not enough. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 23:26, 12 November 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''' - per lack of international notability. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 05:57, 13 November 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. |
|||
:::I also remind you that [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion|the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content]]. You have added content which has been disputed and reverted, so you should be seeking the necessary consensus to restore the content. [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::You need to provide exact citation for your claim. I could only find that the theme relevant for this discussion were '''collages''', not images [[per se]]. You are also confusing Wikimedia Commons images with external sources, since the former have nothing to do with [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. An image on Wikimedia is an image, not a source. Now, let's go through all these images I initially included and let's hear from you what is disputed in each and every one of them? --[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
=== |
===Discussion for inclusion of images=== |
||
I hereby nominate the following images for inclusion in the article; |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - little evidence in her article that she has significant international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 23:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:2022 Kazakhstan protests — Aqtobe, January 4 (01) (cropped).jpg |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - lack of international notability. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 05:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Движение колонны бронетехники ВС РФ 007.png |
|||
*File:Antonov_Airport_after_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_and_Mriya_(3to4).jpg| |
|||
*File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - ua.svg |
|||
*File:Warsaw Central Station during Ukrainian refugee crisis 05.jpg |
|||
*File:Bucha. Faces of War. - Ukraine War Photo Exhibition 2023 (52702841629).jpg |
|||
*File:Russian bombing of Mariupol.jpg |
|||
*File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg |
|||
*File:08.03 總統與美國聯邦眾議院議長裴洛西媒體互動會 (52259967861).jpg |
|||
Sincerely, --[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
==== [[Kevin Conroy]] ==== |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - notable only in the US. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 23:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' for reasons I already stated above. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - lack of international notability. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 05:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - as per above [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:32, 14 November 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) |
|||
==== [[Gallagher (comedian)|Gallagher]] ==== |
|||
::@[[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) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - notable only in the US. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 23:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::That is not a valid reason to oppose, it could be used to justify the removal of any image in any article. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' per above. I thought [[Pedro Reyes (comedian)|he had passed away some years ago]]... [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 19:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Proposal''' - I've proposed a suggested course of action [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Proposal_on_the_Selection_of_Collages_Images_for_In-Line_Images|here]]. Please add your thoughts or comments on the proposal. [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 17:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' per the above. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 18:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] I have to repeat it for the second time, we are not discussing '''collage''' images on this talk page. We are discussing what is preventing users from including ordinary, any images on this article.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support there is nothing wrong with using regular images, they add to illustration and a summary of major events that happened a certain year/decade/century.''' [[User:Indiana6724|Indiana6724]] ([[User talk:Indiana6724|talk]]) 01:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
== [[Nobel Prize]]s section (Result:) == |
|||
:Considering that a whole month has passed, that other users gave their opinion confirming my thoughts, and that no user gave any support to @[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]]'s arbitrary proposal of "no images policy" (for which no reasonable arguments were presented), I think we can conclude that images can freely be added to the articles about years, provided they are not collages.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
How much detail should be included? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 13:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree that the consensus is that images may be included on the page. However, I believe that there should still be a discussion on which images should be included. I suggest we use a [[Talk:2023#2023_Collage_Full_Discussion|similar system]] as used on the page [[2023]]. While the discussion is related to collages, we are essentially still selecting images which are representative of the year. |
|||
::I'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”? == |
|||
:I like what it is right now I would argue that the 2022 article has been looking more better than ever before. I don't think we need images on the Nobel section, I was stupid to add images on the Nobel Peace Prize section. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 15:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
