Jump to content

Talk:2022: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 829: Line 829:


:If there was a conversation that had broad consensus, it wasn't here. I combed through the archive. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 16:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
:If there was a conversation that had broad consensus, it wasn't here. I combed through the archive. [[User:PaulRKil|PaulRKil]] ([[User talk:PaulRKil|talk]]) 16:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
:@[[User:Deb|Deb]] But why do you think that Microsoft and Activision Blizzard are a domestic event? Are they an influence on internationals? Or do company mergers happen in one country or continent? -- [[Special:Contributions/204.129.232.195|204.129.232.195]] ([[User talk:204.129.232.195|talk]]) 16:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:53, 8 November 2022



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

2022 collage candidate images and topic suggestions (Result: options A, B1, C3, D, F, G, I, K)

Give your opinion on what topics should be included in the collage and what should be left out. On some subjects feel free to add in subject to the image gallery the minimum is 8. 4me689 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I choose all of them as collages since they are a influence to the defining year and most people have heard of these events that happened recently. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A, B1, C3, D, F, G, I, k of course the Russian invasion Ukraine and the death of Queen Elizabeth should get a image on the collage. the protest in Sri Lankan led to big changes over there, the assassination of sensuality was a big one in Asia, the Olympics has the biggest sporting event every year. 4me689 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prominently include at least one depicting the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because it's by far the world's biggest event of the year. Exclude the Tonga eruption & abortion protests because they're nowhere near important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the Russian invasion, but something other than a drab green picture of a tank would be better. Do we have something with the Ukrainian flag or Russian 'Z', something clearly in Ukraine? JeffUK (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A, B2, C2, D, F, G, I. I realise that's only 7. I don't think H is notable enough (considering we've had an earthquake that killed 1000, flooding in Pakistan that killed more, and a heatwave that killed 12000 in Europe this year), J is domestic, and the COVID-19 vaccine is really a 2021 story. I suspect we'll get a better image for C after today as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite and Jim Michael 2, what about the monkeypox outbreak, is that a good idea, I certainly think it is. 4me689 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include monkeypox, in addition to Ukraine, the Olympics, the Queen's death/funeral & the Afghan earthquake. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
guys, what do you think about this collage I just made. I use the new picture of Queen Elizabeth II that I haven't brought up yet which is her lying-in-state. 4me689 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would swap the photo of Elizabeth II's coffin and change Tonga for monkeypox. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The photo that purports to show Abe's assassination does nothing of the sort, it just shows a road. These images need to be much more meaningful and relevant. The suggestion that certain options have been chosen by consensus in the very limited discussion above is ludicrous. Deb (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: FYI there was a later discussion that consensus said that we should replace the Assassination of Shinzo Abe with the 2022 World Cup 4me689 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4me689: So why is it still there? Deb (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
D, E, K, and A. But I believe that we should include most inventions that are created from science and technology. But, why not include the media and retail as well? It would be better though, as they are defining moments of this year. -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4me689 Any more ideas to be added besides this? -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed NASA's DART in this discussion right here but most editors disagreed 4me689 (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the minimum is 8". Once again User:4me689 is pushing a personal view without consensus. Deb (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahsa Amini protests (Result: borderline inclusion)

Perhaps someone should add something under “September” referring to the current protests in Iran? The ganymedian (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're quite notable enough for inclusion (yet), but let's wait and see. The situation appears quite volatile, so perhaps in the coming days/weeks they could be added. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At what point do they become internationally notable enough? This is mostly a domestic event, but there have been smaller protests in some major cities of other countries. There's been an international reaction, but is it enough? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it leads to a change of government/regime, or deaths of protesters in the hundreds (it's currently ~50), or some sort of larger-scale uprising in the Middle East, it should be included IMO. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any International reaction is better than no international reaction. I personally think that we're being way too exclusive with some of the biggest domestic events in countries (started a new thread about it below) InvadingInvader (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I'd say no but it has the potential to boil into a larger event. PaulRKil (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd include it if it causes a larger conflict or becomes martyred like the Tiananmen Square uprisings. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The ganymedian:, @Wjfox2005:, @PaulRKil:, @Jim Michael 2:, and @InvadingInvader:. should Mahsa Amini protests be in this years collage. 4me689 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would wait a little longer to see how it plays out @4me689 Kazakh unrest is still bigger in terms of fatalities for now, but we will see. The ganymedian (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Mahsa Amini protests aren't in the article, so they can't be in the collage. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think not necessarily in the collage unless they result in a regime change, but certainly they should be mentioned in the article. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with those who would like to take a wait and see approach, given that these protests are still ongoing and developing. We can always revisit this and include it once something major takes place as a consequence. TheScrubby (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third picture for September (Result: Frank Drake gets third photo after Elizabeth II and Jean-Luc Godard)

There's a lot of hesitancy on on Frank Drake getting a photo int he death section. My opinion the third photo should go to Frank Drake as we already have a Hollywood worker in the form of Jean-Luc Godard, but in my opinion I fully support Louise Fletcher replacing Goddard, as fletcher is more notable. In my opinion it should be Frank Drake, Elizabeth II, and then Louise fletcher. Though I am still open for Godard to get the fourth picture, if they will ever be room for one. 4me689 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Louise Fletcher is absolutely not more notable than Godard. You'll note that Godard was one of the very few people each year to get a full entry at WP:ITN on his death. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Black Kite: I would not replace Godard for Fletcher but it was only a suggestion because of Hurt and Poitier being Oscar winners themselves. I could easily go to the 2007 article and change Deborah Kerr’s image for Jane Wyman because Wyman won an Oscar while Kerr did not despite being nominated several times. Kyu (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To @4me689 I do not agree with having Drake here. I only suggested Fletcher because she was an Oscar winner plus keeping Godard is important because he’s more well known than Drake. Plus, we already have William Hurt and Sidney Poitier in terms of Oscars so I’m thinking we should have someone else other than Drake. I never even heard of him until recently so if you want him so bad, have him. Kyu (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Godard actually won an Academy award as well, an Academy Honorary Award which is awarded for "extraordinary distinction in lifetime achievement, exceptional contributions to the state of motion picture arts and sciences". Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose any notion that Fletcher is more notable and more image-worthy than Godard, as per Black Kite. TheScrubby (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coolio (Result: borderline inclusion)

Should Coolio be included? I know some of his songs and was a Grammy award winner in 1996 but I think he should be excluded. What do you think? Kyu (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea who he is. Doesn't seem as notable based on what you're telling me. If you can prove he was liked notably in multiple world regions, I would support you on including him. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could but I’m waiting for other responses too. Can’t just add him like that. He was a rapper best known for the albums, It takes a thief, Gangsta’s Paradise and My Soul. Kyu (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@InvadingInvader:, and @MrMimikyu1998:. just curious, should Coolio get a picture. 4me689 (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. Kyu (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When a figure is a (strong) candidate for exclusion, it goes without saying that uploading an image of them is not an option. TheScrubby (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ahh I'm shocked to hear his death, he should be included 100%. 4me689 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude due to insufficient international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
seriously, @TheScrubby: You would have to desert reality to even so much as suggest Coolio is not notable, he won a Grammy, he has one of the biggest hits of the 90s, and your as sill saying he is not notable. 4me689 (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that he wasn't notable. I'm saying his international (i.e. outside of the United States) notability is insufficient for inclusion here. Belongs in 2022 deaths in the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But his name is in the 1963 article however not his image. UPDATE: I removed him in the 1963 article. Should I remove Marsha Hunt from the 1917 article? Kyu (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He has albums and singles that have charted in other countries. Shrug. 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702 (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So do we include every artist of every country who happened to have albums and singles chart beyond their home country? TheScrubby (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By that measure; Tony Bennett would not be included because he has no awards outside of the US. You see how crazy that sounds ? And with number one hits to boot in many countries. ( Same as Coolio by the way ).
And yet Jim Michael a few months ago, said that Bennett qualifies. Shrug.
I know we have issue with Americentrism here. But we're taking this a bit too far. Meanwhile, People like Gary Brooker have been included, and I support his inclustion too, but if he's included why not Coolio ? 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702 (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Brooker was included because he was the main figure from Procol Harum which did achieve international notability, although in this case we would only include Brooker from the band, not anybody else. As for the point about Tony Bennett, I’ll let @Jim Michael 2: speak for himself. TheScrubby (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheScrubby: if you don't recognize Coolio, here's his most famous song, Gangster's Paradise, you probably heard it once or twice.
file:Coolio feat. L.V - Gangsta's Paradise.ogg. 4me689 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not I or anybody else here recognises Coolio or his work is not relevant. TheScrubby (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, Scrubby. Appreciate it. Kyu (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what @Wjfox2005:, @Black Kite:, @PaulRKil:, @Alsoriano97:, @TDKR Chicago 101:, and @Deb:. thinks about Coolio inclusion. 4me689 (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would include Coolio because I know of him and I'm both old and living outside the US. It doesn't of course follow that others with similar career histories should be included. Deb (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here it comes into play whether singers who have been globally popular for a single song are eligible for inclusion. For example, we would include Psy? In the case of Coolie, I remain neutral, but I tend to support his inclusion. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is hard for me as a big Hip Hop fan and as a fan of Coolio's. He certainly left his mark on Hip Hop in the 90s but he never reached the lasting legacy that rappers like Tupac or Jay-Z reached. I'd say, if anything, he would be a borderline include and I am basing that mostly on precedent as we included DMX in 2021. PaulRKil (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include, the rules here are just ridiculous. I do not know an acting Serbian head of state with ceremonial power or another Serbian prime minister, who held the office when Serbia was not a country but only a constituent republic of Yugoslavia, are why more "internationally" notable then Coolio, an iconic rapper of the '90s? --Norden1990 (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you've got to be kidding us. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's funny is this system. "International notability" means "anti-US" attitude here. It must be acknowledged that the USA has a far greater influence on global culture than all other countries combined. Consequently, a Grammy-winner rapper is definitely "internationally" notable. If this guy had been French, there would be no question of his inclusion. Instead, there is this continuous effort to exclude well-known American (=US) persons from the lists. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely this kind of Americentrism which had until last year permeated these pages and which ought never to be revived. Even now, there’s more Americans on these lists than that of any other nationality. The fact of the matter is, until last year figures that came from the United States were more than a little disproportionately included - and when I say that, what I mean is that their foreign equivalents would not even remotely get a look-in, and would receive far greater scrutiny than those from the United States. What we’re now doing is making it more even and fair for everyone, and not have figures from one country have a lax set of standards for inclusion in contrast to those from every other country. TheScrubby (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you at least admit that there is a double standard to the detriment of the USA. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you didn’t read what I said. There is no “detriment of the USA”, on the contrary beforehand they were disproportionately included. Minor, domestic US congressmen and celebrities unknown outside the US were being included without scrutiny while their exact international counterparts were being questioned and excluded. You call that fair? Get outta here with the Americentric nonsense. TheScrubby (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Behave yourself and leave this tone, or I will report you. We are talking about Coolio or Donald Rumsfeld and not about domestic US congressmen. Of course, they have no international recognition. However, Coolio represents a different category, he is a well known musician outside US too. I can list maybe three or four rappers (I hate this genre) and Coolio has always been one of them. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're American, aren't you? Or maybe you have only been exposed to the English language through American TV, which would give you the impression that the US is more influential than "all other countries combined" - an impression that, to most English speakers, sounds ludicrous. Deb (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest, you should read WP:PA. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Norden1990 - read WP:WORLDVIEW. Deb (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong include One of the most famous rappers of the last 30 years. Grammy award winner. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What should be the standards of inclusion for musical artists ? (Result: inconclusive)

International Awards ? Well that would exclude people like Tony Bennett, Coolio, Johnny Mathis, who had 0 awards outside of the US.

