Misplaced Pages

Talk:2022: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:40, 19 October 2022 editBlack Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,252 edits and that's it← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:35, 12 December 2024 edit undoArionStar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,887 edits →Collage change: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=y}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Current events}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1=
{{WikiProject Lists |class=List |importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Lists|class=List|importance=Low}}
{{YearsProject|class=List|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Years|importance=High}}
}} }}
{{Page views}} {{Page views}}

{{Faq|collapsed=y}}
{{Archive basics {{Archive basics
|archive = Talk:2022/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:2022/Archive %(counter)d
Line 22: Line 22:
}} }}


== Collages (Result: inconclusive) == == Change to DMY date format ==
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock ] (]) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}}
Can collages be added to main year articles, recently a discussion has been opened up in the ] 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. ] (]) 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 ], but maybe we could do it in a similar manner as the ones we already use for the decade articles. ] (]) 04:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC) All articles about generic years should use the much more global DMY date format. It does not make sense to make a separate discussion about this on every single year page.--] (]) 15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
:Yeah I'd support this big time, especially given how extremely eventful 2021 and 2022 (so far) has been. ] (]) 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 ] if you want to proceed with it. ] (]) 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, {{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, {{ping|TheScrubby}}, and {{ping|Black Kite}} what do you think about this, they're the main contributors. ] (]) 16:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
:I've amended the result that was added by the proposer without proper discussion of the subject at ], ] or indeed anywhere else. In fact ] 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. {{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, {{ping|TheScrubby}}, and {{ping|Black Kite}} for opinions. ] (]) 08:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
::I agree that ] is the correct place to discuss this & that the discussion on ] should be moved there. ] (]) 11:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
::That discussion is still in the same place, but it's linked from Years. Is that sufficient? ] (]) 13:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


:For anyone else reading, Marginataen started a discussion at ] about this issue. ] (] / ]) 14:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
== Semi-protection on this talk page ASAP (Result: not done)==
::The main discussion is ongoing at ] ] (]) 21:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
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 ] 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 ] with easily made names like Emily Phillipson and Thomas Constable, he has demonstrated an obsession with ] and Canadian politics, and abused multiple accounts to get a consensus to include Gottfried as well as politicians like ]. 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 ] multiple accounts like Ingrid997 & Redcoat1945, to demonstrate a obsession with ], 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. ] (]) 23:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
{{hab}}
: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. ] (]) 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. ] 17:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


== Date format ==
== Should ] be included? (Result: borderline inclusion)==
{{hat|Discussion started by blocked sock ] (]) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}}
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/Rolf_Schock_Prizes which are described as the equilvalent of the Nobel Prizes. ] (]) 05:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest.
:'''Include''', albeit as a '''borderline inclusion''', looking at his resume he was a big influence in math culture, his International nobility is equivalent to ] or ] , this guy would probably look like a guy that will be put in these pages. ] (]) 06:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s ] (]) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
== 2022 collage candidate images and topic suggestions (Result: options A, B1, C3, D, F, G, I, K) ==
Give your opinion on what topics should be included in the collage and what should be left out. On some subjects feel free to add in subject to the image gallery the minimum is 8. ] (]) 22:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


:It has now been more than a week since I posted my proposal about changing the date format for 2022 to DMY and no one has responded. If one more weeks passes without any response as well, I will consider it consensus and change it to the DMY format. By then, people would have had more than two weeks to respond. Should someone later on object, please discuss it here on the talk page before reverting. ] (]) 08:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
<gallery caption="" heights="120" widths="120" mode="packed">
:I'm pasting the same reply at all the 2020s talk page sections on this topic, with the exception of 2023. As of about a month ago, we had a situation in which all generic year articles had a consistent date format. Since both date styles are considered appropriate per the Manual of Style, it's unusual to see such solid consistency. Since I value consistency, I appreciated that rare situation.
File:AfghanistanQuake.png|'''option A''' ]
:As of last month, ''only ]'' was changed via local consensus to be different than the rest. If this proposal passes for this article, it would join a tiny minority of articles that do not match the overall consistent style. I ''oppose'' for that reason.
File:Destruction of Russian tanks by Ukrainian troops in Mariupol (4).jpg|'''option B1''' ]
:I would be fine with ''all'' generic year articles changing to consistently use a different style, and that is the proposal on the table at ]. Currently, it seems we're at the tail end of a pre-RfC discussion with plans to move forward with an RfC in the next week or so. I would much prefer to keep discussing the overarching change rather than have individual discussions at each year article. ] (] / ]) 13:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Наслідки_обстрілу_дитячої_лікарні_та_пологового_будинку_в_Маріуполі,_9_березня_2022_року.jpg|'''option B2''' ]
{{hab}}
File:20220908-Buckingham Palace Elizabeth II death reactions (09).jpg|'''option C1''' ]
File:Elizabeth_II's_coffin_leaves_Holyrood_Palace.jpg|'''option C2''' ]
File:Procession_to_Lying-in-State_of_Elizabeth_II_at_Westminster_Hall_-_72_(cropped).jpg|'''option C3''' ]
File:Putin_attended_the_opening_ceremony_of_2022_Beijing_Winter_Olympics_(3).jpg|'''option D''' ]
File:Centro de vacunación en la provincia de Santa Fe.jpg|'''option E''' ]
File:The vicinity of Kintetsu Yamato-Saidaiji station northern entrance on 8th July 2022.jpg|'''option F''' ]
File:Anti-government protest in Sri Lanka 2022 (cropped).jpg|'''option G''' ]
File:NZDF over Tonga January 2022.jpg|'''option H''' ]
File:2022_Kazakhstan_protests_—_Aqtobe,_January_4_(01).jpg|'''option I''' ]
File:May_2022_abortion_protest_at_Foley_Square_08.jpg|'''option j''' ]
File:Monkeypox.gif|'''option k''' ]
</gallery>