It was an event that garnered months of media attention, international condemnation, and led to the [[Bipartisan Safer Communities Act|first gun law in the United States in 28 years]]. It was also featured on the front page. (Link:https://web.archive.org/web/20220525121908/https:/en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) [[User:MountainDew20|MountainDew20]] ([[User talk:MountainDew20|talk]]) 00:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The Nobel Prize section should be ''deleted'' from all 'Year in...' pages. PS - We already have an article with a list of all the Nobel Prize winners. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::you know, {{ping|GoodDay}}, what I'm willing to agree with you on, is deleting the Nobel Peace Prize section (even though we disagree on a lot of things) here at least this time we found common ground, though I'm going to warn you you're going to be in a very small minority, cuz when I initially went to this talk page to talk about deleting the Nobel Peace Prize section, everyone but me and Jim Michael, wanted to keep it, even Deb who would normally agree with you wanted to keep the section. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 22:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::<small>"...Nobel Peace Prize section been in every main year article for the last 100 years"? That's impossible, as Wikipedia has been around for only 21 years. I'm also confident that there wasn't even any internet in 1922. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC) </small> |
|||
:::::you know what I'll just remove that [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 23:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I believe at the moment, you should be concentrating on something else. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Looks fine right now. Doesn't seem to damage the article. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Furthermore, we <u>should not</u> be having these ''mini-votes'' on what to include or exclude in Year pages. Such decisions should be made in an RFC, preferably at [[WP:YEARS]]. -- [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::A discussion on WP:YEARS should be linked from here so that it this article's regulars know about it. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::It's absolutely 100% fine as it is now and should '''not''' be deleted. These are some of humanity's greatest and most notable achievements in their respective fields, and deserve a mention. We had this discussion before anyway. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 07:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::That mention should be in the form of a single entry in Events. A separate section is unwarranted. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think its worth keeping. The Nobel prizes map humanity's advancement. Finding X-Rays, radioactivity, understanding atoms better, forming the Red Cross and many other Nobel-winning feats are very much notable and winning one of these awards is a testament to it. It concisely recognises the most important inventions, discoveries, peace missions and writings of the year. Personally, I'd be willing to disregard the Nobel in Literature due to many other writing awards and milestones being measurable but we can't include all Nobel Prizes bar one. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 23:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No-one's disputing their importance, but why should they have their own section? Doing that is strong implying that they're by far the most important event of each year. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Collage edit war — Proposal in progress == |
|||
== [[FTX (company)|FTX]] collapse (Result:) == |
|||
@[[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] removed my entry on the crash of FTX, claiming that this has more to do with Antigua+Barbuda and the Bahamas instead of internationally. I vehemently disagree with this prospect; FTX may technically be headquartered in one of those Caribbean nations, but FTX's collapse sufficiently fulfills our international criteria given that it is (or was) one of the most widely trusted cryptocurrency firms/exchanges, FTX's influence within major financial capitals (as well as in the United States government and culture), FTX filing for bankruptcy in the United States instead of the Bahamas or Antigua+Barbuda, and FTX's truly international presence in nearly every place where crypto is legal or not dependent on regulation. Given that the collapse has also sent Bitcoin and Ethereum prices on a wild ride, and additionally taking into consideration how cryptocurrencies are more comparable to internationally-traded commodities rather than domestic stocks, as well as much of the media comparing FTX's collapse to being a "[[Lehman Brothers]]" or "[[Enron scandal|Enron]]" moment (see [https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/11/investing/ftx-crypto-consequences-lehman CNN], [https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/crypto-lehman-brothers-sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-markets-2008-2022-11 Business Insider], and [https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=FTX+lehman&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 the India Times] along with many others I can't fit in), this should more than suffice as an international event. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:It's nowhere near as big as Lehman or Enron. International businesses fail frequently; it's rarely important enough for main year articles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The future of Bitcoin and Ethereum in the world economy is hazy, but if this collapse is part of a larger chain of events that affects the world more greatly, such as cryptocurrency returning tot obscurity, it would without a doubt be notable for inclusion. I think it merits '''inclusion''' for the time being, but it would be worthwhile to discuss this in a few months to see if it affected anything in the long term. If not, I'd be leaning towards exclusion if it was a singular event. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 23:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::It'd be [[WP:CRYSTAL]] to assume it'll be part of a [[domino effect]]. Even then, it's not usual for main year articles to include steps of a business type's decline. We don't include various companies that failed due to the [[Great Recession]] or the [[COVID-19 pandemic]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 23:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would agree...the article [[Cryptocurrency bubble]] lists it as an event contributing to the "bursting" of the bubble. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Main year articles don't include every contributory event to a bubble bursting. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 23:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree that not every contributory event deserves inclusion, but this is a key event both on its own ''and'' if the bubble does burst. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 00:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::In what respect is it a key event on its own? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 00:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The collapse disrupted the cryptocurrency market heavily impacted Bitcoin prices, which increased by 20% in the immediate aftermath (see [https://bitcoinmagazine.com/markets/ftx-collapse-cause-huge-bitcoin-price-spike here]) but later collapsed as seen by [https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2022/11/13/stay-away-binance-ceo-issues-serious-warning-over-another-crypto-exchange-after-ftx-collapse-crashed-the-price-of-bitcoin-and-ethereum/?sh=5d86b79d793a Forbes]. Bitcoin has now wiped away all of its COVID-era gains and erasing $200 billion from many cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin and Ethereum. |
|||
:::::::[https://www.wired.com/story/the-fallout-of-the-ftx-collapse/ WIRED magazine] highlights that many cryptocurrency traders lost much of their fortune upon the collapse of FTX, with some traders across the world (such as the lead example provided by WIRED) losing 97% of his assets; [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-10/ftx-collapse-users-locked-out-of-accounts-and-worried-funds-are-gone Bloomberg] has also highlighted that many across the world have seen their assets locked out of. As seen in [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/14/failure-of-ftx-crypto-exchange-will-have-huge-implications-mps-hear The Guardian], members of the British Parliament were briefed that many institutional investors had lost millions due to the collapse. In the US, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is joining increasing calls to regulate cryptocurrency (see [https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/11/14/ftx-collapse-exposed-weaknesses-in-crypto-janet-yellen-says-report/ Coindesk]). [https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/11/14/ftxs-failure-is-sparking-a-massive-regulatory-response/ Coindesk] further notes that the collapse of FTX is sparking talk of regulation not just in the US and the UK but in the Bahamas as well. And philanthropists and scientists relying on FTX, especially those working on climate change, [https://www.science.org/content/article/crypto-company-s-collapse-strands-scientists lost their funding as well]. Not too much in the cryptocurrency world gets ''this'' international. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 00:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Major international losses to both individuals & orgs are commonplace. That doesn't make them important international events. It's long been well-known that cryptocurrency prices are very volatile. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::When an entire global industry been dragged down, though, and various significant losses to firms and individuals from Canada to Cambodia all centralize from one event or series of events, it might not justify the inclusion of all those events, but inclusion of the most inciting incident here shouldn't be hampered. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Did many major international companies have most of their assets in cryptocurrencies, causing them to go bankrupt as a result of the fall in the prices of them? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 22:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Broadly construed, as cited in the list of sources in my previous comment, many major and minor firms listed had a large part of their assets, either a majority, minority, or plurality, in at least part cryptocurrency. Also consider, as previously mentioned, many individuals had a large part of their net worth (in some cases, up to 97% of their assets), in cryptocurrencies traded on FTX. They were all locked out of their assets. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''', this is by far one of the biggest events to happen in the crypto world. FTX's bankruptcy along with the subsequent hack that was reported yesterday has dragged down the entire cryptocurrency market significantly. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 13:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::How can cryptocurrencies be of great importance to the world? We don't include major changes in the values of important currencies in main year articles, so why include this? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Cryptocurrency is volatile, but it's still something that a lot of people around the world from all countries are involved in and even more follow. Inclusion should be a no-brainer. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's also true of the value of many currencies, as well as oil, gold, etc. We don't include major changes in the prices of those, or the effects those price changes cause. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 22:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::False...we have the OPEC production cut in October listed. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::That entry only mentions a production cut, not a change in price. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 22:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The production cut caused a change in prices. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 05:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Yes, but that isn't mentioned in this article. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Because it's a logical assumption one can make and an instance of WP:BLUE. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Many readers wouldn't know that. If editors thought it important they'd have added the percentage or number of dollars the price moved by to that entry. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::That's beyond the point. We're not the Simple English Wikipedia where everything needs to be explained to an incredibly specific amount of detail. We as a wiki can reasonably assume people know basic economics. Both OPEC's October cut and FTX's collapse are major events in some of the most internationally-followed industries. We've done this before; as of writing this comment, [[2008]]'s first collage image is the Lehman Brothers HQ in NYC right after their collapse, the [[Dot-com bubble]] is featured twice on [[2000]], the [[sub-prime mortgage crisis]] is prominently featured in [[2007]], [[2020]] prominently features a Russo-Saudi oil price war, and too many more examples to fit into this reply. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 20:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Simple WP has much less detail than here. Its main year articles are long only because they lack year by country & topic subarticles. |
|||
::::::::::::You're sure that the collapse of this company - which the large majority of people haven't heard of - is as important as each of those events? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 21:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::I am sure, and based on the amount of naming rights FTX itself has acquired and the international coverage it has attained, it more than meets our thresholds for inclusion. According to the sources compiled in the articles [[FTX financial crisis]] and [[FTX (company)]], the collapse of FTX is rippling across the industry. [[BlockFi]], a major cryptocurrency lending firm, is widely believed by many RS's to file for bankruptcy (see [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-16/blockfi-said-to-plan-imminent-bankruptcy-filing-amid-ftx-fallout?leadSource=uverify%20wall Bloomberg] and [https://www.wsj.com/articles/blockfi-prepares-for-potential-bankruptcy-as-crypto-contagion-spreads-11668534824 the WSJ]), and BlockFi is only one example; multiple other firms have either declared bankruptcy or taken huge financial losses. Don't forget all those previously-mentioned people who were locked out of 97% of their assets. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::Your argument relies heavily on cryptocurrency being of great importance - to a similar level as mortgages. The industry we're talking about is high-risk trading/betting in pseudocurrencies. Likewise in regard to Activision Blizzard - its importance relies on video games being of great importance. We don't include large changes in the values of currencies, commodities or shares in major companies. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 22:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::FTX isn't a large change of value in currencies, commodities, or shares in a major company. FTX is a bankruptcy. And we do include momentous bankruptcies; see Lehman in [[2008]] and Enron in [[2001]]. In 2010, a banking collapse in Iceland also occurred and is listed on [[2010]]. The argument above more so describes your personal opinion on cryptocurrencies, and while I'm not a fan of crypto either, I don't deny their notability. |
|||
:::::::::::::::Side note: your point focusing on Activison is false; in 2000, we have the Time Warner AOL merger/acquisition. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::The vast majority of businesses and individuals don't accept cryptocurrencies as payment because they're not proper currencies. Main year articles don't include the vast majority of bankruptcies & this one isn't as important as the others you mention. They don't include the vast majority of mergers, acquisitions etc. either. There should be a subarticle such as [[2022 in business]], [[2022 in economics]] or [[2022 in finance]] which would include things such as these. There are many things on main year articles which are nowhere near important enough to be on them, because many people add those things & there are nowhere near enough regular editors removing them. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::Your claim about this not being important is, yet again, FALSE. Where are your sources for proving that this isn't important? I just met with a hedge fund manager and former BlackRock employee last night, and he stated that even BlackRock itself was exposed to the collapse of FTX. Personal experience isn't the only damning evidence for this case either; the [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/technology/ftx-investors-venture-capital.html NYT lists BlackRock as an investor into FTX which took a loss], along with many other major investment firms. It's also proven that FTX is the biggest financial story of the year which doesn't focus on inflation or governments; see [https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-trends/article/3199942/singapores-state-owned-temasek-writes-down-entire-us275-million-investment-ftx-fallout-collapsed SCMP], [https://www.ft.com/content/b1d7ee93-8f4d-4050-98f3-84958267864a the Financial Times], and as of 10:51 Eastern, [https://economist.com the front page of the Economist]. And that point about being not proper currencies...they're still internationally-traded commodities, and pretty much every major world country except China uses them to an extent. If you think a sub article should be created, why not [[WP:DIY]]? I'll help you out on it if you want. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::The burden of demonstrating importance is on those who want to include disputed content. Many companies bet on changes in prices of crypto, as they do many other things. Likewise, they invest & trade in many companies. Being the year's most important non-government, non-inflation finance event doesn't make it important enough for a main year article. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::I think I've done enough when it comes to demonstrating importance based on the sheer amount of lasting coverage demonstrated from a wide variety of sources as seen above, and keep in mind that as of writing this, you're the only one actively resisting inclusion (and based on such, exclusion potentially can fall under WP:SNOWBALL. And "Being the year's most important non-government, non-inflation finance event doesn't make it important enough for a main year article" isn't a good argument when concerning a major industry which has a significant enough impact on the world economy. I've demonstrated before that a wide scope of people from Filipino individuals to American mega firms have been impacted in some fashion. What more do you want? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 00:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::Thousands of events are important to something. Bankruptcies, major losses etc. are commonplace. Crypto has been notoriously volatile for the whole of its existence. The vast majority of this discussion has been between you & me. The fact that most of the regular editors here haven't joined this discussion, nor have any non-regulars, shows a lack of interest in it. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 09:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::::It's still 3 to 1 in favor of inclusion regardless, at least as of writing, and lack of opinion or interest is better interpreted as neutrality or lack of preference on whether it's in rather than opposition. In principle, I agree that most bankruptcies when it's just a bankruptcy should be excluded. This isn't one of the cases, though, and this is an instance where a mentality of absolutism based solely on the labels of the events fail to show the true extent to what it has caused. Crypto and its volatility shouldn't be downplayed; this is a major event in an international industry which is already causing some to predict that Coinbase, another major firm, will collapse as well (see [https://www.barrons.com/articles/coinbase-stock-price-crypto-bitcoin-ftx-51669040313 Barrons] and [https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/21/coinbase-shares-drop-as-bitcoin-slides-ftx-related-concerns-mount.html CNBC]). You're losing the debate. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - I don't think most people will have any idea what this is about, or care. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 18:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - Outside of U.S. I don't think this is really that significant news, outside of crypto community. I mean, I don't think people around me know about the collapse in Indonesia. [[User:MarioJump83|MarioJump83]] ([[User talk:MarioJump83|talk]]) 02:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::As with many other events & people, someone who has an interest in it argues for its inclusion, not accepting that it doesn't affect the large majority of people. Most people don't know about it, and even if they did they wouldn't be interested. Major increases in inflation & interest rates each affect a high proportion of people, yet we rarely include those in main year articles. The people & orgs affected by this company's collapse are those who choose to trade a very high-risk, very high-volatility instrument that has little legitimacy. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:09, 29 November 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]]. |
|||
== [[Moldova]] strike (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
There's an importance tag on Russian strike of Moldova. Should this strike be included? [[User:MarioJump83|MarioJump83]] ([[User talk:MarioJump83|talk]]) 13:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:<s>'''Include''' - Personally, I would include this since this is the very first time Russia struck a village outside of Ukraine, which is quite an escalation of the war. [[User:MarioJump83|MarioJump83]] ([[User talk:MarioJump83|talk]]) 13:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)</s> |
|||
:'''Exclude''' because it doesn't have an article & appears to have been a one-off which was accidental. There was no response to it. It's far less notable than the [[2022 missile explosion in Poland]], which also shouldn't be included due to it being unintentional & there being a lack of a physical response. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' as per Jim Michael. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 18:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' as per Jim Michael and TheScrubby. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 00:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Wait'''. If nothing changes, exclude. But if this is one of the inciting incidents for a future conflict or escalation between Russia and Moldova/Transnistria/whatever, keep it or add it back in. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 01:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I realize that this is may not hold much significance until Russia really escalates the conflict outside Ukraine. [[User:MarioJump83|MarioJump83]] ([[User talk:MarioJump83|talk]]) 02:10, 29 November 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) |
|||
== [[Irene Cara]] (Result:) == |
|||
:{{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) |
|||
is [[Irene Cara]] notable enough for inclusion, |
|||
::{{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) |
|||
Cara sang and co-wrote the song "[[Flashdance... What a Feeling]]" (from the film [[Flashdance]]), for which she won an Academy Award for Best Original Song and a Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance. |
|||
:::{{u|WeatherWriter}} Where exactly is the '''collage''' debate on this talk page?--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== The collage - why not restore? == |
|||
