Jump to content

Talk:2022/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Bicentenary of the Independence of Brazil (Result: exclusion)

2022 is the year of the bicentenary of the Independence of Brazil on its 7 September. On the eve of the death of Queen Elizabeth II she congratulated Brazil by its bicentenary. She died on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 189.98.242.194 (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a domestic event for 2022 in Brazil. Anniversaries are never important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Jim Michael. 4me689 (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Simply not. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
2022 is the year of the bicentenary of the 'independence of brazil; on its 7 september . on the eve of the death of Queen Elizabeth ll she congratulated brazil by its bicentenary. she died on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.189.98.242.194 [take] 14.24,14 October 2022n[UTC] [reply]
That's a domestic event for 2022 in brazil.Anniversaries are never important enough 202.8.118.78 (talk)06:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC) 202.8.118.78 (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Resignation of Liz Truss (Result: Include once new PM is chosen)

Should this be included? FireInMe (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Include, but next week when the new leader is chosen, because it is a change in government. 4me689 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Not until the new PM takes over. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Temporarily include as Liz Truss resigns as Prime Minister. Afterwards, once a new PM is picked, merge her resignation and the new PM taking office into a single entry on the day that the new PM takes office. I suggest it be phrased as Fooberton Foo succeeds Liz Truss as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, eight days after Truss announces her resignation. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree with you if the position of PM were vacant, but Truss is still PM until her successor is selected. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I do agree with InvadingInvader 4me689 (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
A change of PM is internationally relevant, but that hasn't happened yet. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @Jim Michael 2 here. We normally don't include intentions, but the actual process. To my knowledge, we removed the entry that mentioned Johnson's departure and we've removed when countries announced their intention to join Nato. I think the announcement is fit for 2022 in the United Kingdom but when the actual transfer of power occurs, we can include it here. PaulRKil (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Boris Johnson remained PM until Truss became PM in September, so we don't include his intention to resign in July. It's changes in head of state/gov that are internationally notable. We don't include applications/plans to join/leave NATO, the EU, the Eurozone, Schengen etc. because it's joining/leaving that's internationally notable. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, also I am fine with it being in predicted and scheduled events PaulRKil (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Include, but only after a new leader has been chosen. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

My proposal is this: we exclude the october 20 announcement, we include the upcoming leadership election being held on October 28, and we include whatever is the result using what @InvadingInvader proposed.PaulRKil (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Include, but after a new leader was chosen. Announcement = / = Actually resigning. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Exclude, despite the obvious WP:SNOWBALL I actually don't think the leadership of a country passing from one member of the same party to another is actually significant enough to include, be this via a general election or an internal party decision like this. JeffUK (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

John Jay Osborn Jr. (Result: exclusion)

is John Jay Osborn Jr. international notable enough to be included, just asking. 4me689 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

He has no international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
to be honest I do agree with exclusion. 4me689 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Exclude due to insufficient international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Angela Lansbury image (Result: second image)

Dame Angela Lansbury
Dame Angela Lansbury

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

you know, I'll do vote below just so it doesn't get too confusing. 4me689 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
in addition I have gone ahead and made a talk section about Angela Lansbury's info box picture in her talk section at Talk:Angela_Lansbury#info_box_picture. 4me689 (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@JeffUK:, @PaulRKil:, @Amakuru:, @Wjfox2005:, and @Jim Michael 2: can you guys vote down below on what should be Angela Lansbury's death section photo, cuz you guys have not replied yet, also can you guys leave a comment at Talk:Angela_Lansbury#info_box_picture you don't have to but it will be nice if you do so. 4me689 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Vote

Cast your !vote
  • first image
    first image
  • second image
    second image

this is a vote section for Angela Lansbury death section photo, Just sign under your choice(s). 4me689 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

First image

  1. this is the current info box photo on her article 4me689 (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  2. Not picking sides here necessarily (as frankly I don't truly care what image gets used), however this image is the latest one out of the two and is also the one used in the infobox. HOwever I would prefer the other image if it were my personal choice since it doesn't look like she's topless. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Second image

