Talk:2022/Archive 9

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

PnB Rock (Result: exclusion)

Is PnB Rock international notable enough to be included, he has already be added a couple times already, just asking before I put my opinion. 4me689 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Exclude due to insufficient international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Exclude Never even heard of him, sorry. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Exclude, the only song I know from PnB rock is that song he did with Ed Sheeran. even with that, the song he did with Ed Sheeran did not go number 1 in any country. the fact that he made a song with one of the biggest artists of modern times does not make PnB rock internationally notable enough to be included because the song wasn't a number one hit. 4me689 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 (Result: exclusion)

Is the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 notable enough to be included, just asking before I put my opinion. 4me689 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Exclude - junior competitions of any description are nowhere near important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Exclude I agree with Jim Michael on this one. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Exclude I agree with Jim Michael and InvadingInvader 4me689 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Louise Fletcher (Result: inclusion)

Is Louise Fletcher notable enough to be included. in my opinion, Include, looking at her resume she won an Academy Award, a BAFTA Award and a Golden Globe Award, some of the most prestigious Awards in Hollywood. but still MrMimikyu1998 is still questioning her notability and he is making her look as notable as Gilbert Gottfried, Gottfried didn't really have any International Awards. like why are you trying to exclude someone with many of Hollywood's most prestigious Awards, that doesn't make sense to me. 4me689 (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Fletcher has won international awards. So she should be included.
Sometimes, I think we go a bit too far; when it comes to narrowing the list down. 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:E5DD:A7C7:8176:9465 (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
She won an Academy Award for Best Actress & a BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role. She's clearly internationally notable enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Include. Award-winning actress, including a prominent role in one of IMDB's top 20 highest-rated films of all time. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Include. Not a difficult one. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Image size (Deaths)

I'm just wondering if we could increase the image size slightly? Obviously, that would increase the depth, but most of the names of the images bleed onto a second line of text, which of course increases them massively. With a larger width, many would fit on one line. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

How much detail?

There have been repeated alterations to some entries, especially during this month. Most of this relates to Liz Truss, Elizabeth II & the Russo-Ukrainian War. How much detail should we include? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, how much detail there should be is on if it's important. So, in my opinion the Biden excerpt that Wjfox2005 have been pushing should be excluded, cuz it's not that important. As for Queen Elizabeth, in my opinion it should only say Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, or something like that. 4me689 (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection on this talk page ASAP (Result: not done)

We need to semi protect this talk page until the end of the year, there has been three separate people using sock puppets to disrupt and waste others time. the first sock puppeteer is the what if 2020 person, which is a person who has abused multiple IPs to ask useless and stupid questions like "what if 2020 came to your house" & "what if 2020 was a person" and use this talk page to ask trivial and very local questions. next there's Counting Stars 500, who's used multiple accounts with easily made names like Emily Phillipson and Thomas Constable, he has demonstrated an obsession with Gilbert Gottfried and Canadian politics, and abused multiple accounts to get a consensus to include Gottfried as well as politicians like Jack Layton. and finally just today we have found another sock puppeteer in the form of Niko the Biko who is previously blocked in 2020 for harassment, Who ban evaded and abused multiple accounts like Ingrid997 & Redcoat1945, to demonstrate a obsession with Marsha Hunt, and used said multiple accounts to try to make a consensus to include her. you need to semi protect this talk page ASAP, we will not let this page go through more sock puppeteers, the only way to stop this is if we semi protected this talk page. 4me689 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with semi-protecting this talk page again, for four months at least. 146 is now blocked for bad edits, but appears to also be a sock of CountingStars or Niko. I'm suspicious of Golden Matrix, whose focus, way of writing etc. appear to be similar to those of CountingStars500. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
There's not really enough IP activity to justify it, to be honest. And the last two socks were both autoconfirmed so semi-protecting wouldn't have helped anyway. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Should Saul Kripke be included? (Result: borderline inclusion)

I would argue that he should. He seems to be notable in the field of Philosophy and has received international awards/memberships for his work. For example, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Schock_Prizes which are described as the equilvalent of the Nobel Prizes. 65.78.186.95 (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Include, albeit as a borderline inclusion, looking at his resume he was a big influence in math culture, his International nobility is equivalent to Yi-Fu Tuan or Richard Taruskin , this guy would probably look like a guy that will be put in these pages. 4me689 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Death section pictures for September (Result: Godard)

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) 04:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Either one works, but if there are no more extremely notable deaths this month that surpass both of them, let's go with both. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Frank Drake

  1. in my opinion the second picture should go to Frank Drake, because he accomplished more things. 4me689 (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Jean-Luc Godard

  1. IMO it should go to Godard - arguably among the most important and influential film-makers of his era. Would not be opposed to Drake getting the third pic if space opens up for it. TheScrubby (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Godard. Didn’t know about Drake until recently. Kyu (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  3. Without any doubt. One of the most important film-makers ever. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, Godard definitely, but if there's enough room for Drake he should certainly be next (at the moment). Black Kite (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  5. Godard - he's far more notable. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Tests/attempts