== Zero images? ==
'''A''', '''B1''', '''C3''', '''D''', '''F''', '''G''', '''I''', '''k''' of course the Russian invasion Ukraine and the death of Queen Elizabeth should get a image on the collage. the protest in Sri Lankan led to big changes over there, the assassination of sensuality was a big one in Asia, the Olympics has the biggest sporting event every year. ] (]) 22:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Why are there ZERO images on this article? 2022 was a notable year, infamously so, and photos should be included here to illustrate certain events.
:Prominently include at least one depicting the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because it's by far the world's biggest event of the year. Exclude the Tonga eruption & abortion protests because they're nowhere near important enough. ] (]) 12:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
::Agree with the Russian invasion, but something other than a drab green picture of a tank would be better. Do we have something with the Ukrainian flag or Russian 'Z', something clearly in Ukraine? ] (]) 08:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
'''A, B2, C2, D, F, G, I'''. I realise that's only 7. I don't think H is notable enough (considering we've had an ], ] that killed more, and a ] this year), J is domestic, and the COVID-19 vaccine is really a 2021 story. I suspect we'll get a better image for C after today as well. ] 13:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
:{{u|Black Kite}} and {{u|Jim Michael 2}}, what about the monkeypox outbreak, is that a good idea, I certainly think it is. ] (]) 16:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::Include monkeypox, in addition to Ukraine, the Olympics, the Queen's death/funeral & the Afghan earthquake. ] (]) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


@] since when is a consensus needed to insert images in an article? Did I miss a new rule? Why was my edit reverted ? Which of these removed images are "controversial", and for what reason?--] (]) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
]
:guys, what do you think about this collage I just made. I use the new picture of Queen Elizabeth II that I haven't brought up yet which is her lying-in-state. ] (]) 21:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
:I would swap the photo of Elizabeth II's coffin and change Tonga for monkeypox. ] (]) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


:Recently, a ] and ] on the ] found near unanimous consensus to deprecate the use of image collages and the general inclusion of images. This centered on the arbitrary selection of images, which editors characterized as ] & ]. ] (]) 18:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
== Death section pictures for September (Result: Godard) ==
::@] Yes, this refers to image ''collages'', but not '''images''' itself. It is thus not applicable to my edit, which did not contain ''collages''. Your claim of "arbitrary selection of images" could not be substantiated in the link you provided. Furthermore, years ] and ] contradict you entirely, since they also contain images. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, your revert was unnecessary.--] (]) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
there's a dispute for who's going to get the 2nd picture for September so let's do a special section for this
:::If you read the concerns raised by those commenting on the RFC, you will find they are not necessarily exclusively related to the collages, but images in general, despite the title of the RFC.
:::I opened a ] at the Wikiproject on this, where the editor commenting agreed consensus should be obtained before adding a image. Following this, a second editor agreed to open discussions (], ]) for the inclusion of photos. In past years, images have also usually been selected through discussions - 2021 (], ]), 2020 (], ]). The current images on 2023 & 2021 have either been added without consensus or edit-warred in recently by a few editors, I will be seeking administrative assistance for those cases soon.
:::I also remind you that ]. You have added content which has been disputed and reverted, so you should be seeking the necessary consensus to restore the content. ] (]) 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
::::You need to provide exact citation for your claim. I could only find that the theme relevant for this discussion were '''collages''', not images ]. You are also confusing Wikimedia Commons images with external sources, since the former have nothing to do with ]. An image on Wikimedia is an image, not a source. Now, let's go through all these images I initially included and let's hear from you what is disputed in each and every one of them? --] (]) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


===Discussion for inclusion of images===
<gallery caption="" heights="120" widths="120" mode="packed">
I hereby nominate the following images for inclusion in the article;
File:Dr. Frank Drake.jpg|American astronomer and astrophysicist, ]
*File:2022 Kazakhstan protests — Aqtobe, January 4 (01) (cropped).jpg
File:Jean-Luc Godard at Berkeley, 1968.jpg|French-Swiss film director, ]
*File:Движение колонны бронетехники ВС РФ 007.png
</gallery>
*File:Antonov_Airport_after_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_and_Mriya_(3to4).jpg|
*File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - ua.svg
*File:Warsaw Central Station during Ukrainian refugee crisis 05.jpg
*File:Bucha. Faces of War. - Ukraine War Photo Exhibition 2023 (52702841629).jpg
*File:Russian bombing of Mariupol.jpg
*File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg
*File:08.03 總統與美國聯邦眾議院議長裴洛西媒體互動會 (52259967861).jpg


Sincerely, --] (]) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
here's my idea this is the vote for who should get the second picture, just sign your name under who should get it. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


:I '''oppose ''' the inclusion of any images on the page. Adding images can create a bias towards certain events, essentially becoming a ranking of events, contrary to ] & ]. Considering the broad scope of the article, images should be omitted altogether. However, if there is a consensus does form to include images on the page, I would be happy to participate in the discussions regarding the selection of appropriate images. ] (]) 16:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
===Frank Drake===
::@] I don't understand your reasoning here. What is the argument here? An image could make one event more important than other events, so we should have zero images? It makes little to no sense. Even if that were the case, you could add many images and then you would have almost an equal amount of "importance" among them. But you do agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is arguably the most major even of 2022 and that it therefore merits inclusion of at least some images, correct?--] (]) 09:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
# in my opinion the second picture should go to Frank Drake, because he accomplished more things. ] (]) 04:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::That is not a valid reason to oppose, it could be used to justify the removal of any image in any article. ] (]) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' the addition of images as a general editing principle that every editor may do, no opinion on the usage of ''these'' individual images. The RfC that is still open is specifically in regards to top-of-the-page collages, it is not a bar on image use in general. Reverting image additions for no reason other than "any addition is biased" is disruptive, and should be treated as standard ]. ] (]) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
*'''Proposal''' - I've proposed a suggested course of action ]. Please add your thoughts or comments on the proposal. ] (]) 17:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
::@] I have to repeat it for the second time, we are not discussing '''collage''' images on this talk page. We are discussing what is preventing users from including ordinary, any images on this article.--] (]) 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
:'''Support there is nothing wrong with using regular images, they add to illustration and a summary of major events that happened a certain year/decade/century.''' ] (]) 01:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


I and many others are confused as to why images have been removed from all wikipedia pages on years. There used to be photo collages of notable events for every single year and they have all been removed. Why??? ] (]) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
===Jean-Luc Godard===
:Considering that a whole month has passed, that other users gave their opinion confirming my thoughts, and that no user gave any support to @]'s arbitrary proposal of "no images policy" (for which no reasonable arguments were presented), I think we can conclude that images can freely be added to the articles about years, provided they are not collages.--] (]) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
# 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. ] (]) 09:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::I agree that the consensus is that images may be included on the page. However, I believe that there should still be a discussion on which images should be included. I suggest we use a ] as used on the page ]. While the discussion is related to collages, we are essentially still selecting images which are representative of the year.
# I agree with Godard. Didn’t know about Drake until recently. ] (]) 01:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
::I've added a ] on ] to gather more input on this issue. ] (]) 10:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
#Without any doubt. One of the most important film-makers ever. ] (]) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
:::I can do this ] (]) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
# Yeah, Godard definitely, but if there's enough room for Drake he should certainly be next (at the moment). ] 07:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
::::@] The very first sentence of this discussion I started on 18 December 2023, (@Discussion_for_inclusion_of_images) includes a list of nine nominated images I want to include. You failed in this entire month to address even a single image that I nominated. As such, unless no objections were made against any of these nine images, it should be considered as accepted to be included in the article by default.--] (]) 09:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
# Godard - he's far more notable. ] (]) 12:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Because there are no objections, i think its fair we reinstate these images. ] (]) 12:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


