Talk:2022

Archives (Index)

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

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

RFC: Robbie Coltrane inclusion vote (Result: rough consensus to include)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to include. There is a rough to clear consensus that whatever the standard for inclusion is or ought be, Robbie Coltrane meets it. For respondents expressing this in terms of notability, there is a consensus that Coltrane is sufficiently notable/noteworthy, in part through coverage of his self, his career & his death in international media (as demonstrated by Politrukki), to be included in this list. While some arguments, both in support & in opposition, were better formed than others; none of the oppose arguments were sufficiently "better" to outweigh the emergent consensus. NOTE: Additionally reviewed the previous discussion, which also did not contain any dispositive opposing arguments. (non-admin closure) Ryk72 ^talk 03:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Additional explanatory comments:

On closing:

The role of an RfC closer is to determine if a consensus exists. The standard, as defined at Wikipedia:Closing discussions, is a rough consensus; further defined at WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS as the "sense of the group" concerning a particular matter under consideration. While consensus is not a vote, the proportion of editors in favour of or against a matter is not an irrelevance; after weighting for alignment with policy & guideline, and strength of argument, it is a key factor for the sense of the group.

Where the respondents overwhelmingly fall on one side of the matter, for the minority to prevail, their arguments need to be exceptionally strong or those of the majority exceptionally weak.

In this case, the close was not made based on a simple head count. After weighting the arguments for alignment with policy & guidelines, and for strength of argument, none of the exclude arguments (neither alone nor in concert) were sufficiently strong as to outweigh the predominant include viewpoint.

On the responses:

In this RfC, no respondents cited core policy (five pillars + COPYVIO + BLP), which might be dispositive; no respondents cited other policy or guidelines (excepting RFCEND & RFCNEUTRAL on procedural grounds). Accordingly, no responses received increased or decreased weight based on alignment/misalignment with policy or guideline.

No responses appeared to have been made in bad faith; and no responses were discounted for that reason.

Responses & discussion which, in part, relied on a slippery slope argument carried lower weight for that portion of the response. A consensus for the inclusion of Coltrane does not imply consensus for the inclusion of Alley; and the inclusion of the latter might also reflect consensus. No responses were completely discounted based on this reason. This lower weighting was not a determining factor.

Responses & discussion which, in part, relied on straw man argument carried lower weight for that portion of the response. None of the include responses were based on notability of Coltrane's film work; none of the include responses were based on "demand from fans"; in the context of this RfC, arguments against these unasserted positions are not strong. No responses were completely discounted based on this reason. This lower weighting was not a determining factor.

Many of the responses were of the form "is sufficiently foo for inclusion" or "is insufficiently bar for inclusion". These are two-part arguments - i) the standard for inclusion is or ought be (foo/bar); ii) the subject (does/doesn't) meet that standard. In so far as a sense of the group, the foos have it - that is, the consensus of respondents is that notability is the standard, and that Coltrane has it sufficiently to merit inclusion.

Two respondents referenced sources in support of their arguments. Accordingly, their responses received higher weight than responses which asserted a position without reference to sources.

On "international notability":

Four responses, and significant portions of the discussion, made reference to the terms international notability or internationally notable. Two respondents asserting that Coltrane meets this standard; two respondents asserting that he does not.

To the extent that "notable/notability" is used to mean "documented in independent reliable sources" (the sense as at WP:N), with "international" a modifier resulting in "documented in independent reliable sources published in multiple nations" or similar, the responses by Pickalittletalkalittle & Politrukki are a rebuttal to the assertion that this standard is not met.

To the extent that "internationally notable/international notability" is meant as a term of art, with a meaning distinct from the sense of "notable/notability" at WP:N, this is a viewpoint which did not gain traction in the RfC responses. NOTE: The use of "notable" in this sense; loosely defined, separate & distinct from its WP:N sense is inopportune. Editors are encouraged to work towards consensus for a well defined, well documented, set of inclusion criteria.

Some editors asserted a de facto consensus for an inclusion standard based on "international notability" (in some sense of that term), but did not link or reference a discussion forming this consensus. This argument might have carried greater weight if it had referenced such a discussion. This was not a deciding factor; RfC respondents either rejected this standard or felt that it was sufficiently met.

Addressing some specific comments & questions below:

Including somebody on the yearly pages purely on the basis of international media coverage has been repudiated (we even have it included on the FAQs of this talk page). The decision ... disregards this entirely. During the RfC, and explicitly in response to it, an FAQ entry was added. Neither this FAQ entry nor the disruptive nature of its addition influenced the outcome of the RfC. (Nor have the subsequent involved edits to the RfC header influenced this extended close rationale.) Had the FAQ entry pre-dated the RfC or referenced an explicit discussion, it might have carried significant weight; but it did neither.

The closer didn't acknowledge Coltrane's lack of international notability. Consensus of the RfC is that Coltrane does not lack international notability.

On review, I am confident that the close fairly reflects the consensus of the respondents to the RfC - the sense of this group - and decline to amend it substantively. I have, however, modified the close statement for clarity. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

---

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

Comments

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

Yes

1. Looking over the current list for 2022, he's as notable internationally as others who are included. It's close, but his inclusion seems justified. Nemov (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
2. He is as notable as some of the others in the list. Mnair69 (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
3. I'd say yes, because his most notable role was not as a supporting character in the Harry Potter films but the lead role in Cracker, for which he won the BAFTA for Best Actor an unprecedented three times in a row. I believe that it was widely seen around the globe. Deb (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
4. I agree with Deb on this onePaulRKil (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
5. Per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
6. Notable and should be included. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
7. Robbie Coltrane is a notable actor whose death was covered by numerous news sources such as USA Today, The New York Times, and BBC. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
8. Coltrane is internationally notable. I constructed a sample list based on Black Kite's and my own sources from the initial discussion: France24, Belgium, Norway, Brazil, Canada, India, Nigeria, Switzerland, Al Jazeera, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, Gulf News, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Hungary, Mexico, and Estonia. The coverage of Coltrane's dead is significant. How much more is needed? Coltrane has been internationally notable at least since Cracker gained recognition. BAFTA awards contribute to notability, but they are not the main factor. Politrukki (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
9. Sure why not. Politrukki has provided a number of reliable sources for international notability of death. Based on the random nature of the people on the list, the result comes down to the editors who make the effort for inclusion. --Guest2625 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

No

1. As per everything I said in the original discussion. He won no major international acting awards, and his most prominent roles internationally were supporting roles in internationally notable franchises (one of which, the Bond franchise, was as a minor character in two films) - and as has been long established here, actors don’t automatically gain the notability of the films they appear in, and international coverage does not automatically equate international notability. Most casual fans of Harry Potter or people in general who would recognise the character of Hagrid wouldn’t be able to name the actor or other roles he was in. Other actors of comparable levels of notability to Coltrane are routinely excluded here without controversy, and I don’t think this should be any exception, and making it an exception would be an aberration and would set a bad precedent here. TheScrubby (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
2. I tend to agree with TheScrubby.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
3. (Summoned by bot) Although I'm a Briton and close to Coltrane's age (and therefore have known him as a capable character actor since The Comic Strip Presents and Tutti Frutti ), I'm inclined to agree with TheScrubby - he isn't THAT well known to an international audience. Dare I say that I've never seen a Potter film, though I've seen clips of Coltrane's Mummerset-ish eccentric. Pincrete (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
4. He's not internationally notable; he merely has fans in other countries, largely due to playing a supporting character in the Harry Potter films. We shouldn't include people on the basis of demand from fans. If we did, we'd include Technoblade & Leslie Jordan. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

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

@4me689 please refrain from pinging me in discussions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

ok I thought I would let everyone know from the previous discussion 4me689 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this...I think that he isn't as internationally notable as a few other entries, but he remains immensely popular around the globe, so I'm honestly stuck. If he remains popular across the globe and many editors are in favor of his inclusion, then I don't see a problem with him being included, and I would choose to include/exclude Coltrane if a majority of editors support one side for whatever reason (aside from "I'm voting for/against inclusion just to make some editor mad"). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, Coltrane was never “immensely popular” around the globe. His character of Hagrid was internationally recognised, and Harry Potter is obviously internationally notable. But actors, especially supporting actors, don’t automatically gain the notability of the roles they played, and most casual fans or people in general who would recognise Hagrid would not recognise the actor’s name. Essentially, we can’t confuse the notability of a character with the actor who played him. Furthermore, Coltrane won no major international acting awards, be it as Hagrid or as anything else. At this point, it almost feels like rehashing of all the points said in the original discussion, to which I don’t have much more to add. But the inclusion of Coltrane would be an aberration when other actors of his level of notability are regularly excluded here. TheScrubby (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Also why is this RFC being added to unrelated fields such as politics and religion? TheScrubby (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, I just copied it from the one on Wikipedia years. 4me689 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's only relevant to the first two of the six - society & biographies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m a little confused about something: Deb says that Coltrane “won the BAFTA for Best Actor an unprecedented three times in a row” however TheScrubby says Coltrane “won no major international acting awards.” Which one is it? FireInMe (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

BAFTA, like the Emmys and the Logies, is a primarily domestic award and wouldn’t be what we’d count as a major international acting award. TheScrubby (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

He means no major awards from countries other than the UK. The people who vote for awards favour their own country's people, films, TV shows etc. Having this RfC will likely lead to fans of other people of a similar notability level - Gilbert Gottfried, Paul Sorvino, David Warner, Marsha Hunt etc. - asking for the same ridiculous amount of debate in regard to their inclusion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The BAFTA jurors are selected from multiple countries though. Doesn’t this solve bias towards British only actors? FireInMe (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm an American and I'm very familiar with the BAFTA's as a prestigious award. What are the major international acting awards? I'd put BAFTA right behind the Academy Awards. The Golden Globes are a bit of a joke. Nemov (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The BAFTAs are clearly Anglocentric. We shouldn't include people whose only awards are from their own country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

There’s non-British people that has won BAFTAs though, and the juries are multinational. FireInMe (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a pro-British bias & most of the foreign jurors will be Anglophiles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, this is also true of the Academy Awards. Winners of the two have been almost identical for most of their history. Deb (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Awards' juries usually have a bias in favour of people, films etc. of their own country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Going by the BAFTAs discussion, it looks like the outcome is that we would tend to include non-British recipients and that it is otherwise considered a predominately domestic award - which means that the point against Coltrane's inclusion on the basis of lack of major international acting awards still firmly applies. TheScrubby (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Also pinging @Wjfox2005: for an elaboration of his comment - given his only other comment with relation to Coltrane was accusations of trolling against those who have (very good reason to have) firm reservations about Coltrane's international notability and suitability for inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to add - I'm not trying to claim that BAFTAs are not primarily domestic awards. Coltrane's Best Actor award was a TV BAFTA, not a Film BAFTA, and it's unknown for anyone from outside the UK to win that. As with the Emmys, I imagine. Deb (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The primarily domestic nature of the BAFTAs, Emmys & Logies are the reason that people from their respective countries winning them doesn't indicate international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pickalittletalkalittle: read the top of this section, before you put down you comment. 4me689 (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@4me689: would you kindly remove (Just Note: international coverage ≠ international notability) from the RFC question per WP:RFCNEUTRAL? I think I could do that myself, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I don't think that minor infraction has affected anyone's opinion so far, so no need to notify participants. Politrukki (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I put that there cuz I want people to know that they need to think about his Awards, not his international coverage. and there's a long-held consensus here that international coverage ≠ international notability, nevertheless I will remove it 4me689 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Pickalittletalkalittle: @Politrukki: We are not going to include Coltrane on the basis of international coverage. That has long ceased to be a criteria for inclusion on the yearly pages - how many times does it need to be said that international coverage does not automatically equate international notability and in no way leads to automatic inclusion? That is a consensus that has long been established here (and indeed has now also been included in the FAQs on the top of the page), and we are not going to overturn it for a minor actor like Coltrane. TheScrubby (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I have reverted a premature and involved close by User:TheScrubby. Per WP:RFCEND, RfC's should generally run for 30 days, unless a consensus is determined before that (which in this case, it has not). Additionally, as TheScrubby has been a participant in this RfC (and is thus involved), it is highly inappropriate and borderline dishonest for them to determine consensus in their favor in such a split discussion. Curbon7 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Okay, I wasn't aware of the 30 day rule for RFCs, though having said that discussions over Coltrane had been taking place intermittently since the 14th of October (granted, also not 30 days since but still a fair while) and it's clear that there is no consensus in favour of inclusion and that those that spoke in favour (and the onus is on those arguing in favour of inclusion) have completely disregarded and failed to address the very substantial arguments against inclusion and Coltrane's level of notability - and instead either just saying he's notable without backing it up or using only international media sources when international coverage does not automatically equate international notability, as has been established for some time here. There was no indication that any of that would have changed, and that at this point both sides were merely repeating and rehashing the same arguments already made - and that consequently it's clear that no consensus can be reached, which is also why the original discussion started on the 14th also ended. TheScrubby (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Curbon7:, should I re-add the "Just Note: international coverage ≠ international notability" thing on top of the question that was there before or is that a violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL, cuz there's a long-held consensus here that international coverage is not equal to international notability

(also you mind go and reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey) 4me689 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just a note that I have subbmited a WP:RFCL for this RfC. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