How can these be considered to be important enough for main year articles? We'd include many on each if they were. Many are the first of their type or are unusual in some way. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

So, from our beginnings as cavemen, to the early 21st century, humans have now advanced to the point where we're literally altering the movement of astronomical bodies in space, but that's apparently trivial to you. https://twitter.com/fallingstarIfA/status/1574583529731670021 Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
It's trivial for this planet unless it can be done in a measured, controlled way. Until then, it's experimentation. I'm not just talking about this - weapons testing has also been added to year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Most tests aren't actually that interesting, groundbreaking or notable, though. This one is all three, and hence got worldwide coverage. It should stay. Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
How is it trivial if it gained worldwide coverage? InvadingInvader (talk) 07:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
International media coverage doesn't show international notability or importance. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
That partially seems like a logical fallacy. Wide international media coverage practically equates to international notability. Importance is a debatable thing, but this makes the cut for importance; nothing else like it has been done yet. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't - many things receive a lot of international media coverage without being internationally notable, including disasters, high-profile crimes (such as the murder of Sarah Everard & the killing of Gabby Petito), sports events in which the sports have many fans in many countries and the various activities of domestic but internationally known celebs such as The Kardashians & Jenners.
This is only important if it's able to be done in a reliable, controlled way. We don't include things on the basis of them being firsts. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
FYI, my response is linked to the above thread at Talk:2022#Cross-listing certain domestic events in main year articles. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Sacheen Littlefeather (Result: exclusion)

Is Sacheen Littlefeather international notable enough to be included, she has already be added a couple times already, just asking before I put my opinion. 4me689 (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to insufficient international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Exclude due to a lack of international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Exclude as per TheScrubby & Jim Michael 4me689 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Collages (Result: inconclusive)

Can collages be added to main year articles, recently a discussion has been opened up in the Talk:2020 page about collages an idea brought up by the user KoopaDaQuick, I also had this idea but just forgot about it until very recently. it would bring more originality to this pages and would make every main year article look unique, the idea is like the collages in the decade articles, we're a couple photos are in the info box and you can click on them to go directly to the article that picture is from. I want to see what everyone's thoughts on adding a collage are, and if yes list what pictures would be on a possible 2022 collage. 4me689 (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, giving each year a montage would be a good idea. I don't know if we want to do one as plentiful as the one I did for 2020, but maybe we could do it in a similar manner as the ones we already use for the decade articles. KoopaDaQuick (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I'd support this big time, especially given how extremely eventful 2021 and 2022 (so far) has been. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think so. We're not here for "originality", and the collage included on 2020 is pretty meaningless and not well-designed. I can see the point of making the main year article look unique, but we'd need something much better than the existing example. This should be raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years if you want to proceed with it. Deb (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
We're probably not going to use the style of the collage that is currently on the picture on the 2020 article, we're more than likely going to use the style that is used in the decade articles. Also, @Jim Michael 2:, @TheScrubby:, and @Black Kite: what do you think about this, they're the main contributors. 4me689 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I've amended the result that was added by the proposer without proper discussion of the subject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images or indeed anywhere else. In fact User:4me689 has ignored repeated requests to raise this topic in the proper place. There is thus at present no consensus to include collages on main year articles. @Jim Michael 2:, @TheScrubby:, and @Black Kite: for opinions. Deb (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years is the correct place to discuss this & that the discussion on User talk:4me689/collage discussions should be moved there. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
That discussion is still in the same place, but it's linked from Years. Is that sufficient? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
@InvadingInvader:, and @MrMimikyu1998:. just curious, should Coolio get a picture. 4me689 (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Probably not. Kyu (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
No. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
ahh I'm shocked to hear his death, he should be included 100%. 4me689 (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Exclude due to insufficient international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
Whether or not I or anybody else here recognises Coolio or his work is not relevant. TheScrubby (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, Scrubby. Appreciate it. Kyu (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
you've got to be kidding us. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I suggest, you should read WP:PA. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Norden1990 - read WP:WORLDVIEW. Deb (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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

  • Include Brooker, Bennett & Coolio, due to some of their albums & singles entering the top 10 in several countries' charts. Of those, only Bennett may qualify for a photo. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Include. Based on what I know and what you're saying, this should be included. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Include as per InvadingInvader 4me689 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's a ridiculous strawman. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

Russo-Ukrainian War

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

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)
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)

Technoblade (Result: exclusion)

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

 Not done because he has little international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Not enough notability on an international scale PaulRKil (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with PaulRKil & Jim Michael, there's already a consensus to exclude him 4me689 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
As has already been discussed, exclude due to lack of international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Absolutely yes! Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Certainly, once there is more space we should include Inoki's image again. PaulRKil (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
It's not rare & consensus can change. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's one trivial thing & one speculative thing. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
With all due respect, that could fall under WP:CRYSTAL. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
There's a difference between international and internationally notable. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Agree with Jim Michael's designations. The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

I second this. PaulRKil (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022/Archive_9&oldid=1122263165"