== Why is the Robb Elementary School shooting not mentioned in “Events”? ==
== ] (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. ] (]) 15:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability. ] (]) 18:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' Never even heard of him, sorry. ] (]) 18:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''', the only song I know from PnB rock is ] he did with ]. 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. ] (]) 21:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


It was an event that garnered months of media attention, international condemnation, and led to the ]. It was also featured on the front page. (Link:https://web.archive.org/web/20220525121908/https:/en.Misplaced Pages.org/Main_Page) ] (]) 00:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Is the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 notable enough to be included, just asking before I put my opinion. ] (]) 20:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' - junior competitions of any description are nowhere near important enough for main year articles. ] (]) 21:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
:*'''Exclude''' I agree with Jim Michael on this one. ] (]) 22:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
::'''Exclude''' I agree with Jim Michael and InvadingInvader ] (]) 22:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


== Collage edit war — Proposal in progress ==
== ] (Result: inclusion) ==
Is Louise Fletcher notable enough to be included. in my opinion, '''Include''', looking at her resume she won an ], a ] and a ], 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 ], 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
:She won an ] & a ]. She's clearly internationally notable enough. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. Not a difficult one. ] 14:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


Hey guys. I noticed the ongoing (fairly long) edit-war ongoing on the article over the collage. A few days ago, I proposed a process to be the standardized process for collage creations. This process is being experimented on for the 2023 collage amid the proposal discussion. If consensus get’s behind the proposal, the edit war and debate can stop. Anyway, it needs to stop and be solved one way or another. Feel free to participate here: ].
== ] (Result: borderline inclusion) ==
Perhaps someone should add something under “September” referring to the current protests in Iran? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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) ] (]) 04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:For now, I'd say no but it has the potential to boil into a larger event. ] (]) 14:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
::I'd include it if it causes a larger conflict or becomes martyred like the Tiananmen Square uprisings. ] (]) 04:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:{{ping|The ganymedian}}, {{ping|Wjfox2005}}, {{ping|PaulRKil}}, {{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, and {{ping|InvadingInvader}}. should Mahsa Amini protests be in this years collage. ] (]) 13:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
::I would wait a little longer to see how it plays out @] Kazakh unrest is still bigger in terms of fatalities for now, but we will see. ] (]) 15:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
::The Mahsa Amini protests aren't in the article, so they can't be in the collage. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


Courtesy pings for people involved in edit war just in this article: {{u|3E1I5S8B9RF7}}, {{u|DementiaGaming}}, {{u|Indiana6724}}, {{u|33ABGirl}}, {{u|Setarip}}, {{u|Alalch E.}}, {{u|4BOTOX}}, {{u|Raksiyyyy}}. '''The ]''' (] 20:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
== Image size (Deaths) ==
:{{u|WeatherWriter}} You obviously didn't even bother to read anything on this talk page since the discussion was not about '''collage''' images, but rather over '''zero images'''. After a month of discussion, the majority voted to include images in the article. If you want to contribute to the discussion, feel free after you have read the discussion and informed yourself about what you are talking about.--] (]) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
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. ] 14:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
::{{u|3E1I5S8B9RF7}}, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In , you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, '''is''' being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on ]’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually ] and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said, {{tq|See the talk page. Nine images were nominated a month ago, and everyone except 33ABGirl voted to include images in the article. The collage was not agreed upon, though.}}


::Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. '''The ]''' (] 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
== How much detail? ==
:::{{u|WeatherWriter}} Where exactly is the '''collage''' debate on this talk page?--] (]) 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
There have been repeated alterations to some entries, especially during this month. Most of this relates to ], ] & the ]. How much detail should we include? ] (]) 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 {{u|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. ] (]) 14:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


== The collage - why not restore? ==
== The third picture for September (Result: Frank Drake gets third photo after Elizabeth II and Jean-Luc Godard) ==
There's a lot of hesitancy on on Frank Drake getting a photo int he death section. My opinion the third photo should go to Frank Drake as we already have a Hollywood worker in the form of ], but in my opinion I fully support ] replacing Goddard, as fletcher is more notable. In my opinion it should be Frank Drake, Elizabeth II, and then Louise fletcher. Though I am still open for Godard to get the fourth picture, if they will ever be room for one. ] (]) 20:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
* Louise Fletcher is absolutely ''not'' more notable than Godard. You'll note that Godard was one of the very few people each year to get a full entry at ] on his death. ] 20:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
* To Black Kite: I would not replace Godard for Fletcher but it was only a suggestion because of Hurt and Poitier being Oscar winners themselves. I could easily go to the 2007 article and change Deborah Kerr’s image for Jane Wyman because Wyman won an Oscar while Kerr did not despite being nominated several times. ] (]) 21:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


Why hasn't the pre-existing collage, seen , been restored to this article yet as it has been for other articles? Per the re-closure of ], {{tq|many collages were prematurely removed from year articles during the course of this RfC with at most limited discussion. Given the significantly wider scale of this discussion, any editor wishing to restore them may do so.}} There was some discussion and reverting here during and shortly after that RfC, but all movement on this has apparently stalled for a month and a half. Since a perfectly good collage was already created, I don't see a need for a new discussion like is being done for ] - and one isn't happening anyway. We should simply restore the previous collage and bring this article in line with other year articles. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 07:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:To @4me689 I do not agree with having Drake here. I only suggested Fletcher because she was an Oscar winner plus keeping Godard is important because he’s more well known than Drake. Plus, we already have William Hurt and Sidney Poitier in terms of Oscars so I’m thinking we should have someone else other than Drake. I never even heard of him until recently so if you want him so bad, have him. ] (]) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
:: Godard actually won an Academy award as well, an ] which is awarded for "extraordinary distinction in lifetime achievement, exceptional contributions to the state of motion picture arts and sciences". ] 12:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:'''Strong Oppose''' any notion that Fletcher is more notable and more image-worthy than Godard, as per Black Kite. ] (]) 07:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


