m Reverted edit by 2409:40E0:101D:3A3E:4C99:F8FF:FE5E:F4DD (talk) to last version by Gioppolognomo Tag: Rollback |
|||
(764 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 == |
|||
== RFC: [[Robbie Coltrane]] inclusion vote (Result: rough consensus to include) == |
|||
{{closed rfc top|result= Consensus to '''include'''. There is a ''rough to clear'' consensus that <u>whatever the standard for inclusion is or ought be,</u> Robbie Coltrane <u>meets it</u>. <u>For respondents expressing this in terms of [[:WP:N|''notability'']], there is a consensus that Coltrane</u> is sufficiently notable/noteworthy, <u>in part</u> through coverage of his self, his career & his death in international media (as demonstrated by {{u|Politrukki}}), to be included in this list. While some arguments, both in support & in opposition, were better formed than others; none of the oppose arguments were sufficiently "better" to outweigh the emergent consensus. <small>NOTE: Additionally reviewed the [[Talk:2022/Archive_10#Robbie_Coltrane_(Result:_no_consensus/inconclusive,_continued_in_RFC)|previous discussion]], which also did not contain any dispositive opposing arguments.</small> {{nac}} [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|talk]]</sup> 03:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
'''Additional explanatory comments''': |
|||
:''On closing'': |
|||
::The role of an RfC closer is to determine if a consensus exists. The standard, as defined at [[:Wikipedia:Closing discussions]], is a ''rough consensus''; further defined at [[:WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS]] as {{tq|the "sense of the group" concerning a particular matter under consideration}}. While consensus is ''not a vote'', the proportion of editors in favour of or against a matter is not an irrelevance; after weighting for alignment with policy & guideline, and strength of argument, it is a key factor for the ''sense of the group''. |
|||
::Where the respondents overwhelmingly fall on one side of the matter, for the minority to prevail, their arguments need to be exceptionally strong or those of the majority exceptionally weak. |
|||
::In this case, the close was not made based on a simple head count. After weighting the arguments for alignment with policy & guidelines, and for strength of argument, none of the ''exclude'' arguments (neither alone nor in concert) were sufficiently strong as to outweigh the predominant ''include'' viewpoint. |
|||
:''On the responses'': |
|||
::In this RfC, no respondents cited core policy (five pillars + COPYVIO + BLP), which might be dispositive; no respondents cited other policy or guidelines (excepting RFCEND & RFCNEUTRAL on procedural grounds). Accordingly, no responses received increased or decreased weight based on alignment/misalignment with policy or guideline. |
|||
::No responses appeared to have been made in bad faith; and no responses were discounted for that reason. |
|||
::Responses & discussion which, in part, relied on a [[:slippery slope]] argument carried lower weight for that portion of the response. A consensus for the inclusion of Coltrane does not imply consensus for the inclusion of Alley; and the inclusion of the latter might also reflect consensus. No responses were completely discounted based on this reason. This lower weighting was not a determining factor. |
|||
::Responses & discussion which, in part, relied on [[:straw man]] argument carried lower weight for that portion of the response. None of the ''include'' responses were based on notability of Coltrane's film work; none of the ''include'' responses were based on "demand from fans"; in the context of this RfC, arguments against these unasserted positions are not strong. No responses were completely discounted based on this reason. This lower weighting was not a determining factor. |
|||
::Many of the responses were of the form "is sufficiently ''foo'' for inclusion" or "is insufficiently ''bar'' for inclusion". These are two-part arguments - i) the standard for inclusion is or ought be (foo/bar); ii) the subject (does/doesn't) meet that standard. In so far as a ''sense of the group'', the ''foo''s have it - that is, the consensus of respondents is that [[:WP:N|notability]] is the standard, and that Coltrane has it sufficiently to merit inclusion. |
|||
::Two respondents referenced sources in support of their arguments. Accordingly, their responses received higher weight than responses which asserted a position without reference to sources. |
|||
:''On "international notability"'': |
|||
::Four responses, and significant portions of the discussion, made reference to the terms ''international notability'' or ''internationally notable''. Two respondents asserting that Coltrane meets this standard; two respondents asserting that he does not. |
|||
:::To the extent that "notable/notability" is used to mean "documented in independent reliable sources" (the sense as at [[:WP:N]]), with "international" a modifier resulting in "documented in independent reliable sources <u>published in multiple nations</u>" or similar, the responses by {{u|Pickalittletalkalittle}} & {{u|Politrukki}} are a rebuttal to the assertion that this standard is not met. |
|||
:::To the extent that "internationally notable/international notability" is meant as a ''term of art'', with a meaning distinct from the sense of "notable/notability" at [[:WP:N]], this is a viewpoint which did not gain traction in the RfC responses. <small>NOTE: The use of "notable" in this sense; loosely defined, separate & distinct from its WP:N sense is inopportune. Editors are encouraged to work towards consensus for a well defined, well documented, set of inclusion criteria.</small> |
|||
::Some editors asserted a ''de facto'' consensus for an inclusion standard based on "international notability" (in some sense of that term), but did not link or reference a discussion forming this consensus. This argument might have carried greater weight if it had referenced such a discussion. This was not a deciding factor; RfC respondents either rejected this standard or felt that it was sufficiently met. |
|||
:Addressing some specific comments & questions below: |
|||
::{{tq|Including somebody on the yearly pages purely on the basis of international media coverage has been repudiated '''(we even have it included on the FAQs of this talk page)'''. The decision ... disregards this entirely}}. During the RfC, and explicitly in response to it, an FAQ entry was [[Special:Diff/1120262012|added]]. Neither this FAQ entry ''nor the disruptive nature of its addition'' influenced the outcome of the RfC. <small>(Nor have the subsequent involved edits to the RfC header influenced this extended close rationale.)</small> Had the FAQ entry pre-dated the RfC or referenced an explicit discussion, it might have carried significant weight; but it did neither. |
|||
::{{tq|The closer didn't acknowledge Coltrane's lack of international notability.}} Consensus of the RfC is that Coltrane does not lack international notability. |
|||
:On review, I am confident that the close fairly reflects the consensus of the respondents to the RfC - the ''sense of <u>this</u> group'' - and decline to amend it substantively. I have, however, modified the close statement for clarity. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|talk]]</sup> 22:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Should Shinzo Abe and Jiang Zemin be included in the lead? |
|||
}} |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 22:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1670277673}} |
|||
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) |
|||
I noticed that their deaths were recently removed |
|||
=== Comments === |
|||
[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) |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
==== Yes ==== |
|||
: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) |
|||
#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) |
|||
== Collage == |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
#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 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. |
|||
#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) |
|||
{{collapse top|title=Collage Suggestion}} |
|||
# {{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) |
|||
{{Multiple image |
|||
# 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) |
|||
| total_width = 300 |
|||
| image1 = Shinzo Abes statsbegravelse (beskåret).jpg |
|||
=== Discussion === |
|||
| image2 = Demonstration mod den srilankansk, 2022 (beskåret).jpg |
|||
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) |
|||
| perrow = 3/2/3 |
|||
:@[[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) |
|||
| image8 = VM i fodbold 2022, USA–Wales.jpg |
|||
::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) |
|||
| image3 = Tonga Vulkanudbrud.png |
|||
: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) |
|||
| image4 = Volodymyr Zelenskyy took part in hoisting the State Flag of Ukraine in liberated Kherson. (52502054830).jpg |
|||
::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) |
|||
| image5 = Queen Elizabeth II's Funeral and Procession (19.Sep.2022) - 09.jpg |
|||
: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) |
|||
| image6 = Kazakhstan-demonstrationer 2022, Aqtobe, 4. januar (beskåret).jpg |
|||
::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) |
|||
| image7 = Åbningsceremoni ved Vinter-OL 2022 i Beijing.jpg |
|||
:::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) |
|||
| direction = horizontal |
|||
: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) |
|||
| image_gap = |
|||
::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) |
|||
| width = |
|||
::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) |
|||
| 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]] |
|||
:::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) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
:::::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) |
|||
--[[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 17:59, 22 October 2023 (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) |
|||
* Just a note that I have subbmited a [[WP:RFCL]] for this RfC. Thanks! [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 16:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{closed rfc bottom}} |
|||
{{archive top}} |
|||
*'''Appeal against decision to include''' - the decision by {{ping|Ryk72}} was clearly on the basis primarily of international coverage as per Politrukki's comment. Yet it has been made clear that such grounds are absolutely insufficient for these pages, and that over the last couple of years the notion of including somebody on the yearly pages purely on the basis of international media coverage has been repudiated (we even have it included on the FAQs of this talk page). The decision by Ryk72 I believe disregards this entirely, and therefore has made Coltrane's inclusion here all the more of an aberration. At the end of the day none of the main points against Coltrane's inclusion (particularly by myself and {{ping|Jim Michael 2}}) were sufficiently addressed by those who voted in favour of inclusion. This'll most likely end as a tenuous case of '''borderline inclusion''' purely on the basis of a head count of votes, but in no way should this result be treated as anything other than an aberration and an exception to the rule. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 14:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I back this appeal; including him goes against our guidelines. Many domestic figures of a similar level of notability - such as [[Kirstie Alley]] - can have their inclusion argued for on the same basis. They have awards - but only from their own country. They have fans in many countries, so the media in many countries reported their deaths. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't support this appeal. The closing editor summed it up well. I disagree that [[Kirstie Alley]] could be argued on the same basis as I would oppose her inclusion on this list. There's a bit of subjectivity here and this doesn't seem like something worth opening up again. Thanks! [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 16:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::The closer didn't acknowledge Coltrane's lack of international notability. Alley's awards are of similar importance to his & the media coverage of their deaths is similar. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Noting, '''as closer''', that a) I have seen this; b) the process for challenging closes is at [[:WP:CLOSECHALLENGE]]; c) per that process, I am happy to review, and either amend the close or expand the close rationale, and will attempt to do so in the next 32 hours. - [[User:Ryk72|Ryk72]] <sup>[[User talk:Ryk72|talk]]</sup> 22:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*The "FAQs" at the top of the page are not Wikipedia policy or guidelines, they're just the opinion of one or more editors who decided to edit this page at a particular point in time. What is policy, however, is [[WP:DUE]], which mandates us to give airtime to things in mainspace proportionate to their coverage in reliable sources. That Coltrane received exactly such coverage upon his death and is therefore included is compliant with the policy, and the closer did a good job. Wikipedians don't decide what's important and what isn't, we merely reflect what reliable sources decide. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 22:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*:No. The FAQs come as a result of consensus emerging over decisions and discussions to do with inclusion of figures on this page for almost two years now, and is not merely a prerogative or opinion of “one or more editors”. The consensus built up over these Talk pages and implemented by nearly every regular contributor to these pages is that '''international coverage does not automatically equate to international notability''' (and I’ll let {{ping|Jim Michael 2}} further elaborate on that point), and that’s the way things are here. Other pages and Wiki features may have different guidelines and standards for what’s sufficiently notable, but for here we include figures based on '''international''' notability, and minor actors whose deaths get international coverage because they played a supporting character in an internationally notable franchise (and as has also been established here for some time, actors '''do not automatically gain the notability of the films they’re in''') with fans in many countries, but whose names are virtually unknown outside of said fanbases are '''not''' examples of sufficient international notability. What you’re advocating for would also see other minor character actors with scant international notability such as [[Kirstie Alley]] included. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 04:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