  1. IMO the superior image, and there’s not and never has been any hard and fast rule about having to use the same image here as the infobox on the subject’s main article. TheScrubby (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  2. At least she's smiling. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  3. I vote this one PaulRKil (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Mike Davis (Result: exclusion)

Is Mike Davis notable enough to be included, he look a guy we include in these type of articles. 4me689 (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Insufficient notability. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Exclude due to insufficient international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Leslie Jordan (Result: exclusion)

is Leslie Jordan international notable enough to be included, he has already be added a couple times already, just asking before I put my opinion. (also I need more replies at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey i recommend going and put your comment if you haven't done so already) 4me689 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Exclude beloved actor in the USA but not any notability elsewhere. PaulRKil (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Neutral that being said his inclusion will open the floodgates of people that are currently excluded. That being said I lean Exclusion. FireInMe (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
well @FireInMe: if we were to include Leslie Jordan it wouldn't really open the floodgates to include other non notable people
(also you mind go and reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey) 4me689 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
My concern in regards to my floodgates comment was that users could say X celebrity is as notable as Leslie Jordan and it could derail certain discussions with whataboutisms if Jordan was included.
In regards to the collage survey I have no hard position, I agree with points from both sides of the argument. FireInMe (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Exclude because he has no international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Exclude, I mean this dude is not really have any major rules. 4me689 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Obviously exclude, and in cases of minor actors such as this where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, we don’t have to open up a topic for every example. Only those who are a realistic chance of a borderline inclusion or inclusion in general. TheScrubby (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
well, really, if they're added more then 2 times, we may have to do a talk section about them, just so we can prove a actual consensus. 4me689 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I mean, I haven't had a look at who has been editing Jordan in, though if it's generally IPs in particular, or accounts which have barely other activity recorded, I don't think it's entirely worth the trouble. If it's by more than one established user though, then that's a different story I suppose. But in general, I reckon celebrities should be brought up if their inclusion proves controversial/is at the very most a potential borderline inclusion rather than those who are obviously lacking in international notability (case in point for recent weeks: Eileen Ryan, Ted White, Bernard Atha, etc.) and whose exclusions are foregone conclusions. TheScrubby (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
We should only start discussions about them if they're debatable. Insufficiently notable people are frequently added by fans. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thích Nhất Hạnh or Meat Loaf? (Result:)