:Since the RfC has since been closed with overall consensus to keep them, I think it warrants restoring. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 09:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
==Tests/attempts==
:I see this collage as at least passably good, it makes the article better, I see no critical problems, and, therefore I have restored it. I stand by this collage. It is a good collage. When it comes to removing the entire collage, this is clearly incompatible with ]. Incremental improvement is possible. If there is a certain someone who objects to something in the collage, well, edit it. Edit it out, edit something else in, I don't know. Find a solution that does not entail removing the entire collage. Ask for help and feedback on the talk page.—] 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
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. ] (]) 15:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
::This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages ''can'' be included doesn't mean that they ''must'' be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. ] (]) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (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 ] (]) 19:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:::If I'm not wrong we've reached consensus already (]), but it's outdated and it was still in November 2022.
::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. ] (]) 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Indeed, much happened since then ,like the release of ] and the death of ] however the latest doesn't seem very relevant and to represent AI in an image would be reductive.
::: Most tests aren't actually that interesting, groundbreaking or notable, though. This one is all three, and hence got worldwide coverage. It should stay. ] 09:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>However, to keep the current collage with some wrong notes underneath might not be the best solution and to remove it altogether definitely wouldn't improve the article. ~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
:::How is it trivial if it gained worldwide coverage? ] (]) 07:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::::International media coverage doesn't show international notability or importance. ] (]) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC) ::::sorry forgot to sign ] (]) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::'''That partially seems like a logical fallacy.''' Wide international media coverage <u>practically equates</u> to international notability. Importance is a debatable thing, but this makes the cut for importance; nothing else like it has been done yet. ] (]) 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 ] & the ]), 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. ] (]) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::FYI, my response is linked to the above thread at ]. ] (]) 18:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


== Uvalde? ==
== ] (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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:::{{ping|InvadingInvader}}, and {{ping|MrMimikyu1998}}. just curious, should Coolio get a picture. ] (]) 01:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::::Probably not. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::::No. ] (]) 02:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:ahh I'm shocked to hear his death, he should be included 100%. ] (]) 01:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability. ] (]) 01:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::seriously, {{ping|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. ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 03:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::He has albums and singles that have charted in other countries. Shrug. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ? ] (]) 02:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::Gary Brooker was included because he was the main figure from ] 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 {{ping|Jim Michael 2}} speak for himself. ] (]) 02:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::: {{ping|TheScrubby}} if you don't recognize Coolio, here's his most famous song, Gangster's Paradise, you probably heard it once or twice.
::::::]. ] (]) 02:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Whether or not I or anybody else here recognises Coolio or his work is not relevant. ] (]) 02:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::Thank you for your response, Scrubby. Appreciate it. ] (]) 03:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:I wonder what {{ping|Wjfox2005}}, {{ping|Black Kite}}, {{ping|PaulRKil}}, {{ping|Alsoriano97}}, {{ping|TDKR Chicago 101}}, and {{ping|Deb}}. thinks about Coolio inclusion. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]? In the case of Coolie, I remain neutral, but I tend to support his inclusion. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:'''Include''', the rules here are just ridiculous. I do not know an ] or ], 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? --] (]) 08:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::you've got to be kidding us. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 08:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::::It is precisely this kind of ] 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 ] nonsense. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 07:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::::<s>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. </s>] (]) 09:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::I suggest, you should read ]. --] (]) 21:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{U|Norden1990}} - read ]. ] (]) 16:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
'''Strong include''' One of the most famous rappers of the last 30 years. Grammy award winner. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


Why cant we add Uvalde and why does it say 'don't add Uvalde'? ] (]) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
== What should be the standards of inclusion for musical artists ? (Result: inconclusive) ==
International Awards ? Well that would exclude people like Tony Bennett, Coolio, Johnny Mathis, who had 0 awards outside of the US.


:I am very confused. UVALDE is on the list now but it still says 'Dont add Uvalde'. Very confusing for editors. ] (]) 13:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Top Chart hits in other countries ? ] (]) 14:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:I think it's dependent on a case by case basis. ] (]) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:: I agree with InvadingInvader ] (]) 18:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


== English Language in PNG ==
:Thanks for taking the initiative, in the wake of the discussions to do with ]’s inclusion. One thing I’d like to bring up in relation to this is whether or not being a recipient of a ] is automatically sufficient for inclusion here. The fact that Coolio was a Grammy winner was brought up multiple times as justification for inclusion, yet there seems to be no real consensus on whether we should include Grammy winners (there has been far more discussion on say, ] inductees, where they are included on a case-by-case basis and as a secondary point for inclusion rather than a primary, automatic point for inclusion). ] (]) 00:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::Grammy awards should only be a factor if said musical artist is/was not from the US.
::Coolio IS from the US; so other factors should be considered such as does said Musical artists have multiple top ten hits ( albums or singles ) in more than just one country ? ] (]) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


English Language in Papua New Guinea ] (]) 07:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
== ] (Result: inclusion) ==
Can we re-visit inclusion for ]? 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 ] in 2020, ] in 2019, the ] and ] 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.


== You forgot to add Elizabeth Ⅱ's death in Events. ==
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. ] (]) 16:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. Based on what I know and what you're saying, this should be included. ] (]) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:'''Include''' as per InvadingInvader ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] based on the grounds it was a Korean ferry, sinking in Korean waters, and the dead consisting of only Korean passengers. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::That's a ridiculous strawman. ] (]) 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 , 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.] (]) 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 ]s &/or people who are already sympathetic to their cause. ] (]) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:I've said this before in my "Dobbs test" proposal (see ]), but '''Misplaced Pages 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 '''''Misplaced Pages 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 ]), 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


In 2022, "]" ended marking the death of ]. ] (]) 14:11, 1 November 2024 (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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:Agree with ]. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

== ] (Result: borderline inclusion)==
This has been brought up again, so what is the current consensus? Should this petty ] over the tiny, barren, remote, uninhabited ] - 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, ] etc. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::It's not rare & consensus can change. ] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (]) 14:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes, if thousands of people lived on Hans Island and/or there ware ]s there, it'd be a different matter - as it would if there'd been an armed conflict over it. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] than an actual event. ] (]) 16:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:Let's see what the previous people in the original discussion think, {{ping|The Voivodeship King}}, {{ping|JeffUK}}, and {{ping|Dunutubble}} what is your thoughts right now. ] (]) 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 ] melts the ice caps covering much of the ]. ] (]) (]) 19:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:::That's one trivial thing & one speculative thing. ] (]) 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 ] and those are barely noteworthy in spite of those regions being populated. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:::With all due respect, that could fall under ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] or the ] 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. ] (]) 05:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
:::There's a difference between international and internationally notable. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

== Middle ground proposal for abortion-related events (Result: not done)==
@] @] So recently, I've learned that India's highest court has ruled that , and . This recent development has proposed me to suggest this, since Jim and I are in a very heated debate over the inclusion of landmark domestic events like ].