Top Chart hits in other countries ? 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702 (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's dependent on a case by case basis. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with InvadingInvader 4me689 (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the initiative, in the wake of the discussions to do with Coolio’s inclusion. One thing I’d like to bring up in relation to this is whether or not being a recipient of a Grammy Award is automatically sufficient for inclusion here. The fact that Coolio was a Grammy winner was brought up multiple times as justification for inclusion, yet there seems to be no real consensus on whether we should include Grammy winners (there has been far more discussion on say, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, where they are included on a case-by-case basis and as a secondary point for inclusion rather than a primary, automatic point for inclusion). TheScrubby (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grammy awards should only be a factor if said musical artist is/was not from the US.
Coolio IS from the US; so other factors should be considered such as does said Musical artists have multiple top ten hits ( albums or singles ) in more than just one country ? 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:E154:CDAE:75F8:C645 (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735 (Result: inclusion)

Can we re-visit inclusion for China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735? I think there tends to be a bias toward including significant events in China due to the closed off nature of its government. It is, regardless of whether or not the crash was intentional, a significant enough air disaster to warrant inclusion due to the scale of the disaster and the fact it involves one of China's largest international airlines. Additionally, based on precedent, air disasters contained to one country have been included in other years such as Pakistan International Airlines Flight 8303 in 2020, Aeroflot Flight 1492 in 2019, the 2018 Russian Air Force Antonov An-26 crash and Cubana de Aviación Flight 972 in 2018. Many of these domestic flights had a lower casualty count than 5735 and lack any kind of extraordinary event as in the case of both Malaysia Airlines crashes in 2014 or any of the 737 MAX Crashes.

If a majority of you believe it should stay excluded, I would say that if the Chinese government finally does release their assessment and concludes that it was an intentional crash, then I think it should be included. Essentially every independent org along with the FAA in the United States believe the crash was intentional, but the Chinese government investigation is ongoing and it is unclear when those results will be released. PaulRKil (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include. Based on what I know and what you're saying, this should be included. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include as per InvadingInvader 4me689 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude this domestic event. Insufficiently notable things are added to & removed from year articles all the time; presence of similar events in other articles doesn't mean they should be here. We don't include domestic events in main year articles. Media coverage, being deliberate, having the highest death toll of the year for its type of event etc. aren't reasons to include. I say the same regardless of where such events take place. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is a significant aviation disaster with high cost of life, by one of the worlds largest airlines, during an era of air travel where such disasters are increasingly rare "insufficiently notable"? That is ridiculous. Air, rail, and maritime disasters with hundreds of lives lost are significant regardless of if it is "domestic" or not. This is equivalent to excluding the Sinking of MV Sewol based on the grounds it was a Korean ferry, sinking in Korean waters, and the dead consisting of only Korean passengers. PaulRKil (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've said why - because it's domestic. Main year articles exclude domestic events. Disasters with triple-digit death tolls happen every year. Even if it were rare, we don't include things on that basis - nor do we for being the deadliest, biggest, fastest, most costly etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we stuck to such a rigid definition, then half the content in these year articles would be gone. Maybe that would look good in your view, but then the article would fail to serve its purpose to document significant events that occurred each year, including travel related ones. PaulRKil (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I see the exclusion of notable domestic events with international coverage as censorship, and I imagine most of you have read or at least heard of Wikipedia not being censored. This is just my opinion, and I can understand where Jim Michael and editors who think like him are coming from, but we are becoming WAY too rigid with events and standards. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comes to my point of the article being too exclusive. By letting in one or two of the most internationally-covered domestic events per country, we can increase the scope of this very tumultuous year for many countries. Simply too many notable events are being excluded, not just in the US but other countries. I agree with Scrubby on this not being an Americentric list, but including ONE OR TWO of the MOST NOTABLE AND INTERNATIONALLY COVERED domestic events PER COUNTRY should help. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing to include things that don't have significant international effects. Adding one or two events per country wouldn't improve main year articles; it'd swamp them with things that shouldn't be there. People who are interested in particular countries by year read those relevant articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would one or two of the most important domestic events which receive significant international attention "swamp" an article? Plus, if people around the world care deeply about one country's domestic event and it has a notable impact on a country, it's a no brainer. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said one or two domestic events per country, per year. Of course that'd swamp the article. Readers who are interested in particular countries & years will read the relevant subarticles. Loads of domestic events have a notable impact on the country in which they take place. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One or two for the most significant domestic events should not be a problem. You're making it seem like that by adding a single domestic event to this article will cause Kim Jong-un to launch a nuclear attack against the Wikimedia foundation. There are always exceptions to standards. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculous strawman. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just using an analogy to compare how extreme I perceive the standards you push to be. How would the inclusion of internationally-releavant domestic events ruin the article? I'm in favor of limiting it to only one or two as long as the events are internationally known themselves. I'm only pushing definingly notable domestic events which drew international attention. Dobbs is my example since it gained the attention of world leaders and the world populace, an aspect of Dobbs you unsuccessfully tried to prove wrong above, and as seen in this BBC article, has caused smaller anti-abortion protests to spark in the UK. Please work towards a constructive middle ground instead of vehemently opposing every event for the sole reason of being domestic.InvadingInvader (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're not internationally relevant. Being domestic is the most common reason for excluding events & people from main year articles. Loads of domestic events receive international media coverage. Every year there are domestic protests which trigger much smaller, related protests in other countries, mostly by diasporas &/or people who are already sympathetic to their cause. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this before in my "Dobbs test" proposal (see this section of the talk page I started), but Wikipedia isn't Citizendium where it's by experts for nerds. It's supposed to be built for everyone and should be based on impactful and notable events which people care about (an idea I sometimes describe as Wikipedia being the People's Encyclopedia, by the people for the people). If people around the world care about Dobbs (which based on world reactions have shown that world leaders' reactions and populaces care about this and are demonstrating on both sides according to the article on 2022 abortion protests), let it be included here. If people see that Canada and Denmark changed borders but no one cared about it, don't include it. We of course have to have SOME quality control (like Depp v. Heard; this should not be here as it had no major impact), but including events which people IN GENERAL care about and have a notable impact on a country or the world should be a no-brainer. The extreme internationalness that some editors are enforcing is just plain wrong when it comes to events people globally care about. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the lack of internationalness for Hurricane Ian is factually inaccurate. Ian hit Cuba as a category 1 hurricane and Florida as a category 4. This is CLEARLY international. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity/entertainer deaths in the lead (Result: borderline inclusion)

We recently decided to include deaths of significant world leaders as part of article leads for the years. I think it is a great idea and it helps create better article leads.

However, I think including entertainers in the lead is a slippery slope. My concern is that it may cause unnecessary back and forth editing for fans of an entertainer to try to get their person mentioned in the introduction if we have it become a standard. Most of the time there is debate on whether or not to include a celebrity in the deaths section to begin with because we've had difficulty establishing what makes a celebrity notable with many entertainers who have won at least one of the four major EGOT awards and gold medal athletes being excluded.

A person being the longtime leader of a major global power is a little bit easier to establish significance than entertainers and there's far less debate in doing so.

Feel free to discuss, I'm not going to fight what conclusion we come to, but I thought I'd share my concern with all of you. PaulRKil (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that entertainers in lead should be on a case by case. Every figure is going to have a few unique differentiators, and only on a case by case can we decide. I think that it all comes down to impact. Were they listened to or watched around the world? Like world leaders, I'd limit it to three in the lead. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think if there was a large debate in the talk section to even include them in the deaths section as we've seen with Coolio and (from what I can recall) Meat Loaf, we may not want them in the lead. I think Sidney Poitier and Olivia Newton-John are fine entries for now. PaulRKil (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include deaths of very internationally notable entertainers in the lead. For this year: Poitier, Meat Loaf, ON-J & Godard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:PaulRKil. When did we agree to include deaths in the lead, anyway? I would rather not include any - it's just duplication. Addition of entertainers is certain to exacerbate the problem of systemic bias. Deb (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and as I've already said I'd welcome an RFC on this as per the Collages precedent. While I can understand the logic of having prominent historical world leader deaths in the lead (even if I disagree), picking entertainers would be way too subjective to include and would inherently lead to biases towards those from English-speaking nations. TheScrubby (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should summarise the year, so it makes sense to include the most prominent deaths. A lead inherently duplicates info in the body of the article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whisky War (Result: borderline inclusion)

This has been brought up again, so what is the current consensus? Should this petty border dispute over the tiny, barren, remote, uninhabited Hans Island - which is covered by snow & ice for most of the year - be included? I obviously think not. Border disputes are commonplace, and this is about as minor as they can be - no military action, international sanctions etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include, it's very rare to have border dispute solved, we already had a consensus to include this earlier. And again this was in North America where it's normally peaceful. 4me689 (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not rare & consensus can change. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude even though it is a peculiarity and certainly interesting, the land is uninhabited thus the decision does not effect the citizenship of anyone who lives there because nobody does. Compare this today's annexations by Russia or if, hypothetically speaking, a decision was made in regard to the Kuril Islands Dispute where 21000 people live.
However, if a consensus was reached to include, it doesn't break my leg or pick my pockets but I think only border changes that actually effect the population that inhabits said land or has an incredibly high resource value should be included in main year articles. PaulRKil (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if thousands of people lived on Hans Island and/or there ware gold mines there, it'd be a different matter - as it would if there'd been an armed conflict over it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. My preferred metric is a combination of event substance (what actually happened and its impact) as well as how many people care about it, the latter of which is measured using press coverage. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Jim Michael on this one and would say Exclude. Slots should be dedicated to events which people around the world care about, and measuring by press coverage, this isn't a big deal to most people. It's more niche towards geography nerds, and closer to WP:TRIVIA than an actual event. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what the previous people in the original discussion think, @The Voivodeship King:, @JeffUK:, and @Dunutubble: what is your thoughts right now. 4me689 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say include for the reasons given in the last discussion as well as because it resulted in Canada and Denmark both having two land neighbours. Hans Island will likely become an important shipping stop in the future as climate change melts the ice caps covering much of the Northwest Passage. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 19:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's one trivial thing & one speculative thing. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that is more speculation than anything else in regards to its potential to be a shipping stop. There are many nations that come to similar peaceful agreements regarding land sovereignty all the time as is the case of enclaves shared between India and Bangladesh and those are barely noteworthy in spite of those regions being populated. PaulRKil (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Bangladesh-India enclaves were far more important, because tens of thousands of people lived in them. That issue was resolved peacefully & is not important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that could fall under WP:CRYSTAL. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Include as per the previous discussion, border changes are internationally notable almost by definition! And this one was widely reported, both the dispute and the resolution. Whilst border disputes may be commonplace, border changes are much less so, we have no more than one per year for the last decade at least. JeffUK (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely trivial, Jim Michael, but the fact remains that it changes the borders between two countries. It therefore affects both countries. It is international. While nowhere near as important as settlements over Kashmir or the Nagorno-Karabakh would be, it affects borders between two nations and by our criteria must be included. If you disagree, we must change the criteria for the page. Happy October, by the way. 124.148.104.69 (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between international and internationally notable. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand why some would argue that this is a trivial event, I’d have to concur with a borderline inclusion as per JeffUK, among others. TheScrubby (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Michael 2 @4me689 So recently, I've learned that India's highest court has ruled that abortion is legal for all Indian women up to 24 weeks into abortion, and a Kenyan court has ruled abortion to be a constitutional right. This recent development has proposed me to suggest this, since Jim and I are in a very heated debate over the inclusion of landmark domestic events like when the US high court ruled against abortion.