---

• Appeal against decision to include - the decision by @Ryk72: was clearly on the basis primarily of international coverage as per Politrukki's comment. Yet it has been made clear that such grounds are absolutely insufficient for these pages, and that over the last couple of years the notion of including somebody on the yearly pages purely on the basis of international media coverage has been repudiated (we even have it included on the FAQs of this talk page). The decision by Ryk72 I believe disregards this entirely, and therefore has made Coltrane's inclusion here all the more of an aberration. At the end of the day none of the main points against Coltrane's inclusion (particularly by myself and @Jim Michael 2:) were sufficiently addressed by those who voted in favour of inclusion. This'll most likely end as a tenuous case of borderline inclusion purely on the basis of a head count of votes, but in no way should this result be treated as anything other than an aberration and an exception to the rule. TheScrubby (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I back this appeal; including him goes against our guidelines. Many domestic figures of a similar level of notability - such as Kirstie Alley - can have their inclusion argued for on the same basis. They have awards - but only from their own country. They have fans in many countries, so the media in many countries reported their deaths. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't support this appeal. The closing editor summed it up well. I disagree that Kirstie Alley could be argued on the same basis as I would oppose her inclusion on this list. There's a bit of subjectivity here and this doesn't seem like something worth opening up again. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The closer didn't acknowledge Coltrane's lack of international notability. Alley's awards are of similar importance to his & the media coverage of their deaths is similar. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Noting, as closer, that a) I have seen this; b) the process for challenging closes is at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; c) per that process, I am happy to review, and either amend the close or expand the close rationale, and will attempt to do so in the next 32 hours. - Ryk72 ^talk 22:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• The "FAQs" at the top of the page are not Wikipedia policy or guidelines, they're just the opinion of one or more editors who decided to edit this page at a particular point in time. What is policy, however, is WP:DUE, which mandates us to give airtime to things in mainspace proportionate to their coverage in reliable sources. That Coltrane received exactly such coverage upon his death and is therefore included is compliant with the policy, and the closer did a good job. Wikipedians don't decide what's important and what isn't, we merely reflect what reliable sources decide.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  No. The FAQs come as a result of consensus emerging over decisions and discussions to do with inclusion of figures on this page for almost two years now, and is not merely a prerogative or opinion of “one or more editors”. The consensus built up over these Talk pages and implemented by nearly every regular contributor to these pages is that international coverage does not automatically equate to international notability (and I’ll let @Jim Michael 2: further elaborate on that point), and that’s the way things are here. Other pages and Wiki features may have different guidelines and standards for what’s sufficiently notable, but for here we include figures based on international notability, and minor actors whose deaths get international coverage because they played a supporting character in an internationally notable franchise (and as has also been established here for some time, actors do not automatically gain the notability of the films they’re in) with fans in many countries, but whose names are virtually unknown outside of said fanbases are not examples of sufficient international notability. What you’re advocating for would also see other minor character actors with scant international notability such as Kirstie Alley included. TheScrubby (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Subsequent comments

This is easily the most contentious discussion we've had on this page in perhaps ever...I think that post consensus, and after reading all these arguments, I would have to agree with the closer and side with the consensus that was decided, even if it didn't end up that way. I think ultimately, I would also challenge Scrubby and Jim's position on coverage and notability; I see that international coverage generally does, but not always does, equate to international notability. The media and the coverage it provides, for the most part, does show what people care about in general, and ultimately, the people should and do decide what is notable. It's our "job" (yes I know it's technically all volunteer work but "job" is an easier word to use) as Wikipedia editors to do more so the people's bidding and equally weigh both general opinions and a vocal minority. I would additionally also propose that people who choose to exclude entries, both deaths and events, be required to justify why they say "Insufficient international notability"; if they can prove that person X should be excluded because they didn't win any major championships, sure. But if they just say "insufficient international notability" and nothing more, really man? It's like saying something is unconstitutional without citing which article/amendment would override it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 08:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The only discussion on here this year that's anything like this one is that regarding Gilbert Gottfried, but it turned out that the three accounts arguing for his inclusion & greatly overstating his notability were operated by the same fan, who's since been blocked.

We've included Coltrane simply because of his popularity, because his media coverage merely reflects that. By that reasoning, we'd include several Kardashians & Jenners. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to touch Gottfried...I'm friends with members of his family IRL so that does create a potential COI. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Bankruptcy of FTX (Result: no consensus, continued in RFC)

@Jim Michael 2 removed my entry on the crash of FTX, claiming that this has more to do with Antigua+Barbuda and the Bahamas instead of internationally. I vehemently disagree with this prospect; FTX may technically be headquartered in one of those Caribbean nations, but FTX's collapse sufficiently fulfills our international criteria given that it is (or was) one of the most widely trusted cryptocurrency firms/exchanges, FTX's influence within major financial capitals (as well as in the United States government and culture), FTX filing for bankruptcy in the United States instead of the Bahamas or Antigua+Barbuda, and FTX's truly international presence in nearly every place where crypto is legal or not dependent on regulation. Given that the collapse has also sent Bitcoin and Ethereum prices on a wild ride, and additionally taking into consideration how cryptocurrencies are more comparable to internationally-traded commodities rather than domestic stocks, as well as much of the media comparing FTX's collapse to being a "Lehman Brothers" or "Enron" moment (see CNN, Business Insider, and the India Times along with many others I can't fit in), this should more than suffice as an international event. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's nowhere near as big as Lehman or Enron. International businesses fail frequently; it's rarely important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The future of Bitcoin and Ethereum in the world economy is hazy, but if this collapse is part of a larger chain of events that affects the world more greatly, such as cryptocurrency returning tot obscurity, it would without a doubt be notable for inclusion. I think it merits inclusion for the time being, but it would be worthwhile to discuss this in a few months to see if it affected anything in the long term. If not, I'd be leaning towards exclusion if it was a singular event. The Voivodeship King (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It'd be WP:CRYSTAL to assume it'll be part of a domino effect. Even then, it's not usual for main year articles to include steps of a business type's decline. We don't include various companies that failed due to the Great Recession or the COVID-19 pandemic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I would agree...the article Cryptocurrency bubble lists it as an event contributing to the "bursting" of the bubble. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Main year articles don't include every contributory event to a bubble bursting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that not every contributory event deserves inclusion, but this is a key event both on its own and if the bubble does burst. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

In what respect is it a key event on its own? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The collapse disrupted the cryptocurrency market heavily impacted Bitcoin prices, which increased by 20% in the immediate aftermath (see here) but later collapsed as seen by Forbes. Bitcoin has now wiped away all of its COVID-era gains and erasing $200 billion from many cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin and Ethereum.

WIRED magazine highlights that many cryptocurrency traders lost much of their fortune upon the collapse of FTX, with some traders across the world (such as the lead example provided by WIRED) losing 97% of his assets; Bloomberg has also highlighted that many across the world have seen their assets locked out of. As seen in The Guardian, members of the British Parliament were briefed that many institutional investors had lost millions due to the collapse. In the US, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is joining increasing calls to regulate cryptocurrency (see Coindesk). Coindesk further notes that the collapse of FTX is sparking talk of regulation not just in the US and the UK but in the Bahamas as well. And philanthropists and scientists relying on FTX, especially those working on climate change, lost their funding as well. Not too much in the cryptocurrency world gets this international. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Major international losses to both individuals & orgs are commonplace. That doesn't make them important international events. It's long been well-known that cryptocurrency prices are very volatile. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

When an entire global industry been dragged down, though, and various significant losses to firms and individuals from Canada to Cambodia all centralize from one event or series of events, it might not justify the inclusion of all those events, but inclusion of the most inciting incident here shouldn't be hampered. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Did many major international companies have most of their assets in cryptocurrencies, causing them to go bankrupt as a result of the fall in the prices of them? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Broadly construed, as cited in the list of sources in my previous comment, many major and minor firms listed had a large part of their assets, either a majority, minority, or plurality, in at least part cryptocurrency. Also consider, as previously mentioned, many individuals had a large part of their net worth (in some cases, up to 97% of their assets), in cryptocurrencies traded on FTX. They were all locked out of their assets. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Include, this is by far one of the biggest events to happen in the crypto world. FTX's bankruptcy along with the subsequent hack that was reported yesterday has dragged down the entire cryptocurrency market significantly. PaulRKil (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

How can cryptocurrencies be of great importance to the world? We don't include major changes in the values of important currencies in main year articles, so why include this? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency is volatile, but it's still something that a lot of people around the world from all countries are involved in and even more follow. Inclusion should be a no-brainer. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

That's also true of the value of many currencies, as well as oil, gold, etc. We don't include major changes in the prices of those, or the effects those price changes cause. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

False...we have the OPEC production cut in October listed. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

That entry only mentions a production cut, not a change in price. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The production cut caused a change in prices. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that isn't mentioned in this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Because it's a logical assumption one can make and an instance of WP:BLUE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Many readers wouldn't know that. If editors thought it important they'd have added the percentage or number of dollars the price moved by to that entry. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

That's beyond the point. We're not the Simple English Wikipedia where everything needs to be explained to an incredibly specific amount of detail. We as a wiki can reasonably assume people know basic economics. Both OPEC's October cut and FTX's collapse are major events in some of the most internationally-followed industries. We've done this before; as of writing this comment, 2008's first collage image is the Lehman Brothers HQ in NYC right after their collapse, the Dot-com bubble is featured twice on 2000, the sub-prime mortgage crisis is prominently featured in 2007, 2020 prominently features a Russo-Saudi oil price war, and too many more examples to fit into this reply. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Simple WP has much less detail than here. Its main year articles are long only because they lack year by country & topic subarticles.

You're sure that the collapse of this company - which the large majority of people haven't heard of - is as important as each of those events? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I am sure, and based on the amount of naming rights FTX itself has acquired and the international coverage it has attained, it more than meets our thresholds for inclusion. According to the sources compiled in the articles FTX financial crisis and FTX (company), the collapse of FTX is rippling across the industry. BlockFi, a major cryptocurrency lending firm, is widely believed by many RS's to file for bankruptcy (see Bloomberg and the WSJ), and BlockFi is only one example; multiple other firms have either declared bankruptcy or taken huge financial losses. Don't forget all those previously-mentioned people who were locked out of 97% of their assets. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Your argument relies heavily on cryptocurrency being of great importance - to a similar level as mortgages. The industry we're talking about is high-risk trading/betting in pseudocurrencies. Likewise in regard to Activision Blizzard - its importance relies on video games being of great importance. We don't include large changes in the values of currencies, commodities or shares in major companies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

FTX isn't a large change of value in currencies, commodities, or shares in a major company. FTX is a bankruptcy. And we do include momentous bankruptcies; see Lehman in 2008 and Enron in 2001. In 2010, a banking collapse in Iceland also occurred and is listed on 2010. The argument above more so describes your personal opinion on cryptocurrencies, and while I'm not a fan of crypto either, I don't deny their notability.

Side note: your point focusing on Activison is false; in 2000, we have the Time Warner AOL merger/acquisition. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of businesses and individuals don't accept cryptocurrencies as payment because they're not proper currencies. Main year articles don't include the vast majority of bankruptcies & this one isn't as important as the others you mention. They don't include the vast majority of mergers, acquisitions etc. either. There should be a subarticle such as 2022 in business, 2022 in economics or 2022 in finance which would include things such as these. There are many things on main year articles which are nowhere near important enough to be on them, because many people add those things & there are nowhere near enough regular editors removing them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Your claim about this not being important is, yet again, FALSE. Where are your sources for proving that this isn't important? I just met with a hedge fund manager and former BlackRock employee last night, and he stated that even BlackRock itself was exposed to the collapse of FTX. Personal experience isn't the only damning evidence for this case either; the NYT lists BlackRock as an investor into FTX which took a loss, along with many other major investment firms. It's also proven that FTX is the biggest financial story of the year which doesn't focus on inflation or governments; see SCMP, the Financial Times, and as of 10:51 Eastern, the front page of the Economist. And that point about being not proper currencies...they're still internationally-traded commodities, and pretty much every major world country except China uses them to an extent. If you think a sub article should be created, why not WP:DIY? I'll help you out on it if you want. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The burden of demonstrating importance is on those who want to include disputed content. Many companies bet on changes in prices of crypto, as they do many other things. Likewise, they invest & trade in many companies. Being the year's most important non-government, non-inflation finance event doesn't make it important enough for a main year article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I've done enough when it comes to demonstrating importance based on the sheer amount of lasting coverage demonstrated from a wide variety of sources as seen above, and keep in mind that as of writing this, you're the only one actively resisting inclusion (and based on such, exclusion potentially can fall under WP:SNOWBALL. And "Being the year's most important non-government, non-inflation finance event doesn't make it important enough for a main year article" isn't a good argument when concerning a major industry which has a significant enough impact on the world economy. I've demonstrated before that a wide scope of people from Filipino individuals to American mega firms have been impacted in some fashion. What more do you want? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Thousands of events are important to something. Bankruptcies, major losses etc. are commonplace. Crypto has been notoriously volatile for the whole of its existence. The vast majority of this discussion has been between you & me. The fact that most of the regular editors here haven't joined this discussion, nor have any non-regulars, shows a lack of interest in it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It's still 3 to 1 in favor of inclusion regardless, at least as of writing, and lack of opinion or interest is better interpreted as neutrality or lack of preference on whether it's in rather than opposition. In principle, I agree that most bankruptcies when it's just a bankruptcy should be excluded. This isn't one of the cases, though, and this is an instance where a mentality of absolutism based solely on the labels of the events fail to show the true extent to what it has caused. Crypto and its volatility shouldn't be downplayed; this is a major event in an international industry which is already causing some to predict that Coinbase, another major firm, will collapse as well (see Barrons and CNBC). You're losing the debate. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude - I don't think most people will have any idea what this is about, or care. Deb (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude - Outside of U.S. I don't think this is really that significant news, outside of crypto community. I mean, I don't think people around me know about the collapse in Indonesia. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

As with many other events & people, someone who has an interest in it argues for its inclusion, not accepting that it doesn't affect the large majority of people. Most people don't know about it, and even if they did they wouldn't be interested. Major increases in inflation & interest rates each affect a high proportion of people, yet we rarely include those in main year articles. The people & orgs affected by this company's collapse are those who choose to trade a very high-risk, very high-volatility instrument that has little legitimacy. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

TheScrubby has previously argued that this article generally needs more diversity. This is the biggest event in the crypto world to happen. FTX and BlockFi, itself worth $3 billion, have both filed for bankruptcy. One can't really argue that people don't care about this on an international level unless they survey the population themselves from across everywhere; Indonesia or America alone isn't a good metric. Furthermore, inclusion as a simple sentence with less than 20 words would not harm the article in any way without a degree of fearmongering being exhibited. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

What you're saying would justify including it only if crypto were important. BlockFi's bankruptcy should be on 2022 in the United States. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Disputing the importance, or at least international relevancy, of cryptocurrency in our world is ridiculous to the point of shooting yourself in the foot when an entire wikiproject on crypto exists. And BlockFi's bankruptcy isn't notable on its own but it was at least partly as a result of FTX. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We also have an explosives project, but we exclude the vast majority of explosions & advancements in explosives technology. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Classic WP:OSE. Explosives aren't usually included in main year articles unless they played a role in international conflicts because both 2022 in science exists as well as, with exceptions, generally minimal coverage of advancements in explosive technology. This discussion isn't about including every crypto bankruptcy; it's including the FTX collapse as a single entry. It shouldn't be a big deal to include it, and the article would ultimately have no representation of crypto as of yet without it; Scrubby has in past discussions advocated for more diversity generally. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Technoblade rediscussion (Result: exclusion)

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

---

I think enough time has passed to see what impact Technoblade has had on the world. I should note I'm not a frequent follower of Minecraft anymore, nor was I of Technoblade ever, but after a bit of research and seeing his passing was covered intensely by the internet and by sources across the English-speaking world, I think he would merit inclusion here even if borderline. Reading in the past discussion, WP Years of it seemed to ignore the world of video games, and I remember that Scrubby has pushed previously for more diversity.

