Talk:2022

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk

It's very common for businesspeople to buy & sell companies. We rarely include them on main year articles. Twitter is a social networking service. It's not powerful, important or particularly influential. Most of its content is pop culture, celebrities, sports coverage, trivia, gossip, propaganda, self-promotion, conspiracy theories, trolling, opinions & people posting photos of their food, their pets etc. Using Twitter coverage as a measure of importance, the minor attacks on Chris Rock & Dave Chappelle are among the most important world events of 2022 and are many times more important than the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack. It has news coverage, but so do many other sites & it's not widely considered to be an important, reliable news outlet. Claims, speculation etc. about how Elon Musk may change it are akin to looking into a crystal ball. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, if you don't think Twitter is "powerful, important or particularly influential", you are clearly not familiar with it. Yes, it covers pop culture, but of course it does, because so does every type of media. The fact that Twitter is used by megacorps and politicians alike to release news, announce policy and discuss the issues of the day should tell you how seriously it is taken. Politicos - up to and including heads of countries - don't phone up the NYT or Reuters to give their opinions - they simply post them on Twitter instead. There was a survey recently - which of course I now can't find - that showed that something like 70% of adult Americans used Facebook and/or Twitter as the main method of acquiring their news. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am familiar with it. The amount of genuine, useful, reliable news on it is greatly outweighed by various junk of the types I list above. Compare how long the Will Smith-Chris Rock slap trended on there to how long the Peshawar mosque attack did. The former gained so much more coverage that you couldn't compare them on the same scale. No-one could genuinely say that an actor slapping another actor is worse or more important than an Islamic State suicide attacker killing over 60 people as part of an arrogant attempt to form a caliphate. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  And tabloid newspapers regularly sell more than heavyweight ones, and EastEnders has higher viewership ratings than Panorama, but we don't exclude The Times or BBC TV as some of our most reliable sources. I'm not sure of your point here, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  The Times is heavyweight, content-wise. It didn't go downmarket when it reduced its size. We don't use lowbrow sources such as The Sun & the Daily Mirror. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Er, yes, that's exactly my point. We don't define British newspapers by the fact that the Daily Mail is the best-selling one, we don't define the BBC by its most watched programme, and similarly we don't define Twitter as trivial because a lot of people post cat memes on it. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• "It's not powerful, important or particularly influential." -- Genuinely, one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on a Talk Page. And I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In Twitter's defence it should be pointed out that 329 million people still use the site as of April 2022. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

No-one's disputing that Twitter is popular, but even if it were one of the most important things in the world - rather than merely one of the most important & popular social media sites - that wouldn't mean that a change of ownership is an important event. Businesses, websites etc. undergoing changes of ownership aren't inherently important events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Come on jim Michael, it just seems that everyone disagrees with you at this point, Twitter is one of the biggest social media platforms out there, Elon Musk buying up Twitter could be a new era for social media, and for the online space as a Hole. So you should include it, cuz, it could end up being one of the biggest Story of the Year. 4me689 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that changes of ownership are not necessarily important. However, since the new owner has promised to significantly change how the platform operates, that is what has driven the huge amount of coverage worldwide of his takeover - and that coverage is what makes the event notable. Black Kite (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. I mean we're talking about a platform that literally influences global discourse, free speech and even democracy itself. It now has the richest person in history at its helm, who looks set to fundamentally alter its course. This isn't like the buying of Spotify or some dating app like Tinder. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Changes of ownership are common & we don't usually include them. There are many social networking sites which have a higher number of users. Musk being the world's richest person doesn't make his purchase inherently important. It's received a lot of international media coverage because he's a high-profile, fairly controversial person who seeks it. Him saying he's going to make major changes to Twitter doesn't necessarily mean that he will. We don't include things based on promises/claims/speculation. We also don't include things because they receive a lot of media coverage. If we did, we'd include the minor attacks on Chris Rock & Dave Chappelle, as well as many reactions to those overpublicised events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying this ("We also don't include things because they receive a lot of media coverage.") and it's simply not true - if there is sustained international in-depth coverage that's exactly the metric we use to include things. And this story has that coverage (it's still going a week later), unlike your other examples. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The Chris Rock-Will Smith slap received weeks of continuous, frequent media (including social media) coverage, including reactions from a ridiculous number of organisations & celebrities giving their opinions on the 'momentous' event. Some social media channels made & released their own series of videos during late March as well as April about it. Of all the events that have happened in the world this year, only the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine & the COVID-19 pandemic have received more media coverage. Using media coverage as a measure of importance, that slap was the third most important thing that happened in the world in 2022. However, no-one could genuinely say it was among the hundred most important events. We don't include the slap, nor should we. If Musk didn't have a high profile, there wouldn't be as much media coverage, nor support to include it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