=== Subsequent comments === |
|||
This is easily the most contentious discussion we've had on this page in perhaps ever...I think that post consensus, and after reading all these arguments, I would have to agree with the closer and side with the consensus that was decided, even if it didn't end up that way. I think ultimately, I would also challenge Scrubby and Jim's position on coverage and notability; I see that international coverage '''generally does''', but not always does, equate to international notability. The media and the coverage it provides, for the most part, does show what people care about in general, and ultimately, the people should and do decide what is notable. It's our "job" (yes I know it's technically all volunteer work but "job" is an easier word to use) as Wikipedia editors to do more so the people's bidding and equally weigh both general opinions and a vocal minority. '''I would additionally also propose that people who choose to exclude entries, both deaths and events, be required to justify why they say "Insufficient international notability"'''; if they can prove that person X should be excluded because they didn't win any major championships, sure. But if they just say "insufficient international notability" and nothing more, really man? It's like saying something is unconstitutional without citing which article/amendment would override it. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 08:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:The only discussion on here this year that's anything like this one is that regarding [[Gilbert Gottfried]], but it turned out that the three accounts arguing for his inclusion & greatly overstating his notability were operated by the same fan, who's since been blocked. |
|||
:We've included Coltrane simply because of his popularity, because his media coverage merely reflects that. By that reasoning, we'd include several Kardashians & Jenners. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not going to touch Gottfried...I'm friends with members of his family IRL so that does create a potential COI. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 23:39, 9 December 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}} |
|||
== [[Microsoft]]’s (now proposed) [[Acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft|acquisition]] of [[Activision Blizzard]] (Result: no consensus) == |
|||
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) |
|||
:'''include''', one of the biggest purchases of the year, which meant a lot of things for companies and Wall Street. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 21:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''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) |
|||
::If it's not certain, there's no way its inclusion can be justified. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Too many people with importance inline tags (Result: no consensus for Costa; exclusion for the others) == |
|||
There has been too many people with important inline tags in November deaths section here are all of them |
|||
*[[Ela Bhatt]], Indian social activist and chancellor |
|||
*[[Gal Costa]], Brazilian singer |
|||
*[[Kevin Conroy]], American voice actor |
|||
*[[Gallagher (comedian)|Gallagher]], American comedian |
|||
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) |
|||
:*[[Ela Bhatt]]: '''Borderline'''. I really don't know if which way it'll tilt. |
|||
:*[[Gal Costa]]: '''Borderline Inclusion'''. Notable in the Latin music world, which spans multiple countries. |
|||
:*[[Kevin Conroy]]: '''Inclusion''', awarded voice actor and well known on every inhabitable continent. |
|||
:*[[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) |
|||
=== Vote === |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
==== [[Ela Bhatt]] ==== |
|||
*'''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) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - per lack of international notability. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 05:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==== [[Gal Costa]] ==== |
|||
*'''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) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' - lack of international notability. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 05:57, 13 November 2022 (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) |
|||
==== [[Gallagher (comedian)|Gallagher]] ==== |
|||
*'''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''' - lack of international notability. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 05:57, 13 November 2022 (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) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' per the above. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 18:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Nobel Prize]]s section (Result: retain/status quo) == |
|||
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 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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
== [[FTX (company)|FTX]] collapse (Result: no consensus, continued in RFC) == |
|||
@[[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) |
|||
:::TheScrubby has previously argued that this article generally needs more diversity. This is the biggest event in the crypto world to happen. FTX and BlockFi, itself worth $3 billion, have both filed for bankruptcy. One can't really argue that people don't care about this on an international level unless they survey the population themselves from across everywhere; Indonesia or America alone isn't a good metric. Furthermore, inclusion as a simple sentence with less than 20 words would not harm the article in any way without a degree of fearmongering being exhibited. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 01:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::What you're saying would justify including it only if crypto were important. [[BlockFi]]'s bankruptcy should be on [[2022 in the United States]]. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Disputing the importance, or at least international relevancy, of cryptocurrency in our world is ridiculous to the point of shooting yourself in the foot when [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptocurrency|an entire wikiproject on crypto]] exists. And BlockFi's bankruptcy isn't notable on its own but it was at least partly as a result of FTX. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::We also have an [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Explosives|explosives project]], but we exclude the vast majority of explosions & advancements in explosives technology. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Classic WP:OSE. Explosives aren't usually included in main year articles unless they played a role in international conflicts because both [[2022 in science]] exists as well as, with exceptions, generally minimal coverage of advancements in explosive technology. This discussion isn't about including every crypto bankruptcy; it's including the FTX collapse as a single entry. It shouldn't be a big deal to include it, and the article would ultimately have no representation of crypto as of yet without it; Scrubby has in past discussions advocated for more diversity generally. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[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) |
|||
:::I think we could make it a '''retroactive inclusion''' ''if an escalation happens''. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Irene Cara]] (Result: borderline inclusion) == |
|||
is [[Irene Cara]] notable enough for inclusion, |
|||
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. |
|||
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) |
|||
== [[2022 missile explosion in Poland]] (Result: no consensus) == |
|||
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) |
|||
:'''Wait'''. Just like Moldova, I believe inclusion is contingent on if, and if so when, Russia escalates. If Russia escalated in July 2023, no. But if Russia escalates before the memory of both Poland and Moldova disappears (it's hard to say but I would suggest January 2023 as a start date to put that limit), we can retroactively include both. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Deaths of sportspeople in November (Result:) == |
|||
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 |
|||
:Any objections? Otherwise, I'll put it up on sunday :) [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 13:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Aleksandr Gorshkov (figure skater)|Aleksandr Gorshkov]], Russian figure skater and Olympic champion |
|||
::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) |
|||
*[[Börje Salming]], Swedish ice hockey player |
|||
:::Do you disagree with my suggestion? [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 15:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Fernando Gomes (Portuguese footballer)|Fernando Gomes]], Portuguese footballer |
|||
::::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) |
|||
*[[Doddie Weir]], Scottish rugby union player |
|||
:::{{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) |
|||
*[[Gábor Csapó]], Hungarian water polo player and Olympic champion |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
== Collage depreciation == |
|||
We need opinions on these people any thoughts??? [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 17:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (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}} |
|||
== Change to DMY date format == |
|||
Keep Gorshkov and Salming. Also just as an aside, can we cool it with the importance inlines? It is a little jarring when you look at an article where every other entry is tagged with one and I think it can cause someone to read it and conclude we have no idea what we are talking about. Obviously, I’m not asking to omit them but can we use some discretion and go to the talk page with entries we think aren’t important if we already have a couple inlines? [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 02:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (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) |
|||