Technoblade is easily the most notable personality within gaming and YouTube who has died within a long time, and his passing was proportional to HM Queen Elizabeth within the YouTube and Gaming world. In addition to the many fan-made tributes to the pig warrior, YouTube corporate made their own memorial to the gamer. A YouTube-promoted anti-cancer fundraiser has collected more than $24 million in donations, in Technoblade's name. He's an icon of gaming within the English-speaking world, and his passing was covered in India Express, NPR, BBC News, and the Sydney Morning Herald. Google Trends data shown here proves that while he did originate from the United States, he's had a worldwide reach, and despite being American, his strongest fanbases were in Singapore, Australia, and the Philippines. His mourners, both famous and common, have come from an international background, and even before his unexpected death, as seen with this set of data from May 2020 until a month before his death, he still had an incredibly-large fanbase in not only the US and the previously mentioned countries but also Western Europe and the Caribbean islands of Trinidad and Tobago, as well as minority notability within Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, South America, and South Africa. Google Trends Data, in conjunction with the mountain of tributes which have come in from all of the regions previously mentioned and the previously-mentioned data above would evidence that Technoblade is internationally notable enough for whatever standard we have (unless such standards are specifically and intentionally discriminatory towards famous YouTube and gaming personalities, which in that case wtf is wrong with whoever proposed that), and that it's practically impossible to deny that Technoblade has international notability. For the reasons provided above, I would encourage that we include Technoblade as an entry in the Deaths section of 2022. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 09:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Exclude. Sorry, but I think you greatly overstate his fame. I'm an avid gamer myself, but I'd never heard of him until recently, and gamers aren't (yet) comparable to movies/actors in terms of cultural impact. His death is in no way comparable to a monarch who ruled the Commonwealth for 70 years and oversaw the decline of the British Empire. This was already discussed previously anyway. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Exclude - this is yet another example of someone grossly overstating the notability, fame etc. of someone they're a fan of. The vast majority of people have never heard of him. Mainstream news had very little interest in him. He isn't even important to his field. Kirstie Alley - who also shouldn't be included - played a main character on one of the most popular sitcoms & was far more notable & many times more famous than he was. We don't include most Olympic medallists. Main year articles need to be based on international notability. They shouldn't be led by fans or pop culture. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Disclaimer, if you didn’t see above: I’m not a big Minecraft person anyways…I just did the research. Most of your argument relies on the fact that YouTube personalities can’t be internationally notable; that is not the case. How would a sitcom star with a domestic (or limited international) reach be more important than a YouTuber with international reach? The article under your interpretation biases “old money” value and “older” careers and fails to recognize a newer type of way to be famous exists, and your definition of international notability is too exclusive. Mainstream news did cover him (see sources previously listed, as well as how his death was covered by CBS News and CNN), and his death was, per PC Gamer, the top trending YouTube video of 2022. Why would a domestic sitcom star be more notable than an internationally-relevant YouTube personality? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Coverage does not equal notability. We don't measure notability by the coverage a person gets. If that was the case, Bob Saget would have been included. Which most of us scoffed at.

We measure notability by how the person is recognized in other countries. Awards are typically the best way to measure that.

Sidney Poitier recevied an Oscar, a Bafta, along with a whole slew of honorary awards from many countries. That makes him notable. If the person does not have awards, than we move onto other factors such as chart hits ( for musicians ). Olivia Newton John is therefore notable because her songs have hit the charts in many countries.

But on the grand scale of things, You really think Technoblade is comparable to Sidney Poitier ? 2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You're comparing Technoblade, a simple entry, to Sidney Poitier, someone famous enough to be in the lead? Not all famous people are equal, but he's certainly notable enough at least for a mention. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't measure fame though.

Fame does not equal notability. Or else, Most people on the death list would be excluded, simply because they're not covered enough on mostly American news media. Which is basically Americentrism as Scrubby here as stated in the last 2 years.

We do however measure notability. What is he or she known for ? And is what he or she known for, measured in the global context if that makes sense ?

We don't include Poitier because he's famous. We include Poitier because his notability is recorded, measured in the awards he has gotten. Oscars. Baftas.

William Hurt was not as famous as Technoblade, but we don't measure fame. We measure notability that is recorded and measured, Hurt won an oscar, bafta, and Cannes.

I don't see how Technoblade meets that standard. And this isn't me being snobbish, I'll happily include someone like Warren Buffett who is very notable globally for his investing work. 2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that most of the encyclopedic notability for Technoblade comes both from his popularity playing Minecraft but also his advocacy. According to YouTube (see sidebar directly across the video link in my original response), the fundraiser in Techno's name has led to over $24 million USD through YouTube donated for cancer research; a further $500,000 will be donated to the Sarcoma Foundation of America (source: GameRant. I believe fame is a factor towards notability, which may not necessarily not equate to it, but should be weighed. Given that also awards and rankings of all merits, notably the Golden Globes and the USNews College Ranking, are increasingly controversial, I think that awards deserve still factorable but reduced weight compared to other measures. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

1. But Technoblade has not been recognized in any field whatsoever, which does not make him notable. Sir Capitain Tom Moore who died last year, was famous for raising alot of money for charity. And yet we don't include him, because he's not notable for something.

2. I'll happily include the creators of Minecraft if and when they die. They created minecraft and got a Bafta for it. 2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think Google Trends should be part of the equation towards determination but it should definately not be the bar for inclusion. It only goes as far as 2004 and many people gained their notability before 2004 examples include Elizabeth II, Sidney Poitier, Angela Lansbury, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Jean-Luc Godard. Technoblade's notableness definitely was confined within the existence of Google Trends. I'll say Exclude Technoblade. FireInMe (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

He wasn't even YouTube famous. I've watched YT videos every day for years & the only reason I've heard of him is seeing his death being added to this article. If I didn't read this article, I still wouldn't have heard of him. Whether you're talking about fame, notability or popularity, he's not one of the top 100 people to have died this year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's time for me to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you @Jim Michael 2 definitely not top 100. I also never heard of him prior to his death. FireInMe (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Invading Invader, It's also worth remembering that gaming personalities are almost solely young people, given that the ability to stream video globally is such a recent invention. The same for YouTube. The Voivodeship King (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and the vast majority of middle-aged & old people haven't heard of even the most popular personalities of such sites. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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

2022 COVID-19 protests in China (Result: borderline inclusion)

These are domestic, with only small solidarity protests in several other countries. The partial gov concessions are domestic. Even if you include the 2022 Ürümqi fire in the death toll, it's still low. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that most other protests would be domestic, but I think this would be one that should be included in the main international page. Protests in China are generally rare, and ones that succeed to any degree are remarkable. Exclusion of widely-covered events for the sole reason of being domestic and ignoring everything other detail isn't a good approach when countries, especially the world's most populous ones, spur international media coverage. Jim has generally more permissive of events which cause a major impact, a position which I personally share; this is one which has ultimately led to the CCP ceding to protestors' demands. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 Kazakh unrest is included because international forces took part & it resulted in the gov resigning. Its death toll was over 200. None of that is true of the Chinese protests. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

To respond to both your reply to me and Wjfox2005: Whatever the notability criteria is, unless it's biased to specifically censor China, these protests should be included. Jim, look at things relatively to not this year alone or other protests but also the history of a country or its size. A country like China, which has had zero wide-scale protests aside from this one and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests/massacre, should see its biggest protests covered. In addition, some of the most notable protests ever don't always result in regime change or mass death; see the American March on Washington and the Indian Salt March. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion guidelines & I aren't biased. We don't include things due to them being unusual. Likewise due to them having a lot of media coverage; if we did, we'd include celebrity weddings. These aren't among the most notable protests of all time, nor are they anywhere near as notable as the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. They also aren't the world's most notable protests of this year. Things aren't inherently more important due to them happening in the world's most populous country; similar arguments could be used to include various events in Russia because it's the largest country & in the US because it's the most powerful. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Equal weight regardless of country is a bad philosophy to undergo. And comparison to the most extreme events, or anomalies, doesn’t necessarily help your case. Take into account how rare an event is, or how rare the end result is, instead of just saying “it’s domestic and it’s not Tiananmen Square therefore it’s gone”. Don’t just weigh anomalies. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not the size, power or population of a country that's important when judging the notability of protests. The size & duration of the protests, the number of deaths caused, their internationality & changes in government as a result of them are what matters. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Why only that? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Because they're the important factors. What else would be? The size/power/population of the city/country they take place in? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a balancing act between coverage and substance which does and should define notability for the purposes of this article, and the size of the country plus the size of the country. The country does matter, Jim. I know you hate to see that, but the country it takes place in does matter. And especially if it's a successful protest happening in the censorship capital of the world. Your arguments for the exclusion of events are comparable to "ad-hominem" reasons for exclusion; just because something happened in one country and wasn't the 1917 Russian Revolution doesn't mean it should be excluded. As stated previously, the main year article has to balance BOTH coverage and substance. This is an event which may fall slightly short when judging on substance alone but has gained much more media coverage than any other protest, likely because that protests of this level practically never happen in China. By only looking at event substance, we exclude what readers care about and we fail to put WP:READERs and their opinions on what they care about first. It's neither the position nor purpose of Wikipedia to dictate what people should care about (further information: WP:POINT). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm generally a big proponent of adding more China related items to main year articles but I'd have to say exclude. It is no different than the myriad of other protests against COVID measures that have been happening in virtually every country over the last 2 years, regardless of whether or not protests in China are rare or not. I think that the Canadian trucker protests were more impactful, but we have excluded those on this article as well. PaulRKil (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the Canada convoy protest is significantly more notable, involving far more vehicles. It caused far more disruption & cost far more to the economy. It's by far this year's most notable COVID-related protest. It has some internationality, including blockades of some crossings on the Canada–United States border & inspiring similar, smaller protests in other countries. As they were primarily domestic, I agree with them being excluded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that both are domestic in substance, but internationally impactful enough, more so Canada's truckers than China's students. I would not oppose the inclusion of both, but if only one of the two had to go on, Canada would be the one. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's difficult to justify including the China protests when the Canadian ones aren't here. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What if we be a little bit more inclusive now, and around maybe March 2023 (ideally when most of the fans and more hardline inclusionists are gone), we can conduct more complete reviews on events and deaths? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We needn't wait 3 months. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it'd be an unnecessary delay. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Include. Given the prominent status/role played by China throughout the pandemic, and the rarity of protests like this in such a hardline country, I think on balance it's okay to include this. It's a notable milestone in the Covid crisis, and signifies that the world as a whole is finally moving on from it. Of course, Covid is still ongoing, and we'll be dealing with it for years (perhaps forever) but the fact that a country like China is now ending its Zero Covid policy is notable. I think it's wrong to exclude things purely for being domestic, it's sometimes more nuanced than that, and there are shades of grey. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Millions of people have COVID; it's far from over. Many countries have changed their COVID policies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

None as big as China, which previously had among the most restrictive COVID policies prior to the concessions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Bob McGrath (Result: exclusion)

Is Bob McGrath notable enough to be included? I don't think he is ? 2601:204:CF81:EC80:1005:75E5:73F:3960 (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Exclude. Sesame Street is certainly an internationally notable show, but none of the main human performers are even memorable to Americans like me with the sole exception of Mr. Hooper. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Exclude because he has no international notability. There are far too many fans adding domestic figures & far too few regulars to remove them all. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and this is not helped by the profoundly mistaken inclusion of Robbie Coltrane. McGrath’s notability is even less so, and should accordingly be relegated to Year In Topic like other such domestic actor. TheScrubby (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no case for including McGrath. I can't think of a way to encourage more people to become regulars on main year articles without likely being accused of canvassing. Making an exception for Coltrane basically because many people here are fans of him has made it difficult to argue against people who want to include domestic entertainers. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Generally, my idea is to keep main year articles as collections of the most defining or notable events regardless of whether they're domestic, but giving preference to international events. Loosening our standards by just a bit makes both sides equally satisfied. I'm concerned about the Events section being a little bit too short and that the standards are too rigid. I think it's easier for me to support the exclusion of more domestic figures than more domestic events since deaths themselves, with way fewer exceptions than domestic events, only truly impact the person who died and their family. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Opening the door to domestic events would mean including domestic disasters, battles, attacks, crimes, protests, elections & referendums, as well as events related to entertainment, sport & business. Doing so in relation to births & deaths would mean including a large number of people who most of the world haven't heard of, who haven't even worked outside their home country. That'd include sportspeople, politicians, entertainers & famous-for-being-famous people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't that give the chance for people to learn more about people, though? People can work mostly inside their home country and be internationally notable. Mahatma Ghandi and MLK Jr are perfect examples; they only truly worked in British India and the US respectively, but they've done innumerable justices for the world even though neither of them held official political office in their respective nations. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You're saying we should add a load of domestic figures to main year articles so readers can unexpectedly find out about people who shouldn't be here? Main year articles are rarely read from start to finish; they're referred to. If people want to know about a particular country's domestic figures, they'd read the relevant subarticles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should add a load of domestic figures. Domestic figures with widely provable international recognition is a yes. Domestic figures who have only been remotely heard of internationally, that's where we agree on exclusion. The article feels just a bit too small at the moment. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Which domestic figures with widely provable international recognition died this year? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

MLK Jr won the Nobel Peace Prize for his social activism, he was internationaly. recognized.

And Ghandi was influential in india's history as well.