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

The proposed sentence will look a little something like this:<blockquote>The year has also seen ] becoming an increasingly more contentious and addressed issue, with courts in ] and ] ruling the practice as legal while the ] ], sparking nationwide ] which leaked into some European countries.</blockquote>Abortion is an international issue, and a growing one by the day, but I can understand if too many of these events would flood the article. The lead sentence would solve this; it addresses the internationalness of the issue while keeping things as concise as possible and not inserting domestic rulings on the practice into their own events.

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

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

== Collage discussions ==
this message is here to tell everyone that there has been a discussion on collages at ].
{{ping|Jim Michael 2}}, and {{ping|InvadingInvader}} has not responded to this discussion, so I recommend doing so. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::Far more interested people will see that discussion if it were on ]. ] (]) 15:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

== ] (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. ] (]) 13:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability. ] (]) 14:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' due to a lack of international notability. ] (]) 16:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' as per TheScrubby & Jim Michael ] (]) 16:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

== The ]s section (Result: retain)==
Why do we have a Nobel Peace Prize section, I mean unless we have a section about the Academy Award winners, the noble peace prize section is useless cuz we have a ], I made this talk this section to see what everyone's thoughts are. ] (]) 14:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:We’ve always had sections for Nobel recipients of the year, and I don’t think that a film awards ceremony is really comparable. Don’t really have issue with retaining the format for each year. ] (]) 14:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::Agree with TheScrubby. ] (]) 15:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:I agree, and I brought this up in November on ]. We don't include any other awards in main year articles. Nobels shouldn't have their own section; one entry in Events would be sufficient. ] (]) 18:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
::I Agree with Jim Michael 2, the Nobel Prizes aren't more important as than any other awards, that is why I think the section should be straight-up removed. ] (]) 18:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:I think there is an argument to be made that Nobel prizes are highly prestigious and exclusive versus the dozens of Oscar categories or the hundreds of Olympic medals given out at each event, though I feel that in recent years they have been held to a lower regard. Perhaps it shouldn't have its own section but in events saying the "Nobel prizes in xxxxx,xxxx,xxx,xxx,xxx are awarded...." etc ] (]) 18:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

== ] (Result: merged under one entry and put on October 30) ==
How should this be reported in this article? I'm no expert when it comes to the politics of Brazil. The October 2 entry says: The ] is held to elect the offices of ] and ], one third of the ], the entire ], and numerous ] and ].

The offices of President and Vice President are still disputed and will be concluded on October 30 via runoff. As of now, I added underneath upcoming events: ]: Incumbent ] ] will face opponent ] in a ] election after neither candidate secured a majority in the first round of voting.

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

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

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

== Tense of the article ==
I'm sorry if this has already been discussed, but why is the article, at least the events section, in current tense (is) and not past tense (was)? If that is how the majority of Misplaced Pages is structured including most 'year' in 'country' articles, why is this page differnet? If this is a mistake, I would be happy to change it, but if it is not I am curious to know the reason why. ] (]) 14:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
:Unlike most WP articles, year articles are written in the present tense. ] (]) 17:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
:Please don't ever change this. The present tense is used for all year articles, from the dawn of time until the present day. ] (]) 09:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
::But articles of future years are in the future tense. ] (]) 11:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
: The use of ] tense seems quite common in other 'year in review' sources too, it's not just here ] (]) 21:25, 8 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:

* ] – ] has deleted all ] applications developed by VK, the software company responsible for Russia’s Facebook alternative, ].{{importance-inline}}
* ] – Several ] statues at the ] on ] are charred by fire that affected nearly 60 hectares (148 acres), with the damage reported as "irreparable".{{importance-inline}}
* ] – ] imposes a production cut of up to 2&nbsp;million barrels per day.

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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
please add technoblade. ] (]) 07:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
:{{not done}} because he has little international notability. ] (]) 11:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
:Not enough notability on an international scale ] (]) 12:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
::I agree with PaulRKil & Jim Michael, there's already a consensus to exclude him ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
:As has already been discussed, '''exclude''' due to lack of international notability. ] (]) 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. ], 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. ] (]) 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. ] is rarely important enough to grant someone a place on a main year article. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
I noticed that ] isn’t included in the deaths, is there a reason for this? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:17, 9 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

'''Include''' all, and Kerch explosion should be made a part of ]. 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 ], which is notable. ] (]) 00:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
:The ] is for ] & ], but it's of no relevance to anything else. The international responses were merely media coverage & condolences.
:The ] 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 ].
:The ] 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 ]. ] (]) 08:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
::Agree with Jim Michael's designations. ] (]) 11:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
::In light of Russia's retailiation, Include the Kerch Bridge attack and Russian retaliation in combined entry. ] (]) 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 ], ], and ] into ]). ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
:I second this. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 ]' 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
:::: ] 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. ] 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. ] (]) 15:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

== ] ==
Which events of the war in Ukraine should be included? ] (]) 11:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
:To prevent this article from being a limited clone of ], 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. ] (]) 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 <nowiki>]</nowiki> 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 ] (]) 12:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

== Does ] deserve a photo? (Result: photo included) ==
I say yes. She's prominent in many fields of entertainment in both the US and the UK. ] (]) 20:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

:Does Angela Lansbury deserve a Photo, I say yes
:though in my opinion, ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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, ] (who is a borderline inclusion) for an image. For my money the most notable death of October 2022 so far. ] (]) 02:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
:Absolutely yes! ] (]) 08:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
:Certainly, once there is more space we should include Inoki's image again. ] (]) 12:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