A little while ago, space for a 5th picture opened in January, I initially put Thích Nhất Hạnh, though now i'm beginning to have second thoughts as Meat Loaf has been more taiked about, I feel like I meat Loaf is more of a better candidate, so I have came to see what everyone thinks. 4me689 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta & include both of them. There's a photo of a substantially more notable politician than IBK in that month's subsection of Deaths. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Disagree - Keita was a long serving leader of his country who was taken down by a coup barely two years ago. African figures in general don’t get as much chance of image representation when it is usually Western-dominated, and that’s something we can’t double down on. I’d also prioritise Hanh over Meat Loaf. TheScrubby (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Mali is one of the least developed countries and Keita didn't do anything important. The Mali War began well over a year before he became president & is ongoing. We don't usually include photos of two people from the same occupation in the same month in Births or Deaths. Doing so to include someone from a particular continent isn't a good reason for making an exception. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Jim here and would say Include both by removing Keita. Both figures' notability far surpasses that of Keita...this is comparable to Jang Song-thaek vs. Jennifer Lawrence assuming that (god forbid) they both died in the same month. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Jim Michael and invading invader on replacing Keita with Thích Nhất Hạnh and Meat Loaf, January had a lot of notable deaths, January deaths begs for variety. 4me689 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Keita served as both head of government (Prime Minister) and head of state (President) of Mali, whose time in office ended in a notable coup (in 2020, no less) - he is easily more notable than Hanh and Loaf (or Jang Song-thaek, for that matter), and the development level of the country he led should not be a factor at all. Variety in terms of where people come from is important to take into account as well, and African figures are lucky to get representation in images compared to figures from (especially) North America and Europe. The exclusion of the image of a figure like Keita would be unacceptable on all those grounds, especially when excluded in favour of a white Western entertainer (one who is not an inductee of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame). TheScrubby (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Its development level is relevant because Mali is an economic minnow. It's far less important than developed, small countries including Portugal, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium & The Netherlands. Being deposed by a coup doesn't increase his notability. We shouldn't prioritise the less notable on the grounds of ethnicity or nationality. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
To add on to Jim's arguments, coups are absolutely important for entries as part of a list, but if a regime change doesn't affect the world in ways that are more than tweets and foreign aid, it should be limited to just an entry. And we're not even talking about a coup itself; we're talking about the death of a figure who was central to a coup and not the coup itself. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
All I can further say beyond what I’ve already said (which as I have indicated I reject the premise of the arguments against Keita), is that the optics here would look atrocious if we prioritised against a long-serving leader like Keita (completely different story if he only served a short, forgettable term) from Africa in favour of Meat Loaf, a white entertainer from the already (regularly) heavily represented United States, and who isn’t even an inductee of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the genre for which he was most associated with. TheScrubby (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Keita's terms weren't short, but they were forgettable. The vast majority of people haven't heard of him & he didn't do anything important. Had he brought an end to the Mali War, there'd be a good case for including his photo. Likewise if he'd led his country into prosperity, industrialisation and development, greatly improving its life expectancy, literacy, education, housing conditions etc. whilst greatly reducing its birthrate & poverty, there'd also be a case for saying he's more notable than ML. Including ML would mean that he'd be the only white entertainer with a photo in the January subsection of Deaths, so how would that be disproportionate? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Moreover, the US can only really be remotely argued to be overrepresented in photos when looking at maybe August, September, and October. With the sole exception of Sidney Poitier, there seems to be zero Americans photographically represented in the earlier part of the deaths section. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Well just with your final point, I’m talking year pages in general, not specific months. Though having said that, in the last couple of years we have worked on addressing that and making it less skewed. TheScrubby (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Robbie Coltrane (Result: no consensus/inconclusive, continued in RFC)