I'll wait for other replies before I put my opinion down, also please put a good detailed response and not something like insufficient International nobility [[2022 in the United States]]. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 03:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Not sure. Probably exclude because I don’t think I have ever heard of her until now. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 03:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:So far as the Oscars go, automatic inclusion has only ever gone to those who are recipients of the Best Director and Best Actor (or Supporting)/Actress awards. Winning an Oscar for Best Original Song has never been a prerequisite for inclusion for musicians, nor should it be. The Grammys too are overwhelmingly Americentric to be considered a major factor for international notability, as has been discussed here before. As for Cara, I would say '''exclude''' due to insufficient international notability, her primary source of notability being for her role in [[Fame (1980 film)|Fame]] and for the aforementioned Flashdance song. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 09:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''' because although all her awards are American, two of her songs reached number 1 in the national charts in a few countries each. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''' as she had notable success in the eighties and a handful of international number one songs. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 13:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Never heard of her, but it does seem like that she is notable enough for inclusion based on other people's comments so far. I'll say '''neutral''' for now as I would like to wait for more, but I would support inclusion later if no one has any further major objection. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::She was very well-known in the 80s, but international notability rather than number of fans is what we go by. Soloists who've had number one singles (or albums for that matter) in multiple countries' main charts should be automatically included. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Not saying this applies to Cara at all, but surely this doesn’t include one-hit wonders who had one major hit that went number one in multiple countries internationally? [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 23:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree that they wouldn't usually be notable enough. It's difficult to measure the notability of entertainers. Two major international solo hit singles or one album should be enough. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 00:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree with Jim Michael. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''', Cara has a couple of number 1 hits that went number 1 in not only the us, but also in a couple of other countries outside of the us as well, she is also generally well-known outside of the us as well. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:07, 29 November 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) |
|||
== [[2022 missile explosion in Poland]] (Result:) == |
|||
This has its own article, but the other arguments for excluding the similar incident in [[Naslavcea]], Moldova also applies to this. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''': The fact Poland is a member state of NATO is the difference maker for me and makes the incident a significant close call for any escalation of this conflict. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 14:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::But there was no physical response to what appears to have been an accidental one-off. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:39, 29 November 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) |
|||
== importance inline tags on sports people in November (Result:) == |
|||
: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) |
|||
::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? == |
|||
there are a lot of people with in importance inline tag in the November section of the death section, this section is about the sports people in said section here are all the sports people |
|||
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) |
|||
*[[Aleksandr Gorshkov (figure skater)|Aleksandr Gorshkov]], Russian figure skater and Olympic champion |
|||
*[[Börje Salming]], Swedish ice hockey player |
|||
*[[Fernando Gomes (Portuguese footballer)|Fernando Gomes]], Portuguese footballer |
|||
*[[Doddie Weir]], Scottish rugby union player |
|||
*[[Gábor Csapó]], Hungarian water polo player and Olympic champion |
|||
:I am very confused. UVALDE is on the list now but it still says 'Dont add Uvalde'. Very confusing for editors. [[User:CalfRaiser150|CalfRaiser150]] ([[User talk:CalfRaiser150|talk]]) 13:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:30, 25 April 2024
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shinzo Abe & Jiang Zemin
Should Shinzo Abe and Jiang Zemin be included in the lead?
I noticed that their deaths were recently removed [1] from the lead, but they seem to be of comparable notability to those already included in the paragraph. Carter00000 (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you can find a source that establishes their deaths as a significant event of 2022 (as opposed to merely having occurred in 2022), then IMHO yes. “Year in review” sources would be ideal. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- You missed the point. I removed the ones that were unsourced. In my opinion, the whole paragraph should go, as it's completely subjective. Deb (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Collage
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
I would like to create consensus – not exclusively on this place but on all articles on calendar years – to change using the multiple image template to make collages. Specifically for this page, I would like to suggest the current picture of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to be replaced by the one below of Zelensky. One of the great things about the template system btw is that one does not need to create a whole new collage just to change one picture.
--Marginataen (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Collage depreciation
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
Change to DMY date format
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
All articles about generic years should use the much more global DMY date format. It does not make sense to make a separate discussion about this on every single year page.--Marginataen (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Date format
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest. On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s Marginataen (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Zero images?
Why are there ZERO images on this article? 2022 was a notable year, infamously so, and photos should be included here to illustrate certain events.