We're not talking about them when it comes to notability. 2601:204:CF81:EC80:391F:3C35:48EF:F3D4 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

They're internationally notable, but the large majority of notable people are domestic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Nobel Prizes? (Result: no change/status quo)

Not a question about this article specifically but I could find nowhere else to enquire — why are Nobel Prizes listed on year articles? What’s so notable about them that they’re given such special treatment? They’re awards given by independent, private, non-governmental organisations. Why not list this year’s Oscars or Emmys in their own section as well?

Is there an RfC which approved this at some point in the project’s history? Asperthrow (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that main year articles greatly inflate the importance of Nobels. They're the only awards that are included. They have their own section, giving the impression that they're the most important thing about each year! They should be in a single entry in events, if included at all. They've been discussed, but I don't believe that there's been an RfC about them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

They are listed because they represent the pinnacle of human achievement in their respective fields for a given year and are therefore highly notable. Oscars and Emmys are more like trivia and aren't comparable. The Nobels have been discussed before, extensively. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Very much. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You're all sure they warrant their own section, rather than an entry in Events? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yep. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm on the Neutral side when it comes to this. I don't think people care, but they are important. So I'm stuck. If y'all want to start an RFC on WikiProject years to help convince me, by all means please do. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you think they should have a separate section? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

They definitely shouldn't have their own section IMHO. That's implying that achievements in the chosen subjects of chemistry and literature etc. are somehow better than winning "pinnacle" awards in other areas of life including mathematics, other academic subjects, not to mention music, sport, humanitarian work etc. It's unbalanced to single out the Nobel prizes in this way.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree - is a Nobel in Literature universally considered to be significantly more important than all other literary awards? It's also strongly implying that awarding Nobels is the most important event of the year. Would anyone honestly say that they were the biggest, most important event of 2022 - or any year?! Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• The Oscars and Emmys are not suitable because they are American rather than global. For example, to win an Oscar a movie has to be shown in Los Angeles. The other problem is that hundreds of them are distributed every year -- about 24 Oscars and so many Emmys that it's hard to count them all. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the film & TV awards are important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC on the bankruptcy of FTX (Result: borderline inclusion)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There have been no changes in a few days and although there were some arguments for it to be excluded there is a clear consensus for the topic to be included. Note: this is not a WP:SNOW close. Gusfriend (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

---

The initial discussion on the inclusion of the FTX collapse has led to no consensus. The main question is: Should the Bankruptcy of FTX, be included, pursuant to the options below? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Include. I've stated my opinion previously, but I'll save the need for people to scroll up. CNN, Business Insider, and the India Times, among other sources in the media, have referred to FTX's collapse, once one of the most trusted cryptocurrency exchanges in the world, as the "Lehman Brothers" or "Enron" Moment for Cryptocurrency. Millions of people, from middle class crypto traders in Southeast Asia to Finance Firms in New York City have lost money due to FTX's collapse, from a small sliver of their portfolio to a large chunk of their holdings. WIRED magazine highlights that many cryptocurrency traders lost much of their fortune upon the collapse of FTX, with some traders across the world (such as the lead example provided by WIRED) losing 97% of his assets; Bloomberg has also highlighted that many across the world have seen their assets locked out of. As seen in The Guardian, members of the British Parliament were briefed that many institutional investors had lost millions due to the collapse. In the US, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is joining increasing calls to regulate cryptocurrency (see Coindesk and CBS News). This is about as international as it gets, and whatever this article's inclusion standards are, it should meet it unless it's specifically prejudiced against the international industry that is the cryptocurrency industry. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support InvadingInvader's arguments overall. It's not just because of the direct impact on the crypto world, it affected quite a lot of markets and the savings of millions of people. Sam Bankman-Fried was a fairly notable (even if fraudulent) business figure, with considerable media coverage. But I do understand it might not be that massive to warrant inclusion in the 2022 article itself, perhaps 2020s in economic history instead? FelipeFritschF (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Include. Cryptocurrencies have gained far more importance in recent years, and this is clearly a landmark moment in their development, so the FTX collapse seems notable enough for inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Include. I wish you were joking but it seems you're not, InvadingInvader. This is a blatantly notable event, possibly one of the most notables of the year and certainly the most notable in the field of exchanges & markets. Personally, I'm surprised anyone would dispute this. -The Gnome (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude because it's nowhere near important enough. Trading (by companies or individuals) in extremely high-risk, pseudocurrencies is choosing to involve themselves in a fringe product that is obviously likely to rapidly incur huge losses, which will likely include bankruptcy. It's nothing like as important or mainstream as food & water supply, inflation or mortgages, which affect a high proportion of the population. Adding this would wedge open the door for many more business events to be added. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that an exchange that was recently valued at $32 billion getting wiped out is a usual and "not important" event? The exchange still owes over $3.5 billion to its creditors, on top of that. Where else this year or in the previous last years did we witness such an implosion? -The Gnome (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it's usual, but being unusual doesn't grant notability. Crypto is on the fringe of finance. The vast majority of people are unaffected by & unaware of this bankruptcy. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is FALSE. International news media (see my original comment in this RFC and the previous discussion's comments for sources) are covering the drama and economic fallout of FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried. My phone has nearly all the major news sources on it, and I'm getting notification after notification about SBF and FTX and stuff that started with this chain of events. And my phone has (either through their own apps or Apple News) Bloomberg, BBC, CNBC, Fox News, CNN, CBS, France24, Al Jazeera, the Atlantic, NYTimes, CNET, SCMP, and too many others to mention. When I log on to European and Asian sources, FTX is covered across the WORLD. These sources not only cover what's happening with SBF himself, but also, as I've cited in the previous discussion, stories of people (like Southeast Asia) who have LOST ALMOST ALL THEIR MONEY TO THIS COLLAPSE. There's no denying that this is less than notable unless you're using WP:IDONTLIKEIT or some other justification which intends to subliminally (or overtly for that matter) downplay a notable international industry. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This argument is more akin to WP:IDONTLIKEIT with regards to cryptocurrency rather than attempting to deny notability. It's your choice IRL whether to invest in it or not. But that doesn't mean it should not garner a sentence or two on this article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Try me mentioning it to people who don't follow financial news. They won't know what you're talking about & won't care. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this honestly an argument? Almost all the people I know are completely clueless about marine biology. And I mean they do not follow it at all!! Talk to them about marine biology and they won't know what you're talking about and won't care. So, what do you suggest we do with marine biology articles in Wikipedia? And don't get me started on topology. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

We have very few articles in main year articles that are about marine biology or topology. I disagree with a move towards including more business stories. There should be subarticles such as 2022 in business and finance for that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Exclude per Jim Michael. Nothing else to add. It is by far not the most important business news this year. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Exactly - in comparison to the massive increase in inflation, it's a minnow of a story. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Nope. Nothing "massive" about the price increase, nor anything exceptional comparatively. The price index rose 5.87% between 2021 and 2022. This means that the purchasing power of $1 in 2021 would equal the purchasing power of $1.06 in 2022, a difference of six cents. Where's the "mass" you're talking about? Only in loaded opinions unsupported by arithmetic. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Many countries have far higher inflation than that this year - the highest for decades - significantly affecting many millions of people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

True but this does not mean the FTX collapse is not worth including. Having the FTX collapse in the article does not affect the importance or the notability of the inflationary phenomena. You are essentially arguing that, alhtough the FTX collapse has indeed being reported in many sources, the event is not as important as another event. That's not a valid argument; this is not a list of the single most important events in every field. It's an article about a year's main events; note the plural. -The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)-The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Btw, in the previous discussion there was a majority consensus to exclude the inclusion of this news item. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• There wasn't a consensus to include. A narrow majority doesn't create a consensus. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
• It was no consensus; 3v3. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• You are bringing to the discussion false information, _-_Alsor. Every RfC is a serious affair. We're supposed to treat them more seriously than that.-The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• The FTX collapse was quite evidently a notable event, _-_Alsor. Perhaps it was "not the most important business news this year" but, on the basis of the voluminous evidence available (the sources provided are a small sample), it certainly is a notable one. If you're of the opinion that we offer the most important and notable event, that opinion would be wrong. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you accept that it's nowhere near as important as inflation? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Both are important and notable events of the year and both deserve space in the year's article. Inflation is a phenomenon affecting more people, so it's more important. But that does not affect the FTX event's own notability. -The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Include.(Summoned by bot) And frankly, this looks pretty close to an issue that should have been resolved as WP:SNOW: there is clear WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources, with many financial sector experts and industry press clearly identifying this as by far the largest Ponzi scheme in history and likening it (disfavorably no less) to the collapse of Enron, in terms of scope, malfeasance, and impact. Not only do we have nothing less than thousands of reliable sources covering the ongoing and likely future impacts on the investment sector and the near-future viability of cryptocurrency, among numerous other knock-on effects, but also the response of regulators and legislatures across the globe. This is not even a remotely close call: this is easily one of the most WP:DUE topics for inclusion in this particular article. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This whole discussion is built on this company having been legitimate & hit by unexpected, unjustified misfortune. If the whole thing's a Ponzi scheme & the company was never legitimate, that'd put it in a very different light. That'd make this company's collapse an organised crime event rather than a legitimate business event. I take more notice of financial news than most people do, yet I've only heard of FTX since it went bankrupt last month. The vast majority of people haven't heard of this company; it lasted 3 years & had about 300 employees. Enron lasted 16 years & had over 20,000 employees. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"This whole discussion is built on this company having been legitimate & hit by unexpected, unjustified misfortune."

I don't see how this discussion is or should be about such a supposed perception. I certainly don't see anyone predicating their include !vote above as being in any way connected with whether or not the company is sympathetic. In fact, I don't see anyone even suggesting they are sympathetic. Nor nefarious for that matter. Rather the !votes general seem (and in any event mine certainly is) predicated on the only obvious outcome of the actual policy test here; WP:WEIGHT.

"If the whole thing's a Ponzi scheme & the company was never legitimate, that'd put it in a very different light. That'd make this company's collapse an organised crime event rather than a legitimate business event."

"Ponzi scheme" is exactly the framing that numerous primary and secondary sources are using to describe the venture. But again, this isn't even relevant to the policy test for inclusion here: we really don't care what your own analysis of the facts, or the subjective importance you ascribe the events or particulars. What matters is the weight and objective notability, as judged by coverage in WP:reliable sources. And this is easily one of the most reported upon events of the year, with dimensions that are likely to have lasting impacts in relevant markets, and well beyond the concerns of just crypto enthusiasts.

You seem to think (apparently without having stopped to check the breadth and depth of coverage on this event) that this is some sort of niche interest story, only of concern to such crypto boosters. But it's really not: this is getting coverage in nightly news, in long-form investigative journalism, in newspapers, in industry press, in the general press, on talk shows, all over social media; numerous regulatory probes are underway in numerous countries; there are ongoing congressional hearings. I'm not sure if you follow the financial news (or even the news) as above the norm as you think if you never heard about this company until a month ago, because it had a huge profile even before the colossal crash at the end: the cryptocurrency itself was broadly promoted by celebrities through traditional media channels and online: that's part of why the story is so big.

I'm sorry, but pretty much every word of your objection immediately above and your own !vote further up ("...because it's nowhere near important enough. Trading (by companies or individuals) in extremely high-risk, pseudocurrencies is choosing to involve themselves in a fringe product that is obviously likely to rapidly incur huge losses, which will likely include bankruptcy. It's nothing like as important or mainstream as food & water supply, inflation or mortgages, which affect a high proportion of the population.") are 100% WP:original research: again, we just don't judge these things on the subjective, idiosyncratic value judgments of our individual editors as to why a given topic is or is not important enough to warrant coverage. On any article. Whether you think the people who invested in this product were rubes who should have seen it coming is not at all of value in making a policy-based decision on whether to include the story in this article. Nor is your personal call on how inherently bad the scheme was, in the grand scheme of things. What is relevant is that this is a major financial and legal event, with many dimensions being covered by voluminous discussion in countless sources meeting our WP:RS standard. It's as simple as that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This bankruptcy is a niche story about the failure of a dubious company whose business was ultra high-risk trading of a fringe financial product.

You're the first person in this thread to mention that the bankruptcy of FTX was caused by criminality, which is significantly different to a legitimate business unexpectedly failing due to rapidly worsening economic conditions.

You're saying that this story is being discussed by the mainstream media & ordinary people to a similar extent as the sharp increase in inflation? Millions of ordinary people are talking to their families, friends, colleagues, neighbours etc. about inflation. Would you honestly claim that millions of shop assistants, couriers, waiters, bartenders, farmers, builders, labourers, mechanics, plumbers, nurses, secretaries & cleaners are also talking about FTX's bankruptcy? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know how to be more clear about this: the analysis, perspective, deductions, suspicions, outlooks, forecasts, reflections, judgments, views, conclusions, and even outright facts known to our editors are all of absolutely no consequence to a determination of whether or not content is WP:DUE for purposes of this project, no matter how well reasoned we think those determinations are. Please see WP:Original research, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT. What you or I or any other editor thinks about the answer to your posited question, it is absolutely irrelevant to the content determination.