:::The Olympics are an amateur sporting event, but ice hockey isn't. Gold medals aren't the best way of measuring success in the sports, as opposed to achievement in the NHL (exceptions being the Soviets, if we're ever debating people like[[Vladislav Tretiak]] and [[Anatoli Firsov]] . Salming was a star of the sport and I'd have him as a borderline inclusion, but I can't back up my argument with much hard data, as most of his achievements aren't quite as unique as the other two ice hockey deaths on this year's list - Mike Bossy and Guy Lafleur. Even taking into account that Salming was a defenceman, I can't provide a great case for him. I know you won't like me using the NHL over international events, but it's the premier space for the sport. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::If he was one of his sport's best players, RS would say so. There's nothing in his article to indicate that he was. If he was widely regarded as being one of his sport's greats, that reliably-sourced info should be added to his article. WP bios of many of the best sportspeople - including [[Pelé]] & [[Novak Djokovic]] - clearly state how good they are/were & the specifics of that. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The NHL itself regards him as one of the greatest players. It is a list, but it is an official release by a major organization for what it is worth so to me, that is a reliable enough source. [https://www.nhl.com/fans/nhl-centennial/100-greatest-nhl-players] [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 20:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Being in the top hundred of a league of a sport doesn't indicate substantial international notability. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You asked for a reliable source and I'm not sure there is a more reliable authority on ice hockey and overall player accolades than the NHL itself. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 23:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::It can be a factor when combined with other sources. Paul has a point; if the national league itself (especially in the American hockey following, the largest single-country hockey fandom by absolute size) has distinguished you, you're pretty spectacular. I'd prefer to see more sources indicated notability, which I haven't seen yet, but if supporters of inclusion can show he was acclaimed. |
|||
:::::::<b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 06:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm saying that being in a top 100 isn't enough; it's not a top 20. It doesn't indicate being one of the greats or at/near the top of a sport. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::The list didn't rank them by number just an alphabetical list of players and it was a collection of the 100 greatest NHL players, a league that has had over 100 seasons and 7700 players who have played in the NHL over the course of its existence, I'd say is a pretty exclusive list. This isn't even taking into consideration the accolades awarded to him by European leagues. |
|||
:::::::::Either way, it is borderline for me. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 15:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Inclusion of this specific athlete as well would not substantially harm the article. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::[[WP:NOHARM]] isn't a valid argument for inclusion. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I personally agree that the criteria for these articles is too rigorously enforced, and that less sufficient international notability guidelines in comparison to where we are today is necessary. We should be more lenient on inclusion; too many people are being excluded/removed/flagged because of notability. We should be more focused on good articles (or at least make an effort to improve and better promote "Year In" articles instead of only policing content inclusion here) even if it comes at the expense of a few people or events who aren't as internationally notable as others mentioned in both here and in year in articles. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 03:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Davide Rebellin]] was added today. Of the five listed above & him, the only one who may be internationally notable enough to include is Gorshov. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't think his inclusion harms the article, but I would not oppose his removal. Seems notable, but walks the line when it comes to inclusion. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Have we come to a consensus here? I'm willing to '''exclude''' Salming as well if it means we can remove these dang importance inlines.[[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 18:52, 6 December 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) |
|||
== Christine McVie in lead? (Result: not included) == |
|||
::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) |
|||
According to Scrubby's recent edit summary, Jiang and McVie are easily November's two most notable deaths. McVie is absolutely accomplished, but does she deserve to be in the line of entertainers in lead? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
:What requirements should get someone in the lead in the first place? I agree with @[[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] someone needs to be removed for McVie to be included, just to avoid clutter. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 22:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Date format == |
|||
I’m willing to add her under the condition we elect to remove at least one of the entertainers already listed in the article lead. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 21:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock [[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] ([[User talk:33ABGirl|talk]]) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest. |
|||
:This is hard. I'm also leaning towards removing one person, and I'd like to describe my reasoning for who that person is below: |
|||
:*Poitier, Godard, and Lewis should stay on. They achieved notable firsts for their race, genre of film, and genre of music respectively. |
|||
:*Lansbury is not only a cultural icon but also was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. She's gotta be on there. |
|||
:Olivia Newton-John is the only one left. The question then becomes: is McVie more notable than Newton-John? |
|||
:Let's take a look at their kudos/achievements/points. For Newton-John: |
|||
:*She starred in Grease, one of the most recognizable soundtracks to this date. |
|||
:*She's an extremely successful recording artist. |
|||
:*She did compose/write songs, and had tons of iconic songs. She didn't write some of her most famous ones, though (Physical is the one that comes to mind that she recorded but didn't write). |
|||
:*Identified with more pop music. |
|||
:*Knighted by Queen Elizabeth. |
|||
:*Multiple lifetime achievement awards and Grammys |
|||
:As for McVie |
|||
:*Mostly famous for Fleetwood Mac, one of the most famous bands in the world |
|||
:*Was part of Fleetwood Mac for ''Rumours'', one of the best selling albums ever and the number 7 ever according to Rolling Stone |
|||
:*On ''Rumours'', she wrote Oh Daddy, but most notably You Make Loving Fun and Don't Stop. |
|||
:*Wrote more songs in general than Newton-John |
|||
:*Multiple lifetime achievement awards |
|||
:If both could go on, they should both be on. But in the end, Newton-John is the more notable of the two. It mainly comes down to two factors for me: scope of recognition and musical diversity. In scope of recognition, Newton-John was knighted, and while she didn't write her own songs to the extent McVie did, she did write some at the very least. She's sold more records, though Newton-John's own singles and the 15-million copies sold Grease album (taken individually) are all dwarves by Rumor's nearly 30-million copies. This is where musical diversity comes in and gives Newton-John the cake: Newton-John is mostly a pop singer, while McVie is mostly in the rock genre. Through Jerry Lee Lewis, rock is already represented in the lead, and removing Newton-John for McVie would give undue weight towards rock. Newton-John is the sole pop singer in the lead, and unless Katy Perry or Taylor Swift suddenly (though sadly) did meet her end this year, Newton-John is the most memorable and notable pop singer who did pass away this year. Anyways, just my thoughts. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 01:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with your take here, we should leave it as is. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 03:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support retaining status quo''', which means excluding McVie from the lead section. She was undeniably notable, but not to the extent that Olivia Newton-John or Jerry Lee Lewis was. In any case I don’t think we should have any more representing musicians, lest we bloat the lead section (which I already have my reservations about to begin with). [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 04:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed. A picture should suffice. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 06:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't think McVie is important enough to be in the lead, and all the people currently in it are more notable than her. I agree to keep it as it is. She's easily the most notable entertainer to die in Nov, and Jiang the most notable person, so the photos should be of Jiang & her. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 10:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with TheScrubby. [[User:4me689|'''<span style="color:#CE5DAE">''4me689''</span>''']] ([[User talk:4me689|talk]]) 16:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''Exclude''' Although I love Fleetwood Mac, I don't think McVie should be included. We have enough people in the lead already, and they're more famous/notable than her. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 18:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:It has now been more than a week since I posted my proposal about changing the date format for 2022 to DMY and no one has responded. If one more weeks passes without any response as well, I will consider it consensus and change it to the DMY format. By then, people would have had more than two weeks to respond. Should someone later on object, please discuss it here on the talk page before reverting. [[User:Marginataen|Marginataen]] ([[User talk:Marginataen|talk]]) 08:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|||
: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. |
|||
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|||
: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. |
|||
* [[commons:File:Jiang Zemin Official.jpg|Jiang Zemin Official.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-12-02T03:06:14.917746 | Jiang Zemin Official.jpg --> |
|||
: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) |
|||
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jiang Zemin Official.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 03:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
== Zero images? == |
|||
== [[Kirstie Alley]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
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. |
|||
Because I am certain there will be edit wars over her inclusion, do we include Kirstie Alley? |
|||
@[[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) |
|||
And as an aside, she absolutely shouldn't be in the lead [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 18:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' because she has no international notability. All her awards are domestic. Like thousands of domestic entertainers, her death has been reported by the media in many countries because she has fans in many countries. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree on exclusion [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 23:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' as per Jim Michael. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 01:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Include''' [[User:PolPot1975|PolPot1975]] ([[User talk:PolPot1975|talk]]) 15:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Why? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 16:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Get her out of here'''. Never even heard of her. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Exclude. I also removed her from the 1951 article too. You’re welcome Jim Michael. [[User:MrMimikyu1998|Kyu]] ([[User talk:MrMimikyu1998|talk]]) 05:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::She's one of the examples of someone of similar notability to Robbie Coltrane. Including him enables people to argue for many other entertainers on the same grounds as those which gained Coltrane's inclusion. I don't know how to argue against that. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I'll say '''Exclude''' I only knew her from the Jenny Craig commercials. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 15:20, 9 December 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) |
|||
== [[Technoblade]] rediscussion (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
::@[[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) |
|||
{{archive top}} |
|||
:::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 think enough time has passed to see what impact Technoblade has had on the world. I should note I'm not a frequent follower of Minecraft anymore, nor was I of Technoblade ever, but after a bit of research and seeing his passing was covered intensely by the internet and by sources across the English-speaking world, I think he would merit inclusion here even if borderline. Reading in the past discussion, WP Years of it seemed to ignore the world of video games, and I remember that Scrubby has pushed previously for more diversity. |
|||
:::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=== |
|||