You're continuing to conflate celebrity gossip and lightweight media (the Rock story was pretty much gone from heavyweight media in 48 hours) with heavy and sustained coverage in actual news sources (Musk's takeover was a week ago and there are new stories today in the Guardian, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Independent, Al Jazeera, Fortune, CNN, CNBC and that's just the English language sources on the first two pages of the news results. Just to re-iterate; that's a week-old story still getting new coverage in the highest quality of sources. Black Kite (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Come on, guys. Jim Michael is the only one arguing against inclusion. me, Wjfox2005, and Black Kite want inclusion, because Twitter can influence World politics, and it's one of the biggest social media platforms. This section should have a consensus already, and the consensus is 3 - 1 for inclusion. This section is about the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, not jim Michael versus black kite, the acquisition of Twitter is different than the slapping of Chris Rock, the latter happens every few award shows, and doesn't influence politics what so ever, the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk will influence politics a lot in the future, TDKR Chicago 101, and TheScrubby have not responded yet, but I would really love to see their opinion on this. 4me689 (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Saying that Musk buying Twitter will influence politics a lot in the future is mere speculation. We don't know how he'll change it; saying he'll make major changes is mere assumption. Many businesspeople, politicians, writers, sportspeople, entertainers etc. say they're going to do things but don't. This story is merely rich businessman buys big company, which happens frequently. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If the story was simply "rich businessesman buys big company" it would have died a death in the media by now. As I pointed out above, it hasn't (indeed the amount of coverage in serious heavyweight media has actually increased). This is obviously notable, regardless of what Musk does with the company. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Jim Michael is correct though when he invokes WP:CRYSTAL - and on that basis I think it would be wise to hold off on including the event until in due time the takeover has proven to lead to changes of significant consequence. At the same time, it is also absolutely correct that Twitter in this day and age is a platform of great consequence and influence as argued by Black Kite, among others. Overall though, in light of both of these factors, count me as Neutral. TheScrubby (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. I'm happy to wait until "significant consequence" is proven. If leaning, it would be for inclusion. The Voivodeship King (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that waiting is wise. We should revisit in six months. agtx 21:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean include or exclude it for the next 6 months? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, what happens in six months is actually irrelevant here, as the intense media coverage that makes this notable enough to post is happening now. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

If media coverage is the measure of notability, Depp v. Heard is one of the most important events in the world this year, and this decade. It's receiving intense, sustained, international media coverage - in quality as well as low-brow media outlets. However, no-one would seriously claim it's any more than a domestic event which is receiving disproportionately high media coverage because of the 2 main participants' fame. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

unlike the acquisition of Twitter, Depp v. Heard is a local event that has absolutely has no effect on world politics and belongs in 2022 in the United States. I said it earlier, the acquisition of Twitter will influence World politics in a big way in the future, as now these days Twitter has very big power in world politics. 4me689 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Only if Musk makes major changes to it. You're assuming he will, as though if he says he'll do something, he certainly will. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Depp v Heard has no effect on anything except Depp and Heard, and the coverage is merely "this is what happened in court today", as opposed to the seriously in-depth analysis in heavywieght press of the Twitter story. Black Kite (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m in favor of keeping the Twitter acquisition here. Twitter isn’t some little know startup company, it’s extremely influential in our respective societies and Musk (being one of, if not the richest man in the world) purchased this influential company that made headlines globally I think is worth a mention. I think it’s kind of weird to compare the acquisition to “the slap” because sure it was more talked about in social life than the acquisition but it won’t really have much on an impact later on. I think the twitter acquisition is worth mentioning here (as I already believe we’re getting a little too picky about what’s warranted for inclusion in this article). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Would we be considering including this if the buyer were a billionaire who isn't controversial & doesn't have such a high profile, such as Bernard Arnault, Warren Buffett or Larry Page? Anything involving Musk - whether it be his business deals, his personal life or even what he says - is given a great deal of media attention. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

All of the discussion here assumes that it's a done deal, but it's in increasing doubt, and we don't include possible events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hotel Saratoga explosion

The accidental explosion at the Hotel Saratoga in Havana is a domestic event & hence shouldn't be on this article. International media coverage doesn't make the explosion international. If it did, we'd include many domestic mass-casualty incidents in each year article. We'd also include domestic crimes such as the disappearance and killing of Gabby Petito, which received undue media coverage primarily because of the victim's looks, age & gender. We'd also include overblown domestic trivia such as the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident & Depp v. Heard. 2022 in Cuba having not (yet) been created isn't a reason to put the explosion on here. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