== Bicentenary of the Independence of Brazil (Result: exclusion) ==
2022 is the year of the bicentenary of the ] on its 7 September. On the eve of the death of Queen Elizabeth II she congratulated Brazil by its bicentenary. She died on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. ] (]) 14:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:That's a domestic event for ]. Anniversaries are never important enough for main year articles. ] (]) 15:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:I agree with Jim Michael. ] (]) 16:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:Simply not. ] (]) 17:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Should Robbie Coltrane be included in the main year article or 2022 in the United Kingdom? He seems notable enough but I simply don't know enough about him or his accolades. ] (]) 17:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
* Main article. Less than 3 hours after his death was announced, I can see articles and obituaries from every continent. ] 19:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:* BBC (and every other UK source), CNN, Variety, , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc. ] 19:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::'''Include''', albeit as a '''borderline inclusion''', looking at his resume he was known for playing ] in Harry Potter, he also had roles on other movies like the James Bond movies, this person looks like an actor who would normally be included in these pages. ] (]) 22:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:::He won no major international film awards and his most prominent roles were supporting, not lead roles - yes, in internationally notable franchises, but as is well established actors (particularly supporting actors) do not automatically inherit the notability of the films they appear in. His situation is not unlike that of ], who was ultimately excluded at the end. ] (]) 23:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' due to having very little international notability. His death is on ], ] & ]. The wide reporting of his death & the obits are due to him being in every ], all of which are popular in many countries. ] (]) 19:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:* I've just given you the links above. International coverage == international notability. That's how Misplaced Pages works, on every page. This one isn't excluded because a few people have their own ideas. ] 20:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::::They're links to articles about the death of a domestic figure who's internationally known for his supporting role in the HP films. If international media coverage proved international notability, we'd include a large number of domestic bombings, mass shootings, civil war battles etc. which have been reported internationally. We'd have to include internationally reported deaths - such as that of ] - in the Events section as well as the Deaths section. There'd be a ] article. ] (]) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
::::: If he's internationally known he's not a domestic figure, is he? ] 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Like many other entertainers, it's only his fans who are international. The international media's interest is due to them knowing that many of their readers/viewers will want to know, because of the large number of HP fans there. A similar thing is true of many sportspeople, such as many players of baseball, basketball & American football who only play in the US, but have many fans in other countries. ] (]) 15:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:*:international coverage ≠ international notability ] (]) 22:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:*:same here, international coverage ≠ international notability. ] (]) 22:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:*::I wouldn't entirely agree with that. Any International coverage = Any International notability, but a LOT of international coverage ≠ a LOT of international notability. ] (]) 23:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::::* ]. ] 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::If that were true, ] would have international notability. ] (]) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::: No he wouldn't. Not even close to the same level of coverage. ] 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Then JMT would have a lower level of international notability. ] (]) 15:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability, as per Jim Michael. ] (]) 22:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:'''Neutral''' honestly, I don't know. ] (]) 22:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' as per TheScrubby and Jim Michael. Should I remove him in the 1950 article too? ] (]) 00:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
:'''Borderline Exclusion'''. He was "a wizard" of his time, but he's only really notable for Harry Potter, and there are many people, myself included, who are not big Potterheads. That being said, though, most of the connected world has heard of Harry Potter and seen at least part of one of the movies, either in full, as part of a trailer, or as a meme (especially Coltrane's "You're a wizard harry" scene, so he has that going for him. ] (]) 23:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
::He's notable for other things, but internationally he's known primarily for HP. Most international obits & reports of his death include HP &/or Hagrid in their titles. ] (]) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
::: International press in "mentioning what the person is most famous for" shock! See also: every other actor's obituary. ] 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. Coltrane is internationally notable. Add , , , , , , , , , and many others to the list. Coltrane has been internationally notable at least since the 90s through having a lead role as "Fitz", winning three Bafta award in three consecutive years. Years before Harry Potter. ] (]) 12:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::Many non-British media sources include HP &/or Hagrid in their titles, but very few - if any - of their titles include ]. The show didn't win any awards outside the UK. The number of Cracker fans outside the UK couldn't be compared on the same scale as the number of HP fans outside the UK. ] (]) 14:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
:::] are irrelevant; they don't contribute to notability. The content in reliable sources does. SVT News (see above) gives in its lead equal weight to Coltrane's role in Cracker and Harry Potter {{tq|"bland annat genom den brittiska tv-serien Cracker och som Rubeus Hagrid i Harry Potter"}}. Most sources give the most attention to Potter role. Of course Harry Potter has more fans than Cracker. I don't understand your point. Coltrane was notable before the Potter role. ] (]) 14:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::::He was notable before Cracker, but he never gained international notability. ] (]) 15:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Fine'''. I think it's time to give up with this page, as it appears to be run by people who dont actually understand how Misplaced Pages works. Enjoy your little fiefdom. ] 14:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, I'm close to giving up too, as this page is dominated by people who seem FANATICAL about deleting literally EVERYTHING. It's borderline trolling at this point. ] (]) 19:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::I don't know why you keep reading the page. When I want information, I check the ] list. The main year page has nothing that I really care about. ] (]) 22:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
:The bar for inclusion here is international notability, and as has long been established, international media coverage ≠ international notability. The Harry Potter films (which everybody here knows Coltrane was most notable for) are obviously notable, but actors from internationally notable franchises don’t automatically gain the notability of the films themselves. Most people would know of Hagrid, but would have no idea what the actor’s name was. Coltrane won no major international acting awards and his most prominent roles were supporting roles. We don’t include minor character actors on these main international year pages, be it Coltrane, ], ], or other such examples. Actors from the English-speaking world make up a significant portion of inclusions as is - not just among entertainers, but in general. Furthermore, recent year pages especially have easily exceeded the ], and that is something we need to keep in mind when it comes to who’s included on these main years pages. Once again, just because somebody is not included here doesn’t mean they totally lack notability. Obviously they would, otherwise they wouldn’t have a Wiki article to begin with. But that doesn’t automatically mean they are entitled to a place in the main '''international''' yearly pages. And cheap jibes about “fiefdoms” and bad faith accusations of trolling don’t exactly help your case for Robbie Coltrane. ] (]) 05:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
::I agree. Many year articles are far longer than they should be. They're meant to be international, so adding domestic events & people is dilution, padding, adding chaff to the wheat etc. The large majority of notable events & people belong on the many sub-articles. Coltrane's death is on three of 2022's sub-articles. ] (]) 13:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
:::Personally, I do disagree occasionally on inclusion with Jim and Scrubby (usually when it comes to domestic events which trigger a huge international reaction like Roe v. Wade), '''but personal attacks are not the way to go, guys.''' Maybe instead of calling Jim and Scrubby "FANATICAL about deleting literally EVERYTHING", say "we're deleting too many notable events", and stay away from telling them to "go enjoy their little fiefdom". I'm not completely sold that "international coverage ≠ international notability" is true, but I do agree that the year articles are generally starting to get bigger, and something should be done about it, and I think that the argument "a lot of international coverage ≠ a lot of international notability" would be a better argument for Scrubby to use.
:::I would advise @], @] to consult this flow chart, though, especially the section on changing the rules:
:::]
:::Happy editing, ] (]) 07:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Deb removes more people & events from main year articles than Scrubby & I do combined. I agree with the vast majority of those removals. Clearly insufficiently notable events & people are added to main year articles every day. Many people have complained that main year articles have a very small number of frequent, regular editors - but we welcome more. The problem is that very few people want to edit these articles regularly. A high proportion of those who edit them merely want to promote a particular event, law, person, place, demographic, organisation, sport, change, trend etc. They in most cases quickly leave due to those things being removed due to them being unsuitable for main year articles. ] (]) 08:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
::::: No. They leave the page because you and your acolytes have a different concept of notability than the rest of Misplaced Pages. I am fairly sure that this won't last for ever, but at the moment that's the situation, which is the reason that ] is a more useful page than this one. Perhaps it would also be useful if the page was "run" by people that do pretty much nothing more useful than update current news. Misplaced Pages is ]. ] 17:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