Technoblade is easily the most notable personality within gaming and YouTube who has died within a long time, and his passing was proportional to HM Queen Elizabeth within the YouTube and Gaming world. In addition to the many fan-made tributes to the pig warrior, YouTube corporate made [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_fZjGm2OrM their own memorial] to the gamer. A YouTube-promoted anti-cancer fundraiser has collected more than $24 million in donations, in Technoblade's name. He's an icon of gaming within the English-speaking world, and his passing was covered in [https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/technoblade-minecraft-youtuber-and-streamer-dies-from-cancer-aged-23-8003672/ India Express], [https://www.npr.org/2022/07/01/1109355414/technoblade-minecraft-youtube-dies NPR], [https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-62006852 BBC News], and [https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/so-long-nerds-youtube-star-technoblade-dies-aged-23-20220703-p5aync.html the Sydney Morning Herald]. Google Trends data shown [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fg%2F11mbw10k8v here] proves that while he did originate from the United States, he's had a worldwide reach, and despite being American, his strongest fanbases were in Singapore, Australia, and the Philippines. His mourners, both famous and common, have come from an international background, and even before his unexpected death, as seen with [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2020-05-09%202022-05-09&q=%2Fg%2F11mbw10k8v this set of data from May 2020 until a month before his death], he still had an incredibly-large fanbase in not only the US and the previously mentioned countries but also Western Europe and the Caribbean islands of Trinidad and Tobago, as well as minority notability within Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, South America, and South Africa. Google Trends Data, in conjunction with the mountain of tributes which have come in from all of the regions previously mentioned and the previously-mentioned data above would evidence that Technoblade is internationally notable enough for whatever standard we have (unless such standards are specifically and intentionally discriminatory towards famous YouTube and gaming personalities, which in that case wtf is wrong with whoever proposed that), and that '''it's practically impossible to deny that Technoblade has international notability.''' For the reasons provided above, I would encourage that we '''include''' Technoblade as an entry in the Deaths section of 2022. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 09:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I hereby nominate the following images for inclusion in the article; |
|||
:'''Exclude'''. Sorry, but I think you greatly overstate his fame. I'm an ''avid'' gamer myself, but I'd never heard of him until recently, and gamers aren't (yet) comparable to movies/actors in terms of cultural impact. His death is in no way comparable to a monarch who ruled the Commonwealth for 70 years and oversaw the decline of the British Empire. This was already discussed previously anyway. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 11:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:2022 Kazakhstan protests — Aqtobe, January 4 (01) (cropped).jpg |
|||
:'''Exclude''' - this is yet another example of someone grossly overstating the notability, fame etc. of someone they're a fan of. The vast majority of people have never heard of him. Mainstream news had very little interest in him. He isn't even important to his field. Kirstie Alley - who also shouldn't be included - played a main character on one of the most popular sitcoms & was far more notable & many times more famous than he was. We don't include most Olympic medallists. Main year articles need to be based on international notability. They shouldn't be led by fans or pop culture. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Движение колонны бронетехники ВС РФ 007.png |
|||
::Disclaimer, if you didn’t see above: I’m not a big Minecraft person anyways…I just did the research. Most of your argument relies on the fact that YouTube personalities can’t be internationally notable; that is not the case. How would a sitcom star with a domestic (or limited international) reach be more important than a YouTuber with international reach? The article under your interpretation biases “old money” value and “older” careers and fails to recognize a newer type of way to be famous exists, and your definition of international notability is too exclusive. Mainstream news did cover him (see sources previously listed, as well as how his death was covered by [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/technoblade-died-internet-gamer-dead-age-23-cause-of-death-cancer-2022-07-01/ CBS News] and [https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/01/tech/technoblade-minecraft-youtuber-dead-int-scli/index.html CNN]), and his death was, per [https://www.pcgamer.com/technoblades-farewell-is-the-top-trending-youtube-video-of-2022/ PC Gamer], the top trending YouTube video of 2022. Why would a domestic sitcom star be more notable than an internationally-relevant YouTube personality? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 16:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Antonov_Airport_after_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_and_Mriya_(3to4).jpg| |
|||
:::Coverage does not equal notability. We don't measure notability by the coverage a person gets. If that was the case, Bob Saget would have been included. Which most of us scoffed at. |
|||
*File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - ua.svg |
|||
:::We measure notability by how the person is recognized in other countries. Awards are typically the best way to measure that. |
|||
*File:Warsaw Central Station during Ukrainian refugee crisis 05.jpg |
|||
:::Sidney Poitier recevied an Oscar, a Bafta, along with a whole slew of honorary awards from many countries. That makes him notable. If the person does not have awards, than we move onto other factors such as chart hits ( for musicians ). Olivia Newton John is therefore notable because her songs have hit the charts in many countries. |
|||
*File:Bucha. Faces of War. - Ukraine War Photo Exhibition 2023 (52702841629).jpg |
|||
:::But on the grand scale of things, You really think Technoblade is comparable to Sidney Poitier ? [[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E|2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E]] ([[User talk:2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E|talk]]) 18:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Russian bombing of Mariupol.jpg |
|||
::::You're comparing Technoblade, a simple entry, to Sidney Poitier, someone famous enough to be in the lead? Not all famous people are equal, but he's certainly notable enough at least for a mention. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg |
|||
:::::We don't measure fame though. |
|||
*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 |
|||
:::::'''Fame does not equal notability.''' Or else, Most people on the death list would be excluded, simply because they're not covered enough on mostly American news media. Which is basically Americentrism as Scrubby here as stated in the last 2 years. |
|||
:::::We do however measure notability. What is he or she known for ? And is what he or she known for, measured in the global context if that makes sense ? |
|||
:::::We don't include Poitier because he's famous. We include Poitier because his notability is recorded, measured in the awards he has gotten. Oscars. Baftas. |
|||
:::::William Hurt was not as famous as Technoblade, but we don't measure fame. We measure notability that is recorded and measured, Hurt won an oscar, bafta, and Cannes. |
|||
:::::I don't see how Technoblade meets that standard. And this isn't me being snobbish, I'll happily include someone like Warren Buffett who is very notable globally for his investing work. [[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E|2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E]] ([[User talk:2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E|talk]]) 19:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I think that most of the encyclopedic notability for Technoblade comes both from his popularity playing Minecraft but also his advocacy. According to YouTube (see sidebar directly across the video link in my original response), the fundraiser in Techno's name has led to over $24 million USD through YouTube donated for cancer research; a further $500,000 will be donated to the Sarcoma Foundation of America (source: [https://gamerant.com/technoblade-fans-raise-500000-dollars-cancer-research-honor-minecraft-streamer/ GameRant]. I believe '''fame is a factor towards notability, which may not necessarily not equate to it, but should be weighed'''. Given that also awards and rankings of all merits, notably the Golden Globes and the USNews College Ranking, are increasingly controversial, I think that awards deserve still factorable but reduced weight compared to other measures. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 19:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::1. But Technoblade has not been recognized in any field whatsoever, which does not make him notable. Sir Capitain Tom Moore who died last year, was famous for raising alot of money for charity. And yet we don't include him, because he's not notable for something. |
|||
::::::2. I'll happily include the creators of Minecraft if and when they die. They created minecraft and got a Bafta for it. [[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E|2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E]] ([[User talk:2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E|talk]]) 20:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I think Google Trends should be part of the equation towards determination but it should definately not be the bar for inclusion. It only goes as far as 2004 and many people gained their notability before 2004 examples include [[Elizabeth II]], [[Sidney Poitier]], [[Angela Lansbury]], [[Jerry Lee Lewis]], and [[Jean-Luc Godard]]. Technoblade's notableness definitely was confined within the existence of Google Trends. I'll say '''Exclude''' Technoblade. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 15:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::He wasn't even YouTube famous. I've watched YT videos every day for years & the only reason I've heard of him is seeing his death being added to this article. If I didn't read this article, I still wouldn't have heard of him. Whether you're talking about fame, notability or popularity, he's not one of the top 100 people to have died this year. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yeah I think it's time for me to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yeah, I agree with you @[[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] definitely not top 100. I also never heard of him prior to his death. [[User:FireInMe|FireInMe]] ([[User talk:FireInMe|talk]]) 00:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Invading Invader, It's also worth remembering that gaming personalities are almost solely young people, given that the ability to stream video globally is such a recent invention. The same for YouTube. [[User:The Voivodeship King|The Voivodeship King]] ([[User talk:The Voivodeship King|talk]]) 12:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, and the vast majority of middle-aged & old people haven't heard of even the most popular personalities of such sites. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
Sincerely, --[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[2022 COVID-19 protests in China]] == |
|||
