This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
There is consensus to remove image collages from year articles because selecting a group of particular images as representative of a given year is OR and violates NPOV. In response, editors argued that such collages are useful and that they illustrate important events in a given year—but there is consensus that that is precisely the kind of OR that should be avoided.
I note that nothing in this discussion touched upon whether single images should or should not be included in articles based on years. To editorialize briefly: I think that one could find RSes that support inclusion of particular images in particular year articles. For example, I think there's no question that Earthrise was seen around the world in 1968 and that that image is highly representative of that particular year. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should images collages be removed from articles about years (e.g. 2005)? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference: although the original RFC phrasing can be read to imply it's only about years and not larger units of time (although decades, centuries and millenia do consist of years), after the original closure it was interpreted to also apply to decades, centuries and millennia, which led to conflict with editors on decade pages who overturned the original closure. Since 26 December the RFC debate has expanded to include the topic of decades, so the scope of the debate has expanded as a matter of fait accompli. (this is my understanding - if someone disagrees, we can start a section about the actual scope of the RFC) Koopinator (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. These image collages are the result of several editors ranking what they consider to be the eight most "important" events of each year, doing so in a way that reeks of original research and NPOV-violation. In addition, these collages are bloated and unsightly, using a lot of space to display small images and cluttered captions. It's common for broad topic articles to forgo a lead image because the topic cannot be adequately depicted in a single visual: that should be applied here as well. It makes much more sense to add images inline based on subtopics and spacial considerations, like we do with most other articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - They appear as decorative & have possibly become a source for image content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Too much drama for me. Decapitation to solve a dandruff can work sometimes, and this may not be just a dandruff but more so a tumor. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. This is hopelessly original research. As already mentioned in a previous comment. we just a few random editors selecting what they think is important with complete disrespect for any WP policy. Looking at those discussions, I'm not seeing any attempt to ever bring any WP:RS to any of them to justify selection or ranking. Not of that is allowed. --McSly (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I have seen so much bickering to select such a limited number of images. What is meaningful to some is irrelevant to others. You know what would be great.. a random collage where each pageview picks a random set of images from a dedicated pool, but then again, who fills the pool with what. Let us leave it blank, there is really no need for some events to be highlighted whilst others ignored. Drama and edit war prevention for sure, and it may turn some to help with content improvement.--☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 22:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Collages add little to any article. They really don't work at all on smaller device screens, and even on larger screens, those of us who are of mature years and others with associated vision challenges get nothing from them. Achieving agreement on what to include is rarely a positive experience for most of the involved editors. (Do those discussions somehow attract a higher proportion of highly opinionated POV pushers than discussions about text comment?) Anything included in a collage is automatically implied to be of more importance to the world (in Wikipedia's opinion) than things not included. That's unhealthy because some "events" cannot sensibly be represented with a picture. Leave the pretty pictures to the articles about the respective events. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Coming from a person who has made collages himself, they present way too many POV problems. There is so much fighting, no consensus making, and there are many problems that come with it. I say we begin removing them. It will be sad to see them removed, but it is necessary.DementiaGaming (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Why not just remove them from contested pages? Marginataen (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because no matter what, someone in the future will always oppose an event on the collage. They will always be contested. DementiaGaming (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, should we remove them today? It’s clear that the majority says to remove them, and it appears there is no rule in Wikipedia that says they should stay. If so, I volunteer to depreciate them, starting with 1962 onwards. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -2020 Events montage 16-grid version I strongly oppose the deletion of collages. They provide the most intuitive visual impact and first impression of a particular year. In my opinion, the only problem with collages is that the 8-grid format is too limited to fully summarize a year's history. A 16-grid format can truly summarize a year and should ensure that each continent has at least one grid in the collage. Additionally, 3-2-3 format only focus on the two middle event grids, while a 16-grid collage would treat all 16 event grids equally. Attached is a sample of a 16-grid collage that I created. Nagae Iku (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a nice 4x4 grid for a desktop monitor. On a mobile device (phone) it is a collage of 16 total images which is literally the size of my thumbnail.--☾Loriendrew☽☏(ring-ring) 22:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just resized the image, now it is 300×300px and matches the collage on the other year pages. Nagae Iku (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur - a 16-grid plan would be like a copy of the events list. Also, they go against multiple WPs, such as WP:RS, WP:NOCON (which you violated yourself), WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. But I think the 4x4 collage format allows for greater flexibility in adjusting its content. Nagae Iku (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nagae Iku - I am looking at your sample collage on my standard sized laptop screen, WITH my reading glasses on, and I find it quite useless. The images blur into one another. They are far too small. It tells me absolutely nothing about that year. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2015 Events Collage 6-grid version
Alternatively, we could use this approach: collage of 2x3 grid version. This version was created in the early time of collage making, but it was later replaced by the 3-2-3 version due to its obvious drawback: it can only accommodate six events. Nagae Iku (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great Idea - a 4x4 Collage-Format is much better than all the other Formats. Austria Football 02 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I cannot think of a way of agreeing these that is practical and objective. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I don't have anything of value to contribute to the discussion, but do agree with aforementioned reasons that the collages should be removed. GSK (talk • edits) 04:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Per consensus, I have removed all collages from the year pages, as some of you have already noticed. People need to realize that, if only people left the collages as they were, they would not have to be removed, so it is, to a point, the people's fault. This has turned me against the keeping of collages, and this is why I removed them. Objections will be noted. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People need to realize that, if only people left the collages as they were, they would not have to be removed, so it is, to a point, the people's fault. What? Is this literally just WP:POINT? jp×g🗯️ 13:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per all of the above well reasoned arguments, and a nod to HiLo48's point about us folks with "associated vision challenges [that] get nothing from them".Isaidnoway(talk) 🍁 02:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Collages are like an essential part of yearly articles. They help show the most significant events of that year. Heck, even some of the best and most searched articles on Wikipedia, like World War II, have an amazing collage. Removing collages from years just seems like it will actually harm article improvement for those yearly articles. And before someone comments, yes I know this is specifically about yearly articles, not articles like WW2. But I make my point just as well. Imagine removing the collage from the WW2 article. It would be absurd. That is how I feel about removing them from the yearly pages. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find the collage on WWII to be absurd and feel it should be removed. An entire war cannot be encapsulated in a single image. And smushing a bunch of images together until none of them can be fully appreciated works even less. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Khajidha: The WW2 collage is not a single image. It is a multi-image collage, with each individual image being clickable. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still acts as a single image when looking at the page. The pictures would be better used individually at different point in the article, where they could be larger, more easily seen, relevant to the material of the section, and given better captions. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Most of these seem to be created by contributors who have little or no interest in any other aspect of the project. That's allowed, of course, but not when the content is biased to those contributors' personal views of what is and isn't significant. Deb (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The way it was done in the past was wrong. Look at the 2022 or 1924 articles as examples of how it should be. Marginataen (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again you have violated a rule by stating your opinion twice in the same section in a talk page. Please delete this comment and merge it with your other one. DementiaGaming (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored this sub-thread but struck the duplicate vote. Marginataen, you can't do that. Zaathras (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And also, look a little bit closer. I did not respond to “every single one”, I responded to only 2 of these keep comments and that is not bludgeoning. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are pretty important in my opinion. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say that. Wikipedia's rules explicitly say that talk pages are not for your own personal opinion. You must give a reason. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Silly me. I forgot to mention that I agree with everyone who wants to keep it. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal
I have removed the 2022 and 1969 collages and hope they will stay that way (they were the last collages on year pages). I propose an agreement that would be beneficial to both sides of this disagreement, under two terms:
All collages will stay removed from WP pages forever, and under no circumstances will they be added back in.
The collages will still be allowed to be developed by the editors who still want to make them and may be added to galleries (such as 4me689's), shared with other editors, etc. as long as they stay off official WP pages.
All collages? Even the very helpful collages on taxonomy articles (e.g. Bird?) Mach61 (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose your proposal because many articles have specific circumstances that may warrant a collage. Also, "under no circumstances" certainly is not an appropriate restriction, because you are proposing to override WP:CONSENSUS, WP:IGNORE, WP:ADHERENCE. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 06:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just wanted to step out and say that the hate I've been getting from removing collages is pathetic. My user and talk pages has been vandalized many times because apparently I'm the bad guy. People have even vandalized pages to mock me. This is very frustrating to deal with. Stop, it's getting old. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't be happening. If there's any editors harassing you? then report them to WP:ANI promptly. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: Several editors have expressed that the collage worsens the article. Here is a screenshot of 2022, with a collage, and I wanted to ask, more specifically those who think it worsens the article, on exactly how it worsens the article. This question is one I want answered and, reading other "Keep" comments, one I figure several others would like answered as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Visually, I find these image collages remind me of a rubik's cube, tbh. GoodDay (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might not be the best analogy, since a Rubik's Cube is one of the best-selling toys in history...That might be a reason to keep it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is just a checkerboard pattern of images that can't be clearly seen. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The collages should be removed, as per above comments. Choosing a lead image is hard and imperfect, expanding it to a collage creates multiple hard and imperfect decisions without resolving the underlying cause. That said, I don't see why there aren't images spread throughout these articles at more appropriate points. CMD (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Important Comment - WP:SNOW closure or not? I was recent recently told in a weird passive-aggressive manner (from DementiaGaming) that there is a "overwhelming consensus" to remove collages. If that is the case, this needs to be WP:SNOW closed within the next 24 hours, otherwise I hope (maybe) I get an apology or explanation for why an "overwhelming consensus" does not mean the discussion can be SNOW closed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not weird or passive-agressive, it was a message telling you to please stop adding the 2022 collage back. One thing about the collages is that they shouldn't have ever been added in the first place. No matter what the consensus is, they're going to be removed, because the images violate the following rules:
Likely best to not re-add the images collage to the 2022 page, as it appears other editors will keep reverting you. AFAIK, there was never a consensus to add them to the Year pages, to begin with. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've placed a closure request @ WP:CR. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request for the closer. I don't have any opinion on this RfC question, but I would like to know if the consensus here (or lack thereof) is relevant to inclusion/removal of all images from year articles or just image collages. This discussion is being used at Talk:2022#Zero images? to support the removal of all images from the article, and it would be helpful to hear from an uninvolved closer whether that is an accurate reading of this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and please let's leave this open for a couple more weeks due to both the lack of notications and to the holidays where much less attention is given to these issues. Notices should also be on each of the decades and years talk pages which will be affected. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk)
I don't understand. Why has this RFC been re-opened? For goodness sake, it's been nearly two full months, since it was begun. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I’m saying. They refuse and refuse and refuse and refuse to believe that they are wrong and these collages violate rules and should be removed. DementiaGaming (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to every comment on the page to say the same thing over and over does not cause it to be true. jp×g🗯️ 13:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reopened the RfC because univnovled editor @Koopinator has advised me that there was not sufficient notification to appropriate projects or talk pages. I am working on notifying the talk pages for each individual year article. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in another closure request & asked an administrator to perform it. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are almost 3,000 articles on individual years, I've decided not to notify each and every individual year article. If anyone feels compelled to do so, I won't stop them. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Voorts, alerts to the decades talk pages should be all that is needed, and to all of the WikiProject talk pages listed on those pages. You were correct in reopening this, and let's let it run for a couple weeks until we clear the holidays. This is Christmas weekend for Christ's sake (pun intended, referring to that one time at band camp that Jesus turned water into wine and then the wine into sake). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove collages, as the order and the selection gives rise to bias that cannot be sufficiently remedied. "X is a more important event than Y" will always be purely opinion. This should apply only to collages, not images elsewhere in the article. Those can be decided by normal editorial consensus. Zaathras (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per pretty much all of the above. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep on the Decades pages and on other historical pages such as the World War II page collage. Each and every choice of image anywhere on any page is essentially original research, a choice made by one or more editors. Choices which usually stand the test of time and discussion. As for the decades pages (and things like WWII), the collage summaries seem quite important long-term pathways to Wikipedia readers who get a quick summary of somebutnotall of the decade's most important and iconic events when approaching the page. I haven't read and taken in all the points here, and this is Christmas weekend. I reserve further comments until I have time to take in all the viewpoints presented. Merry Christmas to all who've read this far into my post (and also to those who haven't). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beyond year articles, the arguments for Remove call into question collages across a variety of articles. Why do the year articles deserve this special treatment when a vast range of Wikipedia articles use collages from Space Race to Education to Natural Science to Computer or in infoboxes like World War II or Marrakesh. I understand that this RfC does not impact these articles directly but again I wonder why year articles shouldn't have them when these random articles I've pulled apparently share the same issues (unsightly, pure decoration, POV concerns, opinion, etc.). Yeoutie (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep otherwise as long as a sufficient discussion occurs on the talk page, collages are a useful illustration of a year/decade/etc. WP:GALLERY provides that a collage can be added if inline images cannot sufficiently do the job. If these articles transitioned to purely images all throughout, I anticipate many more adversarial discussions will occur as editors will want an image for every single entry. Yeoutie (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for the following reasons:
The "Remove" arguments misconstrue WP:OR. The core issue of WP:OR that Wikipedia does not publish original thought, but it does not concern the presentation of information. Instead, the debate should've revolved around whether the use of collages abides by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. The argument that choosing the most important events of a year constitutes WP:OR boils down to saying "judging the most important aspects of a topic is WP:OR". This contradicts several existing guidelines, including WP:SUMMARY and MOS:INTRO - these articles establish that leads must concisely summarize a topic and go in less detail than the body text. For example, the year 2022 still has a lead that states the events that editors have judged important enough for the lead. Editors have to judge what details are less important in order to write leads - this is an essential part of the encyclopedia. I don't see why this would be WP:OR for images, but not for leads.
MOS:IMAGE. Collages help illustrate key aspects of years, and are thus useful and abide by MOS:IMAGE.
WP:WRONGVENUE & WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. There has been no discussion about whether collages are appropriate for the topic of years specifically. The entire discussion so far has been essentially running with a single, dubious interpretation of WP:OR, and using that as basis to ban collages from year articles (and then decade and millennia articles). Therefore, I believe the RFC falls afoul of WP:WRONGVENUE. If the problem solely regards the idea that collages violate WP:OR, there should have instead been a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images about collages. Since there has been an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS on articles such as World War I, World War II, and Seven Years' War to have collages, deciding that collages are WP:OR would fall afoul of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."
Remove all and have no image, including (and perhaps even more esepcially) decade pages . I was originally minded to think there might be some use for these, similar to how city articles have a collage, but looking at the 1960s page it becomes clear why attempting to sum up such broad swathes of history in one set of editor-chosen images is a fool's errand. What some deem "important" will always differ from others, and with six of the eight 1960s images pertaining to the US (nothing about the decolonisation of Africa?) it's clear that this decision can't be left to individual pages while maintaining NPOV and avoiding systemic bias. I'm also unsure why the original close permitted single images to be retained. The same principle applies there. As was already noted above, not all pages need images at the top, and these are the ones that should not have them. — Amakuru (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"what some deem "important" will always differ from others"
This argument can be made about every lead section on this site, images or not. Koopinator (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of the older decades have more images of American events but the 1960s collage has remained largely untouched since it was first added in 2011 and could certainly be re-discussed by users with a lot less controversy than year articles and the article for the current decade.
For example, the fact there is no picture in the collage covering the Cuban missile crisis but we have images for pop culture events like woodstock and beatlemania are problematic in my point of view. PaulRKil (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is patently bizarre. Let me see if I can work through the reasoning here: it's possible for people to argue about which of several things is best to have in an article, so we should simply remove all of them and have nothing instead? Really? Okay: why don't we go blank Israel, Palestine, abortion, immigration, Donald Trump, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, Xi Jinping, and Narendra Modi? Why don't we replace Joe Biden with the single sentence "Joe Biden is the President of the United States.[1]"? That would be easier to maintain, which means it must be better, right? Come on, let's be serious for a minute — are we really just demanding that the entire concept of illustrating articles with pictures be justified from first principles? If disagreeing about stuff sometimes is too much of an inconvenience, we're all free to just go do something else. jp×g🗯️ 13:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this seems like a completely bizarre way to have this discussion -- it's an obscure WikiProject talk page. If it's too much of a hassle to individually notify talk pages or try to get broader consensus, then it's obviously too much of a hassle to make giant sweeping content decisions on behalf of all those pages. jp×g🗯️ 14:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koopinator has said that they will work on notifications to individual talk pages. If you think that notifying every year, decade, century, and millennium page is required, someone who's more proficient at AWB than I will need to work on doing that. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion on collages, though leaning towards keeping them. It seems strange that these articles about years are completely devoid of images. Couldn't a few be placed in the body of the articles? Some1 (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When these collages of the years were made and placed on the homepage, some people stepped forward to express strong objections, believing that these collages violated Wikipedia's guidelines and should be split into separate images evenly distributed throughout the article. However, after the collages were split, others voiced objections to these images, feeling that their selection lacked a consistent standard and believing that all of these images should be removed. Nagae Iku (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Previous discussion closer before I reopened it) Keep (for now) I agree with several of the remove !votes that including a collage on a particular year page runs into OR problems in that it presents a series of images as representative of that particular year (cf. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES). And, in particular, the images that are selected will likely be Western-centric. I disagree with those editors who say that this is not OR. It is OR to bring together a disparate set of facts (e.g., images) for the purposes of reaching a conclusion. As OR notes: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Bringing together several images and calling them representative of an entire year or decade without sourcing to substantiate that conclusion qualifies as OR in my book. That said, there are ways to craft these galleries without engaging in OR. RSes routinely mark particular images as representative of a given year, or make clear that an image was seen worldwide (e.g., Earthrise). Those images can and should be included in individual year articles. Regarding JPxG's slippery slope argument, I disagree. There is a distinction between illustrating a person (and, indeed, there are already routine RfCs about what the infobox image for a particular person should be), a nation, and a concept or practice, as opposed to an entire year. All of that said, I think this should be handled on an article-by-article basis, and editors should be given the opportunity to substantiate why particular images belong in particular year articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I disagree with those editors who say that this is not OR. It is OR to bring together a disparate set of facts (e.g., images) for the purposes of reaching a conclusion. As OR notes: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Bringing together several images and calling them representative of an entire year or decade without sourcing to substantiate that conclusion qualifies as OR in my book.""