== ] image ==
]]]
]]]

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

:you know, I'll do vote below just so it doesn't get too confusing. ] (]) 00:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
:in addition I have gone ahead and made a talk section about Angela Lansbury's info box picture in her talk section at ]. ] (]) 01:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

=== vote ===
{{Gallery
|title = Cast your !vote
| File: Angela Lansbury 1966 (cropped).jpg
| '''first image'''
| File: Studio publicity Angela Lansbury.jpg
| '''second image'''
}}


== Collage change ==
this is a vote section for Angela Lansbury death section photo, Just sign under your choice(s). ] (]) 00:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


I personally prefer ] instead of ]. International coverage and number of deaths was more expressive. '''Support''' or '''Oppose'''? ] (]) 23:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
=== first image ===
# this is the current info box photo on her article ] (]) 00:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
# Not picking sides here necessarily (as frankly I don't truly care what image gets used), however this image is the latest one out of the two and is also the one used in the infobox. HOwever I would prefer the other image if it were my personal choice since it doesn't look like she's topless. ― ]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze&nbsp;Wolf#6545</sub> 00:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


:{{ping|DementiaGaming|JeffUK|Alsoriano97|Deb|Nagae Iku}} thoughts? ] (]) 13:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
=== second image ===
# IMO the superior image, and there’s not and never has been any hard and fast rule about having to use the same image here as the infobox on the subject’s main article. ] (]) 00:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
# At least she's smiling. ] (]) 08:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:35, 12 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2022 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: What are the inclusion criteria for this article? A1: See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight.
This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconLists Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconYears High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.




Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Change to DMY date format

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

All articles about generic years should use the much more global DMY date format. It does not make sense to make a separate discussion about this on every single year page.--Marginataen (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

For anyone else reading, Marginataen started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Years#Change to the DMY date format about this issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The main discussion is ongoing at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Date format for year article Marginataen (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Date format

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest.

On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s Marginataen (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It has now been more than a week since I posted my proposal about changing the date format for 2022 to DMY and no one has responded. If one more weeks passes without any response as well, I will consider it consensus and change it to the DMY format. By then, people would have had more than two weeks to respond. Should someone later on object, please discuss it here on the talk page before reverting. Marginataen (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm pasting the same reply at all the 2020s talk page sections on this topic, with the exception of 2023. As of about a month ago, we had a situation in which all generic year articles had a consistent date format. Since both date styles are considered appropriate per the Manual of Style, it's unusual to see such solid consistency. Since I value consistency, I appreciated that rare situation.
As of last month, only 2023 was changed via local consensus to be different than the rest. If this proposal passes for this article, it would join a tiny minority of articles that do not match the overall consistent style. I oppose for that reason.
I would be fine with all generic year articles changing to consistently use a different style, and that is the proposal on the table at WP:VPR#Date format for year articles. Currently, it seems we're at the tail end of a pre-RfC discussion with plans to move forward with an RfC in the next week or so. I would much prefer to keep discussing the overarching change rather than have individual discussions at each year article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Zero images?

Why are there ZERO images on this article? 2022 was a notable year, infamously so, and photos should be included here to illustrate certain events.

@33ABGirl since when is a consensus needed to insert images in an article? Did I miss a new rule? Why was my edit reverted ? Which of these removed images are "controversial", and for what reason?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Recently, a discussion and RFC on the WikiProject found near unanimous consensus to deprecate the use of image collages and the general inclusion of images. This centered on the arbitrary selection of images, which editors characterized as WP:OR & WP:NPOV. 33ABGirl (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@33ABGirl Yes, this refers to image collages, but not images itself. It is thus not applicable to my edit, which did not contain collages. Your claim of "arbitrary selection of images" could not be substantiated in the link you provided. Furthermore, years 2021 and 2023 contradict you entirely, since they also contain images. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, your revert was unnecessary.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
If you read the concerns raised by those commenting on the RFC, you will find they are not necessarily exclusively related to the collages, but images in general, despite the title of the RFC.
I opened a discussion at the Wikiproject on this, where the editor commenting agreed consensus should be obtained before adding a image. Following this, a second editor agreed to open discussions (1, 2) for the inclusion of photos. In past years, images have also usually been selected through discussions - 2021 (1, 2), 2020 (1, 2). The current images on 2023 & 2021 have either been added without consensus or edit-warred in recently by a few editors, I will be seeking administrative assistance for those cases soon.
I also remind you that the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You have added content which has been disputed and reverted, so you should be seeking the necessary consensus to restore the content. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
You need to provide exact citation for your claim. I could only find that the theme relevant for this discussion were collages, not images per se. You are also confusing Wikimedia Commons images with external sources, since the former have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. An image on Wikimedia is an image, not a source. Now, let's go through all these images I initially included and let's hear from you what is disputed in each and every one of them? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion for inclusion of images

I hereby nominate the following images for inclusion in the article;

  • File:2022 Kazakhstan protests — Aqtobe, January 4 (01) (cropped).jpg
  • File:Движение колонны бронетехники ВС РФ 007.png
  • File:Antonov_Airport_after_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_and_Mriya_(3to4).jpg|
  • File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - ua.svg
  • File:Warsaw Central Station during Ukrainian refugee crisis 05.jpg
  • File:Bucha. Faces of War. - Ukraine War Photo Exhibition 2023 (52702841629).jpg
  • File:Russian bombing of Mariupol.jpg
  • File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg
  • File:08.03 總統與美國聯邦眾議院議長裴洛西媒體互動會 (52259967861).jpg