These are domestic, with only small solidarity protests in several other countries. The partial gov concessions are domestic. Even if you include the [[2022 Ürümqi fire]] in the death toll, it's still low. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 21:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I think that most other protests would be domestic, but I think this would be one that should be included in the main international page. Protests in China are generally rare, and ones that succeed to any degree are remarkable. Exclusion of widely-covered events '''for the sole reason of being domestic and ignoring everything other detail''' isn't a good approach when countries, especially the world's most populous ones, spur international media coverage. Jim has generally more permissive of events which cause a major impact, a position which I personally share; this is one which has ultimately led to the CCP ceding to protestors' demands. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 22:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The [[2022 Kazakh unrest]] is included because international forces took part & it resulted in the gov resigning. Its death toll was over 200. None of that is true of the Chinese protests. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::To respond to both your reply to me and Wjfox2005: Whatever the notability criteria is, unless it's biased to specifically censor China, these protests should be included. Jim, look at things relatively to not this year alone or other protests but also the history of a country or its size. A country like China, which has had zero wide-scale protests aside from this one and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests/massacre, should see its biggest protests covered. In addition, some of the most notable protests ever don't always result in regime change or mass death; see the American March on Washington and the Indian Salt March. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::The inclusion guidelines & I aren't biased. We don't include things due to them being unusual. Likewise due to them having a lot of media coverage; if we did, we'd include celebrity weddings. These aren't among the most notable protests of all time, nor are they anywhere near as notable as the [[1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre]]. They also aren't the world's most notable protests of this year. Things aren't inherently more important due to them happening in the world's most populous country; similar arguments could be used to include various events in Russia because it's the largest country & in the US because it's the most powerful. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 22:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Equal weight regardless of country is a bad philosophy to undergo. And comparison to the most extreme events, or anomalies, doesn’t necessarily help your case. Take into account how rare an event is, or how rare the end result is, instead of just saying “it’s domestic and it’s not Tiananmen Square therefore it’s gone”. Don’t just weigh anomalies. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 02:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It's not the size, power or population of a country that's important when judging the notability of protests. The size & duration of the protests, the number of deaths caused, their internationality & changes in government as a result of them are what matters. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Why only that? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 05:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Because they're the important factors. What else would be? The size/power/population of the city/country they take place in? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::It's a balancing act between coverage and substance which does and should define notability for the purposes of this article, and the size of the country plus the size of the country. The country does matter, Jim. I know you hate to see that, but the country it takes place in does matter. And ''especially'' if it's a successful protest happening in the censorship capital of the world. Your arguments for the exclusion of events are comparable to "ad-hominem" reasons for exclusion; just because something happened in one country and wasn't the 1917 Russian Revolution doesn't mean it should be excluded. As stated previously, the main year article has to balance BOTH coverage and substance. This is an event which may fall slightly short when judging on substance alone but has gained much more media coverage than any other protest, likely because that protests of this level practically never happen in China. By only looking at event substance, we exclude what readers care about and we fail to put [[WP:READER]]s and their opinions on what they care about first. It's neither the position nor purpose of Wikipedia to dictate what people should care about (further information: [[WP:POINT]]). <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm generally a big proponent of adding more China related items to main year articles but I'd have to say '''exclude'''. It is no different than the myriad of other protests against COVID measures that have been happening in virtually every country over the last 2 years, regardless of whether or not protests in China are rare or not. I think that the Canadian trucker protests were more impactful, but we have excluded those on this article as well. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 22:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree that the [[Canada convoy protest]] is significantly more notable, involving far more vehicles. It caused far more disruption & cost far more to the economy. It's by far this year's most notable [[COVID-related protest]]. It has some internationality, including blockades of some crossings on the [[Canada–United States border]] & inspiring similar, smaller protests in other countries. As they were primarily domestic, I agree with them being excluded. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 01:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think that both are domestic in substance, but internationally impactful enough, more so Canada's truckers than China's students. I would not oppose the inclusion of both, but if only one of the two had to go on, Canada would be the one. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree that it's difficult to justify including the China protests when the Canadian ones aren't here. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::What if we be a little bit more inclusive now, and around maybe March 2023 (ideally when most of the fans and more hardline inclusionists are gone), we can conduct more complete reviews on events and deaths? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 00:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::We needn't wait 3 months. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Why not? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Because it'd be an unnecessary delay. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
'''Include'''. Given the prominent status/role played by China throughout the pandemic, and the rarity of protests like this in such a hardline country, I think ''on balance'' it's okay to include this. It's a notable milestone in the Covid crisis, and signifies that the world as a whole is finally moving on from it. Of course, Covid is still ongoing, and we'll be dealing with it for years (perhaps forever) but the fact that a country like China is now ending its Zero Covid policy is notable. I think it's wrong to exclude things ''purely'' for being domestic, it's sometimes more nuanced than that, and there are shades of grey. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 08:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Millions of people have COVID; it's far from over. Many countries have changed their COVID policies. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::None as big as China, which previously had among the most restrictive COVID policies prior to the concessions. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:31, 12 December 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) |
|||
== [[2022 Germany coup d'état plot]] (Result: exclusion) == |
|||
::@[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]] I don't understand your reasoning here. What is the argument here? An image could make one event more important than other events, so we should have zero images? It makes little to no sense. Even if that were the case, you could add many images and then you would have almost an equal amount of "importance" among them. But you do agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is arguably the most major even of 2022 and that it therefore merits inclusion of at least some images, correct?--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 09:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I know it’s on the Germany section, but I feel like it should be on the main Page for the year 2022. But that’s just my thoughts [[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:7D07:7700:885:7B11:FCF:3B66|2603:8080:7D07:7700:885:7B11:FCF:3B66]] ([[User talk:2603:8080:7D07:7700:885:7B11:FCF:3B66|talk]]) 02:26, 10 December 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) |
|||
:Idk what to think. It's certainly a notable domestic event, but it wasn't January 6. If it happened, I would say YES without a doubt. But because it didn't happen, that leans me to think '''exclude'''. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 07:29, 10 December 2022 (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''' because it was a domestic plot by a fringe group which had no chance of succeeding & wasn't attempted. Main year articles shouldn't include any domestic plots. It's nothing like as notable as the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack]], which shouldn't be on [[2021]] because it was domestic & a failure. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 14:33, 10 December 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) |
|||
::@[[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) |
|||
:'''Exclude'''. Nothing happened, arrests were made on suspicion anyway. [[User:PolPot1975|PolPot1975]] ([[User talk:PolPot1975|talk]]) 15:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC) [[User:PolPot1975|PolPot1975]] ([[User talk:PolPot1975|talk]]) 15:39, 10 December 2022 (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) |
||
:'''Exclude''', and have an open mind to reopen and revisit the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack]] as well (which I think is at most a borderline inclusion, but in no way should be entitled to an image on the main collage for the [[2021]] page). [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 11:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::It was domestic & had it happened in any other country it wouldn't be in 2021, let alone in its collage. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
I and many others are confused as to why images have been removed from all wikipedia pages on years. There used to be photo collages of notable events for every single year and they have all been removed. Why??? [[User:Lightningbolt1|Lightningbolt1]] ([[User talk:Lightningbolt1|talk]]) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Collage]] == |
|||
:Considering that a whole month has passed, that other users gave their opinion confirming my thoughts, and that no user gave any support to @[[User:33ABGirl|33ABGirl]]'s arbitrary proposal of "no images policy" (for which no reasonable arguments were presented), I think we can conclude that images can freely be added to the articles about years, provided they are not collages.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I think the collage in the lead does more harm than good for a number of reasons. |
|||
::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”? == |
|||
# Accessibility for readers: There are too many images and far too much text in the caption, finding the image that goes with the string of verbiage is like a particularly cryptic [[Spot the ball]], for someone with normal visual acuity who is a native English speaker. Making the image really nothing more than decoration, as the context is too hard to discern. |
|||
# Accessibility for editors: Editors cannot boldly add or remove an image to the collage, the amount of editing required to create a new collage image (likely from scratch) in some external editor, then manually set up the 'imagemap' coordinates is beyond most editors' patience if not ability. e.g. I really don't think 'monkeypox' is a defining part of 2022, and the Abe image needs changing, it's just people in a road, I came here to change these but even though I've been around for a little while now, I simply cannot do so. This collage is just going to be stale most of the time. |
|||
# The current content: "A picture of a road a while after something happened" is probably the most glaring example that really doesn't seem to add any value, but few of the pictures are representative of the events themselves, let alone the year as a whole. It says to me "This year, people stood in front of buildings, there was a tank, and some bacteria". |
|||
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) |
|||
I think that 'the year 2022' is an abstract concept that cannot be represented visually, so my first proposal would be, per [[MOS:LEADIMAGE]] ("Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.") simply not having a lead image would be a good solution. |
|||
== Collage edit war — Proposal in progress == |
|||