Should Robbie Coltrane be included in the main year article or 2022 in the United Kingdom? He seems notable enough but I simply don't know enough about him or his accolades. PaulRKil (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Include, albeit as a borderline inclusion, looking at his resume he was known for playing Hagrid in Harry Potter, he also had roles on other movies like the James Bond movies, this person looks like an actor who would normally be included in these pages. 4me689 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
He won no major international film awards and his most prominent roles were supporting, not lead roles - yes, in internationally notable franchises, but as is well established actors (particularly supporting actors) do not automatically inherit the notability of the films they appear in. His situation is not unlike that of Tanya Roberts, who was ultimately excluded at the end. TheScrubby (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I've just given you the links above. International coverage == international notability. That's how Wikipedia works, on every page. This one isn't excluded because a few people have their own ideas. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
They're links to articles about the death of a domestic figure who's internationally known for his supporting role in the HP films. If international media coverage proved international notability, we'd include a large number of domestic bombings, mass shootings, civil war battles etc. which have been reported internationally. We'd have to include internationally reported deaths - such as that of Anne Heche - in the Events section as well as the Deaths section. There'd be a Death of Anne Heche article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
If he's internationally known he's not a domestic figure, is he? Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Like many other entertainers, it's only his fans who are international. The international media's interest is due to them knowing that many of their readers/viewers will want to know, because of the large number of HP fans there. A similar thing is true of many sportspeople, such as many players of baseball, basketball & American football who only play in the US, but have many fans in other countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
If that were true, James Michael Tyler would have international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
No he wouldn't. Not even close to the same level of coverage. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Then JMT would have a lower level of international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Exclude due to insufficient international notability, as per Jim Michael. TheScrubby (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Neutral honestly, I don't know. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Exclude as per TheScrubby and Jim Michael. Should I remove him in the 1950 article too? Kyu (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Borderline Exclusion. He was "a wizard" of his time, but he's only really notable for Harry Potter, and there are many people, myself included, who are not big Potterheads. That being said, though, most of the connected world has heard of Harry Potter and seen at least part of one of the movies, either in full, as part of a trailer, or as a meme (especially Coltrane's "You're a wizard harry" scene, so he has that going for him. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
He's notable for other things, but internationally he's known primarily for HP. Most international obits & reports of his death include HP &/or Hagrid in their titles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
International press in "mentioning what the person is most famous for" shock! See also: every other actor's obituary. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Include. Coltrane is internationally notable. Add Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Hungary, Mexico, Estonia, and many others to the list. Coltrane has been internationally notable at least since the 90s through having a lead role as "Fitz", winning three Bafta award in three consecutive years. Years before Harry Potter. Politrukki (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Many non-British media sources include HP &/or Hagrid in their titles, but very few - if any - of their titles include Cracker. The show didn't win any awards outside the UK. The number of Cracker fans outside the UK couldn't be compared on the same scale as the number of HP fans outside the UK. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Headlines are irrelevant; they don't contribute to notability. The content in reliable sources does. SVT News (see above) gives in its lead equal weight to Coltrane's role in Cracker and Harry Potter "bland annat genom den brittiska tv-serien Cracker och som Rubeus Hagrid i Harry Potter". Most sources give the most attention to Potter role. Of course Harry Potter has more fans than Cracker. I don't understand your point. Coltrane was notable before the Potter role. Politrukki (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
He was notable before Cracker, but he never gained international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'm close to giving up too, as this page is dominated by people who seem FANATICAL about deleting literally EVERYTHING. It's borderline trolling at this point. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep reading the page. When I want information, I check the Deaths in 2022 list. The main year page has nothing that I really care about. Dimadick (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The bar for inclusion here is international notability, and as has long been established, international media coverage ≠ international notability. The Harry Potter films (which everybody here knows Coltrane was most notable for) are obviously notable, but actors from internationally notable franchises don’t automatically gain the notability of the films themselves. Most people would know of Hagrid, but would have no idea what the actor’s name was. Coltrane won no major international acting awards and his most prominent roles were supporting roles. We don’t include minor character actors on these main international year pages, be it Coltrane, Tanya Roberts, Estelle Harris, or other such examples. Actors from the English-speaking world make up a significant portion of inclusions as is - not just among entertainers, but in general. Furthermore, recent year pages especially have easily exceeded the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and that is something we need to keep in mind when it comes to who’s included on these main years pages. Once again, just because somebody is not included here doesn’t mean they totally lack notability. Obviously they would, otherwise they wouldn’t have a Wiki article to begin with. But that doesn’t automatically mean they are entitled to a place in the main international yearly pages. And cheap jibes about “fiefdoms” and bad faith accusations of trolling don’t exactly help your case for Robbie Coltrane. TheScrubby (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Many year articles are far longer than they should be. They're meant to be international, so adding domestic events & people is dilution, padding, adding chaff to the wheat etc. The large majority of notable events & people belong on the many sub-articles. Coltrane's death is on three of 2022's sub-articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I do disagree occasionally on inclusion with Jim and Scrubby (usually when it comes to domestic events which trigger a huge international reaction like Roe v. Wade), but personal attacks are not the way to go, guys. Maybe instead of calling Jim and Scrubby "FANATICAL about deleting literally EVERYTHING", say "we're deleting too many notable events", and stay away from telling them to "go enjoy their little fiefdom". I'm not completely sold that "international coverage ≠ international notability" is true, but I do agree that the year articles are generally starting to get bigger, and something should be done about it, and I think that the argument "a lot of international coverage ≠ a lot of international notability" would be a better argument for Scrubby to use.
I would advise @Black Kite, @Wjfox2005 to consult this flow chart, though, especially the section on changing the rules:
Happy editing, InvadingInvader (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Deb removes more people & events from main year articles than Scrubby & I do combined. I agree with the vast majority of those removals. Clearly insufficiently notable events & people are added to main year articles every day. Many people have complained that main year articles have a very small number of frequent, regular editors - but we welcome more. The problem is that very few people want to edit these articles regularly. A high proportion of those who edit them merely want to promote a particular event, law, person, place, demographic, organisation, sport, change, trend etc. They in most cases quickly leave due to those things being removed due to them being unsuitable for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
No. They leave the page because you and your acolytes have a different concept of notability than the rest of Wikipedia. I am fairly sure that this won't last for ever, but at the moment that's the situation, which is the reason that Deaths in 2022 is a more useful page than this one. Perhaps it would also be useful if the page was "run" by people that don't do pretty much nothing more useful than update current news. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