So I could absolutely agree with you about the relative importance of this topic versus that on a personal level, and I would still have to oppose your position because we just don't judge inclusion on that sort of criteria. And for good reason: if we were to try to determine what content was due for inclusion in our content based on personal idiosyncratic views, work on virtually every article would creak to a halt as everyone argued the inherent value and WP:TRUTH of their own subjective views. That is why Wikipedia adopted the objective WEIGHT standard for these circumstances instead. I know you're relatively new to the project, and I'm not looking to be curt or dismissive, but this really is Wikipedia 101, bedrock policy based on our oldest principles of community consensus. Arguing for inclusion or omission based on your own first principles is expressly how we do not handle questions of inclusion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Jim Michael 2, your arguments are no doubt well intentioned and honest but, unfortunately, have no merit in such a discussion. This is about what's worth having in this encyclopaedia. A person in ten years time looking up this article, about the year 2022's main events, and not finding any mention of the FTX collapse would be badly served by Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral, but leaning towards exclusion as per Alsoriano and Jim Michael. TheScrubby (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
• Include I think that FTX's bankruptcy is much more than a niche story as it can and will seriously affect other crypto exchanges and the way they do their business. While it may be true that most of the general population isn't discussing FTX and its demise, many people are interested or at least familiar with cryptocurrencies, especially bitcoin.Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
• Include (Summoned by bot), this is a relatively niche topic (though so is all banking and investment), but within the finance sector it is a major event.it … will seriously affect other crypto exchanges and the way they do their business … … many people are interested or at least familiar with cryptocurrencies. Though likely to be much more cautious about them now. Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Banking & investment are mainstream. Most people have heard of crypto, but wouldn't consider having anything to do with it and aren't interested in a crypto company going bust. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• See [NYT article]. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
• Again: the myriad of sources reporting on the FTX collapse decides the issue. Whether people are generally more interested in other topics does not rob the FTX issue of its own notability. -The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Weak include - I think it is not in the top 10 but exceeds the WP:WEIGHT of many other items here, plus it has real impacts and is not just a hot scandal. Niche interests of finance and tech are particularly affected. Whether there is much wider impact would be something that will be seen in 2023 but for now it seems big enough to include. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment : Including in the article the obviously (quite) notable event about the FTX collapse does not mean excluding the 2022 phenomenon of inflation, evident in many countries around the world. It is important to have this clarified. -The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree...OSE shouldn't be used when it comes to inclusion on this page. I see that argument A LOT on this page. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:OSE is about comparing things of similar notability. Saying that this is far less important than the large increase in inflation is relevant. If someone said that a rugby, cricket, baseball or tennis tournament should be included, I'd say it shouldn't because it's nowhere near as notable as the FIFA World Cup. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily the most productive idea to compare everything to the most notable event of the year sector-wise. An example is comparing an Israeli-Palestinian escalation to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

They should be compared. None of this year's events of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict are included in this article because they're not important enough. The increase in violence there this spring & summer wasn't unusual & was much less than last year's. Many events of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine are included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Why should they be compared? Plus, the main year articles do seem to be a tad bit small. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Because they're events in the same category; in this case, armed conflicts. Main year articles are only for very internationally notable events & people.

Small compared to what? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's project about articles on years makes it explicit that there is never the case whereby editors choose one or even "just a few events" for inclusion. It is sufficient to have the FTX assessed as one of the most notable events of 2022 to include it, along with other notable events. -The Gnome (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying there should be a quota of events of each topic. I disagree that FTX's bankruptcy is one of the most notable events of the year. It's pushing it to say that it's one of the most notable financial stories of the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's absolutely not THE MOST notable event of the whole year (that title probably would go Ukraine), but it's notable enough for inclusion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
• If the most notable event of 2022 in the field of finance & economics was the inflationary phenomenon, Jim Michael 2, care to offer the second most notable event? -The Gnome (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The sharp decline in Russia's economy due to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as well as international sanctions & international businesses pulling out in response to it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Would you say FTX is in the Top 5? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 08:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the top 5 business/finance stories of 2022, but certainly not one of the top 5 stories of the year overall - probably not top 100. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• If we count ongoing or long-lasting major events each as one big event each (like Ukraine, Inflation, the World Cup, the UK Government crisis), FTX would definitely be top 100. Most of the top 100 would be notable Russian-Ukrainian attacks and strikes, roughly simultaneous interest rate hikes across many central banks, the numerous events composing of Queen Elizabeth’s funeral, and stuff like that. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Several deaths of celebrities are in also in the top 100 stories of the year, as are several elections, several disasters, several mass murders, several protests/riots & many sports events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the fields of currencies or finance. -The Gnome (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't saying they are. I was replying to II's comments about the top 100 events of the year, which is relevant when deciding what to include in a main year article. Being the most important, second-most important etc. in its category/field doesn't make it automatically important enough. If it did, we'd have a quota for dozens of fields, some of them fairly trivial. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• The first ever significant set-back in the realm of crypto-currencies, Jim Michael 2, is not among the five most significant 2022 events in Economics and Finance?!? You can't be serious. As to your latest argument, you're using events from irrelevant categories (what does Queen Elizabeths funeral have to do with the financial markets?!) and you're crowding the field by treating items separately though they're part of one single event as far as the realm of finance is concerned: the war in Ukraine begat inflation and interest rate rises). The abundance of sources verifying the universal notability of the FTX collapse refutes all arguments against its inclusion in the year's round up. -The Gnome (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I said perhaps it's one of the top 5, because it depends how you're measuring. Are the declines in the Russian & Ukrainian economies part of the war or different stories? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

There is one main event and then there are the direct consequences of it. We can have it all as one event, or we can have it as two, one being the war itself, and the other its consequences. In any case, the war in the Ukraine is most certainly the major event of 2022, in all fields, but, in the realm of Economics in general or Financial Markets in particular, the FTX collapse is as significant as the appearance itself of cryptocurrencies. -The Gnome (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

If this bankruptcy is as significant (or anywhere near as significant) as the appearance of cryptocurrencies, then a great deal of info relating to it needs to be added to cryptocurrency, including to its lead. Neither FTX nor its bankruptcy are mentioned in that article at all. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Then let's mention the bankruptcy both there and on this article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

They resulted from the war and are closely tied enough to the war. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• Include per InvadingInvader. The The FTX collapse is a notable event. Nemov (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Closure request

As of a few minutes ago relative to the publishing of this note, I've put in a closure request at Wikipedia:Closure requests due to a relatively very quick consensus developing above. Some editors, as mentioned in closing comment, have suggested that this is a case in which WP:SNOW applies. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Collage images (Result: all original proposals rejected)

I think the collage isn't the best. It doesn't really summarize the most well known moments of the year well. I think there are a few things that we should change:

• Winter Olympics should be replaced with FIFA Word Cup 2022. A lot of people weren't even aware that the winter olympics happened.
• The Kazakh protest should be replaced with the Iran protests. I think we all know which one got/has gotten more attention.
• The Afghan earthquake should be replaced with the Peru coup attempt.
• The Sri Lanka protests should be replaced with protests against the Dobbs v. Jackson decision.
• Abe's assassination should be replaced with Liz Truss' resignation speech
• I also think there could be a better photo used for the Ukraine War TRJ2008 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

For the most part I agree. I have some concerns, though:

1. Abe is more important.

2. A better photo could be used for the Ukrainian war.

3. Rediscuss Dobbs v. Jackson in an RFC if you want. There are quite a few editors who are extremely opposed to Dobbs being removed :(I'm personally more on the include side, but definitely not in collage).

Anyways, just my thoughts. Otherwise, I like your idea. Thanks for suggesting! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think that the resignation of Liz Truss is more notorious than the assassination of Abe? And more important the demonstrations over a court decision with a much smaller impact/interest globally than the protests that brought down the HoS and HoG of Sri Lanka? I would agree to replace the Kazah protests with the Iran protests, but not with the rest you propose (without questioning your good faith in this proposal, of course). _-_Alsor (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The main reason i think of putting truss' resignation is because i think it kinda falls into the "Collapse of the UK narrative. I think watching UK news this year has just felt like the entire country is collapsing, and since the UK is a global power i think it fits. On dobbs i think because of the amount of people who visit America just to get an abortion, it has more global impact than the Sri Lanka protests. Not to say the Sri Lanka protests aren't important, but I think more people are affected by the dobbs decision. TRJ2008 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

None of the UK events are international enough. If by 'collapsing' you mean economically, many countries are in worse financial difficulties. The D v J protests were domestic & had no effect, which are two reasons that they're not in the article, let alone important enough for the collage. The 2022 Sri Lankan protests resulted in the government resigning & being replaced. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Winter Olympics definitely need to be replaced with FIFA though. Especially after yesterday TRJ2008 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 Kazakh unrest is far more notable than the Mahsa Amini protests, even though the latter has lasted far longer & received far more media coverage. Coup attempts aren't important enough to be in collages. Domestic protests shouldn't be in collages, especially when they didn't change anything. Nothing involving Truss is important enough for the collage. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose all proposals as per Alsoriano and Jim Michael, although if there’s space I’d certainly prioritise the Mahsa Amini protests over Dobbs v. Jackson, which is easily the least notable of all the 2022 protests mentioned. TheScrubby (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The collage can only include things that are in the article. None of the Iranian protests are, because they're primarily domestic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That's actually false. There is an entry on Mahsa Amini already in the month of September. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think 'protests' work for a lead image at all. In almost all cases, photos of indistinguishable people in a crowd really add no information to an article. Unless an image is particularly iconic like Tank Man or the fall of the statue of Saddam etc. JeffUK (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Please remove the image of the Kazakh protest to reduce the cluttering. Deb (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Mahsa Amini protests (Result: included in the article, but not on the collage)

These protests were domestic in their early days, but became international when they spread outside Iran & international sanctions were imposed on Iran due to the their gov's response to the protests. Should they be in the article? If so, should they be in the collage? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Include in the article, neutral (lean exclude) in the collage. The ongoing actions of both the Iranian Government and the ongoing reactions internationally make the Iranian situation the most notable protest of 2022, edging out even Kazakhstan's unrest. Protests have erupted not only across the Islamic Republic but across the world; I myself ran into one on Market Street in San Francisco. I'm usually in favor of including notable large protests which garner international coverage, especially those against authoritarian governments, and this more than exceeds that threshold. That being said, JeffUK makes a good point on images; unless there is a "tank man" photo for a protest, it's difficult to justify inclusion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

These have gained the most media coverage & have the highest death toll of all this year's protests, but the 2022 Kazakh unrest & 2022 Sri Lankan protests are each more notable because they led to their governments being replaced. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We can include all of them then. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Links to year pages from ITN

The article about the current year such as 2022 is obviously driven by news coverage. As such, there's an overlap between it and our other similar pages and processes such as WP:ITN and Portal:Current events. It might be good to have more cross-linkage between them to help editors and readers understand how Wikipedia organises this information. Please see a current discussion about this. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

A link to the current main year article should always be included in ITN. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hong Kong domestic events (Result: exclusion)

I would like to request for an event or moment to be added. I showed it to you:

• 1 March – New Subscriber Identification Module (SIM Card) require real-name registration by the government.
• 2 March - The first time that Hong Kong recorded more than 50,000 COVID-19 infections in one day.

There it is, this statement contains sources from other websites and it is written in full sentences. So, I requested you to accept this request for addition of event. — 2600:1010:B117:9432:F821:D0D5:5F65:1AAA (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done because those are regional events which are for 2022 in Hong Kong. This is a main year article that's for international events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Gilbert Gottfried (Result: excluded as per previous discussions on Gottfried)

Gilbert Gottfried should be added to deaths section Apr 12 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.201.41 (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done because he's not internationally notable enough - see FAQ & archives. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Terry Hall (Result: exclusion)

British musician and singer Terry Hall died on 18th December: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Hall_(singer) 86.1.160.100 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Is he internationally notable enough to include? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2 - Rated Mid-Importance by WikiProject Reggae, which to me would suggest that the answer to that question is "yes". casualdejekyll 19:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Project ratings don't indicate the subject's level of international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done casualdejekyll 19:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be far more appropriate to have a discussion on his inclusion before arbitrarily including him. TheScrubby (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Does Terry Hall have the substantial international notability for inclusion on the main yearly pages? TheScrubby (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

He's one of many examples of musicians who don't have significant individual international notability, but whose bands do. How do we measure their level of contribution to their bands? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

In this case, even his bands arguably doesn't have substantial international notability - the most notable is The Specials, and while they did have some international chart success, their success and popularity was by and large localised to the UK. They also won no major international musical awards. I'd honestly lean towards Exclude in this case. TheScrubby (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Are there any other musicians currently in this article who you think shouldn't be, or any that aren't currently in it that you think should be? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

He was too localized in his chart success, but Google Trends data shows (prior to his death) he had European followings. Substance seems on the lower end, so I would say Borderline Exclude with the evidence so far InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Technological innovations inclusion bar

What is the inclusion bar for technological breakthroughs that occurred within 2022? Is there a consensus on this? 2022 in science has a compilation of such breakthroughs but does any of them have significant influence on an international level to be on the 2022 main page? FireInMe (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of any that are important enough for this article. Do you specifically suggest any? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no specific suggestions. But, I do see some significant progress in certain areas that's why I inquired about the inclusion bar. Many of them are just continuations of trends. I tend to agree that none seem important enough but it still prompts the question of the what is important enough criteria wise. For example, does it need to be a commercially available breakthrough that's available globally or does it just need to be a major discovery or innovation? FireInMe (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Continuations of trends (in regard to any topic, not just tech) aren't important enough for main year articles. It wouldn't need to be global, but it'd need to have a substantial international effect on many people's lives. Minor improvements & niche products don't qualify. There was a discussion in which it was agreed that software isn't important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Continuations of trends (in regard to any topic, not just tech) aren't important enough for main year articles. We're in full agreement on that. I just think that some criteria should be established because some breakthroughs in innovation are clearly notable say towards progress in cancer research, artificial intelligence, or Genetic engineering (eg. CRISPR or cloning innovations). Progress in technology is exponential and I think some baseline consensus on what is notable for inclusion should be established as the years go on for main year articles. FireInMe (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We wouldn't reach consensus for that; it's too complicated & there wouldn't be enough editors agreeing on all aspects of tech. Are there some things in previous main year articles that you think shouldn't be &/or things not in them that you think should be? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you in regards that it’s a complicated topic. It’s more of a “heads up”, there’s major predictions (of course some could be off). I have no doubt it will be a case-by-case basis it’s just a topic for editors to consider for main year pages. FireInMe (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't include any predictions. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't include predictions per WP:CRYSTAL. What I'm saying is when the time comes and they do happen it's a wise decision to have a framework of their inclusion or exclusion. FireInMe (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a detailed inclusion criteria will be agreed on. The many discussions on inclusion of sportspeople & entertainers still haven't reached a consensus in regard to their inclusion bars. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

There are a few, but they're mostly American. I'm referring to ChatGPT, Artemis 1, the Fusion stuff, maybe SpaceX Starlink, etc. Don't think it's enough until we're no longer CRYSTALBALLing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Nov and Dec deaths

Several of the people in the November & December subsections of Deaths have importance tags on them. Which of those people should stay & which should be removed? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to all of them being removed. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with many of the people tagged but I would argue that Colonel Joseph Kittinger should be included. He took part in both Project Manhigh and Project Excelsior, the latter of which he held the record for highest skydive (102,800ft) for over 50 years and still holds the record for the longest freefall. Excelsior was used to help test the multi-stage parachute, something still in use to this day. For his efforts he was indicted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame and even has a park named after him. CaptainGalaxy 21:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Do those things give him substantial international notability? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The records he set are international records that even the Soviets were trying to beat. The parachutes he tested are still in use today although modified from his initial design. If it helps he was also the first person to perform a solo crossing of the Atlantic Ocean in a gas balloon. CaptainGalaxy 02:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This might not be a case of major international influence, but this should meet our standards when it comes to substance. Niche doesn't always mean not notable. I would second CaptainGalaxy and suggest Include. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

i12 Katong (Result: exclusion)

There is an request for an event to be added:

• “23 June – i12 Katong shopping mall is officially reopened by Keppel Land after nearly 2 years of renovation.”