Since these are domestic events which establish international trends both in favor of and against abortion, I suggest that we include a snippet in the lead as either its own separate paragraph or as a single sentence which summarizes that multiple large countries are ruling in favor or against abortion access. This single sentence would summarize events without having to put them into the mainspace and note an international trend appealing to both domestic and international audiences. It would also address Jim Michael's fear of overflowing this article with events that are too domestic.

The proposed sentence will look a little something like this:

The year has also seen abortion becoming an increasingly more contentious and addressed issue, with courts in India and Kenya ruling the practice as legal while the United States removed constitutional protections to abortion, sparking nationwide protests which leaked into some European countries.

Abortion is an international issue, and a growing one by the day, but I can understand if too many of these events would flood the article. The lead sentence would solve this; it addresses the internationalness of the issue while keeping things as concise as possible and not inserting domestic rulings on the practice into their own events.

Jim, I know you're not the biggest fan of domestic events, but the practice is increasingly becoming a more international issue with every court decision. Hopefully, a sentence will adequately cover abortion around the world, including the US, without flooding the article with more domestic events. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude due to there being no evidence of a connection between countries' changes/clarifications of laws. If most of the world were moving the same direction regarding abortion laws, there'd be a good case for including it. However, Kenya & India are moving towards allowing it, whereas Poland & the US are moving against it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's becoming a more global issue increasingly dividing countries. That alone should warrant at least some mention. I don't think we need to judge its inclusion based on connection. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude; they're unrelated legislative changes in 3 countries; absent any sources identifying it as such, it's not a global 'movement' of any sort. you could find any subject and identify a handful of countries that have legislate more or less strictly for it over a couple of years. JeffUK (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not specific to this year, so it's difficult to justify including it in this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not phrase it as a continuation of a heightened attention to the issue? InvadingInvader (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant enough for this article. The only two countries who've had major changes in abortion laws in the 2020s which have triggered major protests are Poland & the US. Poland's were in 2020 & 2021. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
India's was actually a major expansion in abortion; previously abortions had marital and other related restrictions. Kenya was a reaffirmation, so not as notable but would likely fit if mentioned in passing as part of a trend. Poland wasn't in 2022, so we can leave it out of a sentence Hungary was similar to Kenya but just for the opposite direction as the reforms. And don't forget the minor UK protests against and in favor of Dobbs. I'm leaning towards inclusion since it addresses an increasingly-important social issue which has mostly taken part in a large amount of minor and major domestic events not normally suitable for their own entries here. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it's not notable enough, I didn't even know that Kenya and India had ruled in favour of abortion until today. 2022 won't be remembered as the year in which abortion laws were changed but as the year Russia invaded Ukraine sparking a worldwide crisis, the year in which right-wing nationalist movements experienced a resurgence in Europe, and the year in which most countries subsided their COVID-19 policies.
And as for a more minor note: The US courts did not "rule against abortion" (implying a federal prohibition on the practice). What was ruled was that abortion does not fall under the category as a federally protected right (meaning it is up to the states and not the federal government to decide on abortion's legality). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude as per Jim Michael, JeffUK and Dunutubble. TheScrubby (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collage discussions

this message is here to tell everyone that there has been a discussion on collages at User talk:4me689/collage discussions. @Jim Michael 2:, and @InvadingInvader: has not responded to this discussion, so I recommend doing so. 4me689 (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Personally, I’m not too focused on collages, but from what I read, most of your ideas seem to work.
As a general guideline, for collages, balance regions. For example, if European event A is as significant as African event B but both are less important than European event C, include events C and B instead of C and A. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Far more interested people will see that discussion if it were on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Nobel Prizes section (Result: retain)

Why do we have a Nobel Peace Prize section, I mean unless we have a section about the Academy Award winners, the noble peace prize section is useless cuz we have a List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates, I made this talk this section to see what everyone's thoughts are. 4me689 (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We’ve always had sections for Nobel recipients of the year, and I don’t think that a film awards ceremony is really comparable. Don’t really have issue with retaining the format for each year. TheScrubby (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with TheScrubby. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I brought this up in November on Talk:2021/Archive 3. We don't include any other awards in main year articles. Nobels shouldn't have their own section; one entry in Events would be sufficient. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with Jim Michael 2, the Nobel Prizes aren't more important as than any other awards, that is why I think the section should be straight-up removed. 4me689 (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is an argument to be made that Nobel prizes are highly prestigious and exclusive versus the dozens of Oscar categories or the hundreds of Olympic medals given out at each event, though I feel that in recent years they have been held to a lower regard. Perhaps it shouldn't have its own section but in events saying the "Nobel prizes in xxxxx,xxxx,xxx,xxx,xxx are awarded...." etc PaulRKil (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

I am pinging every that have edited this article so far this month cuz it's going to be a big change, @PaulRKil:, @Jim Michael 2:, @Alsoriano97:, @TheScrubby:, @أحمد توفيق:, @Einbierbitte:, @Keller Scholl:, @Johnson524:, @Wjfox2005:, @Rodney Baggins:, @Unknown artist:, @Jtnav04:, @Blaze Wolf:, @Nikey05:, @Elijahandskip:, @Petrandreev13:, @Tumford14:, @Drewsky1211:, @MrMimikyu1998:, @Dunutubble:, @Deb:, @InvadingInvader:, and @The ganymedian:
Do we keep or remove the Nobel Peace Prize section 4me689 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ping every editor that edited the article this month. Just ping ones who have made significant contributions. I myself don't really care about this subject. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depends if the Nobel Prize section is in all previous years The ganymedian (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The ganymedian:, It's pretty much in every main year article 4me689 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say if Nobel Prize winners are in every year it would be better to just keep it because then you'd have to delete it from every prior year for the last 100 years, and that would be a pain @4me689 The ganymedian (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"because then you'd have to delete it from every prior year for the last 100 years, and that would be a pain " Not sure I care too much about this, but think it is worth noting that there is no requirement for all year articles to be identical; Nobel prizes may be more significant in some years than others. JeffUK (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about all year articles, not just this one. Obviously, whatever we decide in regard to these awards will apply to all main year articles. Moving them to a single entry in each article wouldn't be difficult. They're not the undisputed main event of each year, which is what giving them a dedicated section strongly implies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Blaze Wolf on tagging: my contribution in this month was disambiguating a link in a January event. That said, I think that while the Nobel prizes should absolutely be mentioned in the relevant month, ideally with a sentence about what they were for, it's better to overload October than give this one event importance equivalent to an entire month. If we're going to keep them, they should get a little more description (at least comparing to 2021 and 2020, when there are only names).Keller Scholl (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

  1. Keep, please. No convincing argument has been given for removing it. Deb (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The contribution to humanity made by Nobel Prize winners is incomparable to all other prizes. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. These represent the pinnacle of scientific, intellectual, and other achievements by humankind, and are highly notable. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nobel Prizes are very exclusive and measure major contributions to the world in incredibly crucial fields. PaulRKil (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with keeping a separate section. It avoids cluttering the events columns, and are far too notable to be sent into somewhere like 2022 in Science. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Retain, as I’ve indicated in my previous comments. TheScrubby (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The event is of international and unquestionable notability and requires a level of detail in naming the award winners than the events section couldn't provide. The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove and add to event section instead

  1. Nobel Peace Prize ain't as more prestigious as any other award, that means it shouldn't get its own section though I don't mind getting it added to the event section 4me689 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What award is more prestigious than a Nobel Prize? With all due respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One entry, in the main body of the article, is sufficient for all main year articles. A separate section is unwarranted. It's portraying them as being by far the most important event of the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Brazilian general election (Result: merged under one entry and put on October 30)

How should this be reported in this article? I'm no expert when it comes to the politics of Brazil. The October 2 entry says: The 2022 Brazilian general election is held to elect the offices of the president and vice president, one third of the Senate, the entire Chamber of Deputies, and numerous state legislatures and governorships.

The offices of President and Vice President are still disputed and will be concluded on October 30 via runoff. As of now, I added underneath upcoming events: 2022 Brazilian general election: Incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro will face opponent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in a runoff election after neither candidate secured a majority in the first round of voting.

Do we keep it as is? Meaning an entry for October 2 for the General election and another separate entry for the October 30 runoff in upcoming events or should we combine them into one entry for October 2 where it is mentioned that the runoff for President of Brazil will be decided on October 30.

The general election without a decision on the President just makes it an election regarding regional and local officials and wouldn't be included on year articles. PaulRKil (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would favour combining them into one entry, but for October 30, rather than October 2. Deb (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have too much election coverage in main year articles. We shouldn't include multiple rounds of the same election in separate entries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Made the changes per this discussion, thanks all. PaulRKil (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tense of the article

I'm sorry if this has already been discussed, but why is the article, at least the events section, in current tense (is) and not past tense (was)? If that is how the majority of Wikipedia is structured including most 'year' in 'country' articles, why is this page differnet? If this is a mistake, I would be happy to change it, but if it is not I am curious to know the reason why. Johnson524 (Talk!) 14:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike most WP articles, year articles are written in the present tense. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ever change this. The present tense is used for all year articles, from the dawn of time until the present day. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But articles of future years are in the future tense. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The use of historical present tense seems quite common in other 'year in review' sources too, it's not just here JeffUK (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of tenses, the past-tense of the verb "to lead" is "led", as I mentioned with the Ukraine crisis; please go to the incident about Netanyahu in the November 2022 section and fix this. I cannot fix it, as I have no account. 2600:6C52:6E00:854:75B4:749C:F064:604C (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VK Software removal, Moai statue damage, and OPEC oil cut (Result: VK and Moai statues excluded, and OPEC borderline inclusion)

There seems to be a multitude of entries with importance inlines added so lets discuss:

Should we include or exclude these events? I think the first two should be excluded as the first is just one of a long line of things Russia has been removed from which has been documented in the relevant pages and the second (at this time) seems to be related to a forest fire and seems to have caused damage to only a handful versus when the Taliban deliberately blew up entire major Buddhist cultural sites in the 90s.