You know that being included on main year articles requires a much higher notability bar than inclusion in WP. That's why we have many subarticles. That's why you've removed domestic figures from this article, including Tony Dow & PnB Rock. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Just to add to Jim’s comment, David Warner and Paul Sorvino had more notability than Coltrane, and they were still deemed not sufficiently internationally notable for inclusion here - something you had no qualms with Black Kite. It makes little sense that you’re making Coltrane a hill to die on. TheScrubby (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@TheScrubby:, @Jim Michael 2:, @Amakuru:, @Pawnkingthree:, @The Rambling:, @Politrukki:, @Black Kite:, and @Alsoriano97:
I think David Warner and Paul Sorvino have lower notably than Coltrane imo, the reason I said include is because of his big roles as hagrid and a couple of roles of James bond villains, not because of the media coverage.
This discussion discussion getting too long, so I recommend contributing to other discussion like the one below about Angela Lansbury's death section photo, or Talk:2020#Photo_Montage which is about the 2020 college, or Talk:Angela_Lansbury#info_box_picture which is about Angela Lansbury's infobox in her article, I really love you too reply to those discussions instead of arguing about Robbie Coltrane here. 4me689 (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Both roles you mention were supporting roles in internationally notable franchises (and the Bond one was a particularly minor one in two films), and he won no awards in relation to either. Tanya Roberts had a bigger role in the Bond franchise as the main Bond girl in one film, and she was not included on these year pages. Coltrane being included would be an complete aberration. TheScrubby (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion is long because it doesn't seem to be concluded yet. Some are arguing that Coltrane is an international star and warrants inclusion, based on sources covering him, others say he's not. Having those who voted against inclusion simply closing the discussion and ordering everyone to move on is not how WP:CONSENSUS decisions are made on Wikipedia. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Except international sources do not automatically equate international notability - this has been established for these year pages for some time now, and Coltrane being included would be a massive exception to the rule when we have rightly excluded similarly notable figures such as David Warner, Paul Sorvino, Tanya Roberts, Estelle Harris, etc. Coltrane won no major international acting awards, and actors do not automatically gain the notability of the films they appear in - and that especially applies to supporting actors. Few people outside of hardcore fans would recognise Coltrane’s name while recognising the character of Hagrid. How is any of that substantial international notability? This should be an open-and-shut case of somebody who belongs in Year In Topic - and nobody who has voted for inclusion has addressed these major points against inclusion. TheScrubby (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Include per the sources provided by Politrukki. Very clearly an internationally-recognized actor. Bit strange that this is even up for discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
It's not strange. He's one of hundreds of internationally-recognised domestic figures. In his case, that international fandom is mostly due to him playing one supporting character, Rubeus Hagrid. He has no significant international awards. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
This. Most people who know of Hagrid would not recognise the name “Robbie Coltrane”. How is that sufficient international notability? TheScrubby (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Include this is a frankly absurd debate. An internationally renowned actor who starred in some of the biggest movies ever made. This American hate is too much. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    What “American hate”? Coltrane was Scottish. What an absurd comment to make. Furthermore, as has been previously mentioned, Coltrane won no major international awards. He was never an A-list actor or among the most critically acclaimed of his generation. TheScrubby (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Include Everywhere else on Wikipedia we judge notability by coverage in reliable sources, and Coltrane's notability comes from a major role in one of the most internationally successful movie franchises of all time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    He played a supporting role in an internationally notable franchise, and actors don’t automatically gain the notability of the films they appear in. That has been well-established here. Most people who are familiar with the character of Hagrid (beyond hardcore fans) would have no idea about what Robbie Coltrane’s name was or if he appeared in anything else. That is not what can be reasonably considered substantial international notability. Coltrane’s inclusion would be an aberration, and so far nobody who has advocated for his inclusion has sufficiently addressed these. TheScrubby (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    @TheScrubby I think that to dissolve the mob and limit controversy, let's just let Coltrane in. In principle, I lean closer to you and Jim on this entry, but it seems like that too many people want him in, and inherently, some people will stick to a position even if their argument for inclusion is not a "better" argument. From what I'm seeing, the efforts to exclude Coltrane seem to be only "reverse-canvassing" in a way as the side of the debate you primarily advocate for to be increasingly scrutinized and attracting more controversy from all ends, even being viewed as borderline-authoritarian from the most extreme opponents. For the sake of moving on from this, let's WP:Just drop it and move on to other discussions. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    The bar is international notability here, and the majority of the people saying include have not addressed the primary points against inclusion - instead either just relying to a “international coverage” standard that has long been dropped on these pages, or making comments without substance such as “this is a frankly absurd debate”. Coltrane being included under the circumstances would be an aberration and would go against the standards we have for inclusion on these year pages. If we include Coltrane, that would open the floodgates for other minor character actors who won no major international awards and who are mainly known for one (supporting) role in an internationally notable franchise - advocated for by people who may or may not confuse the notability of the character with the notability of the actor itself. I don’t think any of that is acceptable. TheScrubby (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    I understand your reasons, but I think that by using a method of including stuff on a case by case basis in cases like Coltrane where is international notability is disputed but attracting a high level of support, we don't have to worry about opening floodgates. If someone attempts to include "Fooberton Foo" because we included Coltrane, we can immediately strike that point out by citing WP:OSE. By relying on popular votes to decide borderline cases of inclusion when there is a higher level of dispute concerning one of the standards, we can avoid long-swindled debates. Personally, I think that doing well for our readers and getting stuff done is more important than endlessly debating a few lines of text. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Given the level of debate that this has spurred, I will throw my opinion in and support a borderline inclusion for Robbie Coltrane.PaulRKil (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Borderline Include. I'm changing my opinion from Weak Exclusion to Borderline Include because Coltrane has received levels of popular support on this talk page proportionally comparable to LeVar Burton for Jeopardy host. Our readers are more important than logic, and people have clearly demonstrated that he should belong. Moreover, those in favor of including him have shown what I see as sufficient international coverage to demonstrate an international level of notability, albeit maybe not as notable as Angela Lansbury or other deaths. For the purposes of WP:Just dropping it and moving on to more important debates, let's just get on with this and throw him in. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone have an inclusion argument other than international media coverage in response to his death & the number of fans he has in many countries? International media coverage of people's deaths would give very high international notability to Sarah Everard & Gabby Petito. Number of fans would give more notability to Kim Kardashian than Gene Hackman. If they die on the same day, her death will gain significantly more media coverage than his. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that international media coverage is not the end-all be-all, but Coltrane has been known for a long time, and his death wasn't like a Gabby Petito event where although very sad indeed, it was more so a media event than a person who had accomplishments. I'm afraid that if we continue this debate, we're inadvertently going to encourage more canvassing in favor of it, so Jim, as much as I agree with you and Scrubby, let's just drop it and let this dog have its day. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Number of deceased celebrities in lead (Result:)