Would you also say that selecting key details as being important enough for the lead, in 2022 or actually - any article for that matter, constitutes OR? Because when writing any lead, you're selecting facts that are most crucial to represent in a topic. And also, when writing the body text of any article, editors have to use their own judgement as to what information is helps represent or describe the topic. Is that also OR?
There is a distinction between illustrating a person (and, indeed, there are already routine RfCs about what the infobox image for a particular person should be), a nation, and a concept or practice, as opposed to an entire year.
I would appreciate an explanation for why you think years are distinct from these other topics in a way that is relevant to this discussion. Koopinator (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you're writing a lead, you're summarizing the article content by providing a high level overview, not deciding what facts are most important to highlight. Regarding your second comment, I was responding to JPxG, who used those things as an example in his slippery slope argument. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you're writing a lead, you are deciding what facts are most important to highlight. Deciding what facts are most important can not be separated from summarizing the article. For example, why is Donald Trump being president of the United States more crucial to mention than him being confirmed in 1959 at the First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica, Queens? It's more relevant, more crucial to understanding the topic at hand - i.e. more important.
In regards the the second comment, I understand you were responding to JPxG, and I was asking you to explain what aspects of years justified distinct treatment. Koopinator (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're misapprehending MOS:LEAD and policies like OR. Editors do not determine what is important. Reliable sources determine what is important, and editors determine what important things to include in the lead by reference to DUE. From MOS:LEAD (emphasis added):
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic [citing DUE], according to reliable, published sources.
The same logic applies to point 2 and I am going to turn off notifications for this thread because it's becoming deeply toxic over a truly insignificant issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you're going to turn off notifications for this thread. You are not obligated to participate. However, for the interest of other editors, I will still respond:
It is definitely useful when reliable sources explicitly state what is most the important aspect of something. However, those sources do not always exist - and even if there are, editors would still need to evaluate those sources on their own accord. That is what happened at Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_93#RfC:_Birtherism_in_the_lede. If we could only write long leads if they had sources, it would be impossible to abide by MOS:LEADLENGTH - "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." - therefore, although RS can help inform the process of selecting facts to highlight, it is still ultimately the editor's discretion. I believe this is the reason why WP:DUE says " the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic [citing DUE], according to reliable, published sources." and avoids making it into an absolute statement. WP:ONUS also backs this by saying "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article" - we roughly, but not strictly, provide emphasis based on reliable sources.
The same logic does not apply to point 2, which was a different topic altogether. I was requesting you to explain what the "distinction between illustrating a person (and, indeed, there are already routine RfCs about what the infobox image for a particular person should be), a nation, and a concept or practice, as opposed to an entire year" was. Koopinator (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a gallery would serve as well as a collage or montage, the gallery should be preferred, as galleries are easier to maintain and adjust better to user preferences.
Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.
Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.
Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Think carefully about which images best illustrate the subject matter.
It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. For some topics, selecting the lead image can be difficult.
Let it be known that I am permanently leaving this RfC due to the impacts it has had on my mental health and reputation. That’s the reason I’ve been acting terrible, and I’m sorry.
I have opened a new RfC on the decades and hope they will be removed. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep - the main argument put forward for removal relies entirely on a fundamental misinterpretation of NOR and the purpose of image collages. NOR requires that “material such as facts, allegations, and ideas” must be supported by reliable published sources. Image collages are none of these things - they are a decorative element. What they are most certainly not is a ranking of the most important events in a given time period. No reasonable reader is going to interpret an image collage as a list of the only significant 8 events to happen in 10 years; most will not even read the captions. What really annoys me about this argument is how little thought has to be put into it for it to completely unravel. If - as the argument for removal requires - the average reader interprets the use of images as an objective statement of importance, and not a way to visually enhance what would otherwise be a monochrome page of just text, why would this only affect the use of image collages on year/decade articles? If this statement were really true, then surely articles should never contain images - because doing so would constitute original research on whether that image was important enough to feature. No sources are cited as to why this cat or this restaurant are the most important instances of their respective subjects to be featured as images. There are reasonable technical discussions to be had as to the best format to present collages in, especially considering mobile readers. But making an argument to remove them based on a completely unreasonable assumption is ridiculous. Saltywalrusprkl (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Saltywalrusprkl: I've put your post in chronological order, per standard operating procedure. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Then what about the other 3 rules they violate? You have to consider them, they cannot be avoided. 136.228.103.197 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already addressed this in the "closure" section below, but I guess this might warrant repeating here:
1. WP:ONUS. "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." - In decade articles, collages have been arrived at through consensus and dicussions in talk pages.
2. WP:RS. If we're not making up the information that we're choosing to highlight, we are not falling afoul of this rule.
3. WP:NPOV. This seems to regard the coverage of disputes, such as the existence of god, the morality of abortion, or the sphericity of the Earth. I don't believe this policy is relevant to the topic at hand.