It is a notable event moment. — 12.171.253.138 (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done because it's a domestic event for 2022 in Singapore. This article is for international events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This wouldn't even meet the notability criteria for that. It's just a mall. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Malls are renovated every year, it's not at all notable. Unless this particular mall is notable for another reason it should be excluded. FireInMe (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI, It's since been removed from 2022 in Singapore. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Pelé in lead (Result: speedy include)

Should Pelé (who died today) be added in the paragraph that goes "The year included many prominent deaths of notable figures, including world leaders Shinzo Abe, Mikhail Gorbachev, Queen Elizabeth II, and Jiang Zemin, as well as entertainers Sidney Poitier, Olivia Newton-John, Jean-Luc Godard, Angela Lansbury, and Jerry Lee Lewis"? And if there would be a consensus to his inclusion, where should he be added? Would it be between Jiang Zemin and Sidney Poitier, or after Jerry Lee Lewis? Vida0007 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Very strong include. Global sporting legend. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Speedy inclusion of Pele is needed. 2601:249:8E00:420:7D41:8C6B:2BFE:2201 (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Include strongly for Pele after Jerry Lee Lewis. Additionally, given the news coming out, Pope Benedict XVI should also be Included once there is confirmation of his passing. PaulRKil (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't know that Benedict will die this month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Include definitely, and after Jerry Lee Lewis, as he is not a politician or entertainer, so should be separate from both, a notable passing, one of the greatest athletes of all time. AlexJacques95 (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Include. By far one of the most recognisable figures in the world, perhaps the second most notable death of the year. PolPot1975 (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how you could measure if his notability is higher than that of Jiang Zemin & Shinzo Abe, but like them he should certainly be in the lead & have a photo. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

100% Strong Include. Someone doesn't need to be a Soccer (Football) fan to know who Pelé was, I don't follow soccer and I know he's famous in the sport. I'm surprised this is a topic of discussion. FireInMe (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion and him being removed once is because there's a hidden note in the lead saying not to add anyone else to it without talkpage consensus. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2 I see, thanks for letting me know. FireInMe (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

While I'm firmly in favour of Pelé in the lead, I'd also propose including Shane Warne alongside Pelé - the other most internationally notable sportsperson to die in 2022 by some distance. TheScrubby (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd oppose Warne in the lead. Cricket is an international sport, but not on the same level as soccer/football. Non-soccer fans knew the name Pelé. I don't think non-cricket fans would recogonize Warne. Nemov (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Going off of InvadingInvader's sports criteria list, cricket and association football are rightly listed in the top tier, along with tennis and golf. The most notable and accomplished figures from this tier deserve to make the lead, in this case Pelé and Warne as soccer and cricket icons respectively. TheScrubby (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I also oppose cricket as a top tier sport. Please see my comment there. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Change into past tense

I would like to establish consensus about this article to be re-written into the past tense no earlier than 00:00 UTC-12 when the last parts of the world (Baker Island etc.) transition. Before this point in time, 2022 will not yet have passed in its entirety and it thus doesn't make sense to write about as passed while still being partially current. If you’re waiting to update, I would recommend you to google “Time Baker Island” to see when to do so.--Marginataen (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC) :Support. We’ve been doing this for a while on year pages and if it’s not already codified, let’s do so here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. PolPot1975 (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, because year articles are routinely written in the present tense. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Changing vote to Neutral. Either works as long as we're consistent. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Is is correct that events are and should be written in the present tense. I was referring to the main tense of the article – "2022 is" vs. "2022 was" for instance Marginataen (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The leads of previous main year articles are in the past tense, but the rest of those articles are in the present tense. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Does Edgar Savisaar deserve a photo? (Result: not done; interim leaders of nations are not prioritised for images)

He was certainly notable, but I'm not sure if he needs a photo here. Requesting feedback and consensus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No, because he briefly led a country which is small by size, population & power. Some far more notable people have died this month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

to say that he doesn't deserve it for having served a small country is consciously discriminatory. Being the first prime minister of a country at a turbulent time such as the transition to an independent state is more than notorious. He is certainly one of Estonia's most important politicians. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Some countries are obviously much more important than others, which substantially affects their leaders' notability. Those are relevant facts, not discrimination. He held the position for five months. Several far more notable people died in Dec; he's not even the most notable politician. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

By this rule, we would only include –exclusively– politicians from the USA, Germany, France or China. And that's exactly what I thought you wanted to avoid, so I'm surprised, frankly. He's undoubtedly the most important politician to have died in December (bearing in mind that Benedict XVI is more than just a "Vatican politician"). _-_Alsor (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

(Former) heads of state/gov of any country are routinely included in Births & Deaths. We're talking about whose photos to include. Photos are for the most notable only. In the case of politicians, they're rightly disproportionately from powerful countries. How is he more notable than Adolfas Slezevicius, who was leader of his country for nearly 3 years? We don't include a politician's photo for every month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As I have emphasized before, Saavisar led the interim government of Estonia (albeit for a few months) at a time when the Estonian Supreme Council declared independence in 1991 from Soviet Union. The difference with Šleževičiu is that, the latter, ruled Lithuania once it was already independent and no extraordinary events beyond the ordinary management of executive power and its consequences. Nor did I say that we have to have one photo of a politician for every month. (Oh, and I know perfectly well how Year in Topic works, we have collaborated many times here...). _-_Alsor (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Did Savisaar do anything particularly important as PM? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead the country during its transition to a post-Soviet sovereign state. And this is no small feat. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In any case, if all taged entries are removed, I don't think there will be enough room for a third photo. And, if there's still room, what alternative do you propose? _-_Alsor (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder to participants, this isn't about the inclusion of him as an entry. This is about him having a photo. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Edgar Savisaar belongs to this article here, leading a newly independent country is NOT a small feat. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No-one's disputing him being in Deaths. The discussion is about whether or not he should have a photo. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

My preference is Vivienne Westwood over Edgar Savisaar, as her fashion is more notable worldwide, but this really depends on the importance tag and if there's a space to do so. I'm OK with the inclusion depending on these factors. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

His photo has been removed & replaced with Barbara Walters. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree on this one. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - not because he led a country that's small in size, population and power, but because he was a caretaker leader. We don't include photos of heads of government/state who only served on an interim basis, even if they served during times of significant change. Have no issue with his inclusion otherwise. TheScrubby (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI (Result: speedy include)

Should he be added on the lead section? Thingofme (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I knew the lead section would lead to a slippery slope. Since we're here already, he should. PolPot1975 (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

There are too many notable individuals died in 2022 compared to other years like Elizabeth, Pele, Shinzo Abe... Thingofme (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because he's certainly one of the most notable people to have died this year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. He’s a former world leader so he fits in that first sentence InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Replace 2022 Winter Olympics with 2022 FIFA World Cup in collage

A lot of persons were not even aware that the Winter Olympics happened. Meanwhile, World Cup was watch by billions of people, I think it makes more sense to have Qatar 2022 over the winter olympics TRJ2008 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. They received a lot more press coverage and notability among the populace. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support The World Cup took up a lot of discourse due to its controversies talked about throughout a significant part of the year and had a lot of eyes on the matches. CaptainGalaxy 17:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support - It makes sense considering the viewership numbers for each. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Barbara Walters (Result: no consensus for inclusion, continued in RFC)

Let's talk this out first before we escalate into an edit war. I'm convinced she belongs here. As one of the most notable journalists in television history, while her work itself was more limited to within the United States, she is far too notable with her accomplishments to be limited to US articles only. She is comparable to Malcom X, someone who has only worked within the US but become an internationally notable figure, when speaking within the world of television and journalism, a trailblazer as seen across the world. Her exclusion is an insult to the history of journalism and reporting across the world. You can be an important person in world history while staying within your country. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm certain she doesn't belong here. WP is far too Americentric & she was certainly a domestic figure. Thousands of notable people have worked in multiple countries. A similar figure from any other country wouldn't have a chance of being included. The media in some other countries reported her death as they have done thousands of domestic figures who are known outside their countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia be americentric when you’re advocating for the removal of a soviet transitional prime minister’s image? She’s too domestically notable to be only included on American related articles and deserves at least a mention here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a separate issue of a photo rather than inclusion of an entry & I've given my reasons in the relevant section.

Being very domestically notable doesn't make a person internationally notable or eligible to be here. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the threshold is, unless it says something along the lines of “Barbara Walters is a poo poo head and shouldn’t be listed here”, Walters would meet it. FireInMe lists her accomplishments….what other deceased journalist has had a career like Walters? Don’t forget her work on the View and her absolutely murdering the glass ceiling. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

She's very domestically notable. No-one's disputing that she's rightfully on 2022 deaths in the United States. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Relatively speaking, no one visits that article anyway. Inclusion on there doesn’t matter as much as here. This is the year article which people visit. I think it’s reasonable to assume that people expect her here as well, especially considering her international record. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It has hundreds of views each day. She doesn't have much of an international record; the large majority of her career was domestic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Relative to this article with nearly 400K views, inclusion on the “B list” of sorts is an insult to a person of her caliber. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Are there many other journalists whom you think should be on main year articles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope. I agree that we can't include every single journalist, but Walters is among the most famous and notable of her kind. She's routinely described as among the greats in journalism, and sources from large publishers to smaller blogs put her at the same level or just below Woodward and Pullitzer (source: [1], [2], [3]). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Pulitzer was a politician & newspaper publisher, so it's not reasonable to compare him to journalists. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

He was still a significant figure in journalism though. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Upon what do you base this assessment, Jim? Kire1975 (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I've explained well. What part of what I wrote are you questioning? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Include If she was a domestic figure she wouldn't have interviewed the likes of Indira Gandhi, Egypt's Anwar Al Sadat, Israel's Menachem Begin, the Shah of Iran, Cuba's Fidel Castro, Britain's Margaret Thatcher, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Russia's Boris Yeltsin, and Muammar Gaddafi. A journalist/interviewer needs to be notable to achieve such interviews. FireInMe (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Many (primarily) domestic journalists have interviewed foreign political leaders. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It's tough to get an interview with a leader of a foreign country. It's not "many". FireInMe (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It is many journalists who've done so. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Prove it then. Name me a single deceased journalist who has interviewed as many foreign leaders and officials than Barbara Walters. Name me someone more notable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Jim, name all the deceased journalists who have had a career better than Walters who would belong here then. You can’t be serious. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Those living & dead journalists who are on a similar or higher level of notability include Christiane Amanpour, Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Rather & Louis Theroux. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

That isn't too many; she's among the most notable worldwide then of all journalists. Niche does not mean not notable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Very few journalists are important enough for main year articles. The same is true of many occupations. We're not aiming to represent dozens of different occupations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

As established in the FTX RFC, Niche doesn’t mean not notable. You still haven’t named a more notable deceased journalist who has died. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You say "many" but you don't name any. Kire1975 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Christiane Amanpour has interviewed many foreign leaders. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That's only one. Name me some more recently died journalists who had as storied a career like Walters. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is whether or not they died recently relevant? We don't have quotas. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline Include. She's not that well known worldwide, but there's clearly definite contributions to her field. Managing to interview many world leaders can't be ignored. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Agree with Jim Michael 2, it was part of her job as an American journalist to interview people outside the US. That doesn't mean she was very well known internationally. Nemov (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, she's a household name in the US & no-one's disputing her great domestic notability. Millions of people outside the US have heard of her, but she's not well-known internationally outside the field of journalism. Few non-journalists outside the US could talk about her for a minute. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's fascinating reading the comments on this page about which dead people are worthy of inclusion on a list of famous people who died this year. I get that it's a balancing act, and we need to include a subset of important/notable people who died. With the key questions being "Important to whom? Why are they notable? Who cares?". For argument's sake let's take Queen Elizabeth II, arguably the most notable person on the planet. I assume even she was unknown in some parts of the world ... arguably those places may not have access to wikipedia but that's an assumption. On the other hand an obscure Lithuanian (or Ethiopian or Venezuelan or Australian) poet would have less international appeal or recognition or impact ... but it seems we see a lot of them listed on here. What constitutes notoriety or importance? International recognition? Tenure? Impact? Is a social media influencer with several million followers more worthy of mention when they die than a regional politician in a non-Western nation who lifted thousands of people out of poverty over decades in office? Or is an actress who entertained millions of people for 7 years in the 1960s any more/less important than an actress who entertained tens of millions of people for 2 years in the 2010s? I've noticed a clamp-down on notable deaths listed in the yearly summary over the past couple of years. Maybe it's because we want to include more astrophysicists and poets and darts players at the expense of (say) notable female journalists. Or maybe there's a quota on the number of deaths listed per year ... and a desire to spread the notables amongst all continents. Frankly I just want to know which famous people have died ... but I acknowledge the bigger question is "who is famous, and to whom?" 2001:8003:2032:B400:F06A:262C:8677:AD0D (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The large majority of notable people aren't internationally notable enough to be in main year articles. Obscure people shouldn't be here. Social media influencers are very unlikely to be included. When people were notable isn't important; what matters is how internationally notable they are. We don't have quotas. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is also the one I didn't know anything about until recently, and she's only mostly well known domestically. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude as per Jim Michael and Nemov. TheScrubby (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral - She was mostly into American news coverage, but she did do international news, too. GoodDay (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Include, in my point of view, she was the most notable journalist from the late 70s to early 90s. For folks who grew up in that time, her presence is comparable to what Cronkite was to the prior generation. I know I will probably get pushback for that comparison, but I believe she left a substantial enough impact in broadcasting to warrant inclusion. PaulRKil (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you accept that to be only true in regard to the US? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm an American and I acknowledge she's famous in the US. I wouldn't go as far as to compare her to Cronkite, but this article has an international context. I doubt people in India or Brazil would have a reason to know about her. Nemov (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts : And I don't have any stake in this. Journalism figures are hard to measure in my view because well..... it's an Americentric field. The Peabody award is American. So are Emmys. And these are the only two major recognizable awards that I can think of that measures notability for Journalists.

