Talk:2022/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ice hockey players - Bossy and Lafleur (Result: borderline inclusions)

We've had short discussions on Mike Bossy and Guy Lafleur, former ice hockey players who dies this April. Both are some of the best known and most successful NHL players in history. We ended up with no arguments against Bossy, but when I attempted to add him, he was removed. A short discussion ensued on Lafleur's notability, but came to an abrupt end. Can we continue this discussion? The Voivodeship King (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Include both. CountingStars500 (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Sports really is not my main area of familiarity, but I think what's clear is that the question of whether or not the most significant players of regional sports (such as hockey, baseball, rugby, any "football" that is not soccer, etc.) ought to be included needs to be resolved - and that is something we have consistently struggled to resolve over the last year. That, I would say, is the more pressing matter to resolve, after which cases like Bossy and Lafleur will become much more straightforward to decide. TheScrubby (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I have my doubts that they have to be included. Neither are they the most important in that sport, nor is the sport particularly popular outside that region. Comparing it to the Spanish soccer league is very foolhardy, as many players in European national leagues have more international popularity than any Canadian (or non-Canadian) ice hockey players. Obviously. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I know very little about ice hockey & hadn't heard of either player until I saw on WP that they'd died. If I weren't on WP, I'd still not have heard of either of them. Their articles show that they each played for Canadian & American teams as well as their national team & that they have important achievements/awards at the bottom of their articles. How important are their teams, performances & what they won? How international are they? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The Montreal Canadiens (Lafleur)are the oldest team in the league, one of the oldest American sports teams in any code and a greatly respected entity in general. The Islanders (Bossy) have been around for half a century. Lafleur won five Stanley Cups, three Art Ross Trophies (top points scorer), two Hart Memorial Trophies (MVPs), three Lester B. Pearson Awards (player's player) and one Conn Smythe Trophy (Playoff MVP). These are the most prestigious awards given each year by the NHL. Bossy won four Stanley Cups, one Conn Smythe, one Calder Memorial Trophy (Rookie of the Year) and three Lady Byng Memorial Trophy (Best and Fairest). Whilst Canadian players make up a fair portion of the sport's players, other nations have produced very fine players. In the last thirty years, the NHL's MVP has gone to four different Russians, two different Swedes, two Czechs, a German and an American. The NHL is also widely considered the strongest hockey league - European players like Ovechkin, Draisaitl, Victor Hedman and Patrik Laine all played in their nation's leagues before immediately switching to the NHL clubs (or their minor teams) who drafted them. The Voivodeship King (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Rupiah Banda or Ayaz Mutallibov (Result: both images eventually included)

both of these world leaders have been put up as pictures at one point and keep getting switched over and over again, which one should get the picture. 4me689 (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously the Banda photo is better quality while unfortunately the only available photo of Mutallibov leaves much to be desired. But nevertheless, the latter figure is of greater historical significance, so I would prioritise his image over Banda's. TheScrubby (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The Mutallibov pic is of such poor quality that it's almost useless, so it shouldn't be used. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The main image on Mutallibov‘s article is much better, we should use that JeffUK (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, use that one instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we can't use the main image on Mutallibov‘s article, because it's a "fair use" image that can only be used on his article. TheScrubby (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
In that case, we should use the Banda pic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Bob Lanier (Result: exclusion)

Hi everybody, excuse me if I'm starting this discussion but I think that a basketball player who was inducted in the NBA Hall of Fame should be listed here; moreover the statement "he lacked international notability" is quite questionable... Lanier's death was reported all over the world (see: CNN, Sky Sport, Marca, L'Équipe). He played in the NBA only, that's right, but if we use this criteria we should remove almost 90% of the greatest basketball players of all time. If you don't know who he was, no problems, but I sincerly don't know what "international notability" means if he did not have it. By the way, I'm not American and I wasn't a fan of Lanier, I wasn't even born when he was in the NBA, so I humbly think I'm not biased but I'm just unsure about the criteria used here. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

exclude Lanier, International coverage does not equal inclusion. The MBA is a local League, that's only really a thing in North America. I'm American, so don't tell me I'm foreign and know nothing about American Sports, some basketball players get included mainly cuz they have higher honors (ie Olympic gold medals), the NBA Hall of Fame is not a higher honor, dus having said person inducted into the NBA Hall of Fame does not Merit inclusion on this article. Lanier belongs to 2022 in the United States. 4me689 (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok but in the European leagues, players usually play both in national leagues and European cups, so they authomatically have "international notability". For an American player who plays in one of the North American sport leagues this will never happen. He was one of the greatest players of his generation, he never won a title, but he was an hall of famer. We've sources from all over the world reporting his death, but ok... -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Exclude because he has no international notability. He should be on 2022 deaths in the United States, but not here. Being in halls of fame - even international ones - doesn't grant inclusion. Most players who've competed internationally aren't important enough for main year articles; they need to have major international achievements. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Vinnytsia International Airport (Result: exclusion)