4. Editors choosing what facts are more important simply cannot be against the rules, because it is the entire premise of lead sections. Koopinator (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It simply is against policy as editors deciding what is or is not important is OR. Wasn't there an RFC about leads in year articles where this point was brought up a few times. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 20:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It simply is against policy as editors deciding what is or is not important is OR". I think this is way not true. I mean adding information in articles is completely about editors subjective opinion as to what should be in the article, as long as it is relevant verifiable information by reliable sources. What is important or not is decided as a matter of consensus. It is not OR. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 20:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VIts content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or unpublished original research. WP:NPOVAll encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Note that neither of those statements say "whatever editors think is important". WP:ORThis includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Unless there are sources to show what is or is not considered important it's OR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 21:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misinterpreting WP:V. What you quoted is about information that needs to be verified in reliable sources, meaning that adding mere editors' opinions in articles is against the policy. It doesn't say what verifiable information from reliable sources can be added or which one is deemed important. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 23:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the content describes which events were important that year, that content must be verifiable. E.g. the "most important events of the year" must be verifiable, The Weather Event Writer shows below that such sources exist. Editors shouldn't be deciding what content is due or not due based on personal opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 23:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that specific context, I agree. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 23:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wasn't there an RFC about leads in year articles where this point was brought up a few times." - Not that I'm aware of. If there was, I'd be very interested to see it. I also recommend reading my initial !vote and and discussion with voorts above. With all the arguments I have brought forth, I really don't feel it's productive to say "editors deciding what is or is not important is OR" with no further elaboration. Koopinator (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable independent secondary sources to show what is or is not important, I dont see how that could not be clearer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 21:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that the language used in this discussion certainly doesn't make it seem like such sources are being used, and rather editors opinion is being relied upon. I'm well aware that such sources exist, and that Google is a search engine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 22:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources are from different points of view. It still violates WP:NPOV even though it’s not on the website. 136.228.103.197 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already told you how you could be clearer. Koopinator (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so let me get this straight: Following sources violates NPOV for collages? But not following sources also violates NPOV for collages? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Skipping over the IPs comment, those sources and other similar ones would make a good basis for such decisions. If I've misinterpreted the language and decision are based on such sources my concern on that point is satisfied. I'm still against collages, as they're overwide or cramped, and would rather images were throughout the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 23:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Collages are generally a poor idea, either taking up to much room or being to small to viewed properly. I'd also agree with concerns of how images are selected. A much better option would be to disperse images through out the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 21:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful and informative to the reader when well-constructed. Collages are a hard problem. This does not mean they are intractable, nor that they are inherently at odds with our goals for Wikipedia. Any problem of NPO in image selection is the same as any other content question, just a little harder; we are constantly making judgements on which sources to lean on, how to structure the body of an article, how to phrase the lead, etc. This does not mean that we must simply restate what is said in the sources relying solely on quotes, merely padded by joiner text. It is very easy to fall into the trap of making all of the encyclopaedia as dry as possible, and images are a clear anti-dryness tool. That all said, I would support restrictions on images or galleries, and a clear, helpful guideline for how to use (and how not to use) montages would be a step in the right direction. — HTGS (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Collages for year articles are simply unhelplful for our readers. Collages of such broad scope inherently present major NPOV and original research concerns that are not addressed adequately by the keep votes. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Koopinator & JPxG. I'm fine them being removed on a case-by-case basis, but, per HTGS, they are useful and informative to the reader when well-constructed. The problems listed apply to all collages, but they can be overcome if the collage is well-done. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only for Decades and Wars but remove from individual years and the current decade as that seems to be the only place where these edit wars occur. It is easier to conclude which images are important once the decade is over versus what is when we aren't even halfway through it. To my knowledge, for example, there has never really been any entrenched discussion about what images are important for the 2000s as they accurately display the most important trends and events of that decade ie the indian ocean tsunami, 9/11 and the resulting conflicts, the rise of china, the rise of the eu, the proliferation of social media, and the great recession and I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who'd disagree or think it violates NPOV. I fear that we are falling into a trap where, if we continue to remove major content like this, then we will eventually have nothing to add in these articles to begin with. PaulRKil (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're first to express an opinion along the line of "keep for decades but remove for years". Can you explain what difference it makes if the relevant timespan is increased by 10? Koopinator (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Up until recently, having collages only on decades appeared to be the status quo. I don't think people began to push for collages on years until after 2020. The reality is that, unlike 2020, not enough major events happen in a year to fill a collage or said events aren't contained to a single year. This results in editors scouring to find events to fill a collage and arguing with others on which events are important enough for conclusion. For example, in 2021 the fall of Afghanistan and the easing of COVID restrictions were the most notable events of that year which resulted in users trying to include comparably less important events such as the ship blocking the Suez Canal, the 2020 Olympics, or El Salvador adopting Bitcoin in order to try and fill out the collage for the year and long protracted arguments about their inclusion.
I've never seen a long-drawn-out argument about collages on decade articles because a decade is going to have a handful of major events that editors will agree should be included. PaulRKil (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Weather Event Writer Sebbog13 (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sebbog13: I moved your stated position, per chronological order. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Remove unless someone can point to an example of a really good one. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I have often found that collages for large categories are inherently problematic, since they are hard to understand for readers with small screens or visual impairments, and they tend to lead to squabbling about their contents that inherently leads to WP:OR. An RfC recently closed at Talk:City, deciding to include a graph instead of a collage in City's lead section, owing to the inability to show a representative sample of either cities themselves or the kinds of infrastructure found in cities.Also in this case, some major events cannot be represented by free images, which leads to an inherent bias; for comparison, I recall a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_93#Articles_on_Afghanistan_should_be_demilitarized where a user complained about overrepresentation of the 2001–21 Afghan war in Afghanistan-related articles, which one user attributed to the fact that most available free images are from the US military. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't the place to comment, but I find the removal of the city image a truly weird decision. The article would be enhanced, imo, by any image of a city that isn't wildly atypical. Sometimes I think these local RfCs don't come up the answer that the general community might expect. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On a laptop, I actually rather like the appearance of the collage images; I'd suggest including collages on a page-by-page basis by individual consensus, as a form of visual lead. 2020 has some obvious events that most would agree are globally significant, as would say 1945, so collages could potentially reach consensus; years with less obvious events could go without. The automatic OR comments seem to me to be overegged; there's always some element of synthesis deciding what to include in a lead, it is only a problem where there is persistent disagreement. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but fix the formatting This seems to have veered into becoming a general referendum on collages and lead images, which is somewhat concerning. I have lovingly maintained many such images in my time, and find they add great value to an article. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words. Our readers often skim our articles, and images help them quickly gain information. Concerns about OR are wildly overblown; the process of selecting images is no more OR than the process of selecting what to say in a lead, or an article in general. Our processes require some editorial discretion no matter what we do. Ultimately, this is the internet. People expect images. Of course we'll never select the "perfect" images, but we'll do a good job. We're Wikipedians. We figure it out. The problem is hard, but not intractable.However, there is one thing that should be fixed about the collages, which might alleviate some of the concerns. The "one image collage" is outdated. Nowadays, something like Template:Multiple image is way easier to maintain, and allows people to expand the images to full size. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are there issues? Sure. Should the issues be addressed? Of course. Getting rid of the collages altogether is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Retswerb (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closure
This RFC has been open now for nearly two full months. It's time for a consensus to be declared & accepted. I've requested that the closure be done by an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 30 more days, with proper notice, will hurt. There's NORUSH. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the !votes coming in seem to be remove, and if that trend continues, I don't see why there couldn't be a SNOW close after a few days. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After two months, with plenty of time to contact multiple WikiProjects. Requesting this RFC be closed, isn't rushing things. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, with all the comments you have here, I should remind you about WP:BLUD. I am not saying you are bludgeoning, but you should be careful commenting the same thing multiple times in the same overall discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First I heard about it was when the collages were removed from the decades pages. Those are the talk pages that should have been notified, and were not. Not everyone is a member of WikiProject Years. Voorts is correct in that the discussion on his talk page presented enough of an argument to re-open, and since it is reopened let's give it a couple of weeks to clear the holidays. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. and since this has been reopened can someone please put the collages back on all of the decades articles? There has been no decision to remove them. Thanks. I'd do it but an editor has taken me to the edit wars page for adding the collage back to 1960s. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have also been removals on every year from 2023 back to 1967, and perhaps further, which I think should be undone while the RfC is open. jp×g🗯️ 22:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree as I also discovered this discussion when the collage was removed from 2020s. The lack of a proper notice to high traffic year and decade articles is insane as so many users add to collages that probably haven't even heard of this wikiproject. Yeoutie (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I became aware when DementiaGamingthreatened me on my talk page that he'll report me for edit warring if I add back the collage to the 2010s page. Jay 💬 05:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine, undo my edits (for doing the right thing), edit war these images in and break more rules (WP:ONUS, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV) by letting them stay. They'll be removed again anyway after someone finally does the right thing and closes this worthless RfC. DementiaGaming (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of images on a page does not break any rule I'm aware of. jp×g🗯️ 14:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are missing the whole point of this RfC. 136.228.103.197 (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Highlighting specific information in a gallery is not WP:OR. If choosing what information warrants highlighting is WP:OR, not a single lead section on this website could be written on this website, because all lead sections require lesser details to be omitted. Koopinator (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is even true, then it still violates those 3 rules. 136.228.103.197 (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine, I will address these other 3 rules.
1. WP:ONUS. "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article." - In decade articles, collages have been arrived at through consensus and dicussions in talk pages.
2. WP:RS. If we're not making up the information that we're choosing to highlight, we are not falling afoul of this rule.
3. WP:NPOV. This seems to regard the coverage of disputes, such as the existence of god, the morality of abortion, or the sphericity of the Earth. I don't believe this policy is relevant to the topic at hand.
4. Editors choosing what facts are more important simply cannot be against the rules, because it is the entire premise of lead sections.
5. I will make the case that this very RFC violates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." - pages on subjects other than years have collages highlighting the most important aspects of topics, and they have stayed there with WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, so arguing that such collages are against the rules, but only going so far as to ban them for this topic, is using the wrong venue.
It’s your job to prove to us that these collages can stay without breaking these 3 rules, @Koopinator. If you can prove this, maybe we can add them back in. In fact, it’s not just your job. It’s @JPxG, @Randy Kryn, @Voorts, and @Jay‘s job, who are somewhat experienced editors, to prove to themselves and to everybody that these can stay without controversy. 136.228.103.197 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to prove anything. I'm here because one editor was trying to remove the collages without explanation and then edit warring. Jay 💬 07:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been out of the discussion loop for a while. I didn’t know it got closed and honestly caught the re-opening on my watchlist (like I do most things). I am not accusing anyone here, but I did notice User talk:GoodDay#ICYMI: RfC: Removal of image collages via my watchlist (after commenting above) and if I may make an Among Us reference, the opening to it is sus. InvadingInvader Said to GoodDay, I think you are going to be very pleased with the result. Again this is not an accusation by any stretch, but that does sound awfully sus of WP:CANVAS. No evidence though, but I felt like I needed to mention that here in case there was somehow a canvassing event going on. Either way, I’m out of the discussion. I commented above earlier and I have 0 care for the closure/re-opening aspect. Cheers y’all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC was closed, when I was contacted by InvadingInvader. We both had already given our 'support' for removal of image collages. So, InvadingInvader didn't canvass anybody. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Weather Event Writer, while I appreciate your attentiveness, please double check the timestamps. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw neither hide nor hair of this until just now when a notice was posted to WP:NPOV. I don't this was advertised all that well. jp×g🗯️ 13:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on WP:RS is completely absurd. That's not how it works. We need to add RSs to all content on Wikipedia. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding global warming for 2023 is also crazy, it's representative of the past couple centuries. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that isn’t your call to make. That would be based on RS, not violating a single rule on Wikipedia. That reasoning is legit WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC was initially closed declaring a consensus for deleting collage images from only the Year pages. Not the Decade pages or Century pages. So again, I don't understand why the closure/decision was undone. The closure should been left alone & then two separate RFCs opened - one for Decade pages & one for Century pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the time that I had asked for this RFC to be overturned, User:DementiaGaming had removed the collages from the decade articles, and interpreted the RFC result to prohibit all collages on years, decade, century and millennia articles. I felt like, if I challenged him on the basis that "the RFC only applies to years", he would say something about the "spirit of the RFC" or that I'm taking the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. And, to be fair, not a single person here has made an argument about why image collages are inappropriate for years specifically, all the arguments thus far boil down to "importance is subjective and WP:OR" And given how malformed the "remove" arguments seemed to be, I felt I had a better shot if I tried to overturn the result outright. Koopinator (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you've put out multiple notifications on pages & talkpages. I'll be pinging all editors who've already participated in the RFC, that haven't commented since the re-opening. They deserve to know the latest happenings. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point of view has not changed either. I still strongly urge against deleting collages. I support transforming collages into galleries and renegotiating what events they should contain by voting to avoid overemphasizing a particular region, such as Europe centralism or US centralism. And I hope that the collage to be transformed into a gallery can expand from 8 grids to 10-12 grids to solve the problem of tight slots. Nagae Iku (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t worry, this RfC is about their removal from pages, not their deletion. 136.228.103.197 (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mine hasn't changed either. Let's get rid of all the current collages and we can discuss their reintroduction in a civilised manner, based on solid arguments rather than "Why are you removing all my lovely collages that I have spent ages designing?" Deb (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it interests you, I have brought forth new policy-based arguments since the RFC has been re-opened. You may want to check the new !votes that have emerged. Koopinator (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's now 18–7 in favor of 'Remove', fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTVOTE – It serves as a little reminder of the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly why people should have just let this RfC close. People are now using illogical arguments against their removal. 136.228.103.197 (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question if you see this 136.228.103.197. I am assuming complete good faith here that you have done your research and such on the topic, so if I may ask, what exact comments do you consider "illogical"? This question stems more to confirm you researched the discussion topic/policies/guidelines since prior to this discussion, you have not edited any yearly-related page. Again, I am assuming complete good faith here, which is why I am wanting to ask what specific comments/!votes you consider to be "illogical"? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s like @Deb said that people love these “oh so perfectly good collages that HAVE to stay because I LOVE LOVE LOVE repetition and if you remove them you’re wrong and you ruin this website”, this is essentially what these ppl are saying. 136.228.103.197 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really point to a specific comment(s). That is more of an overall impression from the replies, which can be interpreted in different ways. I'm not going to ask again, but given your reply, you may want to chance your wording as saying "people are now using illogical arguments" seems to point to saying multiple people don't know what they are talking about and you didn't actually provided a specific example. So yeah, it would be best to maybe strike that and reword it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
A request - When the RFC is closed again (hopefully, sometime during the 21st century), will editors please go to WP:AN, if they disagree with the closing & its decision? GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal on the Selection of Collages Images for In-Line Images
This proposal aims to fulfill the preference for in-line images resulting from the discussion of the removal of the collages. Editors have expressed that in-line images improve the visual appeal and engagement of the years pages, providing better context for readers.
To save time and ensure consensus-based selections, I propose directly splitting and placing the exact images used from the collages in-line.
This applies specifically to collages where the content was agreed upon through active discussions on the relevant year's talk page.
If the image selection was made unilaterally or only discussed by a limited number of editors in a secondary location, discussions should be initiated on the relevant talk page of the year article to determine the appropriate images for inclusion.
Utilizing previously removed collage images, ensures that they have already undergone a consensus-based selection process, saving effort. It also ensures that the effort invested in deciding the images for the previous collages is not wasted.
The proposed steps to do this is summarized below.
Identify collages that were previously decided through consensus on the talk page of the relevant year page.
Open on the talk page of the relevant year page to determine the images if there was insufficient consensus previously.
Identify the images from the removed collages and place images in-line, following chronological order, where the relevant entry is.
Update captions and alt-text for accurate descriptions.
Seek community feedback and make necessary adjustments based on consensus.
I was viewing the 2023 page and observed that, unlike other pages for specific years, this page appears to have many images scattered throughout the article. Based on an examination of the pages' edit history, it appears that these photos were posted relatively recently by one or two users without any discussion or consensus. With reference to the RFC on collages above, this appears to be essentially the same issue, with the same policy violations. Would it be appropriate to remove all the images first at this stage? 33ABGirl (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, if there was no consensus to add'em? Then they should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that there have been no discussions about the posting of the images on the talk page at all. 33ABGirl (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the images from 2023 and have directed those who may wish to restore the images to first discuss it here. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see individual images than a collage. They can be useful for breaking up the overall look of the page. A collage almost always consists of images of events that killed or harmed a lot of people, but the resulting devastation tells you nothing about the event - they tend to look very similar. If we're having images, let's have colourful, meaningful images rather than the same thing repeated 8 times. Deb (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should make everything as boring, sterile, and uninformative as possible. Because it's absolutely paramount that we follow The Rules™ and don't ever attempt to improve anything. So yes, let's delete everything. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is opposed to improvement. It's just that the collages are generally not an improvement in any way. Deb (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TOC with Vector 2022
Hello! The new Vector design has moved the TOC to the left sidebar, but in year articles (1924) there's a NOTOC code that prevents it from appearing. Do you think we need the TOC back? (I think so, but I want to hear other opinions). Theklan (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up decades collage caption
The decades college captions (such as in 2010s) could make use of the {{multiple image}}'s captionX= parameter. This will make individual captions to be directly under the image which will make the collage much cleaner. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather we delete the images collages entirely from the decades pages. They appear like a decoration. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
best way to decorate would be using images for significant events in-line. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Removal of image collages from decades, centuries and millennium pages
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should image collages be deleted from decades, centuries and millennium pages? GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One final comment: I have removed the 2020s montage because this decade is not over yet. Please do not undo it. WP:WAITDementiaGaming (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here you go. Apparently, the other RfC was re-opened because I removed the images from the decade pages, and many people didn’t like that because they want them to stay (only because they look good), and they didn’t think the RfC counted for decades and centuries (which, it did). Please place your comments below. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose (Keep on articles) — There is for sure sources for decade and century top events. Example is this article titled “14 Major Events of the 2010s”. A college with those events would not break any rules and would not be WP:OR. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
:I would also like to note that I am permanently leaving this worthless argument as of now. It has been surprisingly detrimental to my mental health and has ruined my reputation on this website. I have tried to use logic here but have been blasted back by other editors.
Remove. I do think that if you can cite numerous high quality and all independent sources which all say the same thing such as a defining image or set of images, then they belong. Unfortunately this does not seem to be possible given current circumstances and so many differing points of view, and the only way to include them is to violate OR, a core content policy and a pillar of Wikipedia. If a huge amount of RS's can all say that there were some defining particular images for a decade or century (I'm talking at least 50, preferably 75, maybe even 100), then there may be a case for including them. Whilst they look aesthetically beautiful, there are more ways to include images inline as there are more articles written about why single images are defining (such as Pale Blue Dot), a full collage would require multiple sources to all say that all of the presented images on the collage were of significance, and I don't think it's feasible. And ideally, this is a case where to prevent slippery slopes (especially for newer articles), consistency should be practiced. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"(I'm talking at least 50, preferably 75, maybe even 100)"
This is ridiculous. List of video games considered the best requires six sources for a game to included on the list, and that's an article specifically about how games are received.
Just in case any admin will read this thread (which was made because another editor misunderstood me) in isolation, I have laid out my case why as to editors choosing what information warrants highlighting is not OR in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#RfC:_Removal_of_image_collagesKoopinator (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a malformed RfC tag. If someone wants to restart it, make sure to include a brief, neutral opener. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May want to include the millenniums too. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - too much OR and potential for bias in constructing a collage. Also, individual images become hard to distinguish making them become nothng more than (hopefully) aesthetically pleasing blobs of color. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 03:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't need this RFC Why did we need to start a separate RFC on this? How do any arguments change by increasing the relevant timespan by 10, 100 or 1000? We were already discussing this in the other RFC that hasn't even concluded yet. "many people didn’t like that because they want them to stay (only because they look good), and they didn’t think the RfC counted for decades and centuries (which, it did)." - This is not true. If I did think that, I wouldn't have requested for the original RFC to be overturned. But, since we are doing this, I guess I will vote Strong Keep, citing everything I have already said in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#RfC:_Removal_of_image_collagesKoopinator (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, as they're only decorative & an will create disputes over which images to include. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: You say they "will create disputes". Can you provide a few examples of where collages on decades, centuries, and millennium pages created disputes? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I follow the example of what happened over the collages on the Year pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. That RfC did not apply whatsoever to these articles. Please provide examples where collages have caused disputes on these specific types of pages. Otherwise, that part of your "remove" !vote is not valid. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing my position. The RFC closer will decide for themselves what is & isn't valid. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know I said I wouldn't comment here anymore but here are some examples of year montage disputes that I can think of: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2012, 2011, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1995, 1991, 1988, 1971, and 1964.DementiaGaming (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these disputes are still happening. No matter what, these images will create disputes. DementiaGaming (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all the points made in editor's Keep comments in the already open RfC. In any case, if this new RfC is actually kept open then please notify all of the Wikprojects and pages involved. This seems another way of picking-up a delete close so that all of the other collages on Wikipedia could be removed, as discussed in the above RfC. A reminder, each image on Wikipedia is chosen by an editor and can be called OR, in fact every word written can be called OR given the logic of these multiple discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best not to make any accusations about editors' motives. One could've easily suggested that getting the other RFC re-opened, was based on simply not liking the results. So, let's avoid going down those roads. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct and struck, thanks. Just seems odd to cherry-pick one set of collages (years, etc) when collages have existed long term on many other pages. Why the emphasis on years/decades and not World War II etc., many of which are Good pages and likely some features in there? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are primarily one-event pages & thus the reason nobody's seeking removing any collage images from them. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
World War II was lots of events, although several stand out (as events also stand-out each year, decade, or century). Designing a good collage is a work of art, an art DementiaGaming is pretty good at. Maybe let's focus on that aspect of collages and not throw the baby out with the bath water, to coin a phrase. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pages like World War II aren't having their collage images removed, nor is anyone calling for them to be removed. We're only concerned with (previous RFC) Year pages & (this RFC) Decade, Century & Millennium pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's circular reasoning, and another reason to close these discussions as Keep or No Consensus. Collages are the topic, and if they are good on "single topics" such as World War II then they are fine for a single topic 1960s. Just depends on how wide a net "single topic" takes in or omits. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We apparently disagree, so indeed this is & will continue to be a circular argument. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per MOS:ACCIM..... fragmented mini images that the majority can't see should not be in any article.. especially the lead.Moxy- 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RfC Decades, centuries and millenniums are all years, there should be no need for a separate RfC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 22:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That what several other people said! And they said that the previous RfC on years didn't count for decades, etc. When they were removed, they edit warred them back in and said there should be another RfC. 2002:88E4:67C5:0:E5E7:52C6:4651:F96E (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest those editors provide reliable sources that state that a 2020 is not a year because it's a decade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 23:10, 26 December 2023 (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.
21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