how many times we have to say this, it's different for each case. the murder of Gabby betito, the slapping a Chris Rock, and Depp v. Heard, are all domestic things that belong to 2022 in the United States, because all three are a footnote in history barely anybody will look back upon. the Hotel Saratoga was built back in the 1880s, and it's one of the last few things that is a Revenant of pre-1959 Cuba, and because of that, it's one of Cuba's most historic buildings. the hotel Saratoga had a lot of celebrities that stayed there (ie Madonna and Beyonce). the blowing of the hotel Saratoga means that Cuba lost one of it's pre-communism symbols, and when it gets rebuilt, it will probably look nothing like it did before. look at other communist regimes, Mao Zedong destroyed or nearly destroyed a lot of ancient Chinese Shrines, just because he thought he can rewrite Chinese history in his name, that's called the Cultural Revolution. furthermore other governments like Afghanistan's Taliban destroyed a lot of old statues, like the Bamiyan Buddhas, one of the world's oldest statues before it got destroyed by the Taliban in 2001. the Taliban also destroyed a lot of other old stuff just because they wanted to. the thing is, unless it's apparent that it's super not notable, it's good to go to talk first before removing it. now, I wonder what Black Kite has to say about this. 4me689 (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with Jim Michael on many edits, but on this particular one he is correct. It's a domestic event and shouldn't be on 2022. Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Domestic events are routinely removed from main year articles. The Smith-Rock slap & Depp-Heard case will be talked about for years. They're among the most publicised events of their lives & careers. What you're saying about the hotel is important to Cuba, but not relevant to the rest of the world. What the hotel will look like when repaired/rebuilt is speculation & domestic. Those celebs weren't staying there on the day of the explosion, so they're not relevant. The comparisons you make to former structures in Asia isn't reasonable, because they were deliberately destroyed. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither the Smith nor Depp cases are in the article (correctly so in my opinion.) I don't understand why this is being brought up in relation to a hotel in Cuba. The explosion is not a significant enough event to warrant inclusion. Sounds like an industrial accident in a building site, these happen all the time. If it was an international terror attack, in a state building, or if the hotel had been full of international guests it may be different. JeffUK (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned the slap & court case in response to the claim that international media coverage warrants the inclusion in main year articles of domestic events. Like the vast majority of fatal accidents in buildings, this is a domestic event. I agree that if, for example, the explosion had been caused by an Islamic State bomb, it'd have been important enough to include. If the victims included people from various countries, it may have been important enough to include; that's what led to the Surfside condominium collapse becoming internationally notable. However, no RS is saying either of those things were true in regard to the Havana explosion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the topic is very internationally important, while the death toll is very high I don't see very much coverage from the media. When it comes to 2022 building disasters, the Changsha building collapse received far more coverage than the Hotel Saratoga disaster and had a far higher death toll but didn't manage to make it to this page. But I guess we can't all be Rana Plazas. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey everyone, extremely new to this page and Wikipedia as a whole. Just learned about the Talk function. As I'm sure you all have figured out I strongly disagree on the explosion not being included on this page. It received a lot of media coverage in the US and Latin America. In addition, a Spanish tourist did die in the explosion, expanding its impact. The building was also very historic and internationally known. A comparison to the Changsa Building collapse is not fair as this occurred in a well-known building in the center of Cuba's capital (And just a few hundred steps from the center of government). There was also no coverage of the Changsa collapse in most western media as far as I'm aware. Also, there being no 2022 in Cuba page in English is a good reason to add it. Events shouldn't not be included because they occur in smaller, non-English speaking nations. On a different note, the month of May is nearly halfway over and there are five events currently documented there. (For comparison, April has 13 events listed by the 12th and March has 23). Hope you all are open to changing your minds. Joshuaalee59 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the Joshuaalee59 statement

the fact that one tourist dead made me support inclusion even more, Jim Michael, Wjfox2005, JeffUK, and Dunutubble. what's your status on inclusion.

also Black Kite, TheScrubby, and TDKR Chicago 101, have not responded yet, but I would really love to see their opinion on this. 4me689 (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with where Jim Michael, Wjfox2005 and JeffUK stand on this, for the record. TheScrubby (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The death toll is rather high so it might be available for inclusion. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

But international notability still needs to be proven. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue for inclusion because of the high death count. A hotel explosion resulting in a massive death count (45) and a large injury count (over 95) is pretty rare. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Already gave my opinion on this, earlier in the thread. Nobody is denying it's a tragic incident, but it just isn't notable or influential enough for 2022. The BBC and other UK outlets barely even covered it – the first I heard of it was on here. Sorry. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't include domestic events on main year articles. One foreigner being among the dead is nowhere near significant enough to warrant its inclusion. It's death toll, being unusual & being reported by the international media don't grant inclusion. How large the country is, what language they speak there & whether or not it has a year by country subarticle aren't relevant. I'd oppose excluding it no matter where in the world it happened. Some months have more events in them than others; we don't include things to make the month sections of similar length. We're less than halfway through this month, so there being fewer events in it than in the previous months of this year is to be expected. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

According to the Associated Press a "major" Baptist Church was heavily damaged in the explosion.[1]That's a significant cultural object affected. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It's of substantial significance for Cuba, but it's not international. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Definitely understand a lot of everyone's points. Seems there isn't much more to discuss. Let's just leave it off. Joshuaalee59 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Death of Shireen Abu Akleh

Another editor added Abu Akleh to the article in the 'deaths' section. I believe her death merits inclusion as she is known across the middle-east, her death was remarkable due to her young age and being a journalist killed 'in the field' and she was a Palestinian-American who worked for a Qatari news agency killed during a conflict with Israeli forces makes this an undeniably international event. The further repercussions of her death (protests and attacks at her funeral) go further to merit inclusion in the article. The 'career' section of her article goes further to explain her 'international notability' with a career spanning multiple countries in the Arab world. I think the sum of all these factors means that her death merits inclusion. I'm not sure if as a 'Death' or as an 'Event' though. If the latter it may be worthwhile waiting on the outcome of any investigations or seeing what further repercussions there are specifically outside of the immediate area before adding it. JeffUK (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

She isn't internationally notable enough for Deaths, nor is her killing internationally notable enough for Events. Thousands of journalists have worked in multiple countries. Journalists being killed isn't rare, especially in conflict zones. The reactions to it are significant, but not enough for her (death) to be on this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude as per Jim Michael 4me689 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude per Jim. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Include because of her general notability in the Arab World (a multinational region). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude as per Jim, 4me and Alsoriano. TheScrubby (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude as not significant enough. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Lil Keed

is Lil Keed notable enough for inclusion??? any thoughts, I'll leave it up to talk page first before I give my opinion. 4me689 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

If the article is fully detailed, I don't see any notability outside the US. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to him having very little international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a clear cut case where it belongs in 2022 deaths in the United States. Exclude. TheScrubby (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude, Lil keed does not have either a Billboard Hot 100 number one single, and/or a Grammy, he has none of those, so exclude him. 4me689 (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude. Never even heard of him until his death was announced. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude, my condolences to the family and friend but he was not notable enough. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Multinational companies