I think the number of deceased celebrities in the lead should also be limited to three as we limited it for world leaders. I think the current list can appear to add undue weight on celebrity deaths. IF we shorten it, we should have sidney poitier, olivia newton john, and jean-luc godard. PaulRKil (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with PaulRKil, sidney poitier, olivia newton john, and jean-luc godard should be the only on the lead. 4me689 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
We can also switch out one of the three and put in Meat Loaf just so we have some diversity as the three listed are in film. PaulRKil (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you PaulRKil, replace Godard with meatloaf, cuz Godard is the least known of the three. 4me689 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Inclusion should be on the basis of notability, not how well-known they are. If Gene Hackman & Kim Kardashian die during the same year, we'd include him, not her. We can't reasonably have a quota from each occupation for each year. In 2016, several very notable entertainers died. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Since the inclusion of figures in the lead as your idea, @Jim Michael 2 who do you think we should have if we limit to three? PaulRKil (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
If you mean three entertainers who died this year: Poitier, Meat Loaf & Godard - but I disagree with specifying that number. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I just added "Micheal Jackson" on the Wikipedia. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I meant the 2009 page. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Godard is easily among the most notable entertainers to die this year, and certainly more so than Meat Loaf, who I actually regard as the least notable/the weak link of those listed. TheScrubby (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Who would even think of replacing Godard... _-_Alsor (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
This morning, someone added Coolio which brought the list in the lede to seven. We need to condense this.PaulRKil (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Coolio is nowhere near important enough for the lead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree, for now I've put a note asking for nobody else to be added to the lead without a talk page consensus. PaulRKil (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Death section pictures for October (Result: Jerry Lee Lewis)