Sincerely, --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of any images on the page. Adding images can create a bias towards certain events, essentially becoming a ranking of events, contrary to WP:OR & WP:NPOV. Considering the broad scope of the article, images should be omitted altogether. However, if there is a consensus does form to include images on the page, I would be happy to participate in the discussions regarding the selection of appropriate images. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
@33ABGirl I don't understand your reasoning here. What is the argument here? An image could make one event more important than other events, so we should have zero images? It makes little to no sense. Even if that were the case, you could add many images and then you would have almost an equal amount of "importance" among them. But you do agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is arguably the most major even of 2022 and that it therefore merits inclusion of at least some images, correct?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
That is not a valid reason to oppose, it could be used to justify the removal of any image in any article. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Support the addition of images as a general editing principle that every editor may do, no opinion on the usage of these individual images. The RfC that is still open is specifically in regards to top-of-the-page collages, it is not a bar on image use in general. Reverting image additions for no reason other than "any addition is biased" is disruptive, and should be treated as standard disruptive editing. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Proposal - I've proposed a suggested course of action here. Please add your thoughts or comments on the proposal. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@33ABGirl I have to repeat it for the second time, we are not discussing collage images on this talk page. We are discussing what is preventing users from including ordinary, any images on this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Support there is nothing wrong with using regular images, they add to illustration and a summary of major events that happened a certain year/decade/century. Indiana6724 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I and many others are confused as to why images have been removed from all wikipedia pages on years. There used to be photo collages of notable events for every single year and they have all been removed. Why??? Lightningbolt1 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering that a whole month has passed, that other users gave their opinion confirming my thoughts, and that no user gave any support to @33ABGirl's arbitrary proposal of "no images policy" (for which no reasonable arguments were presented), I think we can conclude that images can freely be added to the articles about years, provided they are not collages.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the consensus is that images may be included on the page. However, I believe that there should still be a discussion on which images should be included. I suggest we use a similar system as used on the page 2023. While the discussion is related to collages, we are essentially still selecting images which are representative of the year.
I've added a note on WP:YEARS to gather more input on this issue. 33ABGirl (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I can do this Indiana6724 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@33ABGirl The very first sentence of this discussion I started on 18 December 2023, (@Discussion_for_inclusion_of_images) includes a list of nine nominated images I want to include. You failed in this entire month to address even a single image that I nominated. As such, unless no objections were made against any of these nine images, it should be considered as accepted to be included in the article by default.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Because there are no objections, i think its fair we reinstate these images. Indiana6724 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Robb Elementary School shooting not mentioned in “Events”?

It was an event that garnered months of media attention, international condemnation, and led to the first gun law in the United States in 28 years. It was also featured on the front page. (Link:https://web.archive.org/web/20220525121908/https:/en.Misplaced Pages.org/Main_Page) MountainDew20 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Collage edit war — Proposal in progress

Hey guys. I noticed the ongoing (fairly long) edit-war ongoing on the article over the collage. A few days ago, I proposed a process to be the standardized process for collage creations. This process is being experimented on for the 2023 collage amid the proposal discussion. If consensus get’s behind the proposal, the edit war and debate can stop. Anyway, it needs to stop and be solved one way or another. Feel free to participate here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images.

Courtesy pings for people involved in edit war just in this article: 3E1I5S8B9RF7, DementiaGaming, Indiana6724, 33ABGirl, Setarip, Alalch E., 4BOTOX, Raksiyyyy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

WeatherWriter You obviously didn't even bother to read anything on this talk page since the discussion was not about collage images, but rather over zero images. After a month of discussion, the majority voted to include images in the article. If you want to contribute to the discussion, feel free after you have read the discussion and informed yourself about what you are talking about.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
3E1I5S8B9RF7, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In this edit, you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, is being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on 2023’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually against the consensus and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said, See the talk page. Nine images were nominated a month ago, and everyone except 33ABGirl voted to include images in the article. The collage was not agreed upon, though.
Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
WeatherWriter Where exactly is the collage debate on this talk page?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The collage - why not restore?

Why hasn't the pre-existing collage, seen here, been restored to this article yet as it has been for other articles? Per the re-closure of this RfC, many collages were prematurely removed from year articles during the course of this RfC with at most limited discussion. Given the significantly wider scale of this discussion, any editor wishing to restore them may do so. There was some discussion and reverting here during and shortly after that RfC, but all movement on this has apparently stalled for a month and a half. Since a perfectly good collage was already created, I don't see a need for a new discussion like is being done for 2023 - and one isn't happening anyway. We should simply restore the previous collage and bring this article in line with other year articles. Crossroads 07:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the RfC has since been closed with overall consensus to keep them, I think it warrants restoring. jp×g🗯️ 09:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I see this collage as at least passably good, it makes the article better, I see no critical problems, and, therefore I have restored it. I stand by this collage. It is a good collage. When it comes to removing the entire collage, this is clearly incompatible with WP:PRESERVE. Incremental improvement is possible. If there is a certain someone who objects to something in the collage, well, edit it. Edit it out, edit something else in, I don't know. Find a solution that does not entail removing the entire collage. Ask for help and feedback on the talk page.—Alalch E. 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages can be included doesn't mean that they must be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. Deb (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
If I'm not wrong we've reached consensus already (here), but it's outdated and it was still in November 2022.
Indeed, much happened since then ,like the release of ChatGPT and the death of Pope Benedict XVI however the latest doesn't seem very relevant and to represent AI in an image would be reductive.
However, to keep the current collage with some wrong notes underneath might not be the best solution and to remove it altogether definitely wouldn't improve the article. ~~~ Gioppolognomo (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
sorry forgot to sign Gioppolognomo (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Uvalde?

Why cant we add Uvalde and why does it say 'don't add Uvalde'? CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I am very confused. UVALDE is on the list now but it still says 'Dont add Uvalde'. Very confusing for editors. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

English Language in PNG

English Language in Papua New Guinea 14.137.35.5 (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to add Elizabeth Ⅱ's death in Events.

In 2022, "Eliz. 2" ended marking the death of Elizabeth II. Orange7Official (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Collage change

I personally prefer Mahsa Amini protests instead of 2022 Sri Lankan protests. International coverage and number of deaths was more expressive. Support or Oppose? ArionStar (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@DementiaGaming, JeffUK, Alsoriano97, Deb, and Nagae Iku: thoughts? ArionStar (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: