Jump to content

Talk:2023

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.99.81.33 (talk) at 08:22, 5 February 2024 (→‎Doomsday Clock Setting.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Collage

2023 is now halfway done and I think we can start working on a collage. There will obviously be moments later in the year that would replace some of those I'm about to mention. Anyway here's my suggestions:

The Turkish Earthquake

The Titan Implosion

Charles' coronation

The rise of AI

The spy balloon incident

The Israeli Judicial reform protests

The Wagner rebellion

The Sudanese conflict TRJ2008 (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am of the opinion we shouldn't have a dedicated discussion on the collage until say late-November or December. A lot can happen in another 6 months so I'd rather we just let it play out before we focus on the collage. That being said, in my opinion some of the events suggested I don't think reflect this year or at least aren't as impactful as others. The events in question that you have listed are; The Titan Implosion - It doesn't have any impact on much, Charles' Coronation - Debatable but is likely not going to get past voting, Spy Balloon - It was impactful but feel wasn't as notable as other events, Wagner Rebellion - Could be really impactful but I suggest just waiting and seeing how it pans out. CaptainGalaxy 14:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have already come to a concensus on the collage
We have added the earthquakes, the Brazillian congress attack, the banking crsis, and the ICC's arrest warrant for Putin. You can find the links to the images on the edit page. Thanks for trying DementiaGaming (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the end of the year is near, and people vote on photos to include, I happily volunteer to make this collage! The ganymedian (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should wait until the end of the year, I can't wait to see what the collage will look like. 4me689 (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is a collage discussion here, about a early version of the 2023 collage that was made, for anybody interested. 4me689 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's to be a collage, definitely include the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes. X2023X (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should Rupert Murdoch's retirement merit an entry?

Should Rupert Murdoch retiring as chairman of News Corp and Fox merit an entry for this page? I'm looking for a consensus, because I've seen the entry added, then removed, then added--by others, not me. Does Murdoch deserve an entry on this page, or could this just belong on an article about developments in the media industry in 2023 for example?

Murdoch is a powerful individual whose media empire spans Australia, the UK, and the United States, but on the other hand he's not extremely well-known or a politician holding elected office, and his companies have significant competition. He is unique because he & his family own his media companies, while most of his competitors are publicly traded corporations. Murdoch's retirement will also not have a direct impact regarding the content from his companies (i.e. Sky News Australia, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, the Sun, etc.) and I can't recall similar entries if other billionaires retire from their powerful and well-known companies (i.e. Jeff Bezos retiring as CEO but staying as Chairman of the board of Amazon or Bill Gates stepping down from Microsoft's board). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong include. "Not extremely well-known" - eh? Apart from being the most powerful media magnate in human history? And no, he wasn't "a politician holding elected office", but the influence of his media over elections, and politics in general, has been undeniably huge. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
include, it's a big news story, definitely belongs on this page. 4me689 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Include. Murdoch was one of the most powerful people on the planet, and his son Lachlan will soon be too now that he's going to own it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Exclude because we don't include when other CEOs step down from influential organizations as you mentioned with both Gates and Bezos, and it won't have an effect the day to day of those organizations in any capacity though I am open to inclusion if there are good enough arguments in favor of it. PaulRKil (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gates and Bezos did not have the same impact that the Murdochs had on world affairs despite running larger companies. This is most likely due to their actions being more focused on their industries, which while presenting exponential benefits to the consumer, did not topple governments or come close to toppling governments the same way the Murdochs did. If you would prefer consistency however I am open to inclusion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its a hard one to gauge for me but you make a good point, Murdoch is probably the most powerful media tycoon since William Randolph Hearst. I'm open to inclusion on that. PaulRKil (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude - A person would have to be far more important than Murdoch is to justify his/her retirement being included as an "event". Deb (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude - Murdoch's businesses will continue. It'd have to be a head of state/gov or Pope for their retirement to be included. Businesspeople, sportspeople, entertainers etc. retiring aren't important enough. X2023X (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 2023 Hanoi building fire be included?

Should the 2023 Hanoi building fire be included on the page? While the death toll seems to be relatively high for this type of accident, there does not seem to be any further impact, both locally and globally. I would exclude, and removed the entry, but it was later re-added by another editor. Carter00000 (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really of note to the wider timeline of events, and has smaller due weight than other events both in impact and coverage. I would advocate for its exclusion for now. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude because it didn't have as much due weight locally, much less globally. It would merit an entry for 2023 in Vietnam or an article about fire safety disasters in 2023 due to its death toll, but not this page. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
exclude, this is not really that known by the General Public. 4me689 (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Include, 50+ deaths, and the victims received condolences from the leaders of several other countries. Also, according to the Vietnamese Wikipedia article, there was a three-day suspension of activities in the area as a moment of silence for the victims. This is definitely more important than some things we do have in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the recent acquisitions by Cisco & Tapestry be included?

I note that user Wjfox2005 has removed two entries relating to recent acquisitions by Cisco & Tapestry.

The edit summaries for the removals don't seem to cite any consensus or policy which is readily apparent or documented.

  • Splunk isn't exactly a household name, and I heard nothing of this merger from any news outlet. So this entry just doesn't seem notable enough.
  • Totally irrelevant, boring and non-notable business event

Should these recent acquisitions by Cisco & Tapestry be included? Carter00000 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude. But I'd support their inclusion in 2023 in the United States. As far as I can tell, these events have received little or no coverage internationally (certainly not here in the UK). There might be a case for inclusion of the first one, due to its size. The second one is considerably less at $8.5bn, which I don't view as notable for 2023. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Include. All four of the main entities (acquirer and acquired) involved in the two acquisitions are market leaders in their respective industries. Both industries are likely to be significantly impacted by these acquisitions. Carter00000 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude. Of little interest to most of the world. Deb (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Include. It's frankly bullcrap to claim that Michael Kors, Coach, and Versace aren't notable based on both the older criteria and new due weight guidelines. Likewise with Cisco and to a lesser but still consequential extent Splunk. I do not think that previous commenters recognize the impact that either mega-merger involves, which while not being as big dollar-wise, absolutely shakes up two of the most prominent industries in the world today: cybersecurity and luxury goods. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"absolutely shakes up" – how, exactly? Who will it affect? Which countries, or aspects of society, etc.? I mean, maybe it does have an impact, and maybe I'm ignorant, but it wasn't at all clear from the entries you posted. Some additional explanation is needed (but in a concise way), for the layman. Mergers and acquisitions are happening all the time in the world of business, so what makes these events special enough to include on 2023? Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjfox2005 apologies for the late reply; been working on other things. Tackling Cisco/Splunk first: Well aside from the $28 billion price tag, a number which alone should merit some mention, this is the largest acquisition in the software field as of recent. Cisco and Splunk companies are major in an industry becoming more relevant by the day, especially considering that cybersecurity has been the focus of two of the last four new articles I've written myself (Scattered Spider which hacked MGM and Caesars, as well as the alleged 2023 Sony ransomware hack). Sony needs no elaboration, and Scattered Spider's attack in particular hit nearly every aspect of Las Vegas and everyone who has ever gambled at the two largest casino companies in the world, which is a LOT of people. MGM's hack also brought down BetMGM, which many in the US and the UK use to do their sports betting. All of this highlights the crucialness of the cybersecurity industry which you seem to have played down, and an acquisition of one of the largest companies in this sector is undoubtedly notable in world events. Just because you didn't get a CNN alert on something doesn't mean it's not notable or that notability per the DUE Weight guidelines is fulfilled. An argument which states that cybersecurity doesn't matter is inherently ignorant or against the industry.
As for Tapestry and Capri, the luxury market is generally Eurocentric. The two largest luxury companies are Kering and LVMH, and all are French houses which have started to eat up American companies like Tiffany and Company for LVMH and Maui Jim for Kering. Further consider that these brands are among the most recognized brands in the world; Louis Vuitton per Forbes is more recognizable than nearly every company in the world save for Big Tech companies, Disney, and Coca-Cola. Tapestry, Capri, LVMH and Kering control nearly every major luxury brand in the world today, save for Ralph Lauren, Prada, Rolex and Hermes. According to the SCMP and UBuy, Versace and Michael Kors (Capri) are the 6th and 7th most popular luxury brands in the world, and Coach New York (Tapestry) is the 10th. Anything big involving any of the top luxury brands in the world should be here as well. Again, while your personal opinion on luxury is free to disregard these fashion houses, it's BS to think that the globe at large doesn't focus on these brands.
As an ancillary point, not only are these corporations notable for their industry impact, but also have the eyes of Wall Street and traders worldwide focused on them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks, I appreciate the more detailed explanation. I'm slightly more open to inclusion now. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about some arbitrary and mundane corporate acquisition! Why is this in the summary of the year 2023??? Cisco or Tapestry (who even are these companies..?) acquiring another company no one heard of or cares about is of no interest to the general public, neither is some large fashion company acquiring another company. This is completely unlike the advancement of AI technology or the one or two companies pushing forward revolutionary products to the public. Please get rid of the commercial acquisitions. This was clearly included by some self-important investment banker or corporate lawyer who's trying to justify that their monkey-scribe work has any real importance to the history of human beings. It does not, and it should not be included in the SUMMARY of 2023 which has far more important things to be mentioned. Unless they are historical game-changing mergers or acquisitions which fundamentally change the way we live, they do not even warrant a footnote in a wiki article about 2023 - this adds NOTHING to the collective conscience. 2605:B100:739:20E:914C:4766:ED68:214E (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude. Not every business acquisition/dealing needs to be included and these in particular seem to not impact much of the world outside of these businesses, reflected by the little news coverage. Yeoutie (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude these are acquisitions, not mergers, and I don't think they're that notable on a global scale. PaulRKil (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Include Tapestry, Exclude Cisco, Versace is a big name company which is under the ownership of Tapestry, so Tapestry should be included, Exclude the Cisco acquisition because outside of the business world this was not covered that much, im open to maybe discussing inclusion requirements for business buyouts/acquisitions in a future discussion or RFC. 4me689 (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 2023 Mastung bombing be included?

I note that user JohnAdams1800 has removed an entry relating to the 2023 Mastung bombing.

The edit summaries for the removals don't seem to cite any consensus or policy which is readily apparent or documented.

  • The September 29th Pakistan bombing had a significant death toll and importance (it occurred on an Islamic holiday), but doesn't have enough importance internationally for this article.

Should this event be included? Carter00000 (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude, as I removed it because such events routinely and tragically occur around the world, including on days of national importance and religious significance. This event merits an entry in the article about 2023 in Pakistan, but not this page because it has smaller due weight than other events in coverage and impact. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline exclude, Yes true that this does have a big death toll, but I don't know if the general public knows it that much outside of the area affected, tho I am open to changing my mind if a good argument is told. 4me689 (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline include. There aren't policies or guidelines aside from consensus which support exclusion here. This is a very high death toll compared to most other events, so I would say that the due weight guidelines for now would support a weak argument for inclusion. I would be open to changing my opinion if a better argument for exclusion can be made. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any appetite for combining the Mustung and Hangu mosque bombing in the same entry as they both occurred on the same day in Pakistan and both had religious undertones? Would perhaps solidify the notability of these religious terror attacks. Example: September 29 – During Mawlid celebrations in Pakistan, terrorists bomb a festival and a mosque, resulting in the deaths of 65 people. Yeoutie (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should add it back in in this style. DementiaGaming (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this course of action. I think merging the two events into one entry is a good idea and would definitely help solidify the notability of the entry. Carter00000 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prizes Rationale

I'm curious on the thoughts in adding Nobel Prizes Rationale to the the Nobel Prizes section which I just did here. In my opinion it's an improvement to the section because it gives you the reason why they were nominated in the first place giving more context to that area. I'm thinking of putting this on WP years talk, but I don't feel like putting that on there yet. 4me689 (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should 100% be included. However, now that you've started this discussion here, I suspect we'll see a repeat of previous years' debates on whether Nobel Prizes should even be mentioned at all on year pages. Sadly there seems to be a small, hardcore minority of anti-intellectual editors, ferociously opposed to their inclusion (perhaps they just hate science, humanity, and progress?). I hope the sensible majority of people resist these efforts to dumb-down the page again. Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this section isn't about the whole Nobel Peace Prize section, just on people's thoughts on adding the Rationale to the section. 4me689 (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your presumption that editors in opposition to their inclusion might "just hate science, humanity and progress" is telling. To slander them as a collective as being "anti-intellectual" is even more so. Assume good faith and remain civil.
I oppose their inclusion because they are awarded by a private, non-governmental organisation. In response, I’ve been told that they represent the pinnacle of human achievement. Which begs the question: why are these fields of human achievement of more value than any or all others? Why not include the Academy Awards for best actor and best actress in each year’s article? We should not provide any organisation with such special treatment. Asperthrow (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Put them in their own section. They can fit on a timeline, but given that it's gonna look like October 1 is one prize, October 2 is another, and October 3 is third. I would suggest that we even consider putting awards separated from the heading. Think like this:

Awards
Academics

Just an idea. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the inclusion of rationale for the winners, but the rationales should be brief and include additional citations if necessary. Not all entries may need a rationale (i.e. the 2023 chemistry and physics prizes for original discoveries) or may already have one (i.e. the 2023 Physiology or Medicine entry). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for the inclusion Noble Prize winners and for rationales for each winner, as the entries seem incomplete without the rationales. Carter00000 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collage Discussions

Final image for the collage

October is here, and we have already come to the consensus for seven images on the 2023 collage, as you can see on the edit page. There have been two major conflicts within the past month that are both candidates for the eighth picture on the collage, both with major implications. The first one is the September Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It only resulted in the death of around 440 people and only persisted for one day, but ended in the inception of major protests within Armenia, the egression of over 100,000 Armenians (one-third of the population of the region) from Nagorno-Karabakh, and the partition of the region unto Azerbaijan.

The second preference is the Gaza-Israeli engagement. As of this post, it has started today, but has already ended the lives of of 530 people and may amplify into a full-scale war within the next few days. However, unlike the Nagorno-Karabakh war, there is less peril or certainty for genocide like the Nagorno-Karabakh situation.

Both regions have a lengthy, significant history to them, and both are favorable for displaying on the collage. There is also two months left to the year, so if another major world event transpires, we may have to remove an event. I added the Hawai'i wildfires as a image to the collage, so I affirm that I am entitled to say that it might be a candidate for not being critical enough to be on the collage if such a major event happens. Let me know what you guys think. DementiaGaming (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, because it likely ended the conflict (1988-2023) after the 2023 Azerbaijan offensive and the dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh on January 1, 2024. It's very specific to this year and had a major impact with the exodus of over 100,000 Armenians and the deaths of about 440 people.
The Gaza-Israeli conflict is part of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict, which has been ongoing since 1948 and has its own long and detailed articles. I don't think it work well for a collage for just 2023, though it is the first time Israel has declared war since the 1973 Yom-Kippur War. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if the conflict becomes a major war that results in thousands of deaths DementiaGaming (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the Gaza Israel conflict. While it is part of an existing conflict, this is a major escalation and has resulted in the first declaration of war by Israel in fifty years. As I’m typing this, Israel is also seemingly launching an offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. To John Adams’ point, the same could be said about the Azerbaijan conflict as it’s part of a decades long post soviet conflict. This is definitely a larger global event. PaulRKil (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I agree. Hundreds of innocent women and children are being massacred by Hamas. DementiaGaming (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per consensus, I have removed the Hawai'i wildfires and added both conflicts. I will ask The ganymedian to do this collage, as he said we would do it. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, we might as well add two or three images for the Israeli conflict, i.e. the hostages, the music festival massacre, the battle of Sderot... DementiaGaming (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. The ganymedian is one of a handful of contributors who seem interested in little beyond getting their graphics into the public eye. Deb (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collage suggestion

The Israel-Hamas war has dominated this year's news, it seems to me that Jesus will return sooner or later. I think we should add 3 images relating to the war on the collage. Certainly, we will add 2 pictures, but do you guys think we should add 3? DementiaGaming (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to 2 images, because the war began in October and is part of the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict which has been ongoing since 1948. As stated above, I support one image from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the 2023 collage (i.e. the exodus of 100,000 Armenians) in the collage. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Collage Suggestion
File:Isr vs pla war.jpg

@DementiaGaming: You say that the specific image suggestions can be found at the edit page. Where is that? (found the list of events at The ganymedian's talk page). I would like to discuss that we begin making our collages using the multiple image template, mainly because images can can be viewed in a higher resolution when clicked. Here's a draft from me:

  • International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova
  • Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians
  • 2023 Israel-Hamas war
  • 2023 Chinese balloon incident
  • 2023 United States banking crisis
  • Cyclone Daniel
  • 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake
Marginataen (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the images by clicking "edit" on this 2023 page. These are the consensus images
Collage Suggestion
File:2023 in a nutshell.jpg

DementiaGaming (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DementiaGaming: I'll just comment on my choice of events. I didn't include Putin's arrest warrant. It's basically just a continuation of the war in Ukraine and its not like he was going to vist the U.S. hadn't it been issued.
I suggest including the War in Sudan instead. It was a war that started in 2023 and was caused the deaths of tens of thousands and above 1 million refugees. I've also included Charles coronation. I belive it was a huge event. If Israel launched a full on ground invasion of Gaza, some picture of that would probably replace the one of a Hamas missile, albeit speculation.
Something that might also be worth considering is the Wagner Group rebellion; the first real blow to Putin's power in 20 years Marginataen (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we included the arrest warrant was the reason behind it - over 700,000 children have been unlawfully deported and transferred by Russia since 2022, which escalated this year. I think, for that reason, it is more important than the war in Sudan. It is the first time they have issued an arrest warrant for a world leader, anyway. DementiaGaming (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've now made this proposal in which I have included (clockwise, from top left) the following eight event:

My suggestion:
Collage Suggestion
ArionStar (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the things that have been proposed, and from the perspective of "finalizing" the year....meh. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Events that clearly change the history of the year 2023 (Brazilian attack, Turkish earthquake, Chinese balloon, Israeli war, Hawaiian fires) shouldn't be scraped out. ArionStar (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two of these events are domestic: nobody was killed and only 84 people were arrested in the Brazilian Congress attack, and nobody outside Brazil was aware of it. I guess the Hawaii wildfires did have an impact on most Pacific countries, but the death toll of the wildfires was only 97 DementiaGaming (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I further note that the Chinese balloon incident, while involved more then one country, was essentially a non-event hyped up by the media. The event had no lasting effect or impact on anything in the end. Carter00000 (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"nobody outside Brazil was aware of it"...it's clear that we don't live in the same world. I suppose there will be little difference between what you say and your opinion about the assault on the capitol.
And totally agree with Carter on Chinese balloon incident. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Capital attack was indeed international news and it's absolutely wrong to say that nobody outside of Brazil head of it. But still, I don't think it should be included in the collage Marginataen (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I worded my message wrong: Nearly nobody outside Brazil had been impacted heavily by it. DementiaGaming (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DementiaGaming: I disagree; just see Reactions to the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack#International. The article is also in good condition, well referenced, and by the way, there is the article Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen during the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack too. ArionStar (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a new draft. Thoughts?
Collage Suggestion
Clockwise, from top left: Israeli IDF forces during ground operations in the Gaza Strip after the breakout of the Israel–Hamas war • After increased tension, Yevgeny Prigozhin (pictured), leader of the Wagner Group, stages a one day rebellion against Russia's leadership, dying in a plane crash two months later • Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh • Charles III and his wife Camilla are crowned as king and queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms • Refugees flee to Chad from a new war in Sudan • Consequent to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the flags of NATO and Finland are raised ouside the Finnish parliament as the country joins the alliance • The Storm Daniel creates havoc across the Mediterranean • Destroyed buildings in the Hatay Province of Turkey after Turkey and Syria are hit by a series of major earthquakes
  • I nominate the inclusion of the following events for consideration (with some events repeated from previous nominations).
  1. Croatia adopts the euro and joins the Schengen Area
  2. 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake,
  3. Northern Ireland Protocol
  4. High Seas Treaty
  5. Iran and Saudi Arabia agree to resume diplomatic relations, Acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS
  6. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
  7. Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO
  8. Developments relating to Global Warming
  9. 2023 Israel–Hamas war
Carter00000 (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only support the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake and the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. Those two events have received international coverage and have extremely high due weight due to their death toll and severity. The other events are important, but are not highlights for this year in my opinion. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. DementiaGaming (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the last photo I would post here about the Israel-Hamas war is of two politicians, one not even directly involved in the conflic; the (mutual) bombings, the Hamas assassinations in Israel or the escape of the Gazans is by far the most important and remarkable thing..... _-_Alsor (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this sentiment and propose that a image showing the missile trails in the sky be included, given their recognisability and the likely association with the conflict. Carter00000 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either we show an image of bombed Gaza or the atrocities by Hamas. By chosing either, we sort of take a stance/frame it. However, this event is the one most likely to change before the end of the year, so I would rather wait. Marginataen (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collage depreciation

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy on this page

Alright, so the news about Israel formally declaring war on Hamas on October 8th has now been merged back in with the news of the initial Hamas attack on October 7th two times now. This is clearly misleading readers. You wouldn't change the specific dates of declarations of war against Germany and Japan in WW2, right? I see no valid reason to merge the two items, one is the attack and the other is a formal declaration of war in response. Two seperate events on seperate days. How is this even an issue? It should be noted that the main article includes the declaration of war under October 8th. GWA88 (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge. Given that the two events are directly connected to each other, with one being the direct consequence of the other. The events also occurred in a very short time frame, on consecutive days, within less then 48 hours. The general practice on this page is to reduce the number of entries, given the wide range of events the page potentially covers, so a split in the entries which you propose is not normally done. If needed, the sperate dating can be noted in the merged entry.
It is also suggested you moderate your tone. Accusations of clearly misleading readers, issues with historical accuracy, and asking How is this even an issue?, are both unhelpful and uncivil, especially when you know consensus is against you. Carter00000 (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus established yet. That's why I've started the discussion. GWA88 (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you are reverted twice by two different people, you can consider the general consensus to be against you, unless a formal discussion results in a different outcome. You may review WP:EDITCON for more information. Carter00000 (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. It should be noted that even if the events occurred in a very short time frame, on consecutive days, within less then 48 hours, that's still seperate events on seperate days. General practice or not the fact remains that the declaration of war by the Security Cabinet of Israel happened on October 8th, 2023. GWA88 (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCarthy removal?

I'm curious why the recent events in the US house haven't been mentioned on this page. I feel like it's important to include given its rarity and impact on US politics.

I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor, but I feel like American politics is rarely mentioned in these disambiguation pages? I understand not wanting Western politics to overrun the wiki, especially given the makeup of its editor base, but I think there's been a small over-correction. Or maybe I'm just biased myself lol :p Beccabecco (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCarthy's removal was purely domestic politics and belongs in 2023 in the United States. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the article about 2023 for the whole world, not the United States or any other individual country. Only national events that have enough due weight internationally are featured on this page. General elections for individual countries are regularly featured on this page, but not domestic political events unless they are important enough to have a direct international impact. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second the comments made by Wjfox2005 and JohnAdams1800 - to include this event on the main 2023 page would be Americentrism, particularly as if this exact event happened in any other country, nobody would raise a peep/bring this up for debate at all. We have 2023 in the United States for this. TheScrubby (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly disagree with the above comments and say VERY strong include the ouster of Kevin McCarthy. Just because 2023 in the United States exists doesn't mean that international notability should be reigned in yet again, see User:InvadingInvader/Against international notability. The exclusion of Kevin McCarthy's removal represents a failure to follow the Due Weight policies. Considering that this was the vote heard around the world, and reported by numerous sources including but not limited to NHK in Japan, DW in Germany, Al Jazeera and ArabNews from the Arab World, ABC in Australia, and The Wire in India, and further considering that all of these sources list the ouster as unprecedented, this domestic event has high importance in world history. To respond particularly to @TheScrubby in saying that the removal of Kevin McCarthy is Americentrism, what about Liz Truss in 2022? She was not too much more notable than McCarthy. One could say that her 45 days being included but not McCarthy's 270 days in the following year could actually be British-centrism. Moreover, if we include her but not McCarthy, that's not preventing Americentrism. It's fostering Anti-Americanism. May I remind you that Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view, not biasing in favor of, or against, any country. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I unequivocally reject any notion of “anti-Americanism” when I stand against Americentrism (and will continue to call out and stand against with such blatant examples, such as this). Kevin McCarthy was not a head of government or state, and his international equivalents would never be seriously considered for this page. This does not include Liz Truss; there is absolutely zero equivalence with Truss, who was Prime Minister and head of government of one of the world’s most powerful and influential countries. I’ve given my two cents, as has Wjfox2005 and JohnAdams1800, and I’m not about to get into any habit of WP:BLUDGEONING, so I’m not going to comment further on this thread. TheScrubby (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
VERY strong include. Hello, as someone we in living in Denmark, Europe, I can testify that McCarthy's removal was breaking news and I know – as @InvadingInvader has pointed out – that the same was the case in many other countries. Both Danish analysts (for instance here use Google Translate) as well as CNN here has pointed out that I might greatly impact U.S. aid to Ukraine. Here is also a mention in the mainstream Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun. I believe it should absolutely be reinserted into the article. Marginataen (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Include, per the reasons given by those supporting inclusion above. Carter00000 (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now put an updated version back in Marginataen (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the recent RFC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years which actually ruled that we should be basing inclusion off of due weight. Another discussion on that page presently is actually discussing whether or not we are firmly deprecating international notability, and as Carter suggested below, whether it already was deprecated. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude. McCarthy's removal is not 'important in world history' and I have to agree with above that any comparison with Truss, the leader of a country, is ridiculous. Agree that this is a perfect entry on the 2023 in the United States for being a purely domestic political event. Yeoutie (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel compelled to again remind participants that inclusion is not based on any arbitrary criteria but on the Due Weight policies, per WP:DUE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Exclude because he hasn't been a head of state/gov & there's no chance that we'd include such an event in any other country. It's not even on 2023 in politics, so why should it be on here? X2023X (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Hospital

I feel as though we should discuss whether to keep the hospital explosion in Gaza on here. Many sources, including official U.S. and Israeli reports say the explosion was caused by the Islamic Jihad, and really only affected the parking lot of the hospital. It seems more and more unlikely that 500+ people were killed by this. The ganymedian (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the death toll is definitely under 500 from the information at this point, with it being as low as 50 by some estimates. I wonder if there is an argument for inclusion based on the international condemnation and reactions in its aftermath? Yeoutie (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no argument for leaving it as is. It didn’t happen the way it says it did, it should at the very least be changed to reflect the reality of the situation. Even just adding something like “the story was later confirmed as false” would be a great improvement. GevBen (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you say this, it makes me question weather it should be put on here. The death toll estimates mostly put it lower than the music festival massacre, so I take back my other comment. I feel like we should wait, though. DementiaGaming (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable as a second image for the Gaza war. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact that this story was thoroughly debunked, it’s an actual outrage that it is still up in this article. I thought this website was dedicated to delivering information, not putting up random false stories to further some agenda. I don’t want to just delete it unilaterally, but the longer it stays there the more potential damage it can cause. It needs to be removed ASAP. GevBen (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has simply been such a covered story by reliable sources that I believe it should have a mention. However, it should of course be said that initial reports were wrong Marginataen (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the wording of the entry to include a range of casualty estimates. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023

I recently added the Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023, joined with the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado to the list. This inclusion was reverted 22 hours later by Wjfox2005, saying it belonged in the 2023 in the United States article, which it already was. My inclusion was based on two parts: (1) the notability, which included local, state, and national responses, including the US National Guard being activated & (2) the shear size of media attention. It is common to include large, single-country disasters in the yearly article (not just country yearly article) if there is an extreme media attention. A few Google searches indicate over 500 media articles (Google news tab) from this event, just Googling “Rolling Fork tornado” (strongest/deadliest tornado of the event) and “Amory tornado” (Just one of 3 different EF3 tornadoes). The disaster article (parent) did appear on Wikipedia’s ITN section. While it wasn’t outside the United States, several international sources (dozens from those 2 Google searches only) came up, including this one by News Corp Australia, based on the opposite side of the world. Notability of the outbreak/stand-alone EF4 tornado article warrant inclusion on this list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjfox2005: I'm wanting to ping you again, since you have reverted the edit once again. Can you discuss it here? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"...local, state, and national responses" – exactly. Not international. If the tornadoes had occurred along the U.S.-Canada or U.S.-Mexico borders, or if some sort of international response had occurred (e.g. overseas aid), you might have a case. Death toll of 26 is hardly notable for 2023. There are myriad other disasters around the world this year, some with much higher death tolls, that weren't included. Given your username, I suspect you may have a bias here ;-) Wjfox2005 (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn’t an international aid response, but there was international media response. Independent in the UK did an article about one of the tornadoes, not even the deadliest or strongest. Yet, it received international media attention. If this list truly requires an international response, then I can go on a short deletion spree since there is a good amount of single country events. I implore you do self-revert and re-add the tornado outbreak. Article from Australia and here is one from India. It is clear that there is hundreds of news articles about this tornado outbreak and dozens of international news articles from several countries. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjfox2005 This is a personal attack, Given your username, I suspect you may have a bias here ;-). and not helpful for this discussion. Carter00000 (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I further note Wjfox2005 edit summary This was a DOMESTIC event. No international notability. Death toll wasn't high enough for inclusion on 2023. Cheers!. The use of such criteria was recently deprecated by consensus, following a ANI filing and sitewide RFC. Carter00000 (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the consensus now, then okay. And sorry for my personal attack @WeatherWriter. Feel free to re-add the entry. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove'. Just like that helicopter crash in Ukraine, 26 people is just not enough. Take the 2023 India floods, for example, which killed 400+ people but isn't on this page. DementiaGaming (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DementiaGaming, see below for that inclusion discussion. I should note, there was an ANI filing followed by a large-scale RfC which deemed each event has it’s own DUE weight discussion to determine it, i.e. domestic-only events can be included. Do you have any other reason besides the invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF reasoning for exclusion of this event? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The outbreak also didn’t break any records as far as I’m aware, none of the tornadoes had a high wind speed or reached EF5 damage, and in my opinion tornadoes that don’t have EF5 damage shouldn’t be on these articles. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That logic would exclude the 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado, which caused $2.4 billion in damage and is the 2nd costliest tornado in history (more than all but one EF5 tornado). That would also exclude the 2013 El Reno tornado, the widest tornado ever recorded in history. In all honesty, that is horrible reasoning. Well, you can have your opinions and reasoning, but to note, I obviously disagree with you, given the sheer international attention this outbreak and Rolling Fork tornado received. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny that you violate the same rule that you accused me of violating two comments ago on the same discussion. DementiaGaming (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mine is different as you stated “in my opinion tornadoes that don’t have EF5 damage shouldn’t be on these articles”, and I just pointed out how tornadoes with costlier damage totals than EF5s & the record-widest tornado in global history wouldn’t make that cut. I didn’t call you out on OTHERSTUFF, just made a point-blank observation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S.) To tack on, it has huge WP:LASTING effects, with even a full-on Washington Post article a week ago on it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monterey Park shooting, Brovary helicopter crash & 2023 Brussels shooting

I note that Marginataen has recently added the following entries:

Are these event notable enough for inclusion on this page? Carter00000 (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the mass shooting in Monterey Park might actually be on the verge Marginataen (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Ukrainian helicopter crash, as the other two events don't have enough due weight internationally. The Ukrainian helicopter crash received international coverage and had a high death toll including a member of Ukraine's government. The shooting in California is a domestic event that is quite common in the United States, while the Brussels shooting doesn't have a high enough death toll and didn't have much international coverage outside of Europe. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this proposal to only include the Ukrainian helicopter crash. Carter00000 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support only including the helicopter crash. Marginataen (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Ukrainian helicopter crash should be included. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that only the Brovary crash meets the due weight policy. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the Ukrainian helicopter crash due to DWP. So, now we're adding random helicopter crashes with low death tolls. It almost fits an entry, but not quite. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Langarud drug rehabilitation center fire--Merit and Citation

Does this event merit an entry on this article? I'm looking for a consensus; I'm not very familiar with the event, but I haven't seen this widely reported anywhere (i.e. Aljazeera, the New York Times, Washington Post, Euronews, AP News, etc.) except for Fars News Agency (Iran's state media) and it seems to be purely local.

I personally oppose the entry for now, as it seems to lack due weight--I haven't seen it being widely reported on any reputable news site and hasn't evoked any major reactions in Iran itself from the government.

Also can someone add a citation for the event if we decide to keep it? There's no citation for the event. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude. A domestic incident, and the casualty count isn't notable enough for inclusion on 2023. If, say, 100 or more had died, and there were some international element (such as multiple nationalities among the deaths), it might be worth including. Also, the editor doesn't help their case by omitting a citation. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change to the DMY format

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

On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2023.

. Marginataen (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I would support this, as it's more international as you say. But going through the entire history of humanity and changing each entry would surely be a mammoth task. Unless there's a quick fix? Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I would at the very least personally go through all articles until 1900. There is no policy saying all year articles – especially only for a period while the transition happens – has to use the same date format as long as it is consistent within the article itself. However, this discussion is only about the changing it on this specific article about the year 2023. I would personally do it should consensus arise. Are anyone against this change for this specific article? Or just in general for articles about "generic" years? Marginataen (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support and apply to every Year article, though I personally doubt it’ll get up. It is frankly bizarre that we persist with the mdy date format on the main Year pages when so few countries use that format. TheScrubby (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed it. Marginataen (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers Please restore the DMY date format that you removed without consensus. Marginataen (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry I missed this section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly object to changing all the year articles to DMY, which is the topic of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Change to the DMY date format, but I do think changing just this one article to DMY isn't worth the loss of consistency. As far as I'm aware, every other year article uses MDY. For now, I oppose this change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be agreed to change all generic year articles to DMY. Thanks for pointing that out. @TheScrubby @Wjfox2005 Marginataen (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date format for year article Marginataen (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The format was changed back to MDY without consensus. Currently, there are no standard about consistently in date format across year articles. That is what I am trying to do. The last discussion got messy and I'll probably start a new one about it one the village pump. In the mean time, 2023 should be changed back to DMY Marginataen (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be the same for all main year articles. X2023X (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 2023 NYU Langone Health attempt be added?

Basically the worlds first successful complete eye transplant. It is a major medical breakthrough and I believe deserves a mention. Jake11223344 (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say borderline exclude because while it is major and I included it in another article, it isn't something that has an impact on every human being in the same way as the first successful COVID vaccine or the discovery of antibiotics did. Also, the patient hasn't had any vision return to the donor eye. If it did restore vision, I'd also be open to including it. PaulRKil (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I didn't know what it was, but now I realise I've heard of it. "2023 NYU Langone Health attempt" was not exactly meaningful. Deb (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards include. It's a notable milestone in the medical field. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say include, as it is a major medical breakthrough and received international news coverage. It has sufficient due weight to merit entry on the page about 2023. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Include–This is a milestone medical breakthrough and it is worth including in the article. Nagae Iku (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Operations 1027 & 1107 from the Myanmar Civil War be added?

The rebel groups from the Myanmar Civil war have launched what are reported as successful counteroffensives, named Operation 1027 and Operation 1107, in the Myanmar civil war. I'm looking for a consensus on whether the counteroffensive should be added, as I believe this has sufficient due weight to merit an entry on this page, because this is a major ongoing armed conflict that also indirectly involves Russia, China, and India which are providing support to Myanmar's military junta. I have one citation (below) and can add more if the consensus is in favor of including this.

One thing is that I'm not sure which date(s) to add for this event, and perhaps they should be added after the counteroffensives have ended because it's ongoing and territorial control can rapidly change--the National Unity Government & rebels could gain additional territory, or the Myanmar military junta could retake territory for example. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my entry for the death of Henry Kissinger removed?

He was a key historical figure and should be on the list. Jake11223344 (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as was explained in the edit summary, Deaths are no longer included in recent Year articles but are included in Deaths in 2023. Deb (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
@Deb. Would you be so kind to link me to the discussion where that decision was taken? Marginataen (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the first discussion here and you can follow the links listed there to find out more. Even if you don't agree with it, you won't be able to include any deaths without consensus on this Talk page, and so far User:Jake11223344 hasn't attempted to obtain that. Deb (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of File:U-2 Pilot over Central Continental United States (7644960) (cropped).jpg

Per a discussion on WikiProject Years, every image for this article needs a unique consensus for it, so here is the discussion for this image. Should this image be added in the February events section of the article?

  • Yes – The spy-balloon event was major and had complete international coverage and international headlines for at least a solid week. The public-domain photograph is perfect for this article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @33ABGirl: — Since you removed this image, which was added under an original WP:SILENCE consensus, your thoughts on this image is requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No - Inclusion of the image is WP:UNDUE. As there is currently no collage or images on the page, including a single image would imply that the event is the most important event of the year. The event itself had minimal impact on anything, largely being amplified up by the media.
    I've written a proposal here to decide the images. 33ABGirl (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bruh. You are the one who removed them and said each image needs consensus. Now you say that we can’t add an image because it creates UNDUE. You legit just perm removed images from all yearly article with no chance of re-addition per your UNDUE reasoning. That’s dumb and I’m challenging that. I believe it doesn’t create undue as I’ve also started a 2nd image discussion right below this (the coronation) and I could start 10 more image discussions right now. Do you actually have a different reason besides UNDUE, or is UNDUE your sole argument against images in the article which you removed them from? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the sections which you have expressed opposition to. I remain opposed to the addition on the event itself based on the remaining sections. 33ABGirl (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NVM. I have a way around this. I’ll propose every image for this article and will do one RfC to add all 10 (ish) images to the article, no substitutions since we can’t add any due to UNDUE, so it is either all at once or none at all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this approach, as this is similar to what I proposed here. I suggest making reference to this discussion relating to the selection of collage images, as the purpose is alike. 33ABGirl (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of File:2023 Coronation Balcony.jpg

Per a discussion on WikiProject Years, every image for this article needs a unique consensus for it, so here is the discussion for this image. Should this image be added in the May events section of the article?

Betelgeuse occultation

Shouldn't we include the Betelgeuse occultation that will occur on December 12, 01:08 UTC? Aminabzz (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it can definitely go in 2023 in science. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Video of Hamas Attack

I am don’t think we should have a video of murdered civilians from Oct. 7 on the main 2023 page. I think it is too gruesome and raw. Thoughts? The ganymedian (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, so the "too gruesome" argument doesn't hold water. However, there might be positive arguments why another image or video is better. If you have a suggestion about what to replace it with, please share it Marginataen (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as the main 2023 page is frequently visited by users who may not want to see such content, though it could be added to the article about the attack itself with a warning. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 2023 Prague Shooting merit an entry?

I personally oppose this as an entry, because while it received some international attention and is the deadliest mass shooting in Czech history, it doesn't have sufficient due weight or an extremely high death toll. It was an isolated incident, not part of a larger terrorist attack and such mass shootings are common all over the world (as an American I would know). I'm looking for a consensus, as the citation also needs some editing to remove the problems.

This was the entry:

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Include – As you yourself have mentioned, the event has received international attention and is the deadliest mass shooting in Czech history. 33ABGirl (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Include – I believe it's notable enough for inclusion. These shootings might be common in America, but aren't as common outside, and this was the deadliest in Czech history. I've edited the entry to reflect this. Also, you say "some" international attention, but it's the #1 reported story across scores of news outlets right now. The death toll is now 15, by the way (including the perpetrator), and 25 were injured. This wasn't exactly a small incident. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Include – Though it's a domestic event, I tend to agree with the comments above. Deb (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leaning toward include generally we don't include mass shootings and don't include it just because it happened in a region where it is uncommon, but I think we should reexamine inclusion criteria for these types of events anyway. PaulRKil (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add @DementiaGaming and @Jake11223344 to this discussion as they have been going back and forth over the entry and DG has pointed out it is a domestic event.
I propose leaving it up until a conclusion is made. PaulRKil (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i apologize for this, I was not told about this discussion. You will not be reported for edit warring. However, I oppose this. If you include this entry, then the 2023 Lewiston shootings will logically have to be included because it had a higher death toll and received lots of more attention. DementiaGaming (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

I really feel like it is a disgrace that we just have an empty "Deaths" heading. A major part of a year is how died, and it's just so wierd that we can't make a list about the most notable ones while at the same time linking to the main article for a more comprehensive list. The deaths of people like Tina Turner, Matthew Perry and Henry Kissinger drew massive media attention. Much more than many of the events listed in this article. We should be able to make a list like the one on e.g. 1924.

See here. There was far too many disputes and lengthy discussions about the suitability of each person included and issues with Americentric bias (I note that all your examples are American as well) that the decision to remove the Deaths section entirely was unfortunately made necessary. TheScrubby (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should include the death of Henry Kissinger. DementiaGaming (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose including any deaths for the page, including Henry Kissinger's. As TheScrubby mentioned, this would require weighing whether other notable deaths should also be included, to both avoid Americentrism and because there are many notable deaths this year.
For example, Kissinger wasn't the only notable public official to die this year--Sandra Day O'Connor (first female SCOTUS justice), Constantine II of Greece (last king of Greece), Silvio Berlusconi of Italy (controversial Italian Prime Minister), etc. were also extremely notable deaths. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Deaths sections have been removed from main year articles from 1980 onwards, we only include deaths which have their own articles, such as Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI. X2023X (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issue of date formatting

Historically the events section is listed according Month Day. This is the only year that is formatted Day Month. This format has been followed for all the years I've seen 1900-2022

Example: 1 January – Croatia adopts the euro Instead of traditionally January 1 – Croatia adopts the euro 2601:1C0:407F:AFA0:FCB3:4F2C:C579:C856 (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The format should be the same for all main year articles. X2023X (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the December 27 anti-Rohingya Indonesian attack merit an entry?

I'm unsure about this event, as it is sourced and may have merit, but doesn't have its own article and is largely a regional event related to the Rohingya genocide would better belong on that page. This entry also has grammatical errors and is rather long.

This is the entry:

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal attacks happen all the time. This one didn't cause any serious injuries, let alone deaths. It wasn't a murder, riot, shooting, bombing, stabbing or arson attack. It doesn't have its own article & isn't notable enough for one. This article is for the most important events in the world this year. This local disturbance isn't one of the most important events of the year in Indonesia, nor among the 10,000 most important world events of the year. There were clashes, suicide bombings & mass shootings with double-digit death tolls this year which aren't included in this article. X2023X (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it even belong on 2023 in Indonesia? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Russia massive air strikes across Ukraine be on the list?

Russia attacking multiple Ukrainian cities at once should be on the list in my opinion 2603:8080:7CF0:8820:2420:8FD:BD7B:B220 (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding the 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine as an entry for December 2023, as it was one of the largest and deadliest air attacks in the Russian invasion of Ukraine this year. This is a current event, so I would not include casualty numbers (deaths & injuries) for now, but I would include this event. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Include – Notable as largest bombardment of the war so far, and occurred countrywide. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Include. Wjfox2005 shares my opinion and rationale on this. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decision to remove images?

@Wjfox2005: What decision occurred to remove all images? If you are thinking of the collage RfC, that was for only collages, not all images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't agree to them being removed. But it seems that is what's been decided. See here – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023&diff=prev&oldid=1191182771 Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was for that a discussion had to occur. Scroll up to this discussion: Talk:2023#Inclusion of File:U-2 Pilot over Central Continental United States (7644960) (cropped).jpg. I had a silence consensus to add and had pinged 33ABGirl and messaged on their talk page about it with no answer. Since you removed the silence consensus addition, please comment in the discussion about why it was removed (like a reason) or self-revert. I actually knew about that specific edit and followed it and Wiki rules to add that image. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied in the discussion above. 33ABGirl (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the 2023 North India floods (400+ deaths)

Do we include the 2023 North India floods, which killed 422 people?

I also support inclusion for the above reasons, but I'm not sure where exactly such an entry would go. These are multiple floods occurring over months, not a single event, so perhaps it could go on April 1, 2023 when the floods began. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Weather Event Writer and JohnAdams. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC — Proposal for images to be in article

Due to the various discussions and policy debates, it seems the appropriate course of action is to more or less survey vote for the inclusion of the following images (to not violate WP:UNDUE, single-image discussions cannot occur), hence a single RfC - support all or oppose all.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Discussion

  • Proposal — To avoid WP:UNDUE, I recommend we discuss all possible picture selections first, then insert the images together. Doing so would avoid limiting us to a specific set of photographs to be accepted or rejected, as presented above. I also suggest making reference to this discussion relating to the selection of collage images, as the purpose is alike. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ending of China's zero-COVID policy

How is this not notable? It was a milestone in the ongoing pandemic, and a big story at the time, reported by every major media outlet. China was the initial epicentre of the outbreak, its control measures were extremely harsh and restrictive, a country of 1.4 billion people in semi-permanent lockdown, with implications for international travel and trade. The country saw massive protests (for the first time in decades) over this policy. The January travel restrictions weren't isolated but were a global response to China, and therefore (a) reflected the world's adaptation to the evolving nature of the pandemic, and (b) highlighted the interconnectedness of global health and the economy. China's ending of lockdown also influenced the WHO ending its declaration of a global health emergency a few months later. This entry is also presented in an entirely neutral, unbiased, and factual manner. It should be restored:

Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd include it. I think that given the notoriety it's gained in media as well as the strong effects it has has on people, it merits an entry. I would advise everyone who votes "domestic" to read WP:DUE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who removed the content. My reasons for removal are not related to the event being "domestic" at all. As I stated in the edit summary, I believe that the event, in retrospect, is no longer notable enough for inclusion. That is to say, while the event may have been deemed significant enough to be included on the page at the time it occurred, with the advantage of hindsight, we can see that the restrictions imposed were of short duration and had no enduring impact. For example the EU restrictions lasted only around a month
I also notice that there are limitations on this page on inclusion of covid-19 events, which has its own stand-alone timeline, with not all the events included here. I think we must take that into account here, with inclusion of this event over other similarly or more impactful events being WP:UNDUE. I think the that the entry in December 2022 marking the actual relation of the restrictions is sufficient coverage on the event for these pages. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly disagree with the idea of zero-COVID having no enduring notability. See the AP on how China's approach on exiting zero-COVID costed lives, the mass-imprisonment beliefs regarded by the Guardian, the loss of faith in the Chinese government as explained by Al Jazeera, and many other examples which I do not have time to mention here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with you that zero-COVID has enduring notability. However, I am contending that due coverage has been fulfilled in the following content:
2022
Taking the above account into account, I think it is not necessary to include the lifting of the restrictions, as it is only a minor part of the overall event, for the reasons I have outlined in my previous reply. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say we should include it. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "COVID restrictions ramp up as international travel from China resumes". euronews. 2023-01-12. Archived from the original on January 16, 2023. Retrieved 2023-01-16.

Death tolls in lead

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The lead's para about disasters includes death tolls; its para about conflicts doesn't. Should that remain the case? X2023X (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the status quo, in having death tolls for disasters but not armed conflicts or coups. Many of the armed conflicts mentioned are ongoing, and death tolls for them are less accurate in the fog of war. Also coups or political crises that don't devolve into war often don't have high death tolls, but are still notable because they cause regime changes in countries. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian Bandit Attack

It seems insane to me that this has still not been added. It occurred on December 23, resulted in 200 deaths and 500 injuries, and seems to have been the deadliest bandit attack in Nigerian history. 31.94.21.109 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC) WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people just forget to add them, LOL! Yes, I support their addition. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not been added. Perhaps the article shouldn't be protected if the current editors forget to add so many critical events. 2.99.89.222 (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC) WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 collage picture candidates

CLOSED AND RESTARTING
Per the small unanimous consensus below, we are closing and restarting the process.

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.

OPTION A: Brazilian Congress Intrusion

OPTION B: East Ohio trail derailment

OPTION C: Turkey-Syria earthquakes

OPTION D: International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova

OPTION E: United States banking crisis

OPTION F: Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

OPTION G: SAG-AFTRA strike

OPTION H(1): Hawaii wildfires

Option H(2): Hawaii wildfires

OPTION I: Storm Daniel

OPTION J: Israel-Hamas war

OPTION K: Protests against the Israel-Hamas war DementiaGaming (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OPTION L: 2023 Chinese balloon incident

Candidate notes

-Option A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H(1), I, J, and K were added by DementiaGaming 02:02, 11 January.
-Option H(2) and L were added by WeatherWriter 02:41, 11 January.

--Indiana6724 (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion2

I support B, C, D, F, H(1), I, J and K DementiaGaming (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DementiaGaming: I hope you do not mind, but I altered your comment from where you said just "H" to "H(1)", which is the option H you proposed. I added "H(2)". If you feel that alteration was a mistake, please revert it. I am making sure you are aware of that alteration, which occurred soley because I proposed a 2nd image for the Hawaii wildfires. Again, please revert it if you believe I am out-of-line. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
E Indiana6724 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my comment was slightly malformed, as I was in a hurry. DementiaGaming (talk) 13:10, 11
  • Important (Close and re-start proposal): As some people mentioned, the list seems U.S. centric to a degree. Since only a few of us have commented, I have a proposal:
Let us agree to close this and re-start in a better manner, which we sort of need to do anyway to satisfy the results of the collage RfC which occurred on WP:Years. So, here is my proposal: A 2-step RfC.
  1. We host a discussion that is well-advertised (i.e. all the appropriate talk pages and WikiProject pages) that goes for say a week long where users may submit and discuss candidates for the college. After that week, we do a discussion (RfC) to “ratify” the candidates. That way, users have the option to put their thoughts in to help clean up any individual country bias. This could be probably SNOW-closed if there is nearly no opposition to ratifying the candidates after a week with a solid support consensus.
  2. After that “ratify” RfC, the candidates go through a “Survey-style RfC”, similar to Request for Adminship, which is more or less numbers based. Basically, each “candidate” would be a subsection to collect “votes”. Each user gets only 6, 7, or 8 votes (to be decided — number of images for the collage). So if there is 10 image candidates and the collage is to be 6 images, each user may only vote for 6 of the candidates.
  3. The image/event candidates with the most “votes” become the collage.
This is a long-process (60-ish days without any SNOW-speedy closures), but after all the debates about collages in general in that 2+ month RfC (on WP:Years), this process would probably be best to solve any and all concerns. Thoughts? (Courtesy pings: DementiaGaming, Indiana6724, Deb, Koopinator). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board with this idea. Indiana6724 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"(i.e. all the appropriate talk pages and WikiProject pages)"
Perhaps we should use Template:Ambox to notify readers on the 2023 article? I'm starting to realize there is no real guideline that says readers should only be notified about the things we have built-in bots for (AFDs, move requests and template deletions). Koopinator (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. No one should start a discussion beginning with a set of images they've selected themselves and ask others to choose between them. Deb (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it would be fair to do this. DementiaGaming (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2023 Collage Full Discussion

This process will be a 3-step process:

  1. Candidates by everyone
  2. An RfC to discuss and “ratify” the candidates <—— Current Step in Process
  3. An RfC to vote for the collage images and events

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the decision that we needed a collage for 2023, and where is the discussion on how the process should be carried out? Deb (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Deb on this matter. I'm of the belief we should wait until 2025 to make decisions on what images to add for 2023. It gives more time for users to reflect on what events are most important for 2023 and we can get more objective consensus. PaulRKil (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The process I proposed & started is over two-months long (with two separate RfCs). Waiting until 2025 doesn't really do much since there would be over 2 months of community discussion and reflection (At least 2 RfCs). By the end of it (in March 2024), we should easily know what was the biggest events of 2023. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1 (Candidates)

In this discussion, add image and/or event candidates that you think should or could be in the yearly collage image. To add candidates, add the image as [[File:Example.jpg|250x250px]] followed by OPTION (Letter next in order). To add a second image candidate for the same event, add it as OPTION X(Number next in order).

This discussion will not be voted on until at least: 14:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

Candidates

OPTION A: Brazilian Congress Intrusion

OPTION B: East Ohio trail derailment

OPTION C: Turkey-Syria earthquakes

OPTION D: International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova

OPTION E: United States banking crisis

OPTION F(1): Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

OPTION F(2): Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

OPTION G: SAG-AFTRA strike

OPTION H(1): Hawaii wildfires

Option H(2): Hawaii wildfires

OPTION I: Storm Daniel

OPTION J: Israel-Hamas war

OPTION K: Protests against the Israel-Hamas war

OPTION L: 2023 Chinese balloon incident

OPTION M: 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine — Russian invasion of Ukraine

OPTION O Barbie becomes the highest-grossing film of 2023

OPTION P: refugees of the Sudan conflict in Chad 🌺 Cremastra (talk)

OPTION Q(1): Wildfires in Saskatchewan. 🌺 Cremastra (talk)

OPTION Q(2): aftermath of fires in NWT. 🌺 Cremastra (talk)

Ethnic Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh seeking refuge due to attacks by Azerbaijani armed forces

OPTION R: Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. User:JohnAdams1800 (talk)

OPTION S: 2023 Odisha train collision User:Nagae Iku

OPTION T: Chandrayaan-3 User:Nagae Iku

OPTION U: 2023 Marrakesh–Safi earthquake User:Nagae Iku

OPTION V: 2023 Herat earthquakes User:Nagae Iku

OPTION W: Guyana–Venezuela crisis (2023–present) User:Nagae Iku

OPTION X: Wagner Group rebellion User:Nagae Iku

OPTION Y: Cyclone Freddy User:Nagae Iku — Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OPTION Z: Leaders of the "October 15 Coalition" who won the parliamentary elections in Poland, which had a historically high turnout (~74%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szturnek (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OPTION AA: NATO expands with Finland as new member. — HTGS (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OPTION AB: Titan submersible implosion. — HTGS (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option AC: SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 1 The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates discussion

Add discussion for the images here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly suggest swapping coronation for a tighter photo, eg the one at Coronation of Charles III and Camilla. Bear in mind that photos are viewed small in a collage, so large, distinct features are strongly preferred. — HTGS (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the closer-zoomed image as a second option. In the discussion above this one, another user added the larger-zoom image, so I am not going to directly remove it. But you are absolutely right! A smaller image was needed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Once again, highly US-centric options have been offered. This proposed collage purports itself to be a pictorial summary of the year. Therefore, the initial list should be a list of Events that are agreed to be the most important of the year. Only after that's been agreed should we start looking for images of those events. Deb (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deb: — I think you are missing the idea of this first week. Everyone can add images and events. It is U.S. centric as only a single image has been added in addition to the images from the previous list. Add anything you think needs to be there. Step 1 is a week for everyone to add images. Step 2 is a vote to agree these are the candidates for the vote. Step 3 is the vote. If it is U.S. centric, now is your chance to add images to counter it. In short, add images right now. There is at least 6 days where you can before any sort of votes take place. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, everyone can add images and events, and those images and events can be removed by anyone else. If you are putting a collage at the top of a year page, purporting to be a summary of the year, then it must be a summary of the year, not just a set of images that someone happened to be able to find that they thought looked nice. There is no agreement on the process for agreeing content of a proposed collage, and you should not be trying to impose one. Deb (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not trying to be rude here at all, but I am completely confused why you say I am “trying to impose” the process for it. I legit proposed this idea in the now closed attempt above where you and three other editors all basically agreed to it. You basically just walked back on your previous statement, where you said no one should start a collage discussion with images they choose. The way to counter that was to allow everyone to add images. Then we vote to agree those are the candidates. Then we vote on the collage images. No one is imposing anything. I had practical consensus, including from you for this process. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#RfC: Removal of image collages was the long discussion which involved 67 people and 220 comments about collages. In reality there was collage images on every yearly article. These got removed and then was agreed to be reinstated. The big topic of debate was that there was no process to begin with. I proposed a process and had, what I presumed was, at least a running consensus going forward, since you are three others supported the idea I proposed. I apologize if I mistook your “Absolutely” here as a support for what I proposed. What are your concerns with my proposed idea, since you questioned the idea that one person should decide the images & the idea that the community shouldn’t decide the images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agreed that consensus should be sought for the images that are included. I have never agreed that this is a good way of finding consensus. I say that you are trying to impose a process because that's what you are doing. You are suggesting that somewhere there has been an agreement that the images people like best, rather than images of the most significant events, should be included in a pictorial summary of the year. This is not the case and the method you propose, by its very nature, cannot ensure that the selection of images is a fair and impartial summary as required by the NPOV policy. Deb (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what do you propose we do then to fix this? A single RfC will not cut it per NPOV, so it needs to be a multi-step RFC proposal to fix any issues. I am open to all suggestions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already stated above. You need to get consensus on what the most important events are, then look for images. Deb (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that might sound “good” in theory, but without a plan to execute that, it won’t work. Also, a counter to that argument is the collage on World War II. One would easily argue D-Day as being one of the most important events during the war. And yet, it is not in the collage. Collages are supposed to be images (not necessarily events) that help showcase the year. This way seems to work, and so far, your challenge is a minority view. I will note this down though so if others start to oppose this method, we can have a full-RfC to determine what method to use. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you mean that it's okay for you to make up your own plan for what you want to do, but you don't want to put any effort into making a plan that has a chance of making the result compliant with Wikipedia policy? "Collages are supposed to be images (not necessarily events) that help showcase the year" - where did you hear that? We don't need to "showcase" the year - the year happened and the article already exists. Deb (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#RfC: Removal of image collages. That idea that we don’t need to “showcase” the year is not the consensus. The consensus is to have collages. Collages existed on every yearly article until they were removed before the RfC concluded. The RfC actually concluded that they should be added back in. There was and is no formal plan for collages. Right now, I could make a collage and add it without a discussion. I am not doing that as comments brought up in the RfC commented that there was no procedures in place at all. Yes I made this procedure up because it is the first one. Again, you are the first (and so far only) person to question this procedure, which is the first of its kind. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the consensus (allegedly) is to reject the idea of not having collages. It's still necessary to discuss the proposed content. Deb (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How? There is no process. This process which I started is the only currently-existing process for collage image decisions. You want us to decide for the events, which is not what the collage is for. The collage is some of the best pictures to represent the year. Again, this discussion was not required by any means as there was no process before. The sole reason I started this discussion was because people had concerns of OR in that large RfC. Since there is no standardized process, there is no reason to alter this proposal of a method. If you think this idea that I proposed does not work, I encourage you to start your own RfC to create a standardized method for collages. Until then, there is no better way to solve the debate on collages, since this method allows for everyone to add candidates, everyone to vote on the candidates & most importantly, a community consensus on what images are the most important or most worthy of the collage. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To solve your issue, the proposal is 100% spelled out here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better image of the effect Storm Daniel had on the places it impacted? I think it would be more appropriate to showcase that instead of a meteorological image. PaulRKil (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PaulRKil: One could be added as a candidate, but a quick glance at 2005 shows a satellite view of Hurricane Katrina rather than a damage image. Also, the Storm Daniel article doesn’t really have a “damage” style picture on it. The Commons may have one though that could be thrown into the mix. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cremastra, just a head's up, the vote for the collage images isn't yet. This is just a week period for people to submit what images they think should or could be in the collage. Then, we will vote to ensure there is a consensus for a college vote (basically a vote to see if consensus allows us to move forward for a collage). Then we actually vote for the 8 collage images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. My bad. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--I support inclusion of a photo for the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, as it relates to the conclusion of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which was a 35-year old post-Soviet conflict that ended on 1 January 2024 with the dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nagae Iku. We aren't voting for the candidates yet. This is just a period of time for everyone to add candidates in without a vote yet. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about this, I read it wrong before adding a reply.😵 Nagae Iku (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Barbie image as shown here is not eligible for inclusion. The given caption does not correspond to an event. It's doubtful whether the release of the film should even be included under events. Deb (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why the image is not eligible? It appears to be licensed CC BY-SA 2.0, so should be fine in any article. — HTGS (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained to you how a meaningful process that complies with NPOV could be introduced. Is there any reason for you to oppose that? Deb (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The process your proposed, if I understand correctly was: RfC on which events are most important. Then using that list, you find the images. That doesn’t work since an important event may not have a good image or even a visually appealing image. Here is a good example. Imagine if the 2024 missile strikes in Yemen was voted to be one of the 6 event candidates. The two actual “images” (excluding the map) for it are very dark due to it being night time. That said, another image from a slightly lesser-known or lesser-important event (random example: Attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria (2023–present)) would be a heck of a lot more ascetically appealing for readers. Decided what is the most important events doesn’t really work well since collages (i.e. images) aren’t events. That is the issue. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb That approach sounds like a good way to waste time. The current process is already more drawn out than it needs to be IMO, but it does inherently include user selection of important events. If you have important events you think should be included here, suggest them and others can find images for them if you are having a hard time. — HTGS (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most significant events of 2023 are the events mentioned in the lead of the article. If that's not the case, then the lead needs fixing, separate from any image selection. But it shouldn't be difficult to identify the most significant events of the year, as they'd be the ones in the lead, and ergo the images for the collage should be images of what's mentioned in the lead.

However, the collage is going to depict a subset of the events in the lead (because there are too many events for one collage). Image search and selection would be narrowed if editors first decided which events in the lead are important enough to include in the collage. That should be Step 1. That would save time and reduce the number of images to find/look at/discuss. Step 2 would then be finding/agreeing on the "best" image for each lead event that will be depicted in the collage.

Lead events that don't make it into the collage should be pictured elsewhere in the article (they're "important" enough for a picture). So, another way to go about this is to just find the "best" images of everything that's mentioned in the lead, and then discuss which of those images should be in the lead collage, and which in the body of the article. Levivich (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion/debate doesn't really apply to "2023", I would invite y'all (Deb, HTGS, Levivich) to participate in the discussion about this method over on WP:YEARS: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far there has been a lot of discussion about how to discuss the images. How about @Deb or @Levivich you give your takes on which events should be featured? Because that process is not incompatible to the current one. — HTGS (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, "year in review" sources should be used to determine the most significant events of the year (what should go in the lead). I'm not sure what sources the current lead is based on if any, and I'm not confident the current lead has all the most significant events of the year per RS. But choosing from what's in the lead right now, I'd say: Turkey/Syria earthquake, Gaza war, N-K war, banking crisis. Chandrayaan-3 isn't in the lead but I bet RS would suggest it should be, and if so, I'd say also in the collage as a 5th image. For a 6th, I don't know that you can find an image of AI (that's not an advertisement, e.g. not a logo), so maybe Cyclone Nargis. Levivich (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know - I've already suggested a process very similar to this. That's where the proposer got the idea. Deb (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step 2 (Ratify the Candidates)

  1. Discussion on the three event candidates which had multiple images proposed. <—— Current Step in Process
  2. Ratification RfC to determine if we can move on to the collage vote.

Multiple choice discussion

Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

Option F(1) or F(2)?

  • F2 or another one - This picture is nice, but it's a bit too wide in the crop. Here are two other options that I personally think are cropped better:
Nagae Iku (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2023 Hawaii wildfires

Option H(1) or H(2)?

2023 Canadian wildfires

Option Q(1) or Q(2)?

Doomsday Clock Setting.

In 2023 the Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists moved the hands of The Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight for the first time ever bringing the world closer to midnight than it has ever been. Surely that deserves a mention ? 2.99.81.33 (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023&oldid=1203642710"