Many multinational companies have taken actions in regard to Russia, such as closing their operations there. Are those actions important enough to include? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Very rarely, I would say. Major financial institutions that actively impair Russia's ability to trade might count. But McDonald's certainly not, as most of their operations there are franchisees anyway. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The opening of McDonalds in Moscow in January 1990 was an iconic moment and symbolised a new bridge between Russia and the West. Huge crowds gathered on that day, and it received international coverage. Its closing is therefore notable too, along with similar global brands, as it reverses 30 years of progress in this area of commerce. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It is absolutely notable, and a major event for Russia, but it's not significant enough to be on the main year page. It should remain on McDonalds and 2022 in Russia. The opening in 1990 was symbolic because pre-globalisation, McDonalds was very much a symbol of the United States, and of Capitalism, and the opening signified the ending of the cold war and was emblematic of the fall of the iron curtain. In reverse McDonalds is simply one of many corporations boycotting Russia at this time. JeffUK (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Death section pictures for May

there has just been room open up for a second image in may, though there is a lot contenders. here's a couple of contenders.

• 
  the 1st President of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk
• 
  American-Danish Nobel nuclear physicist, Ben Roy Mottelson
• 
  2nd incumbent President of the United Arab Emirates, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan
• 
  Greek composer and musician, Vangelis

what should get the first and second pictures, and what is the order of the pictures any thoughts 4me689 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The 2 presidents are currently there. They're from the same field, so one should be replaced with the scientist or the musician. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

If I were to go with one of the world leaders, I would go with Kravchuk 4me689 (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think in due time once there's more space for additional photos (three at minimum), we ought to include both Kravchuk and Khalifa. But for now, I think it is essential to prioritise Khalifa over Kravchuk, given that he was a incumbent leader who had served 17 years in office. As for the second photo, while I think Mottelson is more deserving, due to a lack of space we should prioritise Vangelis for the time being. TheScrubby (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Vangelis and Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Better pictures, and more lasting significance. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Why do 2020, 2021, and 2022 have longer intros than all other year articles?

These three years have intros which extensively discuss the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, while in comparison the years 1939-1945 only have one introduction sentence at most to discuss World War II. Shouldn't there be a consistency in the introductions of year articles, and what is it? Sk8erkid182 (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

1988, 1989, 1990 & 1991 also have long leads. The other years should have longer leads than they do. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

agreed, in fact, the longer the lead, the more important the year is. so some years have longer headers then others. 4me689 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

88-91 are very important years, including the end of the Cold War, so it's good for them to have long leads which include that. There are some other years that should have important events added to their leads. The September 11 attacks should be in the lead of 2001. The 2003 invasion of Iraq should be in the lead of 2003. The Great Recession should be in the leads of 2007, 2008 & 2009. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We only perceive 2020, 2021, and 2022 to be extremely important years, even more important than 1939-1945, because of Wikipedia:Recentism. In any case I've started helping adding material to the leads of other year articles. Sk8erkid182 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Far more people edit the recent year articles than the older ones. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, that make sense. After all that's the reason why all the older Pages are kind of broken 4me689 (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

June Brown

Add June Brown to list of deaths? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Opposed due to a lack of international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reason. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Whilst EastEnders is indeed syndicated worldwide, it is mostly to countries with a British diaspora and thus the international notability aspect is diluted somewhat. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

She has an entry on the 1927 page for her birth. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

She doesn't, and shouldn't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Then it would be appropriate to include her death in this article. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

No, she should be removed from 1927. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Jim Michael 2 She's there, you just have to F5 it. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose due to a lack of international notability. as per TheScrubby, Jim Michael, and Black Kite. 4me689 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, EastEnders is very local with no international significance. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sport

How do we measure which sports events are important & international enough to include? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Amount of international reliable sources covering them is the only metric, really. The list at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Sports may be good starting point. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

We currently don't include most of those. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think almost none if they're an annual event (It adds little information to have an entry in every year article saying 'X annual event happened this year too, quelle surprise', short of any specific reason to add them on a case-by-case basis. an otherwise annual event NOT happening for some reason may be more significant. Inaugural or ultimate events may make them significant enough to add, but not in all cases. The first (in a long time) international event being held in a country may be notable if the sources back up the fact it is symbolic of a wider change in international politics (say North Korea host the international table tennis championship) JeffUK (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding literature

Should this article include literature works or books that are published this year? What about holidays? They gain international notability right? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If a book, in the future, becomes notable enough that it's year of initial publication is really significant, then yes. E.g. Lord of the Rings' publication is noted in 1954 . I doubt very much that will happen within the year itself though. An example of a holiday that you think should be added would help discussion JeffUK (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, does Christmas or Easter count if it gains status around the world? It will help other people learn new events as well. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I think Christmas and Easter have very much gained status around the world already. Adding the *date* of Easter (and other major religious festivals) in a particular year is not something I would be particularly opposed to as they do change each year. Christmas is normally December 25th most years though.. JeffUK (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

But what would happen if I edited the article and added local and state events that do not gain any international notability? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Another editor might remove them if they didn't feel they fit within the scope of the article. Why are you asking, do you have a point you're trying to make? If so making it explicitly might be more productive JeffUK (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I was asking because I was making a point about literature, holidays, and local events in general and overall. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Books are rarely important enough to include. The Satanic Verses is a rare example of one that is, because of the major internation reaction to it.