There are other international awards such as the Elizabeth Neuffer Memorial Prize, but it was established just 10 years ago. We won't be able to tell if that makes sense.

The Emphasis on " international awards " as a measure for notability in my view puts a crimp in fields such as Journalism, Literature, because it's going to be very very hard to determine notability, and that's the truth.

Besides, how about people such as Anna Wintour ? She technically has no awards whatsoever.

Just want to say that I think it’s highly inappropriate that in spite of the fact that there is clearly no consensus in favour of her inclusion, she has been added with an image. Even if she were to be included at the end, the fact that it’s stirred up this level of debate and controversy means that an image should not be considered at all. Images are reserved for the most notable deaths of the month - those whose inclusions are without any question. TheScrubby (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Include She was like an American Sir David Frost. She interviewed figures like the illusive Katharine Hepburn, who rarely gave interviews aside from the Australian Clive James and Dick Cavett. She was the first American female news anchor for a major American network. You're leaving out a large gap of American history as a result if leaving her off of here. I argue here non-American nations are being given an unfair advantage over Americans, of which I see hundreds of unfamiliar names compared to just one familiar American name which has been excluded due to being "too domestic" despite America being one of the most powerful and influential nations in the world. Is a 5-1-3 vote good enough for inclusion? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus isn’t just about head count of votes. You’re arguing for the inclusion of a domestic figure based on achievements which are relevant to the US alone, when the bar for inclusion here is international notability. “despite America being one of the most powerful and influential nations in the world” is pure Americentrism. All of the arguments in favour of inclusion that you’ve made demonstrates her notability - her domestic notability, for which we have 2022 in the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No one uses that page, nor I. The second thing, America has like 300 million people and is the largest English speaking country (and we're using the English Wikipedia page). It's a different playstyle, preference based on countries versus that of population/global influence, I'll admit that much. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We have Year in Country pages for a reason, and if you feel that they are underdeveloped, then you’re free to contribute to them and help make them more presentable. This is the main international yearly page. It doesn’t matter what the population size of a country is, we are not and will never preference or enable systemic bias in favour of one country, or the figures of one country. Americentrism will never happen again on these international yearly pages. TheScrubby (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait for the feedback of others if that's fine with you. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You can do what you like, but what you’re arguing for is Americentric bias on an international Year page, and essentially endorsing the inclusion of domestic figures from one country when their equivalent figures internationally wouldn’t get a look in. That is completely unacceptable, and a standard that you’ll find users here do not accept, and indeed has not accepted for years now. America is not the whole world. TheScrubby (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please set protocol aside for this one occasion? If anyone's more suitable to set protocol aside it's for Barbra Walters. Swear I needn't to bother you again if you do agree on this one occasion. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2: put it best when he said “A similar figure from any other country wouldn't have a chance of being included. The media in some other countries reported her death as they have done thousands of domestic figures who are known outside their countries”. TheScrubby (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Many editors of main year articles only want one person added. I can't imagine Laura Kuenssberg, Trevor McDonald, Jeremy Paxman, Peter Snow or Kirsty Wark being included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

False; consensus CAN change to make things more americentric as you can see it. Odeally I would not prefer to be americentric, but consensus can change. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I seriously cannot imagine a circumstance where consensus changes in favour of systemic bias which sees domestic figures and events from one country being included while their international counterparts are scrutinised and removed. No one country - be it the United States or otherwise - should be treated differently, or given special treatment. It would be a travesty if we had one set of rules for figures and events from one country, and another for every other country in the world. TheScrubby (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I've decided to send this dispute to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I've decided to concede the dispute. Stand down. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A major discussion is also taking place at WP:YEARS, concerning inclusion criteria in International Year pages. I reckon a criteria for inclusion, concerning the 'birth/death' sections, should be established. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a good idea. It's getting tiring watching the same debate over and over. Nemov (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please add Eduardo Romero to the 2022 deaths list? (Result: done)

he was an argentine golfer, he was one of the most famous Latin American golfers in the world, i'll be right here waiting for a an answer :) 2800:2181:5000:1E8:B5DD:2026:97EA:2847 (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How important are his titles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

he won over 80 professional tournaments around the world, including eight on the European Tour and five on the Champions Tour, with two senior majors; he also won over 50 times in South America and was a member of the Argentine team at the World Cup on 14 occasions. ShaggyAnimate (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

He's been added. After reviewing his accomplishments in the world of golf, from everywhere between South America and Europe, he's clearly a notable golfer even if a bit niche to those outside of it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Vivienne Westwood (Result: borderline inclusion)

I have noticed importance tag was removed and added again. In WP:ITN/C there's some serious discussions about adding her to the blurb. I feel like she should belong to this page, as she is very important to the world of punk fashion. MarioJump83 (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

ITN has different criteria to us. How internationally notable is she? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

A quick Google Trends check shows that she's notable internationally – she's quite popular in Japan (!). Here's some news articles from Malaysia and Indonesia. For me, it should be enough evidence that it is not really an Anglocentric event. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

International popularity doesn't prove international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How does it not then, when in conjunction with substance? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Punk culture and the genre of punk rock is actually popular worldwide and influenced the modern rock genre we all know today. Vivienne Westwood is a significant part of this, and should be considered internationally notable as such. There's a substance in this, per InvadingInvader, and it cannot be ignored. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Punk is international but has never been worldwide & it's a subculture rather than mainstream. Also, how important is Westwood to it? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Punk isn't really that popular in Africa but it goes as far as Asia, including my country where it is seen as a nuisance, so I consider Punk to be worldwide. Punk used to be mainstream in the '70s and punk fashion of that time has Vivienne being a big part of this. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's never been popular in Africa, so it's certainly not worldwide. Punk has always been proudly subcultural, so how can it be considered mainstream? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Inclusion per MarioJump InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Include. Not sure about the opening blurb, but she certainly deserves a mention in the Deaths section. A very notable and influential figure in fashion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

How internationally notable is she? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Not that notable. Well compared to people like Ralph Lauren. 2601:204:CF81:EC80:D48D:85F2:364D:A875 (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that she is in the discussion for the ITN blurb, and a photo blurb in this, she may well be worthy of inclusion in the opening blurb. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

ITN's inclusion criteria are very different to ours and it's unlikely that they'll give her a blurb. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and the ITN blurb ended with a no consensus result. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude This is another person who is famous, but I wouldn't consider her internationally famous. Agree, with Jim Michael 2. Nemov (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline inclusion based on her international influence on fashion. TheScrubby (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to replace 2022 Kazakh unrest with Mahsa Amini protests in collage (Result: not done)

What do you all think? More have been arrested during the Iran protests than the former, the Iran protests have gotten a lot more attention globally, and I think it's safe to say that what happens in Iran has much more influence on global affairs than Kazakhstan.

Also a minor suggestion for the collage as well: i think a better photo could be used for the Ukraine War, maybe a photo of a destroyed building or the aftermath of a Russian airstrike TRJ2008 (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The Kazakh unrest is far more notable because of its results. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree. The world seems to care more about Mahsa Amini more. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

We go by results, not popularity/publicity. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

We go by both results and publicity. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support This event isn't just gained a lot of publicity. There are clear results - Iran is much more sidelined now and more aligned towards Russia in the world of global politics. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Iran has had poor relations with most countries for decades, but it's had good relations with Russia since Vladimir Putin came to power. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

For clarity and for easier vote counting, Support replacing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by clarity & vote counting? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It's for the person who eventually closes this discussion if it is. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose - the Kazakh protests directly led to a change of government, and far more consequential changes within Kazakhstan, whereas the same simply cannot be said for the Iranian protests. TheScrubby (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Anita Pointer (Result: borderline inclusion)

Does Anita Pointer deserve to be in the 2022 deaths list? just asking :) ShaggyAnimate (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

She's another example of a musician whose group has substantial international notability, but who has no individual international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we can let her on since she was the founder of the sisters. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

ok 👌 ShaggyAnimate (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude This is where I wouldn't stand on. Not well-known worldwide. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Reconsidered, I'm now in favor of borderline inclusion being a founding member of a well known group. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi ShaggyAnimate (talk) I have never heard of Anita Pointer. But she was one of The Pointer Sisters. That should be enough to warrant mention in 2022. Was she as on the money as Queen Elizabeth II? No way. Was she as hopelessly devoted as Olivia Newton John? Not at all. But the Pointer Sisters were so excited, they could not hide it. They did the Neutron Dance for goodness sake. OK so John, Paul George and Ringo were each successful as solo artists ... but gestalt theory reminds us the 4 mop tops were greater than the sum of their Liverpool parts, or something. Seriously though, The Pointer Sisters were BIG in the 1980s, and that should count for something. We may not know them as Anita, Bonnie, June and Ruth (except if you read the article on Wikipedia). But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be noted for their individual contribution when they die. I'm glad you said "OK" above. I just wonder why you care so much to ask the question in the first place, but not curious enough to find out who she is before you ask? Peace and Love.

It's a fair question & many editors don't know much about many of the people listed. Inclusion on main year articles requires substantial international notability & there's a lot of debate here about who to include. She's in a category that's quite often debated: musicians who don't have individual international notability, but whose groups do. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think for me it depends on if she was dominant in the group, either as a founder or a signature member. A good comparison is John McVie to Fleetwood Mac, someone who only attained notability inside the group but was internationally seen as a core member, and widely so. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Are there any band members who are in this article who you think shouldn't be, or any that aren't whom you think should be? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked hard enough; throw me some suggestions if you don't mind. The big comparison seems to be Terry Hall...and it does seem like that he was a non notable member of a lot of groups. I think that if someone gets John McVie or greater levels of fame with a band which is at the very least a bit less famous than Fleetwood Mac, we'll include the person. Pointer did so with her sisters...but I don't see Terry Hall doing something like that with the bands he played with.

Perhaps another way to phrase it, using the Catholic Church, would be including a 43-day long pope (representing Pointer) over a 75-year long bishop of Chicago (representing Hall, and I know a 75-year long bishop realistically isn't possible but you get the point I'm trying to make). == InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't include domestic religious figures, but do include Pope John Paul I. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This conversation isn't about the Catholic Church; it's about Pointer. She was part of only one group but achieved international recognition for being part of it. Terry Hall was not notable with any one single group. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You raised the topic of clergy. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I used clergy as an example to help you think. Pointer is relative positionally to the Pope compared to Terry Hall, supposedly represented in my example as a 75-year long Bishop. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude She's lacking international or domestic notability as an individual artist. There are plenty of examples of band or group members who were famous on their own, but she's not on that list. I'm an American and didn't even know who it was until I realized she was a member of the music group. Nemov (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nor I didn't know much either. She's not that well known to be honest, and I never heard of this name before. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We've had discussions about this before, and it would be a terrible idea to exclude band members who were central to the success of the internationally notable groups they were in. If they weren't a core member/founding member/classic line-up member/etc., then it would be fair enough to consider exclusion. TheScrubby (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I can live with her being added as a borderline inclusion, given that she was a founder and central member of the internationally notable Pointer Sisters. TheScrubby (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Should I remove her from the 1948 article too? Kyu (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

A borderline inclusion applies to both year articles. So no need to do anything. TheScrubby (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible edit warring

Lately I've been seeing @Jim Michael 2 violate the 3RR by engaging in consistent removal of content by other editors, notably attempting to remove Barbara Walters, Kazuki Takahashi, insisting on the addition of importance tags for Walter and Westwood, etc. I've tried to notify Jim on his talk page of this, but this seems to have largely gone ignored.

The 3RR (view at WP:3RR) states that an editor may not undo any editor's work, in part or in whole, on any single page, more than three times within any 24 hour period, and 4th or more reverts just outside of the 24 hour period may also be considered a violation.

Can we all cool it down and please stop being so heated about this page's inclusion criteria? Year's already over anyhow. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't ignored it; the only edits I've made today in regard to Walters & Westwood are on this talk page. I haven't broken 3RR, or any other rule/guideline. You must know that it means no more than 3 edits in 24h regarding the same content rather than 3 edits to the same article. I haven't removed or tagged the same person or event more than 4 times during a week, let alone in a day. Different editors have added & removed various different events & people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. 3RR says same or different content. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Even so, I don't think I've made more than 3 reverts to any page in 24 h. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The criteria don't change because the year has ended. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Please don't give too high of a bar for inclusion on the year article. It's exclusionary. I'm not really that inclusionist on year articles either by the way, as I would agree on some of your points, but just don't set it too high. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And who determines the criteria? Can you show where the criteria is? Because it seems like you're just the one who came up with the criteria without it actually being official Wikipedia policy. FireInMe (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that there's no official criteria for year articles. I suggest a RFC should be a way to go to make it definite. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. But, Jim Michael is so insistent upon said criteria I want to assume good faith that he got it from somewhere and not basing it on his personal made-up criteria then imposing it on others. FireInMe (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's been formed through consensus during many discussions that have taken place over the years on many talk pages of main year articles & the Years project, although different editors have different interpretations of the specifics. We've tried many times to define the details, but we couldn't reach a consensus on that, especially in regard to entertainers & sportspeople. Deb is an admin & she removes more (primarily) domestic people from main year articles than anyone else does, so the idea that I'm the leader in doing so is clearly untrue. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There should be a record of this WP:CONSENSUS somewhere. Do you have a link? Kire1975 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus in regard to various things relating to this has been reached on the talk pages of various main year articles. The finer details haven't been, which is one of the reasons for the frequent disagreements. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