Is the airstrike on the Vinnytsia International Airport really relevant? Ten people died, which is unfortunately a common death count for attacks during the war. I don't see a reason why it needs inclusion. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Definitely Include, it seems to be a Russian attack, and there's a lot of events in the Russian invasion of Ukraine that is as notable as this. 4me689 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Exactly- there's quite a lot of events in the war, including Russian attacks, and the vast majority are not notable for a main year article. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think there are too many Russia-Ukraine events in this article, but what should the inclusion criteria be for them? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Too many entries for Russo-Ukrainian War? (Result: entries cut back and proposed removals removed)

I think there are, We have Timeline_of_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine for a detailed blow-by-blow account, I think events in this article should be significant events in the war itself (large numbers killed or injured in a single event) or high-level international reaction (not threats or announcements.) I propose removal of some that were more 'breaking news' than 'events', and some are not, on balance, important enough events in the war for the year article, this is just a start there may be others that could be taken out:

  • February 28 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Football governing bodies FIFA and UEFA suspend Russian clubs and national teams from all competitions.
    • UEFA is international but relatively minor. No real lasting impact.
  • March 2 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: The United Nations reports that over a million refugees have now fled from Ukraine to other countries.
    • Running totals hitting arbitrary numbers aren't 'events' the lead could contain the latest figure of refugees.
  • March 6 – 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Vinnytsia International Airport is destroyed by Russian missiles, as President Zelenskyy calls for a no-fly zone to prevent further attacks in Ukraine.[77][
    • Relatively inconsequential attack.
  • March 8 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Major global brands including McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Starbucks halt sales in Russia, in response to its attacks on Ukraine.
    • Much less significant than the international sanctions.
  • March 25 – 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Russia's defence ministry announces that the first phase of its military operation is "generally" complete, saying the country will focus on the "liberation" of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.
    • Russian Propaganda, announcements are not events.
  • March 29 – 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Russia's deputy defense minister says that Moscow has decided to "fundamentally cut back military activity in the direction of Kyiv and Chernihiv" in order to "increase mutual trust for future negotiations to agree and sign a peace deal with Ukraine".
    • Russian Propaganda, announcements are not events.
  • April 19 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announces that Russia's military operation has entered a new phase, focused on the entire front line of Eastern Ukraine. The city of Kreminna is reportedly the first to be captured.
    • Russian Propaganda, announcements are not events.
  • April 20 - 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Russian and Belarusian players are banned from the Wimbledon tennis championship.
    • relatively little significance
  • May 2 – Russia announces it may be pulling out of the International Space Station as soon as two years from now, because of the sanctions imposed on the nation after its invasion of Ukraine.
    • As per section on the talk page, it's an announcement not an event.

JeffUK (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

None of the entries you've mentioned will be deleted. Can you and Jim Michael stop trying to ruin this page by insisting that literally every f***ing thing must be deleted. I don't think you've any idea how infuriating it is – for me to spend large chunks of my time carefully researching and adding entries (all of which are relevant and notable), filling in the references, etc. – and then coming on here and seeing some random little editor bleating and whining that eVeRyThIng mUsT nOw bE dEleTed. It's getting to the point where I'm going to stop contributing here, because it seems like a waste of time and effort. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Editors' measures of what's notable enough to include vary. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
February 28 - Not notable, put that in 2022 in sports
March 2 - I don't see a problem with this part; 2011 for instance has an entry for the world's population hitting seven billion
March 6 - Not notable at all, no important consequences and just one of many Russian airstrikes with a (relatively) small death toll.
March 8 - No opinion
March 25 - No opinion
March 29 - increase mutual trust, no, but cut back in the direction of Chernihiv and Kyiv, yes. Keep the entry.
April 19 - Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
April 20 - 2022 in sport; Wimbledon decisions are not notable
May 2 - No opinion, when they withdraw from the ISS it will be newsworthy but I'm not sure about the announcement. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we should follow a timeline on the same format as 1939, which entries on the Spanish Civil War and World War II can be used as models. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The threat of the leaving the ISS is definitely not notable. They made the same threat multiple times in the previous weeks: Russia threatens to leave International Space Station program (again). It will be notable if it actually happens. Right now it's just a bunch of worthless empty threats. --McSly (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Then the entry should be deleted. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
all of them, (except for the May 2nd one) should be kept.
look at 2020 and there's a lot of covid-19 related stuff, every month of 2020, pretty much has 10 to 15 things about covid-19, it's the same for 2022, but this time with the Russian invasion. removing it would be pointless since we already have the same thing but with a different topic on a previous year. and the same would go for late 1939 with the start of the Second World War. in my opinion the May 2nd one should be excluded cuz it has been threatened by Russia for a while now. every other entries should be included. 4me689 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with your comparison only in that there are far too many COVID Timeline entries in 2020! I don’t find arguments based on entirely unrelated content convincing at all. The inclusion of COVID related entries has no bearing on the relevance of these entries. JeffUK (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia announces departure from ISS (Result: exclusion)

Is the event for May 2 – "Russia announces it may be pulling out of the International Space Station as soon as two years from now, because of the sanctions imposed on the nation after its invasion of Ukraine" notable enough to be included under events? I believe this is noteworthy news, especially because no other major members from the ISS have ever left before, and the fact that Russia confirmed that they they will be pulling out before their commitment to the station is up. Lastly, because this event directly relates to the war in Ukraine, I feel the event should be added. Thanks! --Johnson524 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

in my opinion, it should be added cuz no member of the ISS (aside from China) has pulled out of it. and the International Space Station is a big thing. 4me689 (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Include Per 4me689 because pulling from the ISS is a big deal especially as a response to sanctions. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed it on the basis they have been threatening this for months; this announcement is no more substantial than the other threats, ‘Russia *may* pull out of the ISS’ is too weasly to merit inclusion as an event in its own right. they were only ever committed to the ISS until 2024 anyway so even if it does come to pass, this isn’t even news let alone an important international event. JeffUK (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There are articles supporting the view this may be a case of rumour or threats that aren't likely to be substantiated. "That's not an announcement of a departure from the program — just an acknowledgement that Roscosmos will give the other partners a heads-up if such a decision is made." https://www.space.com/russia-leave-space-station-rogozin-threats. I really think such threats don't constitute an international event, and this article supports that. Very close to WP:Crystal as I don't think Roscosmos is a reliable source. JeffUK (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

4me689 apparently disagrees that a Russian official's announcement of pulling out of the ISS program at some undetermined point in the future doesn't merit mention on its own. What do you think? — Yerpo Eh? 12:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That is false, I agree with the inclusion of the event 4me689 (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
That's what Yerpo is saying. Why do you claim that an announcement that something may happen is important? If it happens, we'll include it then. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jim Michael 2: thanks for merging, I didn't see the existing topic. As for the topic itself, it's like you pointed out - the event of Russia pulling out will certainly be important if/when it happens, but this is not what we're talking about. We're talking about one official's (unsubstantiated) claim that the decision about this was made - even the cited source says that the same official has been saying different things days earlier. So can we please stop muddling the issue? Those supporting inclusion, you need to demonstrate why this claim is important on its own. — Yerpo Eh? 12:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and even if the withdrawal happens, it won't be this year. It therefore makes no sense to include it in this article. As it's not certain to happen, it's not even important enough for 2022 in Russia. We shouldn't include any vague statements. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies, I trust your judgement! Johnson524 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir Zhirinovsky (Result: exclusion)

Why is he not internationally notable? He was one of the most well-known politicians in Europe, ran for President six times (in all cases as a major contender), was a symbol of the Russian/Eastern European far-right, took part in a coup d'état attempt, etc. The extent of his popularity was significant enough it became a subject of concern by the international media. The argument that Jean-Marie Le Pen wouldn't be placed on a main year article if he died doesn't make sense either, for obvious reasons. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Zhirinovsky & Le Pen are domestic figures. They've received a lot of international media coverage because of their political positions, but that doesn't make them internationally notable. Coup attempts, internal crises etc. usually aren't international. We include very few politicians on main year articles who haven't been head of state/gov. We've had long debates in regard to the inclusion bar for politicians, especially on here & Talk:2021. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Exclude as per Jim Michael and TheScrubby. 4me689 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Exclude as per Jim Michael. TheScrubby (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Supraorganisations (Result: joinings are included, but not application requests)

Changes in memberships of important international supraorganisations including the EU, Eurozone & NATO are important enough to include, but applications to join, announcements of intention to join, referendums regarding joining etc. aren't. We should include an entry only for the date each country joins, such as the entry on 2013 for Croatia joining the EU. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Include, all three organizations are pretty big, it's a big deal if a nation joins all or one of the organizations. Cuz the policies that come with it could affect a lot of people. Joining the Eurozone would bring a new currency everyone has to switch to, joining the European Union with mean that you get to travel freely around too other members States, joining NATO means you're aligning more towards new allies, and the requirements for it will affect said countries military. 4me689 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Joining is, no doubt. Applying or saying they'll apply isn't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose mere application requests. That never guarantees that the State will end up being part of the organization it's applying to join. Noticiable, yes, but insufficient. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The date of joining such organisations will always merit inclusion, but as to whether announcements should be included it entirely depends on the context, I don't think we can say they will never be major events. We should be open to discussing any addition to the page. To take a hypothetical example, Switzerland ending their neutrality and merely applying to join NATO would be a huge international event. JeffUK (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
"joining the European Union with mean that you get to travel freely around too other members States" You can do that by joining the Schengen Area, and five European Union members never joined it (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Romania, and the Republic of Ireland). Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Applications & gov statements of intention to join gain publicity, but we usually only include accessions because that's what's important. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with all of the above. Joining such organisations ought to be included, but mere announcements about the intention to join is nowhere near important enough for inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Multinational companies

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

Very rarely, I would say. Major financial institutions that actively impair Russia's ability to trade might count. But McDonald's certainly not, as most of their operations there are franchisees anyway. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The opening of McDonalds in Moscow in January 1990 was an iconic moment and symbolised a new bridge between Russia and the West. Huge crowds gathered on that day, and it received international coverage. Its closing is therefore notable too, along with similar global brands, as it reverses 30 years of progress in this area of commerce. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
It is absolutely notable, and a major event for Russia, but it's not significant enough to be on the main year page. It should remain on McDonalds and 2022 in Russia. The opening in 1990 was symbolic because pre-globalisation, McDonalds was very much a symbol of the United States, and of Capitalism, and the opening signified the ending of the cold war and was emblematic of the fall of the iron curtain. In reverse McDonalds is simply one of many corporations boycotting Russia at this time. JeffUK (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hotel Saratoga explosion (Result: exclusion)

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

how many times we have to say this, it's different for each case. the murder of Gabby betito, the slapping a Chris Rock, and Depp v. Heard, are all domestic things that belong to 2022 in the United States, because all three are a footnote in history barely anybody will look back upon. the Hotel Saratoga was built back in the 1880s, and it's one of the last few things that is a Revenant of pre-1959 Cuba, and because of that, it's one of Cuba's most historic buildings. the hotel Saratoga had a lot of celebrities that stayed there (ie Madonna and Beyonce). the blowing of the hotel Saratoga means that Cuba lost one of it's pre-communism symbols, and when it gets rebuilt, it will probably look nothing like it did before. look at other communist regimes, Mao Zedong destroyed or nearly destroyed a lot of ancient Chinese Shrines, just because he thought he can rewrite Chinese history in his name, that's called the Cultural Revolution. furthermore other governments like Afghanistan's Taliban destroyed a lot of old statues, like the Bamiyan Buddhas, one of the world's oldest statues before it got destroyed by the Taliban in 2001. the Taliban also destroyed a lot of other old stuff just because they wanted to. the thing is, unless it's apparent that it's super not notable, it's good to go to talk first before removing it. now, I wonder what Black Kite has to say about this. 4me689 (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with Jim Michael on many edits, but on this particular one he is correct. It's a domestic event and shouldn't be on 2022. Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Domestic events are routinely removed from main year articles. The Smith-Rock slap & Depp-Heard case will be talked about for years. They're among the most publicised events of their lives & careers. What you're saying about the hotel is important to Cuba, but not relevant to the rest of the world. What the hotel will look like when repaired/rebuilt is speculation & domestic. Those celebs weren't staying there on the day of the explosion, so they're not relevant. The comparisons you make to former structures in Asia isn't reasonable, because they were deliberately destroyed. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Neither the Smith nor Depp cases are in the article (correctly so in my opinion.) I don't understand why this is being brought up in relation to a hotel in Cuba. The explosion is not a significant enough event to warrant inclusion. Sounds like an industrial accident in a building site, these happen all the time. If it was an international terror attack, in a state building, or if the hotel had been full of international guests it may be different. JeffUK (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I mentioned the slap & court case in response to the claim that international media coverage warrants the inclusion in main year articles of domestic events. Like the vast majority of fatal accidents in buildings, this is a domestic event. I agree that if, for example, the explosion had been caused by an Islamic State bomb, it'd have been important enough to include. If the victims included people from various countries, it may have been important enough to include; that's what led to the Surfside condominium collapse becoming internationally notable. However, no RS is saying either of those things were true in regard to the Havana explosion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the topic is very internationally important, while the death toll is very high I don't see very much coverage from the media. When it comes to 2022 building disasters, the Changsha building collapse received far more coverage than the Hotel Saratoga disaster and had a far higher death toll but didn't manage to make it to this page. But I guess we can't all be Rana Plazas. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey everyone, extremely new to this page and Wikipedia as a whole. Just learned about the Talk function. As I'm sure you all have figured out I strongly disagree on the explosion not being included on this page. It received a lot of media coverage in the US and Latin America. In addition, a Spanish tourist did die in the explosion, expanding its impact. The building was also very historic and internationally known. A comparison to the Changsa Building collapse is not fair as this occurred in a well-known building in the center of Cuba's capital (And just a few hundred steps from the center of government). There was also no coverage of the Changsa collapse in most western media as far as I'm aware. Also, there being no 2022 in Cuba page in English is a good reason to add it. Events shouldn't not be included because they occur in smaller, non-English speaking nations. On a different note, the month of May is nearly halfway over and there are five events currently documented there. (For comparison, April has 13 events listed by the 12th and March has 23). Hope you all are open to changing your minds. Joshuaalee59 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the Joshuaalee59 statement
the fact that one tourist dead made me support inclusion even more, Jim Michael, Wjfox2005, JeffUK, and Dunutubble. what's your status on inclusion.
also Black Kite, TheScrubby, and TDKR Chicago 101, have not responded yet, but I would really love to see their opinion on this. 4me689 (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with where Jim Michael, Wjfox2005 and JeffUK stand on this, for the record. TheScrubby (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The death toll is rather high so it might be available for inclusion. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
But international notability still needs to be proven. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue for inclusion because of the high death count. A hotel explosion resulting in a massive death count (45) and a large injury count (over 95) is pretty rare. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Already gave my opinion on this, earlier in the thread. Nobody is denying it's a tragic incident, but it just isn't notable or influential enough for 2022. The BBC and other UK outlets barely even covered it – the first I heard of it was on here. Sorry. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
We don't include domestic events on main year articles. One foreigner being among the dead is nowhere near significant enough to warrant its inclusion. It's death toll, being unusual & being reported by the international media don't grant inclusion. How large the country is, what language they speak there & whether or not it has a year by country subarticle aren't relevant. I'd oppose excluding it no matter where in the world it happened. Some months have more events in them than others; we don't include things to make the month sections of similar length. We're less than halfway through this month, so there being fewer events in it than in the previous months of this year is to be expected. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
According to the Associated Press a "major" Baptist Church was heavily damaged in the explosion.[1]That's a significant cultural object affected. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
It's of substantial significance for Cuba, but it's not international. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Definitely understand a lot of everyone's points. Seems there isn't much more to discuss. Let's just leave it off. Joshuaalee59 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Sport

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

We currently don't include most of those. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I think almost none if they're an annual event (It adds little information to have an entry in every year article saying 'X annual event happened this year too, quelle surprise', short of any specific reason to add them on a case-by-case basis. an otherwise annual event NOT happening for some reason may be more significant. Inaugural or ultimate events may make them significant enough to add, but not in all cases. The first (in a long time) international event being held in a country may be notable if the sources back up the fact it is symbolic of a wider change in international politics (say North Korea host the international table tennis championship) JeffUK (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Reverts over the Ukraine entries

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

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

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

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

1988, 1989, 1990 & 1991 also have long leads. The other years should have longer leads than they do. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
agreed, in fact, the longer the lead, the more important the year is. so some years have longer headers then others. 4me689 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
88-91 are very important years, including the end of the Cold War, so it's good for them to have long leads which include that. There are some other years that should have important events added to their leads. The September 11 attacks should be in the lead of 2001. The 2003 invasion of Iraq should be in the lead of 2003. The Great Recession should be in the leads of 2007, 2008 & 2009. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
We only perceive 2020, 2021, and 2022 to be extremely important years, even more important than 1939-1945, because of Wikipedia:Recentism. In any case I've started helping adding material to the leads of other year articles. Sk8erkid182 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Far more people edit the recent year articles than the older ones. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, that make sense. After all that's the reason why all the older Pages are kind of broken 4me689 (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding literature

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

If a book, in the future, becomes notable enough that it's year of initial publication is really significant, then yes. E.g. Lord of the Rings' publication is noted in 1954 . I doubt very much that will happen within the year itself though. An example of a holiday that you think should be added would help discussion JeffUK (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Alright, does Christmas or Easter count if it gains status around the world? It will help other people learn new events as well. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I think Christmas and Easter have very much gained status around the world already. Adding the *date* of Easter (and other major religious festivals) in a particular year is not something I would be particularly opposed to as they do change each year. Christmas is normally December 25th most years though.. JeffUK (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
But what would happen if I edited the article and added local and state events that do not gain any international notability? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Another editor might remove them if they didn't feel they fit within the scope of the article. Why are you asking, do you have a point you're trying to make? If so making it explicitly might be more productive JeffUK (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I was asking because I was making a point about literature, holidays, and local events in general and overall. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Books are rarely important enough to include. The Satanic Verses is a rare example of one that is, because of the major internation reaction to it.
As has been stated many times, we don't include domestic - let alone local - events.
Public holidays are usually regular. Most aren't international & even those that are shouldn't be included because they're not important events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The publishing of literature is rarely notable unless it causes a huge world event that will affect the world for years to come. Books normally go in 2022 in literature. 4me689 (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Even if I research literature in 2022 and there are even link and resources, do they count as reliable? Why not? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
You may be able to provide reliable sources that a book was published in 2022, the question is whether that makes it on on topic for this article. There is general consensus that the topic of the article is internationally important things that happen within the year. The publication of a book is unlikely to meet that definition on it's own. JeffUK (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
What does reliable sources for 2022 include? 76.20.110.116 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
It may include almost everything, like the website that increases vocabulary and language skills. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
No, reliable sources are well-defined. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
But how are reliable source are well defined? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
That link explains that in detail. The more relevant point here is that to be on main year articles, things have to be internationally important. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Ray Liotta (Result: borderline inclusion)

is Ray Liotta notable enough for inclusion?

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

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

As I said on my edit summary, I think although he is not an Oscar recipient, Liotta should make the cut, albeit as a borderline inclusion. Because he’s borderline though, I don’t think he should be prioritised for an image. TheScrubby (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
His only awards are minor, US awards. He has no international notability. Many thousands of actors have starred in internationally popular films. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I can see and support the argument for inclusion as he has appeared in some notable films, death is gaining international coverage and though he's no Eastwood, Pacino or DeNiro, he's not a nobody too. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree and would lean towards borderline inclusion. I see obituaries (proper ones, not copy and paste agency ones) in heavyweight newspapers from around the world. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

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

That's all due to his popularity & unexpected death. He doesn't gain the notability of his films, nor become internationally notable because he has many fans in many countries, died overseas & his death was reported in many sources. Thousands of entertainers are domestic figures who have fans in other countries & whose deaths are widely reported. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
He is (was) a well-known actor, with a leading role in one of the most critically acclaimed gangster movies ever. That alone is sufficient, before you consider his roles in other movies/TV shows. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Death of Shireen Abu Akleh (Result: exclusion)

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

She isn't internationally notable enough for Deaths, nor is her killing internationally notable enough for Events. Thousands of journalists have worked in multiple countries. Journalists being killed isn't rare, especially in conflict zones. The reactions to it are significant, but not enough for her (death) to be on this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Exclude as per Jim Michael 4me689 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Exclude per Jim. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Include because of her general notability in the Arab World (a multinational region). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Exclude as per Jim, 4me and Alsoriano. TheScrubby (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Exclude as not significant enough. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022/Archive_4&oldid=1113191974"