If not, I think an info box like that in [[New York City]] would be a significant improvement, allowing the images to have captions in-line which is infinitely easier to read and it's editable using the visual editor; but to change the article (or year infobox) to work like that is far beyond my ability. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 02:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree that the collage in NYC's infobox is substantially better & I'm in favour of changing the format of the collages in year articles to the one in that article. Making them collapsible would be another improvement. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I second this. Easier for readers and editors alike. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 04:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree I like the New York one alot it makes it easier to read. [[User:LoreMaster22|LoreMaster22]] ([[User talk:LoreMaster22|talk]]) 21:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Should the NYC collage format be only on this article to start with to see what the reaction to it is, or should we go straight to discussing on [[WP:YEARS]] whether or not to use it for collages on other year articles? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Years would probably be better, no point testing it here if there’s no consensus; I think I can mock up a demo in sandbox to take there. [[User:JeffUK|JeffUK]] ([[User talk:JeffUK|talk]]) 16:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Please do. It'd be good if more people would join the discussion. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:14, 13 December 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]]. |
|||
== Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi == |
|||
Just a heads up, but [[Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi]] did not die in November like this article claims. That was merely the date of his death's announcement. He actually died on October 15, 2022. -[[Special:Contributions/153.33.150.96|153.33.150.96]] ([[User talk:153.33.150.96|talk]]) 18:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 19:55, 11 December 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) |
|||
== Is [[Bob McGrath]] notable enough to be included? == |
|||
:{{u|WeatherWriter}} You obviously didn't even bother to read anything on this talk page since the discussion was not about '''collage''' images, but rather over '''zero images'''. After a month of discussion, the majority voted to include images in the article. If you want to contribute to the discussion, feel free after you have read the discussion and informed yourself about what you are talking about.--[[User:3E1I5S8B9RF7|3E1I5S8B9RF7]] ([[User talk:3E1I5S8B9RF7|talk]]) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I don't think he is ? [[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF81:EC80:1005:75E5:73F:3960|2601:204:CF81:EC80:1005:75E5:73F:3960]] ([[User talk:2601:204:CF81:EC80:1005:75E5:73F:3960|talk]]) 19:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::{{u|3E1I5S8B9RF7}}, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022&diff=prev&oldid=1197479151 this edit], you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, '''is''' being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on [[2023]]’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#RfC: Removal of image collages|against the consensus]] and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said, {{tq|See the talk page. Nine images were nominated a month ago, and everyone except 33ABGirl voted to include images in the article. The collage was not agreed upon, though.}} |
|||
:'''Exclude'''. Sesame Street is certainly an internationally notable show, but none of the main human performers are even memorable to Americans like me with the sole exception of Mr. Hooper. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 21:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Exclude''' because he has no international notability. There are far too many fans adding domestic figures & far too few regulars to remove them all. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed, and this is not helped by the profoundly mistaken inclusion of Robbie Coltrane. McGrath’s notability is even less so, and should accordingly be relegated to Year In Topic like other such domestic actor. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::There's no case for including McGrath. I can't think of a way to encourage more people to become regulars on main year articles without likely being accused of canvassing. Making an exception for Coltrane basically because many people here are fans of him has made it difficult to argue against people who want to include domestic entertainers. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Generally, my idea is to keep main year articles as collections of the most defining or notable events regardless of whether they're domestic, but giving preference to international events. Loosening our standards by just a bit makes both sides equally satisfied. I'm concerned about the Events section being a little bit too short and that the standards are too rigid. I think it's easier for me to support the exclusion of more domestic figures than more domestic events since deaths themselves, with way fewer exceptions than domestic events, only truly impact the person who died and their family. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 00:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Opening the door to domestic events would mean including domestic disasters, battles, attacks, crimes, protests, elections & referendums, as well as events related to entertainment, sport & business. Doing so in relation to births & deaths would mean including a large number of people who most of the world haven't heard of, who haven't even worked outside their home country. That'd include sportspeople, politicians, entertainers & famous-for-being-famous people. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Wouldn't that give the chance for people to learn more about people, though? People can work mostly inside their home country and be internationally notable. Mahatma Ghandi and MLK Jr are perfect examples; they only truly worked in British India and the US respectively, but they've done innumerable justices for the world even though neither of them held official political office in their respective nations. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You're saying we should add a load of domestic figures to main year articles so readers can unexpectedly find out about people who shouldn't be here? Main year articles are rarely read from start to finish; they're referred to. If people want to know about a particular country's domestic figures, they'd read the relevant subarticles. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::MLK Jr won the Nobel Peace Prize for his social activism, he was internationaly. recognized. |
|||
:::::::And Ghandi was influential in india's history as well. |
|||
:::::::We're not talking about them when it comes to notability. [[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CF81:EC80:391F:3C35:48EF:F3D4|2601:204:CF81:EC80:391F:3C35:48EF:F3D4]] ([[User talk:2601:204:CF81:EC80:391F:3C35:48EF:F3D4|talk]]) 22:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::They're internationally notable, but the large majority of notable people are domestic. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Nobel Prize]]s? == |
|||
:::{{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) |
|||
Not a question about this article specifically but I could find nowhere else to enquire — why are Nobel Prizes listed on year articles? What’s so notable about them that they’re given such special treatment? They’re awards given by independent, private, non-governmental organisations. Why not list this year’s Oscars or Emmys in their own section as well? |
|||
== The collage - why not restore? == |
|||
Is there an RfC which approved this at some point in the project’s history? [[User:Asperthrow|Asperthrow]] ([[User talk:Asperthrow|talk]]) 00:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree that main year articles greatly inflate the importance of Nobels. They're the only awards that are included. They have their own section, giving the impression that they're the most important thing about each year! They should be in a single entry in events, if included at all. They've been discussed, but I don't believe that there's been an RfC about them. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:They are listed because they represent the pinnacle of human achievement in their respective fields for a given year and are therefore highly notable. Oscars and Emmys are more like trivia and aren't comparable. The Nobels have been discussed before, extensively. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 15:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree. Very much. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 22:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::You're all sure they warrant their own section, rather than an entry in Events? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::* Yep. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 18:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm on the Neutral side when it comes to this. I don't think people care, but they are important. So I'm stuck. If y'all want to start an RFC on WikiProject years to help convince me, by all means please do. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Do you think they should have a separate section? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:51, 18 December 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) |
|||
== RFC on FTX's collapse == |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 01:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1674262874}} |
|||
{{RFC|econ|hist|soc|rfcid=1B720D8}} |
|||
The initial discussion on the inclusion of the FTX collapse has led to no consensus. The main question is: '''Should the Bankruptcy of FTX, be included, pursuant to the options below?''' |
|||
<b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 00:27, 17 December 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) |
|||
*'''Include'''. I've stated my opinion previously, but I'll save the need for people to scroll up. [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], among other sources in the media, have referred to FTX's collapse, once one of the most trusted cryptocurrency exchanges in the world, as the "Lehman Brothers" or "Enron" Moment for Cryptocurrency. Millions of people, from middle class crypto traders in Southeast Asia to Finance Firms in New York City have lost money due to FTX's collapse, from a small sliver of their portfolio to a large chunk of their holdings. [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] and [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ftx-collapse-janet-yellen-crypto-economy-inflation-diesel-shortage-ev-batteries-china/ CBS News]). This is about as international as it gets, and whatever this article's inclusion standards are, it should meet it unless it's specifically prejudiced against the international industry that is the cryptocurrency industry. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 00:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I see this collage as at least passably good, it makes the article better, I see no critical problems, and, therefore I have restored it. I stand by this collage. It is a good collage. When it comes to removing the entire collage, this is clearly incompatible with [[WP:PRESERVE]]. Incremental improvement is possible. If there is a certain someone who objects to something in the collage, well, edit it. Edit it out, edit something else in, I don't know. Find a solution that does not entail removing the entire collage. Ask for help and feedback on the talk page.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' InvadingInvader's arguments overall. It's not just because of the direct impact on the crypto world, it affected quite a lot of markets and the savings of millions of people. [[Sam Bankman-Fried]] was a fairly notable (even if fraudulent) business figure, with considerable media coverage. But I do understand it might not be that massive to warrant inclusion in the 2022 article itself, perhaps [[2020s in economic history]] instead? [[User:FelipeFritschF|FelipeFritschF]] ([[User talk:FelipeFritschF|talk]]) 01:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages ''can'' be included doesn't mean that they ''must'' be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include'''. Cryptocurrencies have gained far more importance in recent years, and this is clearly a landmark moment in their development, so the FTX collapse seems notable enough for inclusion. [[User:Wjfox2005|Wjfox2005]] ([[User talk:Wjfox2005|talk]]) 10:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::If I'm not wrong we've reached consensus already ([[Talk:2022/Archive 11#2022 collage candidate images and topic suggestions (Result: options A, B1, C3, D, F, G, I, K)|here]]), but it's outdated and it was still in November 2022. |
|||
*'''Include'''. I wish you were joking but it seems you're not, [[User:InvadingInvader|InvadingInvader]]. This is a blatantly notable event, possibly one of the most notables of the year and certainly the most notable in the field of exchanges & markets. Personally, I'm surprised anyone would dispute this. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 12:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Indeed, much happened since then ,like the release of [[ChatGPT]] and the death of [[Pope Benedict XVI]] however the latest doesn't seem very relevant and to represent AI in an image would be reductive. |
|||