The third one is a borderline inclusion in my perspective, we still need time to see the effects but it is a major development in energy production nonetheless. PaulRKil (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude all due to a lack of importance. One of many anti-Russian actions, a fire in a very remote location & the latest in the oil market. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude the September 28 & October 3 entries
I agree with PaulRKil on borderline inclusion for the October 5 entry. 4me689 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technoblade (Result: exclusion)

please add technoblade. 27.114.166.90 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done because he has little international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough notability on an international scale PaulRKil (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PaulRKil & Jim Michael, there's already a consensus to exclude him 4me689 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the criteria for content creators such as YouTubers or Tik Tokers? Technoblade’s inclusion or exclusion hinges on that. FireInMe (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been discussed, exclude due to lack of international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TikTok has such a short history, I think any person primarily known for TikTok has no business even being discussed on this page. YouTube would only be in special cases. Most famous YouTumers are very young and depending on what they do in the future would be the decided. Jimmy Donaldson, for example, has made a large number of charitable donations and could be said to have altered Western culture to a small degree so far. The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a case for main year articles including anyone who's merely Internet famous, regardless of which sites they're on. Philanthropy is rarely important enough to grant someone a place on a main year article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’d argue that there are a handful of celebrities who began on the internet who have reached superstardom or are important in other fields. For example, the Paul Brothers, PewDiePie, Ninja, Mr. Beast, etc have become notable on an international level. I think older generations, even millennials like myself, tend to have a bias toward believing that internet personalities are notable.
The people I mentioned are not dead, but their births in other main hear articles wouldn’t be controversial to add. PaulRKil (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vance Amory (Result: exclusion)

I noticed that Vance Amory isn’t included in the deaths, is there a reason for this? FireInMe (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand about the government structure of the country, being a premier of Nevis means being the leader of a subnational entity of Saint Kitts and Nevis. So equivalent to a state or territorial government within a federation. We only include the deaths of national leaders ie heads of state and heads of government. PaulRKil (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes sense now. I was just curious. Completely agree with having some standard for inclusion, having the list incredibly long will lead to it being impossible to navigate. FireInMe (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia disaster, Thailand massacre and Crimean Bridge explosion (Result: Thailand massacre excluded, and the rest borderline inclusions)

There has been some back and forth about the inclusion of the crowd crush in Indonesia, the Mass shooting in Thailand, and the bombing of the bridge in crimea. Some users have marked these with the importance inline.

Include Indonesia as it is a pretty notable accident that has gripped the sports world and has received reaction around the world and has impacted football games in Asia.

Exclude the Thailand shooting as we have had a pretty strong consensus on Mass shooting inclusions after Uvalde in main year articles (don’t necessarily agree but I will go with established precedent)

Exclude the Crimean Bridge explosion as we have a lot of entries regarding significant events that have unfolded in this war. We’ve yet to see if this has caused a significant escalation in the conflict. PaulRKil (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion it appears that include, borderline include, and include. I think the crimean bridge attack should be included due to how it has escalated the conflict and the direct retaliation by russia. PaulRKil (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include. Since all three have received massive, worldwide media attention, they are clearly notable and significant events in 2022. Sometimes, due to its severity and/or international reaction, an event can't simply be dismissed as "domestic". These three fall into that category. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include events on main year articles based on severity. The international reactions have merely been condolences, nothing physical or legal. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude the first two because they're domestic. We don't include based on death toll, media coverage, condolences or something being the most x in y. The latter is of uncertain significance. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Kanjuruhan shouldn't be included. This is an event that affected the international perception of our footballing culture, which could have ripple effects regarding our future footballing prospects. I say Kerch should be included as well, because it is much internationally significant event given that it is not just the longest bridge in Europe, it is also a Russian achievement that just got destroyed in an accident during the context of war. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include all, and Kerch explosion should be made a part of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Kanjuruhan disaster got a lot of international attention and it is not just a domestic event. As an Indonesian, we know how much disaster has scarred us and our football worldwide. Regarding Thailand, while I have my doubts, I put that in the scale of Owo church attack, which is notable. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kanjuruhan Stadium disaster is for 2022 in association football & 2022 in Indonesia, but it's of no relevance to anything else. The international responses were merely media coverage & condolences.
The 2022 Nong Bua Lamphu attack is nowhere near as notable as the Owo church attack. The former was carried out by a lone madman without an ideology. The latter was probably carried out by an international terrorist group.
The Kerch Bridge has been badly damaged, but not destroyed. Part of it is back in use and it'll likely be quickly repaired. We can't say that this has been a major turning point in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jim Michael's designations. The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Russia's retailiation, Include the Kerch Bridge attack and Russian retaliation in combined entry. The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak exclude all. As stated earlier, consensus is usually not to include mass shootings, and if it were to change, it should be only the two or three deadliest of the year (excluding Russia and Ukraine). So far, I think that this article is being too lenient on including Ukraine-related events, and even though it's an unprecedented war, it's not the only thing that's happened this year. We already have a discussion going on with Ukraine events. These are tragic, but domestic, and while I'm in favor of including some notable domestic events, consensus seems to be against this. I recommend that we maybe consider improving the individual country articles, or if necessary, merging some countries into regions (like 2022 in Thailand, 2022 in Vietnam, and 2022 in Indonesia into 2022 in Southeast Asia). InvadingInvader (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion it appears that include, borderline include, and include. I think the crimean bridge attack should be included now due to how it has escalated the conflict and the direct retaliation by russia has caused it to be a more notable incident. PaulRKil (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus for any of them, but the Crimean Bridge explosion has become significantly more notable due to the Russian response. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You think? It seems like anyone who'd want to comment on it has and the rough tally seems to agree to include all three being included, at least in the case of crimea and indonesia. I'm open to more discussion, however. PaulRKil (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the Indonesia disaster, Exclude the Thailand massacre, and Include the Crimean bridge explosion given the significance of the consequences that have come out of the attack. TheScrubby (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection & blocking (Result: supported but not done)

Please semi-protect this talk page & block GoldCheddar for socking & vandalism. Also, Golden Matrix is likely a sock. It's likely that Niko, GM, CountingStars & all their socks are the same person, sharing a focus on this page & Canadian politics. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. PaulRKil (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This has gotten way out of hand, especially since said sockpuppet is openly saying he will simply continue to create more accounts. TheScrubby (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree with the scrubby And Jim Michael, This page needs to be at least semi-protected until the end of the year 4me689 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in an edit summary at the time, I was suspicious of the most recently blocked IP on here because the second edit from it was to argue that Barbara Walters' 93rd birthday should be added to the Events section, for which good faith can't possibly be assumed. The IP address was very close to one that had been recently blocked for disruption.
The persistent 'what if 2020' troll will likely return, which is another reason for protecting the page. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's so easy to get past a semi-confirmed account with the 10-edit threshold, I wouldn't rule off recommending temporary EC protection if shit goes down again. This is one of the articles I see the most frequent instances of sockpuppetry on, both on the article and on the talk page. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFPP is your venue for asking to protect pages. By the way, if you think this page has "frequent" issues, you clearly don't spend time at some of our really contentious articles. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles which are more badly affected, but this talk page has been unusually badly disrupted by trolls & sockpuppets compared to talk pages of previous year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian War

Which events of the war in Ukraine should be included? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent this article from being a limited clone of Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I recommend that we only include events where masses of people die, events where there are major retakes or captures in territory (like Kherson), and stuff as notable as the mobilization or anything which gains condemnation or otherwise reaction from multiple international figures. This would leave room for other events. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me its this
Conclusion of major battles at least on a citywide scale so we should include the conclusion of the [[Battle of Kherson]] versus the conclusion of the skirmishes over airports within cities.
Changes of territories so the referendum that happened toward the end of last month
Significant breakthroughs ie the sinking of the Moskva
Events that lead to the escalation of the conflict so the Crimean bridge bombing along with the Russian retaliatory strikes would now be appropriate for inclusion PaulRKil (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does Angela Lansbury deserve a photo? (Result: photo included)

I say yes. She's prominent in many fields of entertainment in both the US and the UK. 130.86.97.1 (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does Angela Lansbury deserve a Photo, I say yes
though in my opinion, Antonio Inoki should get the first photo, and then Angela Lansbury gets the 2nd, because we need more Sports people to have photos, and Lansbury's photo is not a priority. 4me689 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Although Lansbury never won an Oscar (honorary awards don’t count as wins but they are lifetime achievements), I think she deserves the second image even though I am borderline between the two as I wanted Fletcher in September because she was an Oscar winner like William Hurt and Sidney Poitier. Kyu (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no qualms with her having a photo - and IMO she is far better credentialed than say, Loretta Lynn (who is a borderline inclusion) for an image. For my money the most notable death of October 2022 so far. TheScrubby (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely yes! Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, once there is more space we should include Inoki's image again. PaulRKil (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bicentenary of the Independence of Brazil (Result: exclusion)

2022 is the year of the bicentenary of the Independence of Brazil on its 7 September. On the eve of the death of Queen Elizabeth II she congratulated Brazil by its bicentenary. She died on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 189.98.242.194 (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a domestic event for 2022 in Brazil. Anniversaries are never important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jim Michael. 4me689 (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Coltrane (Result: no consensus/inconclusive, continued in RFC)