As has been stated many times, we don't include domestic - let alone local - events.

Public holidays are usually regular. Most aren't international & even those that are shouldn't be included because they're not important events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The publishing of literature is rarely notable unless it causes a huge world event that will affect the world for years to come. Books normally go in 2022 in literature. 4me689 (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Even if I research literature in 2022 and there are even link and resources, do they count as reliable? Why not? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You may be able to provide reliable sources that a book was published in 2022, the question is whether that makes it on on topic for this article. There is general consensus that the topic of the article is internationally important things that happen within the year. The publication of a book is unlikely to meet that definition on it's own. JeffUK (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

What does reliable sources for 2022 include? 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It may include almost everything, like the website that increases vocabulary and language skills. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

No, reliable sources are well-defined. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

But how are reliable source are well defined? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

That link explains that in detail. The more relevant point here is that to be on main year articles, things have to be internationally important. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Reverts over the Ukraine entries

In regards to this edit that was reverted here and here– Wjfox2005:

1. What makes a technical complaint about refugee corridors internationally notable? This entry isn't about something important happening (like a new supraorganization being founded or a major military battle), just a complaint about a Russo-Ukrainian internal dispute.
2. No, it's not. These kinds events are very common and don't usually have spots on main year articles. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Robb Elementary School shooting

Should the Robb Elementary School shooting be listed? I understand that mass shootings are all too common in the U.S., but one at an elementary school (with over 19 deaths; 18 children) is pretty rare. Sandy Hook is listed in 2012 and Parkland shooting is listed in 2018, the Robb shooting already exceeds the death toll of Parkland. Just curious about input, I know this might get heated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

None of them should be included, because they're domestic events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking in terms if this can't be posted then Sandy Hook and Parkland shootings shouldn't be either. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's common for things to be added to main year articles which shouldn't be. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• After seeing the international reactions, high death count and though a common tragic event in the U.S., I feel that Stoneman Douglas and Sandy Hook do merit inclusion in their respective years and so should this one. Count me in as Include. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely exclude. Of course these shootings are always tragic, but firstly they are purely domestic and secondly they happen so regularly in the United States. Unless it leads to meaningful change in the US, I don’t think they’d meet the bar - and even if it did, it’d be a borderline inclusion at most because it would still be domestic. TheScrubby (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Columbine should also be excluded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think Columbine is the exception here, it made major headlines worldwide and of course spawned films etc., whereas nowadays US school shootings get a few headlines and then disappear. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Columbine should be kept. In addition to the points put forwards by Black Kite, I should note that it helped inspire mass shootings around the world , such as in the Kerch Polytechnic College massacre and the Erfurt school massacre. (See also here) Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude. Domestic incident. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Include. Years can have domestic events, so you should add this to the article. There is nothing wrong with this. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

We have Year in Topic for a reason. Otherwise, why bother having pages such as 2022 in the United States? TheScrubby (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This may be a reason, but it gained attention throughout international and global. It also sparked some new measures. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

International coverage doesn't equate international notability - that's something which has been firmly established here for well over a year. As for "new measures", it is far too soon to make such a claim, and at this stage borders on WP:CRYSTAL. If this event leads to meaningful gun reform in the United States (as the Port Arthur massacre did in Australia), then we could revisit this and maybe include this as a borderline case. TheScrubby (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Include There are many and tons of reasons why it should be included. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Include because of the high death toll and the media coverage. I wouldn't completely call it domestic, as it also seems to have had an impact, albeit devoloping, on Mexico–United States relations. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I agreed with you more, it had gain attention nationally and there are tons of new sources out there. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

safe2say, I now think inclusion, I now say inclusion because a lot of world leaders are talking about it. it's safe to say that a lot of people outside the United States are talking about it after all. I no longer think that it's a domestic event. I now think it's worldwide news. I think you can 100% no longer say that it's a domestic event. 4me689 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Many events have a lot of media coverage & talk. World leaders have given statements after many domestic attacks/disasters. They don't make it internationally notable. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

you always think everything's not notable 4me689 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Include. Yes, shootings in America are common, but this is the horrific barbarity of gunning down innocent small children, attacking them for no reason but just out of hate of humanity. This is a very significant event. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  But the shooting itself has no impact on global affairs.

  The main article is supposed to be about global events, or events that have significant impact between countries. 73.12.209.248 (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  Disagreed, any event can be included within an article no matter how local, national, or global it is. It is digital evolution, not limited. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Not in main year articles; they're for important, international events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know how many times this needs to be said, but to all those who are saying include, international coverage doesn’t equate international notability. In response to StellarNerd, yes it was a horrific event but we don’t include events based on our own emotional reactions - we include them based on international notability and significance. It is way too soon for this event to be deemed one of international notability, given how many mass shootings there are in the US and how none of them really led to change in the US. It would be WP:CRYSTAL to add the event because one assumes this’ll lead to any change of international consequence. It is also wildly inappropriate that one of the users deleted the note on the 2022 page and added this event anyway without any firm consensus in favour of inclusion. This event simply doesn’t meet the bar at all - though again, we can always revisit it if it does indeed prove to have international consequence. TheScrubby (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, any event can be added in to year articles if they recently happened, since there are many sources and newspapers are the sources. So the list can be longer to help a lot of people. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It certainly shouldn't. Making the articles much longer isn't the goal of main year articles, which are for international events. There are many subarticles for domestic events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

To add to what Jim Michael has said, it's been demonstrated by several users over the last year especially that we actually need to be more selective with what should be deemed relevant for these pages, and that recent year pages especially have easily exceeded the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article. TheScrubby (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

One of the arguments for including this is that some victims were (likely) foreign nationals. However, that's true of many domestic attacks, disasters etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

This massacre has riveted the world media for now nearly a week. It's a significant event on a global scale. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident & Depp v. Heard have received a huge amount of international media coverage for a lot longer. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude per all above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  But honestly, it had gained international attention throughout media and the location. There are tons of reliable sources including the television news. -- 76.20.110.116 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No-one's disputing that it has received a lot of international media coverage, but that doesn't make it internationally notable. The same goes for Smith-Rock & Depp-Heard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude Yes it is a tragic and barbaric shooting, but it doesn't affect much in global affairs. It is a purely domestic event. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Ray Liotta

is Ray Liotta notable enough for inclusion?

he starred in a lot of very successful films, like Field of Dreams, Something Wild, and Goodfellas among many others. he also starred as Tommy Vercetti in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

he is very notable enough for inclusion, I wonder what the talk page has to say about this. just please give a good reason and don't be too basic. mainly because most of the people here are getting too strict about inclusion. and give nothing other than "too domestic 2022 the United States" as their response. 4me689 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said on my edit summary, I think although he is not an Oscar recipient, Liotta should make the cut, albeit as a borderline inclusion. Because he’s borderline though, I don’t think he should be prioritised for an image. TheScrubby (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

His only awards are minor, US awards. He has no international notability. Many thousands of actors have starred in internationally popular films. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see and support the argument for inclusion as he has appeared in some notable films, death is gaining international coverage and though he's no Eastwood, Pacino or DeNiro, he's not a nobody too. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree and would lean towards borderline inclusion. I see obituaries (proper ones, not copy and paste agency ones) in heavyweight newspapers from around the world. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Include. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That's all due to his popularity & unexpected death. He doesn't gain the notability of his films, nor become internationally notable because he has many fans in many countries, died overseas & his death was reported in many sources. Thousands of entertainers are domestic figures who have fans in other countries & whose deaths are widely reported. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

He is (was) a well-known actor, with a leading role in one of the most critically acclaimed gangster movies ever. That alone is sufficient, before you consider his roles in other movies/TV shows. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Tennis

As we don't usually include any tennis tournaments, it makes no sense to include Novak Djokovic being deported from Australia & not able to defend his Australian Open title, nor the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from The Championships, Wimbledon. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Jim, have you considered finding another hobby in life? i.e. something that doesn't involve deleting everything on Wikipedia, which you seem utterly obsessed with, to a frankly bizarre extent. Seriously, give it a rest. Anyway, 2022 and indeed all years should provide a decent "overview" of the year's main events, to inform people looking back on them in the future. Djokovic and his deportation case received MASSIVE, WORLDWIDE news coverage, making it clearly a notable event for this year. I believe that's all that needs to be said on this matter. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Part of the comment striked for violating the No Personal Attacks policy.Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you considered not adding so many insufficiently notable events & people to main year articles? You claim that the problem is me removing them, but I'm one of several editors who frequently remove insufficiently notable things, including those which you've added/reinstated. The biggest problem with main year articles is the additions of what shouldn't be on them. I don't remove most things, let alone everything.

Djokovic is the best singles player in a sport which has millions of fans across many countries. That's why the media reported it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally, anything that gets "global" coverage is worth mentioning here, so I think Djokovic's deportation is worth mentioning. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

On that basis, the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident & Depp v. Heard should be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Jim is doing a good job, and always seeks consensus before removing any content. We must take care to ensure that Year in topic is as less country-centrist as possible and not just another news portal. He doesn't need to search for "another hobby in life". We must insist that international coverage ≠ international notability. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and we don't usually include who won the grand slams because tennis is considered to be insufficiently internationally notable for main year articles. Therefore, it makes no sense to include who can't enter them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

We already have the 2022 in tennis page. That would be the appropriate venue to include an entry on Djokovic. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

And the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from Wimbledon. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to present my points... in points.

1) Novak Djokovic has won 20 Grand Slam titles. Therefore, he is notable.

2) The most often case in which people are deported are illegal immigrants and various smugglers. These people are (bar a select few) not notable.

3) If a notable person had an action taken against them (deportation) that almost no other notable people have had happen to them, that is a departure from the norm.

4) Based on Point 3, I find it notable that a notable person was deported. His inability to defend his title is not notable, so I'm fine losing that tidbit.

Thanks, The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see deportations as important enough, even if of internationally notable people, in unusual circumstances. The only exception would be if the deportee were a head of state/gov. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but, as there are no written guidelines on the notability of deportation, I'm still in favour of inclusion. So far, its myself, Wjfox and TDKR Chicago for inclusion and Jim Michael, Alsoriano and Dunutubble. Can I get a tie-breaking vote from anyone? TheScrubby? PeaceInOurTime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Voivodeship King (talk • contribs) 11:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus does not necessarily equate to a majority of votes; having said that I'm inclined to borderline include the deportation of Djokovic due to the international nature of the competition as well as the international political and diplomatic consequences of said deportation. As for the Russian & Belarusian players being banned from Wimbledon, the argument for inclusion is a lot weaker, but count me as neutral overall. TheScrubby (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If we included grand slams - and I'm not saying we should - then I'd be in favour of including the deportation of Djokovic & the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from Wimbledon. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the two are related whatsoever, It's a false dichotomy, an exceptional event featuring the sitting world champion tennis player can be on topic for this page even if tennis events are not normally included. This was an internationally notable event involving government-level actors, which was highly publicised and discussed at the top of government in multiple countries. JeffUK (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone want the banning of Russian & Belarusian players from Wimbledon to be included? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think not, as always it's subjective but this was a unilateral decision made by a private organisation, not a government decision. Affected the 8th and 4th ranked players, not the world #1, and had significantly less coverage internationally. JeffUK (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of which players it affected, the banning was notable for a major (international) sporting event like this. Surely we can include non-govermental events on 2022. It is partly "political" in any case, as it has a damaging impact on both Russia's and Belarus's image and reputation. And googling the keywords "russia belarus banned tennis", I also believe it received sufficient news coverage to merit inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Angelo Sodano

I think Angelo Sodano merits inclusion, he was the Vatican's longtime Sec. of State, influential cardinal within the church, a notable figure in the Church's sex scandal and was the Dean of the College of Cardinals for almost 15 years. I know we don't post cardinals that often here but I think Sodano makes an argument for inclusion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion, cuz what I can see from this dude, this dude was kind of important, though I think this is kind of borderline. 4me689 (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion He was Holy See's Secretary of State, the equivalent of "Prime Minister", so there is neither doubt nor debate. All of them should be included. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion See this AP article for more information about his general importance: Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 03:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections with his inclusion, yeah. My reservation is more with regards to image, which I don’t think he should necessarily take priority over other prominent figures who have passed this month. TheScrubby (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude, because powerful in a very very small state with no army, well except the Swiss Guard, and with no territory to speak of isn't a reason to include. Would you include Nauru government ministers? Nauru is a bigger state than the Vatican. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Except, The Vatican isn't just a city state, it is the political arm of the Catholic Church which is one of the most influential insitutions in the world, When Sodano was secretary of State for the Holy See, he is essentially the vice pope for the Church. 73.12.209.248 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Jean Lèques

President of New Caledonia briefly, but this is merely an overseas territory of France, not a country or state. His two-line article and the fact that Government of New Caledonia doesn't exist suggests that he shouldn't be included here. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Removed due to having no international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Move to 2022 in Oceania or 2022 in France. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with the swift decision to exclude. If New Caledonia was an independent nation, then this would be a completely different story. TheScrubby (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

exclude, as per TheScrubby, Dunutubble, and Jim Michael. 4me689 (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protect article?

During recent weeks, this article has been vandalised many times, and frequently had people & things added to it which are nowhere near notable enough to include. This has included blanking, obsessive fans repeatedly adding people & trolls writing insults. It has also included the nuisance who repeatedly asks 'what if 2020 was a person?', who is so persistent that he created an article relating to that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Strong support this proposal - and am amazed it hasn't been done already as it is. TheScrubby (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Support per nom. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Support, that's a great idea, especially since in recent days this page has seen an uptick of vandalism and unnecessary revisions. 4me689 (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Support Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Since writing this, the person who repeatedly writes nonsense about 2020 being a person using various IPs has vandalised both this article (using a deliberately very misleading edit summary) & its talk page, using yet another IP. Should this talk page also be semi-protected? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, it's a good idea to semi protect this page, because we don't want more people doing it. though I don't know if the "2020 was a person" thing is only one person or just multiple people doing it. any proof??? 4me689 (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The 2020 vandal is clearly one person, who knows his additions are highly inappropriate. All the edits on that have been recent, are written in the same way & on the same articles. There are bad edits by others as well, but they're very different to his. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't generally protect talk pages unless there is serious and persistent vandalism (i.e. BLP violations), because if there article is semi-protected you then prevent people from posting semi-protected requests for changes to the article. Even in the rare case that it *is* done, an unprotected subpage is usually created. The disruption here is not anywhere near the levels that are required for a talkpage protection. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please semi-protect this article. The number of bad edits to it recently have been far more frequent than average. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

What would the semi-protection of the article entail? The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

An admin would limit editing to autoconfirmed accounts. Yesterday, I asked Deb to do that. She instead applied a lower level of protection - pending changes - to the article, which means that edits need to be accepted by autoconfirmed accounts. That'll reduce the number of bad edits, but as you can see the vandal who frequently writes nonsense about 2020 is still targeting this talk page (which is unprotected), as well as other articles. He frequently changes IP; some of those he has used have been blocked. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I've protected the talkpage for a week until our childish friend gets bored. Can't use any other method as they're using wide, unblockable ranges. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Should we include normal national elections automatically in all cases?

Looking at other sources of 'major events in 20xx' it's rare to see them including national elections that are just normal democratic elections. I know there's an argument that 'changing leadship has an effect on foreign policy and therefore on world politics' but I think this is a little weak to class these events as on-topic for this article automatically. I don't know if they always need to be listed; i.e. should it not be at least interesting to the reader for some reason other than 'the scheduled election takes place, without any particular controversy or international implication'? We already have List of elections in 2022, so I don't think duplicating entirely the content of that article here is necessary. JeffUK (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

They take up a substantial proportion of we include them even when it's a re-election of the same party & leader. That's disproportionate prominence. Most of them can't reasonably be considered to be among the most important events of the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the re-elections on the page currently are not significant enough to be included, but what about transfer of power from one party to another? (Someone can always find some reason a certain election is 'unprecedented' (XKCD)!) JeffUK (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus

Multinational corporations often pull out of countries. We don't include the large majority of those instances in main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think they're notable in aggregate, was wondering if we could somehow compress these into one line somewhere. Maybe in the lead sentence about the russia/ukraine war? JeffUK (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, notable enough in total, but none of them are important enough to be individually mentioned on here. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the lead, I think this now allows for them to be removed. I think the fact we have over a thousand companies withdrawing per Corporate_responses_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine actually strengthens the case for not having a handful cherry-picked US based corporations in the body. JeffUK (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it makes no sense to include a small minority of them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

strong agree with both of you. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Per User:Dunutubble and User:Wjfox2005 's recent edits I believe this also encompasses UEFA and FIFA (Both also multinational corporations, and both mentioned in the linked Corporate_responses_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine article. Even without these there are still far too many entries here for the Russia/Ukraine war here that are about the belligerents only, or minor regional developments (we don't have per-battle reports for any other war, ever.) For the 2003 Iraq war we have '1. The war starts.' 2.Saddam is captured' This seems much more appropriate for this sort of article. Russia is mentioned 123 times in 2022 article, and it's only June! JeffUK (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Fine then. Delete everything I spent hours researching, adding, editing, and formatting. I won't bother contributing to these pages anymore. It just isn't worth my time and effort, when people are so rabidly in favour of deleting everything, and seem to positively salivate over creating the most boring, uninformative, and sterile articles possible. The fact that you'd prefer literally two entries ("start" and "finish") for the most important conflict since WW2 says it all really. I enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia and trying to create an informative, well-cited timeline of events, which I believed would interest and inform people looking for an overview of each year. But apparently it's more important that these articles are continually hacked down to the most basic, bare-bones level. That isn't something I can take part in anymore, and I'm tired of continually trying to maintain this page's content, amid the onslaught of deletions. So I'm sorry to say but I think I'm finally done here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The Korean War, Vietnam War & Iraq War are each significantly more important, and they don't have close to the level of detail in main year articles that this does.

As several editors have said, much of what you add is for year by country/topic articles rather than main year. We're not criticising the quality of your work & don't have anything against you. You're taking personally the removal/reversion of some of your edits, even though I don't take into account who added info, only its content. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not the 'most important conflict since WWII', it's the most televised, in the grand scheme of things it's a relatively minor, slow-burning, bi-lateral conflict, involving fewer injuries, fewer deaths, and less territory being taken over than many wars in the last 10 years let alone 70. My view is that readers looking for this article will be looking for an easily readable broad summary of the major events of a year that is not interlaced with a near day-by-day timeline of not-particularly-remarkable 'events' in one specific local conflict. People interested in 'what happened in 2022' want to know the russian/ukraine conflict happened, maybe a handful of key events, in the knowledge they can read the Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine for day-by-day accounts of what happened, and detailed information about the conflict on the articles linked from this very page. JeffUK (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a great deal of detail in main year articles for three wars - the two world wars & the current one in Ukraine. The latter is on nothing like the same scale, so to have so much detail is very disproportionate. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

2016 doesn't mention Russian book ban in Ukraine, 1974 doesn't have Jackson-Vanik amendment, 2018 doesn't have DASKA, etc.

Most sanctions aren't notable for main year pages, and most of these against Russia/Belarus aren't either. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Whisky War

One of the world's most trivial international border disputes on a very small, remote, cold, uninhabited location. We don't include most territorial disputes on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be included, it's notable and reported enough, and per List_of_national_border_changes_(1914–present) there is very rarely more than one per year and actually many border changes have been included in recent years. India-Bangladesh in 2010, Azerbaijan in 2015 (not directly but it's part of the October 10 cease fire), Russia/Crimea in 2014. JeffUK (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It's only the conclusion that's been widely reported, and even then only briefly. Hans Island is tiny, barren & uninhabited; it's in a remote Arctic location. It's not in a strategic location like Gibraltar. Azerbaijan & Crimea's changes are the result of military action between countries which hate each other; this isn't. The number of deaths & injuries in the 'Whisky War' is zero. Relations between Canada & Denmark remained good throughout the dispute. There's no chance that 2022 will ever be well-known for the end of this dispute & it can't seriously be argued that it's one of the most important events of the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Canada and Denmark now border each other. Before that they only had land borders with the US and Germany respectively. I think that could hold some important consequences.

Also, Hans Island might not be important on the level of Gibraltar but that doesn't mean it's not strategic. One of the reasons why the dispute was notable is because Hans Island could be a major post for Arctic/Northwest Passage shipping routes in the near future, what with climate change and all. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That's interesting trivia, suited to 2022 in Canada, 2022 in Denmark (both of which it's bizarrely absent from) and DYK, but not a main year article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I Agree with JeffUK, changes in borders are rare, even more rare in the Americas where it's normally peaceful. 4me689 (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Rarity doesn't usually increase notability. If this ended an actual war between countries it'd be important, but this is was always a trivial dispute between 2 countries who've always had good relations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

you're just making it seem like it happens every year, the fact that has happened is rare 4me689 (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Many international border disputes are ongoing, and most years include at least one starting &/or concluding somewhere. This is one of the more trivial. We've excluded various types of events which were argued for on the basis that they're unusual. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)