*'''Exclude''' because it's nowhere near important enough. Trading (by companies or individuals) in extremely high-risk, pseudocurrencies is choosing to involve themselves in a fringe product that is obviously likely to rapidly incur huge losses, which will likely include bankruptcy. It's nothing like as important or mainstream as food & water supply, inflation or mortgages, which affect a high proportion of the population. Adding this would wedge open the door for many more business events to be added. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::<nowiki>However, to keep the current collage with some wrong notes underneath might not be the best solution and to remove it altogether definitely wouldn't improve the article. ~~~</nowiki> [[User:Gioppolognomo|Gioppolognomo]] ([[User talk:Gioppolognomo|talk]]) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Are you saying that an exchange that was recently valued at $32 billion getting wiped out is a usual and "not important" event? The exchange still owes over $3.5 billion to its creditors, on top of that. Where else this year or in the previous last years did we witness such an implosion? -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 16:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::sorry forgot to sign [[User:Gioppolognomo|Gioppolognomo]] ([[User talk:Gioppolognomo|talk]]) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I didn't say it's usual, but being unusual doesn't grant notability. Crypto is on the fringe of finance. The vast majority of people are unaffected by & unaware of this bankruptcy. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 17:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::This is FALSE. International news media (see my original comment in this RFC and the previous discussion's comments for sources) are covering the drama and economic fallout of FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried. My phone has nearly all the major news sources on it, and I'm getting notification after notification about SBF and FTX and stuff that started with this chain of events. And my phone has (either through their own apps or Apple News) Bloomberg, BBC, CNBC, Fox News, CNN, CBS, France24, Al Jazeera, the Atlantic, NYTimes, CNET, SCMP, and too many others to mention. When I log on to European and Asian sources, FTX is covered across the WORLD. These sources not only cover what's happening with SBF himself, but also, as I've cited in the previous discussion, stories of people (like Southeast Asia) who have LOST ALMOST ALL THEIR MONEY TO THIS COLLAPSE. There's no denying that this is less than notable unless you're using WP:IDONTLIKEIT or some other justification which intends to subliminally (or overtly for that matter) downplay a notable international industry. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::This argument is more akin to [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] with regards to cryptocurrency rather than attempting to deny notability. It's your choice IRL whether to invest in it or not. But that doesn't mean it should not garner a sentence or two on this article. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 17:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Try me mentioning it to people who don't follow financial news. They won't know what you're talking about & won't care. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Is this honestly an argument? Almost all the people I know are completely clueless about [[marine biology]]. And I mean they do not follow it ''at all!''! Talk to them about marine biology and they won't know what you're talking about and won't care. So, what do you suggest we do with marine biology articles in Wikipedia? And don't get me started on [[topology]]. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::We have very few articles in main year articles that are about marine biology or topology. I disagree with a move towards including more business stories. There should be subarticles such as [[2022 in business and finance]] for that. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Exclude''' per Jim Michael. Nothing else to add. It is by far not the most important business news this year. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 17:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:*Exactly - in comparison to the massive increase in inflation, it's a minnow of a story. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Nope. Nothing "massive" about the price increase, nor anything exceptional comparatively. The price index rose 5.87% between 2021 and 2022. This means that the purchasing power of [[US Dollar|$]]1 in 2021 would equal the purchasing power of $1.06 in 2022, a difference of six cents. Where's the "mass" you're talking about? Only in loaded opinions unsupported by arithmetic. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::Many countries have far higher inflation than that this year - the highest for decades - significantly affecting many millions of people. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::*Btw, in the previous discussion there was a majority consensus to exclude the inclusion of this news item. [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 17:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There wasn't a consensus to include. A narrow majority doesn't create a consensus. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::*:It was no consensus; 3v3. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::You are bringing to the discussion false information, [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]]. Every [[WP:RfC|RfC]] is a serious affair. We're supposed to treat them more seriously than that.-[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:*The FTX collapse was quite evidently a notable event, [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]]. Perhaps it was "not the most important business news this year" but, on the basis of the voluminous evidence available (the sources provided are a small sample), it certainly is a notable one. If you're of the opinion that we offer ''the'' most important and notable event, that opinion would be wrong. -[[User:The Gnome|The Gnome]] ([[User talk:The Gnome|talk]]) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Do you accept that it's nowhere near as important as inflation? [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Include.'''{{sbb}} And frankly, this looks pretty close to an issue that should have been resolved as [[WP:SNOW]]: there is clear [[WP:WEIGHT]] in reliable sources, with many financial sector experts and industry press clearly identifying this as by far the largest Ponzi scheme in history and likening it (disfavorably no less) to the collapse of Enron, in terms of scope, malfeasance, and impact. Not only do we have nothing less than thousands of reliable sources covering the ongoing and likely future impacts on the investment sector and the near-future viability of cryptocurrency, among numerous other knock-on effects, but also the response of regulators and legislatures across the globe. This is not even a remotely close call: this is easily one of the most [[WP:DUE]] topics for inclusion in this particular article. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 19:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Uvalde? == |
||
I think the collage isn't the best. It doesn't really summarize the most well known moments of the year well. I think there are a few things that we should change: |
|||
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) |
|||
* Winter Olympics should be replaced with FIFA Word Cup 2022. A lot of people weren't even aware that the winter olympics happened. |
|||
* The Kazakh protest should be replaced with the Iran protests. I think we all know which one got/has gotten more attention. |
|||
* The Afghan earthquake should be replaced with the Peru coup attempt. |
|||
* The Sri Lanka protests should be replaced with protests against the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. |
|||
* Abe's assassination should be replaced with Liz Truss' resignation speech |
|||
* I also think there could be a better photo used for the Ukraine War [[User:TRJ2008|TRJ2008]] ([[User talk:TRJ2008|talk]]) 17:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I am very confused. UVALDE is on the list now but it still says 'Dont add Uvalde'. Very confusing for editors. [[User:CalfRaiser150|CalfRaiser150]] ([[User talk:CalfRaiser150|talk]]) 13:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::For the most part I agree. I have some concerns, though: |
|||
::1. Abe is more important. |
|||
::2. A better photo could be used for the Ukrainian war. |
|||
::3. Rediscuss ''Dobbs v. Jackson'' in an RFC if you want. There are quite a few editors who are extremely opposed to ''Dobbs'' being removed :(I'm personally more on the include side, but definitely not in collage). |
|||
::Anyways, just my thoughts. Otherwise, I like your idea. Thanks for suggesting! <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> ([[User:InvadingInvader|userpage]], [[User talk:InvadingInvader|talk]]) 18:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Do you really think that the resignation of Liz Truss is more notorious than the assassination of Abe? And more important the demonstrations over a court decision with a much smaller impact/interest globally than the protests that brought down the HoS and HoG of Sri Lanka? I would agree to replace the Kazah protests with the Iran protests, but not with the rest you propose (without questioning your good faith in this proposal, of course). [[User:Alsoriano97|_-_Alsor]] ([[User talk:Alsoriano97|talk]]) 17:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The main reason i think of putting truss' resignation is because i think it kinda falls into the "Collapse of the UK'' narrative. I think watching UK news this year has just felt like the entire country is collapsing, and since the UK is a global power i think it fits. On dobbs i think because of the amount of people who visit America just to get an abortion, it has more global impact than the Sri Lanka protests. Not to say the Sri Lanka protests aren't important, but I think more people are affected by the dobbs decision. [[User:TRJ2008|TRJ2008]] ([[User talk:TRJ2008|talk]]) 14:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::None of the UK events are international enough. If by 'collapsing' you mean economically, many countries are in worse financial difficulties. The D v J protests were domestic & had no effect, which are two reasons that they're not in the article, let alone important enough for the collage. The [[2022 Sri Lankan protests]] resulted in the government resigning & being replaced. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 15:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:The [[2022 Kazakh unrest]] is far more notable than the [[Mahsa Amini protests]], even though the latter has lasted far longer & received far more media coverage. Coup attempts aren't important enough to be in collages. Domestic protests shouldn't be in collages, especially when they didn't change anything. Nothing involving Truss is important enough for the collage. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Oppose''' all proposals as per Alsoriano and Jim Michael, although if there’s space I’d certainly prioritise the Mahsa Amini protests over Dobbs v. Jackson, which is easily the least notable of all the 2022 protests mentioned. [[User:TheScrubby|TheScrubby]] ([[User talk:TheScrubby|talk]]) 02:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::The collage can only include things that are in the article. None of the Iranian protests are, because they're primarily domestic. [[User:Jim Michael 2|Jim Michael 2]] ([[User talk:Jim Michael 2|talk]]) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:30, 25 April 2024
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shinzo Abe & Jiang Zemin
Should Shinzo Abe and Jiang Zemin be included in the lead?
I noticed that their deaths were recently removed [1] from the lead, but they seem to be of comparable notability to those already included in the paragraph. Carter00000 (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you can find a source that establishes their deaths as a significant event of 2022 (as opposed to merely having occurred in 2022), then IMHO yes. “Year in review” sources would be ideal. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- You missed the point. I removed the ones that were unsourced. In my opinion, the whole paragraph should go, as it's completely subjective. Deb (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Collage
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
I would like to create consensus – not exclusively on this place but on all articles on calendar years – to change using the multiple image template to make collages. Specifically for this page, I would like to suggest the current picture of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to be replaced by the one below of Zelensky. One of the great things about the template system btw is that one does not need to create a whole new collage just to change one picture.