Should Robbie Coltrane be included in the main year article or 2022 in the United Kingdom? He seems notable enough but I simply don't know enough about him or his accolades. PaulRKil (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include, albeit as a borderline inclusion, looking at his resume he was known for playing Hagrid in Harry Potter, he also had roles on other movies like the James Bond movies, this person looks like an actor who would normally be included in these pages. 4me689 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He won no major international film awards and his most prominent roles were supporting, not lead roles - yes, in internationally notable franchises, but as is well established actors (particularly supporting actors) do not automatically inherit the notability of the films they appear in. His situation is not unlike that of Tanya Roberts, who was ultimately excluded at the end. TheScrubby (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just given you the links above. International coverage == international notability. That's how Wikipedia works, on every page. This one isn't excluded because a few people have their own ideas. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're links to articles about the death of a domestic figure who's internationally known for his supporting role in the HP films. If international media coverage proved international notability, we'd include a large number of domestic bombings, mass shootings, civil war battles etc. which have been reported internationally. We'd have to include internationally reported deaths - such as that of Anne Heche - in the Events section as well as the Deaths section. There'd be a Death of Anne Heche article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If he's internationally known he's not a domestic figure, is he? Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like many other entertainers, it's only his fans who are international. The international media's interest is due to them knowing that many of their readers/viewers will want to know, because of the large number of HP fans there. A similar thing is true of many sportspeople, such as many players of baseball, basketball & American football who only play in the US, but have many fans in other countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, James Michael Tyler would have international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No he wouldn't. Not even close to the same level of coverage. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then JMT would have a lower level of international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude due to insufficient international notability, as per Jim Michael. TheScrubby (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral honestly, I don't know. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude as per TheScrubby and Jim Michael. Should I remove him in the 1950 article too? Kyu (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Exclusion. He was "a wizard" of his time, but he's only really notable for Harry Potter, and there are many people, myself included, who are not big Potterheads. That being said, though, most of the connected world has heard of Harry Potter and seen at least part of one of the movies, either in full, as part of a trailer, or as a meme (especially Coltrane's "You're a wizard harry" scene, so he has that going for him. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable for other things, but internationally he's known primarily for HP. Most international obits & reports of his death include HP &/or Hagrid in their titles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
International press in "mentioning what the person is most famous for" shock! See also: every other actor's obituary. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include. Coltrane is internationally notable. Add Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Hungary, Mexico, Estonia, and many others to the list. Coltrane has been internationally notable at least since the 90s through having a lead role as "Fitz", winning three Bafta award in three consecutive years. Years before Harry Potter. Politrukki (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many non-British media sources include HP &/or Hagrid in their titles, but very few - if any - of their titles include Cracker. The show didn't win any awards outside the UK. The number of Cracker fans outside the UK couldn't be compared on the same scale as the number of HP fans outside the UK. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Headlines are irrelevant; they don't contribute to notability. The content in reliable sources does. SVT News (see above) gives in its lead equal weight to Coltrane's role in Cracker and Harry Potter "bland annat genom den brittiska tv-serien Cracker och som Rubeus Hagrid i Harry Potter". Most sources give the most attention to Potter role. Of course Harry Potter has more fans than Cracker. I don't understand your point. Coltrane was notable before the Potter role. Politrukki (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was notable before Cracker, but he never gained international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm close to giving up too, as this page is dominated by people who seem FANATICAL about deleting literally EVERYTHING. It's borderline trolling at this point. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you keep reading the page. When I want information, I check the Deaths in 2022 list. The main year page has nothing that I really care about. Dimadick (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for inclusion here is international notability, and as has long been established, international media coverage ≠ international notability. The Harry Potter films (which everybody here knows Coltrane was most notable for) are obviously notable, but actors from internationally notable franchises don’t automatically gain the notability of the films themselves. Most people would know of Hagrid, but would have no idea what the actor’s name was. Coltrane won no major international acting awards and his most prominent roles were supporting roles. We don’t include minor character actors on these main international year pages, be it Coltrane, Tanya Roberts, Estelle Harris, or other such examples. Actors from the English-speaking world make up a significant portion of inclusions as is - not just among entertainers, but in general. Furthermore, recent year pages especially have easily exceeded the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and that is something we need to keep in mind when it comes to who’s included on these main years pages. Once again, just because somebody is not included here doesn’t mean they totally lack notability. Obviously they would, otherwise they wouldn’t have a Wiki article to begin with. But that doesn’t automatically mean they are entitled to a place in the main international yearly pages. And cheap jibes about “fiefdoms” and bad faith accusations of trolling don’t exactly help your case for Robbie Coltrane. TheScrubby (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Many year articles are far longer than they should be. They're meant to be international, so adding domestic events & people is dilution, padding, adding chaff to the wheat etc. The large majority of notable events & people belong on the many sub-articles. Coltrane's death is on three of 2022's sub-articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I do disagree occasionally on inclusion with Jim and Scrubby (usually when it comes to domestic events which trigger a huge international reaction like Roe v. Wade), but personal attacks are not the way to go, guys. Maybe instead of calling Jim and Scrubby "FANATICAL about deleting literally EVERYTHING", say "we're deleting too many notable events", and stay away from telling them to "go enjoy their little fiefdom". I'm not completely sold that "international coverage ≠ international notability" is true, but I do agree that the year articles are generally starting to get bigger, and something should be done about it, and I think that the argument "a lot of international coverage ≠ a lot of international notability" would be a better argument for Scrubby to use.
I would advise @Black Kite, @Wjfox2005 to consult this flow chart, though, especially the section on changing the rules:
Happy editing, InvadingInvader (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deb removes more people & events from main year articles than Scrubby & I do combined. I agree with the vast majority of those removals. Clearly insufficiently notable events & people are added to main year articles every day. Many people have complained that main year articles have a very small number of frequent, regular editors - but we welcome more. The problem is that very few people want to edit these articles regularly. A high proportion of those who edit them merely want to promote a particular event, law, person, place, demographic, organisation, sport, change, trend etc. They in most cases quickly leave due to those things being removed due to them being unsuitable for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. They leave the page because you and your acolytes have a different concept of notability than the rest of Wikipedia. I am fairly sure that this won't last for ever, but at the moment that's the situation, which is the reason that Deaths in 2022 is a more useful page than this one. Perhaps it would also be useful if the page was "run" by people that don't do pretty much nothing more useful than update current news. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know that being included on main year articles requires a much higher notability bar than inclusion in WP. That's why we have many subarticles. That's why you've removed domestic figures from this article, including Tony Dow & PnB Rock. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to Jim’s comment, David Warner and Paul Sorvino had more notability than Coltrane, and they were still deemed not sufficiently internationally notable for inclusion here - something you had no qualms with Black Kite. It makes little sense that you’re making Coltrane a hill to die on. TheScrubby (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheScrubby:, @Jim Michael 2:, @Amakuru:, @Pawnkingthree:, @The Rambling:, @Politrukki:, @Black Kite:, and @Alsoriano97:
I think David Warner and Paul Sorvino have lower notably than Coltrane imo, the reason I said include is because of his big roles as hagrid and a couple of roles of James bond villains, not because of the media coverage.
This discussion discussion getting too long, so I recommend contributing to other discussion like the one below about Angela Lansbury's death section photo, or Talk:2020#Photo_Montage which is about the 2020 college, or Talk:Angela_Lansbury#info_box_picture which is about Angela Lansbury's infobox in her article, I really love you too reply to those discussions instead of arguing about Robbie Coltrane here. 4me689 (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both roles you mention were supporting roles in internationally notable franchises (and the Bond one was a particularly minor one in two films), and he won no awards in relation to either. Tanya Roberts had a bigger role in the Bond franchise as the main Bond girl in one film, and she was not included on these year pages. Coltrane being included would be an complete aberration. TheScrubby (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is long because it doesn't seem to be concluded yet. Some are arguing that Coltrane is an international star and warrants inclusion, based on sources covering him, others say he's not. Having those who voted against inclusion simply closing the discussion and ordering everyone to move on is not how WP:CONSENSUS decisions are made on Wikipedia. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except international sources do not automatically equate international notability - this has been established for these year pages for some time now, and Coltrane being included would be a massive exception to the rule when we have rightly excluded similarly notable figures such as David Warner, Paul Sorvino, Tanya Roberts, Estelle Harris, etc. Coltrane won no major international acting awards, and actors do not automatically gain the notability of the films they appear in - and that especially applies to supporting actors. Few people outside of hardcore fans would recognise Coltrane’s name while recognising the character of Hagrid. How is any of that substantial international notability? This should be an open-and-shut case of somebody who belongs in Year In Topic - and nobody who has voted for inclusion has addressed these major points against inclusion. TheScrubby (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not strange. He's one of hundreds of internationally-recognised domestic figures. In his case, that international fandom is mostly due to him playing one supporting character, Rubeus Hagrid. He has no significant international awards. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This. Most people who know of Hagrid would not recognise the name “Robbie Coltrane”. How is that sufficient international notability? TheScrubby (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include this is a frankly absurd debate. An internationally renowned actor who starred in some of the biggest movies ever made. This American hate is too much. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What “American hate”? Coltrane was Scottish. What an absurd comment to make. Furthermore, as has been previously mentioned, Coltrane won no major international awards. He was never an A-list actor or among the most critically acclaimed of his generation. TheScrubby (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Everywhere else on Wikipedia we judge notability by coverage in reliable sources, and Coltrane's notability comes from a major role in one of the most internationally successful movie franchises of all time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He played a supporting role in an internationally notable franchise, and actors don’t automatically gain the notability of the films they appear in. That has been well-established here. Most people who are familiar with the character of Hagrid (beyond hardcore fans) would have no idea about what Robbie Coltrane’s name was or if he appeared in anything else. That is not what can be reasonably considered substantial international notability. Coltrane’s inclusion would be an aberration, and so far nobody who has advocated for his inclusion has sufficiently addressed these. TheScrubby (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheScrubby I think that to dissolve the mob and limit controversy, let's just let Coltrane in. In principle, I lean closer to you and Jim on this entry, but it seems like that too many people want him in, and inherently, some people will stick to a position even if their argument for inclusion is not a "better" argument. From what I'm seeing, the efforts to exclude Coltrane seem to be only "reverse-canvassing" in a way as the side of the debate you primarily advocate for to be increasingly scrutinized and attracting more controversy from all ends, even being viewed as borderline-authoritarian from the most extreme opponents. For the sake of moving on from this, let's WP:Just drop it and move on to other discussions. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The bar is international notability here, and the majority of the people saying include have not addressed the primary points against inclusion - instead either just relying to a “international coverage” standard that has long been dropped on these pages, or making comments without substance such as “this is a frankly absurd debate”. Coltrane being included under the circumstances would be an aberration and would go against the standards we have for inclusion on these year pages. If we include Coltrane, that would open the floodgates for other minor character actors who won no major international awards and who are mainly known for one (supporting) role in an internationally notable franchise - advocated for by people who may or may not confuse the notability of the character with the notability of the actor itself. I don’t think any of that is acceptable. TheScrubby (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your reasons, but I think that by using a method of including stuff on a case by case basis in cases like Coltrane where is international notability is disputed but attracting a high level of support, we don't have to worry about opening floodgates. If someone attempts to include "Fooberton Foo" because we included Coltrane, we can immediately strike that point out by citing WP:OSE. By relying on popular votes to decide borderline cases of inclusion when there is a higher level of dispute concerning one of the standards, we can avoid long-swindled debates. Personally, I think that doing well for our readers and getting stuff done is more important than endlessly debating a few lines of text. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the level of debate that this has spurred, I will throw my opinion in and support a borderline inclusion for Robbie Coltrane.PaulRKil (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline Include. I'm changing my opinion from Weak Exclusion to Borderline Include because Coltrane has received levels of popular support on this talk page proportionally comparable to LeVar Burton for Jeopardy host. Our readers are more important than logic, and people have clearly demonstrated that he should belong. Moreover, those in favor of including him have shown what I see as sufficient international coverage to demonstrate an international level of notability, albeit maybe not as notable as Angela Lansbury or other deaths. For the purposes of WP:Just dropping it and moving on to more important debates, let's just get on with this and throw him in. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have an inclusion argument other than international media coverage in response to his death & the number of fans he has in many countries? International media coverage of people's deaths would give very high international notability to Sarah Everard & Gabby Petito. Number of fans would give more notability to Kim Kardashian than Gene Hackman. If they die on the same day, her death will gain significantly more media coverage than his. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that international media coverage is not the end-all be-all, but Coltrane has been known for a long time, and his death wasn't like a Gabby Petito event where although very sad indeed, it was more so a media event than a person who had accomplishments. I'm afraid that if we continue this debate, we're inadvertently going to encourage more canvassing in favor of it, so Jim, as much as I agree with you and Scrubby, let's just drop it and let this dog have its day. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lansbury image (Result: second image)

Dame Angela Lansbury
Dame Angela Lansbury

4me689 says that he wants the first image while I want the second. Which one do you like more? Kyu (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you know, I'll do vote below just so it doesn't get too confusing. 4me689 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in addition I have gone ahead and made a talk section about Angela Lansbury's info box picture in her talk section at Talk:Angela_Lansbury#info_box_picture. 4me689 (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK:, @PaulRKil:, @Amakuru:, @Wjfox2005:, and @Jim Michael 2: can you guys vote down below on what should be Angela Lansbury's death section photo, cuz you guys have not replied yet, also can you guys leave a comment at Talk:Angela_Lansbury#info_box_picture you don't have to but it will be nice if you do so. 4me689 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Cast your !vote
  • first image
    first image
  • second image
    second image

this is a vote section for Angela Lansbury death section photo, Just sign under your choice(s). 4me689 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First image

  1. this is the current info box photo on her article 4me689 (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not picking sides here necessarily (as frankly I don't truly care what image gets used), however this image is the latest one out of the two and is also the one used in the infobox. HOwever I would prefer the other image if it were my personal choice since it doesn't look like she's topless. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second image

  1. IMO the superior image, and there’s not and never has been any hard and fast rule about having to use the same image here as the infobox on the subject’s main article. TheScrubby (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At least she's smiling. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I vote this one PaulRKil (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Liz Truss (Result: Include once new PM is chosen)

Should this be included? FireInMe (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include, but next week when the new leader is chosen, because it is a change in government. 4me689 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not until the new PM takes over. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily include as Liz Truss resigns as Prime Minister. Afterwards, once a new PM is picked, merge her resignation and the new PM taking office into a single entry on the day that the new PM takes office. I suggest it be phrased as Fooberton Foo succeeds Liz Truss as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, eight days after Truss announces her resignation. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you if the position of PM were vacant, but Truss is still PM until her successor is selected. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with InvadingInvader 4me689 (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A change of PM is internationally relevant, but that hasn't happened yet. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Jim Michael 2 here. We normally don't include intentions, but the actual process. To my knowledge, we removed the entry that mentioned Johnson's departure and we've removed when countries announced their intention to join Nato. I think the announcement is fit for 2022 in the United Kingdom but when the actual transfer of power occurs, we can include it here. PaulRKil (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Boris Johnson remained PM until Truss became PM in September, so we don't include his intention to resign in July. It's changes in head of state/gov that are internationally notable. We don't include applications/plans to join/leave NATO, the EU, the Eurozone, Schengen etc. because it's joining/leaving that's internationally notable. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, also I am fine with it being in predicted and scheduled events PaulRKil (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include, but only after a new leader has been chosen. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is this: we exclude the october 20 announcement, we include the upcoming leadership election being held on October 28, and we include whatever is the result using what @InvadingInvader proposed.PaulRKil (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include, but after a new leader was chosen. Announcement = / = Actually resigning. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude, despite the obvious WP:SNOWBALL I actually don't think the leadership of a country passing from one member of the same party to another is actually significant enough to include, be this via a general election or an internal party decision like this. JeffUK (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Jay Osborn Jr. (Result: exclusion)

is John Jay Osborn Jr. international notable enough to be included, just asking. 4me689 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has no international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
to be honest I do agree with exclusion. 4me689 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude due to insufficient international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Davis (Result: exclusion)

Is Mike Davis notable enough to be included, he look a guy we include in these type of articles. 4me689 (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Insufficient notability. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude due to insufficient international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Jordan (Result: exclusion)

is Leslie Jordan international notable enough to be included, he has already be added a couple times already, just asking before I put my opinion. (also I need more replies at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey i recommend going and put your comment if you haven't done so already) 4me689 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude beloved actor in the USA but not any notability elsewhere. PaulRKil (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral that being said his inclusion will open the floodgates of people that are currently excluded. That being said I lean Exclusion. FireInMe (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well @FireInMe: if we were to include Leslie Jordan it wouldn't really open the floodgates to include other non notable people
(also you mind go and reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey) 4me689 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concern in regards to my floodgates comment was that users could say X celebrity is as notable as Leslie Jordan and it could derail certain discussions with whataboutisms if Jordan was included.
In regards to the collage survey I have no hard position, I agree with points from both sides of the argument. FireInMe (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude because he has no international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude, I mean this dude is not really have any major rules. 4me689 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously exclude, and in cases of minor actors such as this where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, we don’t have to open up a topic for every example. Only those who are a realistic chance of a borderline inclusion or inclusion in general. TheScrubby (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well, really, if they're added more then 2 times, we may have to do a talk section about them, just so we can prove a actual consensus. 4me689 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I haven't had a look at who has been editing Jordan in, though if it's generally IPs in particular, or accounts which have barely other activity recorded, I don't think it's entirely worth the trouble. If it's by more than one established user though, then that's a different story I suppose. But in general, I reckon celebrities should be brought up if their inclusion proves controversial/is at the very most a potential borderline inclusion rather than those who are obviously lacking in international notability (case in point for recent weeks: Eileen Ryan, Ted White, Bernard Atha, etc.) and whose exclusions are foregone conclusions. TheScrubby (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should only start discussions about them if they're debatable. Insufficiently notable people are frequently added by fans. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number of deceased celebrities in lead (Result:)

I think the number of deceased celebrities in the lead should also be limited to three as we limited it for world leaders. I think the current list can appear to add undue weight on celebrity deaths. IF we shorten it, we should have sidney poitier, olivia newton john, and jean-luc godard. PaulRKil (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PaulRKil, sidney poitier, olivia newton john, and jean-luc godard should be the only on the lead. 4me689 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can also switch out one of the three and put in Meat Loaf just so we have some diversity as the three listed are in film. PaulRKil (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you PaulRKil, replace Godard with meatloaf, cuz Godard is the least known of the three. 4me689 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion should be on the basis of notability, not how well-known they are. If Gene Hackman & Kim Kardashian die during the same year, we'd include him, not her. We can't reasonably have a quota from each occupation for each year. In 2016, several very notable entertainers died. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the inclusion of figures in the lead as your idea, @Jim Michael 2 who do you think we should have if we limit to three? PaulRKil (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean three entertainers who died this year: Poitier, Meat Loaf & Godard - but I disagree with specifying that number. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just added "Micheal Jackson" on the Wikipedia. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the 2009 page. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Godard is easily among the most notable entertainers to die this year, and certainly more so than Meat Loaf, who I actually regard as the least notable/the weak link of those listed. TheScrubby (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who would even think of replacing Godard... _-_Alsor (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This morning, someone added Coolio which brought the list in the lede to seven. We need to condense this.PaulRKil (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coolio is nowhere near important enough for the lead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, for now I've put a note asking for nobody else to be added to the lead without a talk page consensus. PaulRKil (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Cheragh massacre (Result: exclusion)

is the Shah Cheragh massacre notable enough for inclusion, this event seems to be all over the news, I'm neutral and not really leaning to any side. but that's just me I'm curious on what other people think. 4me689 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude unless there is confirmation of involvement from Iran in relation to the ongoing protests. Otherwise it seems to be a mass shooting or terrorist attack that would be included in 2022 in Iran PaulRKil (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak exclude it doesn't seem that internationally notable from my research. If there is sufficient proof otherwise provided here, however, I'd be happy to switch my opinion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Eight Billion (Result:)

Is this milestone important enough to include? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. As we've done with other items, we don't really include these kinds of milestones, records, anniversaries, etc. PaulRKil (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do support it being on the event section, tho I don't think it should be on the lead. 4me689 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be officially verified somehow? What source would we use? It seems a big milestone for humanity and the world, so I lean towards inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to prove on which day the human population reaches 8 billion, but 15 November has been designated by the United Nations as being the day on which it's recognised as happening. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on this issue...I'll probably lean towards whatever side is more widely supported, and if one side is about to attain consensus, for the purposes of speeding up the debate, I'll probably side with them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is already important enough to include this because this is the day where a milestone reaches and it happened in every other year. -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as though it should be included. It's a world milestone that has only been happening every decade and is likely to slow in the future. Also, the 2011 article includes the 7 billion milestone and the 2000 article includes India's 1 billion milestone. Julianstout (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thích Nhất Hạnh or Meat Loaf? (Result:)

A little while ago, space for a 5th picture opened in January, I initially put Thích Nhất Hạnh, though now i'm beginning to have second thoughts as Meat Loaf has been more taiked about, I feel like I meat Loaf is more of a better candidate, so I have came to see what everyone thinks. 4me689 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta & include both of them. There's a photo of a substantially more notable politician than IBK in that month's subsection of Deaths. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Keita was a long serving leader of his country who was taken down by a coup barely two years ago. African figures in general don’t get as much chance of image representation when it is usually Western-dominated, and that’s something we can’t double down on. I’d also prioritise Hanh over Meat Loaf. TheScrubby (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mali is one of the least developed countries and Keita didn't do anything important. The Mali War began well over a year before he became president & is ongoing. We don't usually include photos of two people from the same occupation in the same month in Births or Deaths. Doing so to include someone from a particular continent isn't a good reason for making an exception. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jim here and would say Include both by removing Keita. Both figures' notability far surpasses that of Keita...this is comparable to Jang Song-thaek vs. Jennifer Lawrence assuming that (god forbid) they both died in the same month. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jim Michael and invading invader on replacing Keita with Thích Nhất Hạnh and Meat Loaf, January had a lot of notable deaths, January deaths begs for variety. 4me689 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keita served as both head of government (Prime Minister) and head of state (President) of Mali, whose time in office ended in a notable coup (in 2020, no less) - he is easily more notable than Hanh and Loaf (or Jang Song-thaek, for that matter), and the development level of the country he led should not be a factor at all. Variety in terms of where people come from is important to take into account as well, and African figures are lucky to get representation in images compared to figures from (especially) North America and Europe. The exclusion of the image of a figure like Keita would be unacceptable on all those grounds, especially when excluded in favour of a white Western entertainer (one who is not an inductee of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame). TheScrubby (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its development level is relevant because Mali is an economic minnow. It's far less important than developed, small countries including Portugal, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium & The Netherlands. Being deposed by a coup doesn't increase his notability. We shouldn't prioritise the less notable on the grounds of ethnicity or nationality. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add on to Jim's arguments, coups are absolutely important for entries as part of a list, but if a regime change doesn't affect the world in ways that are more than tweets and foreign aid, it should be limited to just an entry. And we're not even talking about a coup itself; we're talking about the death of a figure who was central to a coup and not the coup itself. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I can further say beyond what I’ve already said (which as I have indicated I reject the premise of the arguments against Keita), is that the optics here would look atrocious if we prioritised against a long-serving leader like Keita (completely different story if he only served a short, forgettable term) from Africa in favour of Meat Loaf, a white entertainer from the already (regularly) heavily represented United States, and who isn’t even an inductee of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the genre for which he was most associated with. TheScrubby (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keita's terms weren't short, but they were forgettable. The vast majority of people haven't heard of him & he didn't do anything important. Had he brought an end to the Mali War, there'd be a good case for including his photo. Likewise if he'd led his country into prosperity, industrialisation and development, greatly improving its life expectancy, literacy, education, housing conditions etc. whilst greatly reducing its birthrate & poverty, there'd also be a case for saying he's more notable than ML. Including ML would mean that he'd be the only white entertainer with a photo in the January subsection of Deaths, so how would that be disproportionate? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the US can only really be remotely argued to be overrepresented in photos when looking at maybe August, September, and October. With the sole exception of Sidney Poitier, there seems to be zero Americans photographically represented in the earlier part of the deaths section. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well just with your final point, I’m talking year pages in general, not specific months. Though having said that, in the last couple of years we have worked on addressing that and making it less skewed. TheScrubby (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death section pictures for October (Result: Jerry Lee Lewis)

there's a dispute for who's going to get the 2nd picture for September so let's do a special section for this

here's my idea this is the vote for who should get the second picture, just sign your name under who should get it. 4me689 (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Inoki

  1. we need more variety in my opinion, we already have a Entertainer in the form of Angela Lansbury, plus we need more sports figures represented in picture form. tho I'm open to Lewis getting the third picture, if there's ever room for that. 4me689 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Lee Lewis

  1. While variety in terms of background is always important to keep in mind, I don’t think it’s something we should dogmatically stick to for every single month. There are always exceptions to the rule, and I think this month should be one of them. Lansbury and Lewis are easily the two most notable figures to die in October as of now, and Lewis in particular was one of the most important and notable musicians of his generation - and arguably the last surviving major rock and roll icon from the genre’s first generation in the 50s. It would be a mistake to exclude his image on what would amount to a technicality over variety of professions represented in images. TheScrubby (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I knew Jerry Lee Lewis more than Inoki. He was considered to be one of the last rock n roll stars of the 1950’s so I think he takes priority. Kyu (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There's no debate. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. He & Lansbury are by far the two most notable people to die in Oct, so their photos should be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I concur entirely with Scrubby's opinion...so far, the exclusion of Jerry Lee Lewis looks like it falls under WP:SNOWBALL. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Even as the resident professional wrestling fan, I cannot justify not having Lewis be listed here. I think once there is more space, Inoki's picture should also be displayed as I disagree with the idea he's a domestic figure.PaulRKil (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Alsoriano97: what do you mean there's no debate, we need more Sports people pictures and we need variety. also I don't recognize the songs from Jerry Lee Lewis
(also you mind go and reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey) 4me689 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should specify a certain number of images per month so that we get into this kind of discussion. We could find a way to include all three, I think. Deb (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number we have space for each month varies depending on the size of the month's section as well as the size of the images. As it is, there's only space for 2 in the October subsection of the Deaths section. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Michael 2 What I'm saying is, maybe we shouldn't insist on limiting it by the month. Maybe we should go on two-month sections or even by the quarter. Deb (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with deb on finding a way to get all three, maybe we can get a good crop picture for Lansbury and if enough people die in the month I think we can get all three pictures 4me689 (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to say that, in my opinion, there is no debate that it has to be JLL's photo that has to be included due to its unquestionable notoriety, superior to Inoki's. But please, let's not get obsessed with adding cropped photos everywhere. Better two that look good, than three that only show the face. It's not the goal, so let's look at other months to see if more photos in that month is really necessary. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, I think it's ridiculous to try to balance the different fields. Choose the most notable people. The reason why photos are included is to see the most notable people on the list, to distinguish them and give them prominence to one who is browsing the list. If I'm the second most important Nobel laureate/entertainer/politician/sportsperson in the eyes of eight or so people and for that reason don't get a photo on the deaths list, I would be almightily put out. Except I wouldn't be able to be, as I would be dead. Sorry. Off topic. I'd be interested in getting some other opinions on this. Am I in the minority here? 1.146.117.56 (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's often difficult to compare the notability of people from very different fields. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New removed section on Global goals and reports (Result:)

Should section "Global goals and reports" (in any shape or form) about the state of developments regarding global goals in/as of a year be excluded from the article? 10:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thought it may be good to create a section about it anyway, now the new section was removed so let's talk:

Here I added a section on global goals in that year. For example, annual information reviewing the state of Paris Agreement progress during a year, a year's deforestation, or global health. Basically brief information about or from systematic progress reports on notable global intentional developments and goals.

This article is about the year 2022, what could be more significant and notable than these info on such issues?

I think that is what for example future generations would care (more) about when they read about a year, rather than about some random terror-attack which (usually) doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things (and happens often, each with far lower casualties than probably all of the items of the new section), disasters like "collapse of a suspension bridge", or even national elections which (in many cases) don't have a lasting major global impact. The article currently is heavily biased towards such (typically rather insignificant) events, not including info on global developments (concerning issues/goals/challenges) that matter a lot.

Moreover, I think that it does make more sense to keep this in a separate coherent section instead of intermingled in the #Events section. It also shouldn't be in the article about a past year (like 2019) if the newly released report pertains, as expected, to a past state of progress/an issue or the developments during an entire past year. In the future, some of it could get replaced/shortened drastically by charts.

It's not about "science" as the removing editor suggested, but progress on (or states of) global goals or issues, which have a lasting major global impact and are at the level of populations and whole of humanity rather than some small-scale event affecting a few individuals or even national electoral fate. There is no good reason to fully exclude it here and it's relevant to all of society and globally / the year in general.

I do see how it's a somewhat extensive change (it could get shortened a bit), but it shouldn't get rejected for the sake of it being a change. We shouldn't be ignoring these very WP:N notable, top important, WP:RS-covered, billions-affecting, partly civilization-affecting and partly (probably at least) centuries-impacting annual historic developments.

Should section "Global goals and reports" (in any shape or form) be excluded? Please comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed, this is just some science trivia that belongs to 2022 in science, not 2022 the main year article, and please don't open an RFC here right now, this page already has an RFC below. 4me689 (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about science, addressed that above, and it's not trivia, also addressed that above.
I made this thread before you created a RfC after removing the content I added.
Did you do so to hide my RfC or why did you do this right after removing my content, now also removing the RfC template from this talk page post and saying (why?) that it can't have an RfC too? Not okay. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb:, @PaulRKil:, @TheScrubby: pinging you for your thoughts, is the above a good idea. 4me689 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prototyperspective brings up some good points, but ultimately, tradition has shown that we use year articles for events, and for that reason I oppose inclusion in the format which Proto promotes unless as part of an event. There are other places we could better adapt Proto's ideas; what Proto proposes in practice mostly would include science and philanthropy, and we can use either in-country articles (such as 2022 in the United States or 2022 in Brunei), or 2022 in science. I think that there is more we could do to promote these articles, but although I haven't quite formulated the best way to do it, the method presented isn't really the best way to go about it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WT:WikiProject Politics, WT:WikiProject Environment, WT:WikiProject Years. --Prototyperspective (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Deb: & @Jim Michael 2: for thoughts 4me689 (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose including this. It's trends, aims, plans etc. rather than actual events. It belongs on appropriate sub-articles, such as 2022 in politics and government & 2022 in science. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article called "Events of 2022" or "2022"? The article is heavily biased and incomplete.
_
Moreover, the publications are events too and it's often things basically like "in year x, deforestation was at y"
  • -> is that off-topic and irrelevant just because it pertains to an entire year instead of being a, typically overall insignificant, event of a single day?
The alternative would be to add it to the year article that it pertains to, instead of to the year when it was released but I'd oppose that for obvious reasons, and afaik there aren't yet good summary statistics charts to add instead. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many publications each year. Well over 99% aren't important enough to include on main year articles. The Satanic Verses is a rare example of one that is, because of the extreme international reaction to it. How much deforestation happens during a year isn't important enough to include, nor is how many people died as a result of smoking, obesity, road accidents etc. This sort of info isn't in other main year articles. The total world population is important enough to include, as are the total number of births & deaths during the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that 99% are important enough to include. Moreover, it's not about "publications", it's about (progress/development/current-state-of) global goals and issues. I disagree with "How much deforestation happens during a year isn't important enough to include", especially as that is part of global goals. I don't know if there is a chart that shows a breakdown of the causes of death during a year. Most of this article's contents are not important to include here if most of the critical info contained in the new section is kept out. It would probably even be due to add these WP:N WP:RS items if the article featured only content at the scale of total world population, but it doesn't do so anyway and, for example, features lots of random disaster events (and I'm not saying such should get excluded). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Different orgs have different goals. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address any of my many (counter-)points there, is not a reason to exclude, is irrelevant and I'm aware of that. The section was about (notable, large-scale, significant) international/global goals. --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prototyperspective - I am not in favour of including such a section in the main Year article. However, a separate Year in Topic article would be acceptable as long as it can be kept objective and well-referenced. The Year articles are much too long now (see Wikipedia:Article_size#Readable_prose), and this is largely because of recentism and the determination by some editors to add minor events, births of current celebrities, etc. So please look at this idea again in that light. Deb (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I see only two reasons to exclude this highly notable, top-significant, WP:RS, year-related/spanning, globally-relevant, content:
  • it's a change: the prior year articles did not include this info (what in the opinion of some "tradition has shown") – I addressed this (so far unrefutedly) in the original post above
  • the article is already (too) long – a point you made
To address the latter: that's not a good reason to exclude this info rather than keeping it as short as possible and/or removing other items that are far less significant and notable than it.
Moreover, there can be exceptions to the article size guidelines and prior months could get collapsed. It's a valid point in principle, but again I don't see how it's a reasonable rationale to exclude this content in specific.
I think the best option would be to replace as many items of the new section as possible with summarizing graphics containing charts, but these don't yet exist afaik so until they do, the brief items should not get irresponsibly and unwarrantedly excluded. The content belongs here, in this article called "2022", even in the case that it's also(!) relevant to some other existing or potential article like "2022 developments" (and/or 2020s and/or "Humanity in 2022" and/or "Global issues in 2022" and/or "Progress in 2022") (from which it could transclude the content if the article is not renamed to "2022 events"). --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such a section would be very large, with different goals from different orgs being stated. They're not usually important. Actual major results, such as wars ending or diseases being eradicated, are. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said, only a) global / extensively-international b) highly significant ones would be added there (basically just like it's already being done for the Events section).
  • The section as was added would already be its entire length, it's not short but some items could be shortened and maybe one or three removed, while another one or three (not far more than that) may be missing.
  • Nonprogress on top-significant global goals such as Paris Agreement goals and pledges are major results too, just not good results.
  • There are many intermediate steps to diseases getting eradicated and such may often be impossible or nearly impossible at least in the near future. The other items are no less significant. Moreover, wouldn't you say it would be significant if cancer deaths were reduced to a tenth? What I meant earlier is that the article is biased towards events (and also slightly towards overall relatively insignificant events) and does not include WP:N WP:RS content on developments (which often can't be added well in the form of events plus those report releases could be considered events too).
  • Reports about health (and main causes of death) are somewhat more difficult than the other items in the context of the article, they'd be far more useful or due if it was (a) chart/s, showing the changes during the/a year for example (overall plus notable special changes like unique trend reversals or slowdowns). Furthermore, there could be too many at least at some point. Maybe the health-related text items should be excluded.
Prototyperspective (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well I'm still opposed, you been rehashing the same arguments, and the article is already long enough we don't need this to make it longer. 4me689 (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Robbie Coltrane inclusion vote (Result:)

should Robbie Coltrane be included in the 2022 article Yes or No 4me689 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

should Robbie Coltrane be included in the 2022 article yes or no 4me689 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

  1. Looking over the current list for 2022, he's as notable internationally as others who are included. It's close, but his inclusion seems justified. Nemov (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. He is as notable as some of the others in the list. Mnair69 (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 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. Deb (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree with Deb on this onePaulRKil (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Notable and should be included. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Coltrane is internationally notable. I constructed a sample list based on Black Kite's and my own sources from the initial discussion: France24, Belgium, Norway, Brazil, Canada, India, Nigeria, Switzerland, Al Jazeera, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, Gulf News, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Hungary, Mexico, and 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. Politrukki (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No

  1. 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. TheScrubby (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I tend to agree with TheScrubby.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (Summoned by bot) 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 ), 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. Pincrete (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I am going to open an RFC on the inclusion of Robbie Coltrane because the other discussion was disputed, I'm going to Ping everyone who was on the other discussion @PaulRKil:, @Black Kite:, @TheScrubby:, @Jim Michael 2:, @Alsoriano97:, @InvadingInvader:, @Politrukki:, @Wjfox2005:, @Dimadick:, @Amakuru:, @The Rambling Man:, and @Pawnkingthree: to let them know this is discussion exist. 4me689 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4me689 please refrain from pinging me in discussions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok I thought I would let everyone know from the previous discussion 4me689 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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"). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. TheScrubby (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also why is this RFC being added to unrelated fields such as politics and religion? TheScrubby (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I just copied it from the one on Wikipedia years. 4me689 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's only relevant to the first two of the six - society & biographies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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? FireInMe (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. TheScrubby (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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, Marsha Hunt etc. - asking for the same ridiculous amount of debate in regard to their inclusion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The BAFTA jurors are selected from multiple countries though. Doesn’t this solve bias towards British only actors? FireInMe (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. Nemov (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The BAFTAs are clearly Anglocentric. We shouldn't include people whose only awards are from their own country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There’s non-British people that has won BAFTAs though, and the juries are multinational. FireInMe (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's a pro-British bias & most of the foreign jurors will be Anglophiles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this is also true of the Academy Awards. Winners of the two have been almost identical for most of their history. Deb (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awards' juries usually have a bias in favour of people, films etc. of their own country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. TheScrubby (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @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. TheScrubby (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add - I'm not trying to claim that BAFTAs are not primarily domestic awards. Coltrane's Best Actor award was 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. Deb (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Robbie Coltrane is a notable actor whose death was covered by numerous news sources such as USA Today, The New York Times, and BBC. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickalittletalkalittle: read the top of this section, before you put down you comment. 4me689 (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4me689: would you kindly remove (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. Politrukki (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 4me689 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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 we are not going to overturn it for a minor actor like Coltrane. TheScrubby (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I have reverted a 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. Curbon7 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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. TheScrubby (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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) 4me689 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Takeoff (Result: exclusion)

I am seeing the makings of a needless edit war over the inclusion of Takeoff. Lets settle it here instead. Should Takeoff (rapper) be included in the article? For me, it is borderline inclusion. He is not as prolific as Quavo or Offset (rapper), but the trio has been a pretty substantial fixture in Hip Hop, in the US and internationally, for the better part of the 2010s and now. I think his death is notable enough to be included. PaulRKil (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude due to lack of international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
include albeit as a borderline inclusion, if we include Coolio, we must include Takeoff as well both are on the same level of notability, not to mention he was part of a very popular group, just like Ronnie Spector, if we include Ronnie Spector we must include Takeoff, include Takeoff. 4me689 (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no comparison. Ronnie Spector was a highly influential frontwoman who was also inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, arguably dwarfed only by Diana Ross in her field of her era - and even then that’s in large part because Phil Spector intentionally sabotaged her career, as has been well-documented. Not remotely comparable levels of notability. TheScrubby (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean no comparison, ronnie spector was part of a pop group that was as big in the 60's as Migos was in the 2010's. Tell me, if spector died in the 1970's instead of 2022 would you say include, going by your logic she wouldn't be included. 4me689 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If she died in the 70s she would still be included as her primary period of notability in terms of her work was in the 60s and she would still be inducted in the RRHOF whether or not she would be dead or alive. Furthermore, Spector wasn’t just another member of The Ronettes; she was the frontwoman, the face of the band and the band’s namesake (we wouldn’t include her bandmates, for example). Yours is not an appropriate comparison; Takeoff did not achieve a comparable level of notability to Spector, and making such comparisons don’t help your case for Takeoff. TheScrubby (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious what about quavo and offset the other two members of Migos 4me689 (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral...but I will say that 4me689's arguments heavily rely on WP:AON (all or nothing) to the point where it does seem to be like a textbook example of AON. I'm fully aware that AON is primarily dealing with AFDs, but I personally think that AON also applies to other scenarios outside of AFDs, like this one. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perennial problem on this page to some extent. We definitely need to remember that consensus is still key, and all the inclusion decisions we make here are objective editorial decisions, even if we have 'precedent' to refer to. JeffUK (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude - never even heard of the guy. Never even heard of Migos. Deb (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The large majority of people haven't, and we shouldn't have our inclusion decisions made by fans. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude, and I have heard of him (and Migos). Takeoff released a single solo album, which was top 10 in the US and Canada but in no other country with reliable chart statistics. The two singles from that album reached #54 and #99 in the US. He featured on a few other singles by other artists which didn't do much either. So not much doing there. His work with Migos is more well known (including international success), but IMO being one-third of that group doesn't push him over the line for this. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know? I agree with that take. exclude PaulRKil (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well, you win, exclude 4me689 (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022 (Result: not done)

there's already a talk page consensus to exclude technoblade 4me689 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the june section a new sentence should be added stating "June 30 - Youtuber Technoblade is declared dead from cancer in a video titled 'so long nerds'". SkyHorseBoy (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no, there's already a consensus to exclude technoblade, closing this down and updating the FAQ. 4me689 (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BAFTAs (Result: secondary factor for inclusion if the recipient is not British)

Where do we stand on the BAFTA Awards, and its recipients? Should it be considered a major international acting award on a comparable level to the likes of the Academy Awards and the Palme d’Or, or should it be considered a predominately domestic acting award not unlike the Emmys and the Logies? As I indicated in the Robbie Coltrane discussions, I lean towards the latter and that as with other similarly domestic awards, it should not be regarded as an automatic inclusion criteria for actors and film-makers. TheScrubby (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I think it's a major award, but alone doesn't prove beyond discussion that someone should be included on this page. We could still agree to include someone who has only been awarded BAFTAs if there were otherwise still internationally notable. (For reference, there are many, many national film industry awards). JeffUK (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, well not as powerful as a Academy Award, it's more powerful and relevant then the emmys and/or a logie I don't know how more important that is, though I could argue that we could include some Bafta award winner.4me689 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're one of the more important awards, though less important than the Oscars. More weight should be given to BAFTAs given to non-Brits. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have little objection to that, yeah - with more significance given to BAFTAs awarded to non-Brits, especially for more international productions. TheScrubby (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I'm Neutral. I just noticed conflicting points in regards to BAFTAs. I want to thank TheScrubby for opening this discussion to solve this. Much appreciated. FireInMe (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote to Include the BAFTAs in a majority of instances (though there might be occasional instances where a certain lack of justifies some exclusions); those two ceremonies are generally considered to be the gold Standard. I'm also on the same page as Jim Michael when non-Brits win BAFTAs. BAFTAs are between the Logies and Oscars on the rank of notability, but they lean closer to the Oscars. I'm American and The NY Times app notified me of the BAFTAs but not the Logies. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going to list the winners each year of any entertainment awards; this section is about the importance of awards in deciding who we include in the Births & Deaths sections. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification; I would say that a BAFTA isn't deprecated like the golden globes are. I'd say that they could be considered major awards. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that they're major awards, but winning them doesn't grant international notability to Brits. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral But I'm far from convinced that Academy Awards automatically convey international notability either. Deb (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Powerball Jackpot (Result: exclusion)

In the US, the Powerball has reached a $1.5 Billion USD jackpot. If (and only if) this jackpot sets a world record, should we include it? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude, the lottery is obviously domestic. I mean no one else outside of the United States is going to win it. 4me689 (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude as per 4me689. TheScrubby (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with thescrubby and 4me689 PaulRKil (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude, no way. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude because it's nowhere near important enough. It's trivia & we don't include things on the basis of them being world records. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is technically closed now however I think that if it does set a world record it might warrant inclusion in the US specific 2022 article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. I've already listed it in 2022 in the United States' predicted and scheduled section. And being American myself, I've already bought my tickets ;) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't gamble. It's why I hate lootboxes in video games. Yep. Although there is an issue with one of the sections of that article which I have added a template to with a reasoning. Doesn't seem to hard to fix but it makes readability difficult. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude But deserves a mention on 2022 in the United States. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerben Karstens (Result: exclusion)

is Gerben Karstens notable enough for inclusion, the importance tag on this dude has been removed and re-added over and over again, just asking before I put my opinion, any thoughts????? by the way please do not give a basic response like, no International nobility 2022 in the Netherlands, give a good detailed response. 4me689 (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of him has been removed from his article? Well, it comes down to if the information is true and supported by reliable sources. Did editors remove the important points about him because it was untrue/unsourced? Or it was true and they simply vandalized his article by removing true information? FireInMe (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was really only known in Europe, and most Americans, Asians, Africans, and Australians can be comfortably assumed to have not known Karstens. For this reason, I would say Borderline Exclude. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would concur with InvadingInvader. FireInMe (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And he was hardly known in Europe. Exclude him. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude because his only major accomplishment is an Olympic gold medal in a team event. There's a consensus that team medals grant insufficient international notability for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interim leaders (Result:)

Should interim heads of state/gov who didn't do anything significant during their time in those posts - such as Balakh Sher Mazari (who was Caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan for five weeks) - be included? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, all people who have been heads of state/gov at least once should be included, that is including interim heads of state/gov, just like Balakh Sher Mazari. 4me689 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include they still were head of state and exercised those powers thereof. PaulRKil (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did they lead governments or states? Yes. Interim, yes, but they did. I think so even if it had been PM 15 hours. It doesn't matter if they did something significant, the important thing is the office they assumed. There are some HoS and HoG who have ruled with full executive powers and left no significant legacy! _-_Alsor (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022 (Result: not done)

Would you like to add this following line to the introduction paragraph above, "2022 marked many prominent deaths of...":

It is also expected for this year to reach 8 billion people at end of 2022, according to released projections from the United Nations. It is also even projected to reach 8.5 billion people by the year 2030. World population growth is starting to slow down, despite it continuing to increase.

Source of this info:

--2601:205:C001:EA0:D2E:95F5:7A12:B8D7 (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is poorly written and can't be added as is. Deb (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a discussion on this. I recommend you put your comments there. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022 (2) (Result: done)

Please add this event to this article:

6 August – Terrance Drew is sworn in as prime minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis. [Reference supplied] 2600:1010:B12A:AE74:F835:F68:51C5:4C62 (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Deb (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022 (3) (Result:)

I would like to request for an new timeline event to be added:


I agree that it should be on year 2022 article. 204.129.232.195 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better placed on 2022 in science, but I'd like to get other editors' opinions first InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with InvadingInvader on this 4me689 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@InvadingInvader Any reasons why? -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm primarily concerned about is 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. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 featured article requests (Result:)

in my opinion, I feel like we should nominate the 2022 article for the feature articles, we should nominate the 2022 article for the 31st because that's the end of the year and it will serve as a retrospect of the year, it'd be pretty cool but I'm going to get a talk page consensus here first so no one will complain, any thoughts??????. 4me689 (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you, beside being a current year, it is also the most important years like previous ones. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE This comment makes absolutely no sense. It seems like you are trying to derail discussions on this page by making nonsensical interventions. Please stop that. Deb (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Activision excluded

I removed a domestic event here. User:4me689 immediately reinstated it, claiming that there was consensus to include. I checked the talk page and found no mention of it, so I removed it again. User:4me689 reinstated it again, referring me to a nonexistent archive entry. I checked the archive and found that there had indeed been a discussion, in which he insisted it should be included and the only other participant said it should not. The discussion was then closed with the heading "Microsoft & Activision Blizzard (Result: inclusion)", which was clearly not the case. I would now be guilty of breaking the 3-revert rule were it not that this is vandalism by User:4me689 and an apparent attempt to push his own preferences. This is only one of several discussions where he has misrepresented consensus. If I see this again, we will have to go to ANI. I should add that if someone can point me to a discussion where there was consensus to include this event, I will take back what I just said. Deb (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a conversation that had broad consensus, it wasn't here. I combed through the archive. PaulRKil (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb But why do you think that Microsoft and Activision Blizzard are a domestic event? Are they an influence on internationals? Or do company mergers happen in one country or continent? -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Space tourism from companies like SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin could undo work to repair ozone layer, study finds". Sky News. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  2. ^ Ryan, Robert G.; Marais, Eloise A.; Balhatchet, Chloe J.; Eastham, Sebastian D. (June 2022). "Impact of Rocket Launch and Space Debris Air Pollutant Emissions on Stratospheric Ozone and Global Climate". Earth's Future. 10 (6): e2021EF002612. Bibcode:2022EaFut..1002612R. doi:10.1029/2021EF002612. ISSN 2328-4277. PMC 9287058. PMID 35865359.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022&oldid=1120752288"