@33ABGirl since when is a consensus needed to insert images in an article? Did I miss a new rule? Why was my edit reverted [2]? Which of these removed images are "controversial", and for what reason?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Recently, a discussion and RFC on the WikiProject found near unanimous consensus to deprecate the use of image collages and the general inclusion of images. This centered on the arbitrary selection of images, which editors characterized as WP:OR & WP:NPOV. 33ABGirl (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl Yes, this refers to image collages, but not images itself. It is thus not applicable to my edit, which did not contain collages. Your claim of "arbitrary selection of images" could not be substantiated in the link you provided. Furthermore, years 2021 and 2023 contradict you entirely, since they also contain images. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, your revert was unnecessary.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you read the concerns raised by those commenting on the RFC, you will find they are not necessarily exclusively related to the collages, but images in general, despite the title of the RFC.
- I opened a discussion at the Wikiproject on this, where the editor commenting agreed consensus should be obtained before adding a image. Following this, a second editor agreed to open discussions (1, 2) for the inclusion of photos. In past years, images have also usually been selected through discussions - 2021 (1, 2), 2020 (1, 2). The current images on 2023 & 2021 have either been added without consensus or edit-warred in recently by a few editors, I will be seeking administrative assistance for those cases soon.
- I also remind you that the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You have added content which has been disputed and reverted, so you should be seeking the necessary consensus to restore the content. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- You need to provide exact citation for your claim. I could only find that the theme relevant for this discussion were collages, not images per se. You are also confusing Wikimedia Commons images with external sources, since the former have nothing to do with Wikipedia:Verifiability. An image on Wikimedia is an image, not a source. Now, let's go through all these images I initially included and let's hear from you what is disputed in each and every one of them? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl Yes, this refers to image collages, but not images itself. It is thus not applicable to my edit, which did not contain collages. Your claim of "arbitrary selection of images" could not be substantiated in the link you provided. Furthermore, years 2021 and 2023 contradict you entirely, since they also contain images. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, your revert was unnecessary.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion for inclusion of images
I hereby nominate the following images for inclusion in the article;
- File:2022 Kazakhstan protests — Aqtobe, January 4 (01) (cropped).jpg
- File:Движение колонны бронетехники ВС РФ 007.png
- File:Antonov_Airport_after_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_and_Mriya_(3to4).jpg|
- File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - ua.svg
- File:Warsaw Central Station during Ukrainian refugee crisis 05.jpg
- File:Bucha. Faces of War. - Ukraine War Photo Exhibition 2023 (52702841629).jpg
- File:Russian bombing of Mariupol.jpg
- File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg
- File:08.03 總統與美國聯邦眾議院議長裴洛西媒體互動會 (52259967861).jpg
Sincerely, --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose the inclusion of any images on the page. Adding images can create a bias towards certain events, essentially becoming a ranking of events, contrary to WP:OR & WP:NPOV. Considering the broad scope of the article, images should be omitted altogether. However, if there is a consensus does form to include images on the page, I would be happy to participate in the discussions regarding the selection of appropriate images. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl I don't understand your reasoning here. What is the argument here? An image could make one event more important than other events, so we should have zero images? It makes little to no sense. Even if that were the case, you could add many images and then you would have almost an equal amount of "importance" among them. But you do agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is arguably the most major even of 2022 and that it therefore merits inclusion of at least some images, correct?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- That is not a valid reason to oppose, it could be used to justify the removal of any image in any article. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support the addition of images as a general editing principle that every editor may do, no opinion on the usage of these individual images. The RfC that is still open is specifically in regards to top-of-the-page collages, it is not a bar on image use in general. Reverting image additions for no reason other than "any addition is biased" is disruptive, and should be treated as standard disruptive editing. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Proposal - I've proposed a suggested course of action here. Please add your thoughts or comments on the proposal. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl I have to repeat it for the second time, we are not discussing collage images on this talk page. We are discussing what is preventing users from including ordinary, any images on this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support there is nothing wrong with using regular images, they add to illustration and a summary of major events that happened a certain year/decade/century. Indiana6724 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I and many others are confused as to why images have been removed from all wikipedia pages on years. There used to be photo collages of notable events for every single year and they have all been removed. Why??? Lightningbolt1 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Considering that a whole month has passed, that other users gave their opinion confirming my thoughts, and that no user gave any support to @33ABGirl's arbitrary proposal of "no images policy" (for which no reasonable arguments were presented), I think we can conclude that images can freely be added to the articles about years, provided they are not collages.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the consensus is that images may be included on the page. However, I believe that there should still be a discussion on which images should be included. I suggest we use a similar system as used on the page 2023. While the discussion is related to collages, we are essentially still selecting images which are representative of the year.
- I've added a note on WP:YEARS to gather more input on this issue. 33ABGirl (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I can do this Indiana6724 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl The very first sentence of this discussion I started on 18 December 2023, (@Discussion_for_inclusion_of_images) includes a list of nine nominated images I want to include. You failed in this entire month to address even a single image that I nominated. As such, unless no objections were made against any of these nine images, it should be considered as accepted to be included in the article by default.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Because there are no objections, i think its fair we reinstate these images. Indiana6724 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I can do this Indiana6724 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Why is the Robb Elementary School shooting not mentioned in “Events”?
It was an event that garnered months of media attention, international condemnation, and led to the first gun law in the United States in 28 years. It was also featured on the front page. (Link:https://web.archive.org/web/20220525121908/https:/en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) MountainDew20 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Collage edit war — Proposal in progress
Hey guys. I noticed the ongoing (fairly long) edit-war ongoing on the article over the collage. A few days ago, I proposed a process to be the standardized process for collage creations. This process is being experimented on for the 2023 collage amid the proposal discussion. If consensus get’s behind the proposal, the edit war and debate can stop. Anyway, it needs to stop and be solved one way or another. Feel free to participate here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images.
Courtesy pings for people involved in edit war just in this article: 3E1I5S8B9RF7, DementiaGaming, Indiana6724, 33ABGirl, Setarip, Alalch E., 4BOTOX, Raksiyyyy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- WeatherWriter You obviously didn't even bother to read anything on this talk page since the discussion was not about collage images, but rather over zero images. After a month of discussion, the majority voted to include images in the article. If you want to contribute to the discussion, feel free after you have read the discussion and informed yourself about what you are talking about.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- 3E1I5S8B9RF7, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In this edit, you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, is being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on 2023’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually against the consensus and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said,
See the talk page. Nine images were nominated a month ago, and everyone except 33ABGirl voted to include images in the article. The collage was not agreed upon, though.
- 3E1I5S8B9RF7, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In this edit, you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, is being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on 2023’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually against the consensus and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said,
- Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- WeatherWriter Where exactly is the collage debate on this talk page?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The collage - why not restore?
Why hasn't the pre-existing collage, seen here, been restored to this article yet as it has been for other articles? Per the re-closure of this RfC, many collages were prematurely removed from year articles during the course of this RfC with at most limited discussion. Given the significantly wider scale of this discussion, any editor wishing to restore them may do so.
There was some discussion and reverting here during and shortly after that RfC, but all movement on this has apparently stalled for a month and a half. Since a perfectly good collage was already created, I don't see a need for a new discussion like is being done for 2023 - and one isn't happening anyway. We should simply restore the previous collage and bring this article in line with other year articles. Crossroads -talk- 07:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since the RfC has since been closed with overall consensus to keep them, I think it warrants restoring. jp×g🗯️ 09:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see this collage as at least passably good, it makes the article better, I see no critical problems, and, therefore I have restored it. I stand by this collage. It is a good collage. When it comes to removing the entire collage, this is clearly incompatible with WP:PRESERVE. Incremental improvement is possible. If there is a certain someone who objects to something in the collage, well, edit it. Edit it out, edit something else in, I don't know. Find a solution that does not entail removing the entire collage. Ask for help and feedback on the talk page.—Alalch E. 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages can be included doesn't mean that they must be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. Deb (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- If I'm not wrong we've reached consensus already (here), but it's outdated and it was still in November 2022.
- Indeed, much happened since then ,like the release of ChatGPT and the death of Pope Benedict XVI however the latest doesn't seem very relevant and to represent AI in an image would be reductive.
- However, to keep the current collage with some wrong notes underneath might not be the best solution and to remove it altogether definitely wouldn't improve the article. ~~~ Gioppolognomo (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- sorry forgot to sign Gioppolognomo (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages can be included doesn't mean that they must be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. Deb (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Uvalde?
Why cant we add Uvalde and why does it say 'don't add Uvalde'? CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am very confused. UVALDE is on the list now but it still says 'Dont add Uvalde'. Very confusing for editors. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)