--Marginataen (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Collage depreciation
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
Change to DMY date format
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
All articles about generic years should use the much more global DMY date format. It does not make sense to make a separate discussion about this on every single year page.--Marginataen (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Date format
Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest. On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s Marginataen (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Zero images?
Why are there ZERO images on this article? 2022 was a notable year, infamously so, and photos should be included here to illustrate certain events.
@33ABGirl since when is a consensus needed to insert images in an article? Did I miss a new rule? Why was my edit reverted [2]? Which of these removed images are "controversial", and for what reason?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Recently, a discussion and RFC on the WikiProject found near unanimous consensus to deprecate the use of image collages and the general inclusion of images. This centered on the arbitrary selection of images, which editors characterized as WP:OR & WP:NPOV. 33ABGirl (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl Yes, this refers to image collages, but not images itself. It is thus not applicable to my edit, which did not contain collages. Your claim of "arbitrary selection of images" could not be substantiated in the link you provided. Furthermore, years 2021 and 2023 contradict you entirely, since they also contain images. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, your revert was unnecessary.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you read the concerns raised by those commenting on the RFC, you will find they are not necessarily exclusively related to the collages, but images in general, despite the title of the RFC.
- I opened a discussion at the Wikiproject on this, where the editor commenting agreed consensus should be obtained before adding a image. Following this, a second editor agreed to open discussions (1, 2) for the inclusion of photos. In past years, images have also usually been selected through discussions - 2021 (1, 2), 2020 (1, 2). The current images on 2023 & 2021 have either been added without consensus or edit-warred in recently by a few editors, I will be seeking administrative assistance for those cases soon.
- I also remind you that the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You have added content which has been disputed and reverted, so you should be seeking the necessary consensus to restore the content. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- You need to provide exact citation for your claim. I could only find that the theme relevant for this discussion were collages, not images per se. You are also confusing Wikimedia Commons images with external sources, since the former have nothing to do with Wikipedia:Verifiability. An image on Wikimedia is an image, not a source. Now, let's go through all these images I initially included and let's hear from you what is disputed in each and every one of them? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl Yes, this refers to image collages, but not images itself. It is thus not applicable to my edit, which did not contain collages. Your claim of "arbitrary selection of images" could not be substantiated in the link you provided. Furthermore, years 2021 and 2023 contradict you entirely, since they also contain images. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, your revert was unnecessary.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Discussion for inclusion of images
I hereby nominate the following images for inclusion in the article;
- File:2022 Kazakhstan protests — Aqtobe, January 4 (01) (cropped).jpg
- File:Движение колонны бронетехники ВС РФ 007.png
- File:Antonov_Airport_after_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_and_Mriya_(3to4).jpg|
- File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - ua.svg
- File:Warsaw Central Station during Ukrainian refugee crisis 05.jpg
- File:Bucha. Faces of War. - Ukraine War Photo Exhibition 2023 (52702841629).jpg
- File:Russian bombing of Mariupol.jpg
- File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg
- File:08.03 總統與美國聯邦眾議院議長裴洛西媒體互動會 (52259967861).jpg
Sincerely, --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose the inclusion of any images on the page. Adding images can create a bias towards certain events, essentially becoming a ranking of events, contrary to WP:OR & WP:NPOV. Considering the broad scope of the article, images should be omitted altogether. However, if there is a consensus does form to include images on the page, I would be happy to participate in the discussions regarding the selection of appropriate images. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl I don't understand your reasoning here. What is the argument here? An image could make one event more important than other events, so we should have zero images? It makes little to no sense. Even if that were the case, you could add many images and then you would have almost an equal amount of "importance" among them. But you do agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is arguably the most major even of 2022 and that it therefore merits inclusion of at least some images, correct?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- That is not a valid reason to oppose, it could be used to justify the removal of any image in any article. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support the addition of images as a general editing principle that every editor may do, no opinion on the usage of these individual images. The RfC that is still open is specifically in regards to top-of-the-page collages, it is not a bar on image use in general. Reverting image additions for no reason other than "any addition is biased" is disruptive, and should be treated as standard disruptive editing. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Proposal - I've proposed a suggested course of action here. Please add your thoughts or comments on the proposal. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl I have to repeat it for the second time, we are not discussing collage images on this talk page. We are discussing what is preventing users from including ordinary, any images on this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support there is nothing wrong with using regular images, they add to illustration and a summary of major events that happened a certain year/decade/century. Indiana6724 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I and many others are confused as to why images have been removed from all wikipedia pages on years. There used to be photo collages of notable events for every single year and they have all been removed. Why??? Lightningbolt1 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Considering that a whole month has passed, that other users gave their opinion confirming my thoughts, and that no user gave any support to @33ABGirl's arbitrary proposal of "no images policy" (for which no reasonable arguments were presented), I think we can conclude that images can freely be added to the articles about years, provided they are not collages.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the consensus is that images may be included on the page. However, I believe that there should still be a discussion on which images should be included. I suggest we use a similar system as used on the page 2023. While the discussion is related to collages, we are essentially still selecting images which are representative of the year.
- I've added a note on WP:YEARS to gather more input on this issue. 33ABGirl (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I can do this Indiana6724 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @33ABGirl The very first sentence of this discussion I started on 18 December 2023, (@Discussion_for_inclusion_of_images) includes a list of nine nominated images I want to include. You failed in this entire month to address even a single image that I nominated. As such, unless no objections were made against any of these nine images, it should be considered as accepted to be included in the article by default.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Because there are no objections, i think its fair we reinstate these images. Indiana6724 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I can do this Indiana6724 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Why is the Robb Elementary School shooting not mentioned in “Events”?
It was an event that garnered months of media attention, international condemnation, and led to the first gun law in the United States in 28 years. It was also featured on the front page. (Link:https://web.archive.org/web/20220525121908/https:/en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) MountainDew20 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Collage edit war — Proposal in progress
Hey guys. I noticed the ongoing (fairly long) edit-war ongoing on the article over the collage. A few days ago, I proposed a process to be the standardized process for collage creations. This process is being experimented on for the 2023 collage amid the proposal discussion. If consensus get’s behind the proposal, the edit war and debate can stop. Anyway, it needs to stop and be solved one way or another. Feel free to participate here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images.
Courtesy pings for people involved in edit war just in this article: 3E1I5S8B9RF7, DementiaGaming, Indiana6724, 33ABGirl, Setarip, Alalch E., 4BOTOX, Raksiyyyy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- WeatherWriter You obviously didn't even bother to read anything on this talk page since the discussion was not about collage images, but rather over zero images. After a month of discussion, the majority voted to include images in the article. If you want to contribute to the discussion, feel free after you have read the discussion and informed yourself about what you are talking about.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- 3E1I5S8B9RF7, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In this edit, you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, is being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on 2023’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually against the consensus and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said,
See the talk page. Nine images were nominated a month ago, and everyone except 33ABGirl voted to include images in the article. The collage was not agreed upon, though.
- 3E1I5S8B9RF7, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In this edit, you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, is being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on 2023’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually against the consensus and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said,
- Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- WeatherWriter Where exactly is the collage debate on this talk page?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The collage - why not restore?
Why hasn't the pre-existing collage, seen here, been restored to this article yet as it has been for other articles? Per the re-closure of this RfC, many collages were prematurely removed from year articles during the course of this RfC with at most limited discussion. Given the significantly wider scale of this discussion, any editor wishing to restore them may do so.
There was some discussion and reverting here during and shortly after that RfC, but all movement on this has apparently stalled for a month and a half. Since a perfectly good collage was already created, I don't see a need for a new discussion like is being done for 2023 - and one isn't happening anyway. We should simply restore the previous collage and bring this article in line with other year articles. Crossroads -talk- 07:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since the RfC has since been closed with overall consensus to keep them, I think it warrants restoring. jp×g🗯️ 09:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see this collage as at least passably good, it makes the article better, I see no critical problems, and, therefore I have restored it. I stand by this collage. It is a good collage. When it comes to removing the entire collage, this is clearly incompatible with WP:PRESERVE. Incremental improvement is possible. If there is a certain someone who objects to something in the collage, well, edit it. Edit it out, edit something else in, I don't know. Find a solution that does not entail removing the entire collage. Ask for help and feedback on the talk page.—Alalch E. 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages can be included doesn't mean that they must be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. Deb (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- If I'm not wrong we've reached consensus already (here), but it's outdated and it was still in November 2022.
- Indeed, much happened since then ,like the release of ChatGPT and the death of Pope Benedict XVI however the latest doesn't seem very relevant and to represent AI in an image would be reductive.
- However, to keep the current collage with some wrong notes underneath might not be the best solution and to remove it altogether definitely wouldn't improve the article. ~~~ Gioppolognomo (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- sorry forgot to sign Gioppolognomo (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages can be included doesn't mean that they must be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. Deb (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Uvalde?
Why cant we add Uvalde and why does it say 'don't add Uvalde'? CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am very confused. UVALDE is on the list now but it still says 'Dont add Uvalde'. Very confusing for editors. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)