But, consensus can change. How can you enforce present-day consensus on people on August 7, 2099? Are you going to stipulate it in your will? FireInMe (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There isn't a movement to change the consensus on anything major in regard to main year articles. Many fans (want to) add people/events. That's often accompanied by claims that they're very important - often in a double/triple/quadruple intersection &/or an obscure field - but most are excluded due to having little or no international notability. Many thousands of people are important to their fields. Main year articles need far more regular editors, but the large majority of editors who are new to main year articles merely want to add one person/event/disaster/crime/protest/law/sport/org/film/play/TV show/record/newspaper/website/business/celebrity wedding, then disappear whether they get their way or not. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems disingenuous to call people who support your degree of exclusion “regular editors” as it misrepresents ideas, establishes that to be a regular editor you have to support the currently overly exclusionary criteria, and implies an oligarchical form of ownership behavior. I’m a very regular editor here and I’m often on the inclusion side; I personally think that the article is too short and can benefit from widely recognized figures like Barbara Walters even if they’re mostly active domestically. The usage of the term “regular editors” to refer to people who think similarly to you seems to be along the same lines of Lenin when claimed to be the majority (Bolshevik) before the formal establishment of the USSR…before his rise to dictatorship, he was actually in the minority. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The classification of regular editor has nothing to do with politics, nor whether or not they agree with me; it means those who've regularly frequently edited main year articles in recent years. There's no cabal, let alone a leader; editors are welcome to join us. Like I said, very few want to; the large majority of editors of main year articles are here very briefly to add one person or (type of) thing. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe if you loosened the criteria you could be more convincing and welcoming. It's worth a shot. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Main year articles shouldn't become led by fans or pop culture. There are many sites who do that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You don’t seem to be letting too much in for pop culture though yourself, especially newer pop culture. It’s the other extreme, and both are bad. The middle road is best, but we’re presently at the other extreme. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of pop culture articles in WP & elsewhere. The vast majority of it is too trivial for main year articles. We include very few sports events & don't include any entertainment industry awards. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not include them if you're so insistent on them being part of the internationality criteria? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Events & people have to be important as well as international in order to be in main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why only go on internationalism? And don't just respond with "because that's what we do", explain WHY we do it. Don't give me something along the lines of "because I said so". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Because there are many year by country articles for domestic events & people. Main year articles have rightly long been for important international events & people only. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This reply ignores my previous request to answer "why" and not "we do this"...it just points fingers at "year in" articles. And "international", as well as what makes something international, seems pretty arbitrary...the only consistency is taking the most restrictive approach possible in recent year articles. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It makes very good sense for most of the events & people who are in year by country/topic articles to not be in main year articles. Adding domestic stuff to main year articles would lower their quality. There's long been a consensus that main year articles be international. You want things to be added to main year articles due to them being important to their country &/or field, but those are reasons for them to be on the subarticles, not main. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why he'd tag Walters with importance inlines. PaulRKil (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Because she's primarily a domestic figure & main year articles are for internationally notable people & events. See the discussion above in regard to her. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Most people seem to not be in favor of both important and international as stringent as Jim enforces it. I remember that Jim was one of the leading arguers against the inclusion of Shinzo Abe's assassination under events and the FTX collapse at all. It's gotten to be slightly absurd with enforcing internationalness. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The bickering between you two needs to be pulled back. It's getting out of hand and a little WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's clear you both have a different POV and hashing it out over every disagreement isn't productive. Nemov (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Jim Michael was correct in his edits as there was, and has been no consensus in favour of the inclusion of the domestic journalist Barbara Walters, and it is outrageous that she has been included in spite of the lack of consensus with an image. Likewise, there’s also no consensus in favour of Takahashi. TheScrubby (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Kazuki Takahashi (Result: no consensus for inclusion)

Let's settle down on this, should he be included on 2022 deaths? His work is considered to be notable worldwide internationally in regards to trading card games, and it is a big part of our childhoods. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd say borderline include. Japanese culture, just like crypto, is niche, but based on Mario's comments and my brief investigations, he's notably important to the niche InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - manga is popular internationally, but not worldwide. Trading cards are nowhere near important enough to grant someone inclusion on main year articles. He doesn't have anywhere near enough international notability for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

You said the same thing about FTX but that ended up being included. Through that, it’s established widely that niche doesn’t equal not notable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thousands of people are important to their field. We don't have quotas. What's his international notability? His only significant award is an Inkpot Award; how can that be significant enough? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a Japanese culture fan, but creating Yu Gi Oh, among the most popular franchises/brands ever and the present Guinness world record holder for most popular trading card game, meets the notability criteria. You’re looking at formal awards only and not legacy, Jim. Look more. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The same could be said for the creators of many domestic franchises which are popular in other countries. Try mentioning him to people who aren't Japanese or fans of manga/anime.

Being a record holder for something trivial is nowhere near important enough. It's nothing like the notability of winning the most Academy Awards or for running a marathon in the fastest time. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

So being the creator of the most popular of a type of thing in the WORLD is not notable? You can't be serious Jim. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Not when it's trivial. Hundreds of people are the creator of the most popular something in the world. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's include all of them then. They didn't all die in 2022. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why add the creators of the most popular of each thing to the Birth & Death sections of main year articles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

They created something internationally notable. In terms of subcultures, the fandom of Japanese comics and cartoons is among the largest in the world. It's worldwide, and nearly every country except for North Korea (maybe) the Vatican City/Holy See has devout fans to the subculture. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You're sure that manga, anime etc. are very popular across Africa? You're sure that he's one of the top figures of that field? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure that Yu-Gi-Oh has popularity in Africa in parts of the world where people are fortunate enough to access the internet in the first place, and while Takahashi's name maybe not known, his creation is. His entry should include mentioning he was the creator of Yu-Gi-Oh. Don't forget that Africa doesn't just include the stereotype of poor countries but also more connected and sometimes more well-off nations like the North African Arabian countries (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria), South Africa, and the more well-off areas of large African cities like Lagos, Dakar, Dar Es Salam, Rwanda, and Nairobi. Every inhabited continent has at least some anime fans and followers, and it's not too far of a stretch to say that Takahashi has at least one or two fans among the relatively few hundred Antarctica scientists stationed there. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Internationally and worldwide btw are practically synonyms. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

They're substantially different, because international means multiple countries whereas worldwide means all countries. For example, rugby is international but not worldwide; football is worldwide. We don't include any rugby tournaments on main year articles, but we include some football tournaments. Manga & anime are popular in some countries but not others. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Niche doesn't mean not notable, Jim. You're being too strict in your inclusion criteria. Not everything on this article has to be Pope Benedict. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude Some of these are tough, but this person isn't famous enough. The card game is notable, but it's far from a household name. I doubt many people actually know the name of the person who created it. Nemov (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, very few non-Japanese, non manga/anime fans would recognise his name. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Niche doesn't mean not notable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't know much about him either, nor people around me know him. I just happen to know his name after the death. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards borderline inclusion, but I'm okay with him not being included either. Anime/Manga, just like crypto, is niche if we're being real here. Anime/Manga is not that popular in India and Africa when compared to K-Pop, and K-Pop is also niche at a similar scale. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards exclusion because it doesn't sound like he's a really major figure in the context of manga/anime - I mean by comparison with others in the field - though obviously there is some international awareness of his work. The acid test would be if another figure known for similar work died during the year and there was debate about which of them was more important. I mean, like comparing David Bowie with Gerry Rafferty or something. Deb (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

They don't need to have died during the same year to be compared. Bowie died just over 5 years after Rafferty & I can't imagine anyone disputing that Bowie's notability is far higher. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

While I lean towards Neutral here, if Takahashi is included, it would call into question the exclusion of the authors of Doraemon, who are of comparable notability in roughly the same field. TheScrubby (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion regarding reforming the criteria on WikiProject Years talk

Hi guys; I thought I would inform you of an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years concerning changing the criteria for inclusion on main year articles. You can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposed reforms for Main Year article inclusion. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Tigray War

Three events of the Tigray War have been added. The start of a temporary ceasefire, the resumption of combat & the end of the war. The latter may be important enough for here, but the other two aren't. Ceasefires starting & ending aren't unusual. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral on the first two, but definitely include for the third. TheScrubby (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Philip Baker Hall (Result: exclusion)

Why is Philip Baker Hall not in the deaths list? I mean, hes in the 1931 article's births list so why not include him in the deaths list? ShaggyAnimate (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

He's a domestic figure, so he shouldn't be in 1931 or this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

then why dont you remove him from the 1931 article? :/ ShaggyAnimate (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed him. Nemov (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

your welcome man :) ShaggyAnimate (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude due to insufficient international notability, as per Jim Michael. And I say this as somebody who greatly enjoyed Hall in everything I’ve seen him in, especially Curb Your Enthusiasm. TheScrubby (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead rephrase proposal (Result: not done)

Change this statement from this to:

"Many prominent figures died in 2022, including world leaders..."

to:

"Notably, many of these prominent figures and iconic people on each nation died in 2022, including that world leaders of..."

This is my edit request. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done because it's grammatically incorrect & iconic isn't neutral. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

How it the term "iconic," not neutral? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's giving them strong praise. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. I would additionally recommend that the IP read WP:5P2; this encyclopedia is written in a neutral point of view. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Figures in question (Result: Sison excluded and the rest borderline inclusions)

These figures have had importance tags placed for some time now, and as far as I know there has been no actual discussion about whether or not they ought to be included. So we may as well get the ball rolling and get this resolved. Do the following figures have substantial international notability, or should they be excluded?

• Joseph Kittinger, United States Air Force officer
• Angelo Badalamenti, American composer
• Siniša Mihajlović, Serbian footballer and manager
• Jose Maria Sison, Filipino writer and activist (excluded)
• Sribhashyam Vijayasarathi, Indian writer, Sanskrit grammarian, and literary critic

As of now, consider myself Neutral for almost all, but exclude Sison. TheScrubby (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral on Kittinger, Badalamenti and Mihajlović. Exclude Sison and Vijayasarathi. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I tried to start a discussion on the tagged deaths last month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems with that discussion, only Kittinger was talked about in any detail. Where do you stand on each of these five? TheScrubby (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Include on all four, but Neutral on Sison. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

In lead? (Result: retain/status quo for Lewis, and exclude from lead for Warne)

Shane Warne

Should Shane Warne be added to the lead of this page? Along with Pelé he is easily one of the two most notable sportspeople to die this year, and just as how Pelé is internationally regarded as an icon of association football, Warne is internationally regarded as an icon of cricket - and both soccer and cricket are in the top tier of most internationally notable and played sports. TheScrubby (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I understand why Warne is included in the article, but he's not even close to being the same level of fame or notoriety as Pelé. For the parts of the world that don't play Cricket no one would know who Warne is (I certainly had never heard of him). Nemov (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Warne may be the second-most notable sportsperson to have died last year, but he's not close to being as notable or well-known as Pelé. Warne is very well-known in Australia, and a substantial proportion of people in other cricketing countries have heard of him. In the rest of the world, few have. Pelé was world famous. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Jerry Lee Lewis

JLL has been removed & reinstated to the lead. His international popularity was fairly small & mostly in the UK & Canada. He's international enough for Deaths, but not the lead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Retain - Lewis has rightly been included in the lead since his death, and I’m amazed that people are now trying to remove him. Hugely important figure in music history, and a major figure in the development of rock and roll. Indeed, Lewis was arguably the last surviving major rock star of the 1950s, and his substantial notability and influence was strongly felt among subsequent generations of musicians. Easily one of the most notable deaths of the year, especially in music. TheScrubby (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral on this one. He is obviously iconic but I’m not sure how deserving he is, and you can make equal arguments for both sides. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say in terms of musical figures, his was the most notable passing of 2022 - along with Olivia Newton-John, although she was also well known as an actress. TheScrubby (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I've gone back and forth on this, but Retain per TheScrubby. Lewis was a superstar in his era and very influential throughout the world of rock music. Nemov (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Fabián O'Neill (Result: exclusion)

can we add Fabián O'Neill to the deaths list? i feel like he's notable enough to be in here don't you think? La Orca Masorca (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

He isn't internationally notable enough. Thousands of notable people have done notable work in multiple countries, including sportspeople, entertainers, artists, scientists etc. Major accomplishments are needed to qualify for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards exclusion. No denying he's notable, but relatively so is the question. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline Exclusion - Not really high profile enough to be mentioned here. Nemov (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude as per Jim Michael and Nemov. TheScrubby (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of Barbara Walters in Deaths

Should Barbara Walters be included as an entry under the Deaths section? Continued from a previous discussion in which no consensus was reached. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - There's no doubt that Walters is a famous American broadcaster. The year article represents the entire world and has a stricter barrier for inclusion. In this case, Walters isn't notable outside of the United States. She has received very little international coverage during her career. Walter's death is perfectly fine for inclusion at 2022 in the United States, but falls significantly short for this article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude as per Nemov as well as my previous comments on the matter, which is that Walters was a predominately domestic journalist whose international counterparts (such as Angela Rippon and Jana Wendt) would not have been included, nor would discussions have gone on as long as they have had she been from any other country. The achievements cited by other users arguing for her inclusion in the previous discussion are relevant to the US, but are in no way an indicator of international notability, which in her case is insufficient for inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude due to a lack of international notability. Please drop the stick. We have more important things to do than waste weeks reviving this settled discussion. Many journalists have long careers & interview important people. There's no chance that we'd include an equivalent journalist from any other country. Imagine you're not American, you've only vaguely heard of her & you'd struggle to talk about her for 30 seconds. Now tell me honestly if you'd be persistently pushing for her to be in an international article. Main year articles will never have a quota for domestic figures. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - she's listed in the United States' 2022 page, which should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude per above arguments, not of international significance. Ortizesp (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. I've already debated this in the previous discussion (which I recommend the closer also read and consider), but I have some additional subsequent thoughts. A criteria that excludes Walters is a bad criteria, plain and simple. The above comments about excluding Americentrism are borderline WP:POINT, and while Americentrism exists, the exclusion of Walters only promotes Anti-Americanism, the exclusion of people just for being American, which itself is worse if implemented across years. Walters is an obvious inclusion for being the woman who became the Mahatma Ghandi and Barack Obama of both television journalism and female representation within it. Just because she was American doesn't mean she should be excluded, and save for maybe North Korea and its KCNA, no female TV journalist anywhere would not cite Walters as an inspiration or at least someone who helped her to where she is today. Some commenters have also suggested that coverage doesn't equal notability; this is a case where much of the coverage of the death was American but her influence was felt far throughout the world. Across the world, we credit her for not just punching the glass ceiling but nuking it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Her having been American is nothing to do with why we're against her being included. The criteria were formed years before she died. You're greatly overstating her international influence. You portray her as having been at the top of her field, but her international notability is well below that of Christiane Amanpour. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)