there's a dispute for who's going to get the 2nd picture for September so let's do a special section for this

here's my idea this is the vote for who should get the second picture, just sign your name under who should get it. 4me689 (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Antonio Inoki

  1. we need more variety in my opinion, we already have a Entertainer in the form of Angela Lansbury, plus we need more sports figures represented in picture form. tho I'm open to Lewis getting the third picture, if there's ever room for that. 4me689 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Jerry Lee Lewis

  1. While variety in terms of background is always important to keep in mind, I don’t think it’s something we should dogmatically stick to for every single month. There are always exceptions to the rule, and I think this month should be one of them. Lansbury and Lewis are easily the two most notable figures to die in October as of now, and Lewis in particular was one of the most important and notable musicians of his generation - and arguably the last surviving major rock and roll icon from the genre’s first generation in the 50s. It would be a mistake to exclude his image on what would amount to a technicality over variety of professions represented in images. TheScrubby (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  2. I knew Jerry Lee Lewis more than Inoki. He was considered to be one of the last rock n roll stars of the 1950’s so I think he takes priority. Kyu (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  3. There's no debate. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  4. He & Lansbury are by far the two most notable people to die in Oct, so their photos should be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  5. I concur entirely with Scrubby's opinion...so far, the exclusion of Jerry Lee Lewis looks like it falls under WP:SNOWBALL. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  6. Even as the resident professional wrestling fan, I cannot justify not having Lewis be listed here. I think once there is more space, Inoki's picture should also be displayed as I disagree with the idea he's a domestic figure.PaulRKil (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

@Alsoriano97: what do you mean there's no debate, we need more Sports people pictures and we need variety. also I don't recognize the songs from Jerry Lee Lewis
(also you mind go and reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey) 4me689 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should specify a certain number of images per month so that we get into this kind of discussion. We could find a way to include all three, I think. Deb (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The number we have space for each month varies depending on the size of the month's section as well as the size of the images. As it is, there's only space for 2 in the October subsection of the Deaths section. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Jim Michael 2 What I'm saying is, maybe we shouldn't insist on limiting it by the month. Maybe we should go on two-month sections or even by the quarter. Deb (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with deb on finding a way to get all three, maybe we can get a good crop picture for Lansbury and if enough people die in the month I think we can get all three pictures 4me689 (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to say that, in my opinion, there is no debate that it has to be JLL's photo that has to be included due to its unquestionable notoriety, superior to Inoki's. But please, let's not get obsessed with adding cropped photos everywhere. Better two that look good, than three that only show the face. It's not the goal, so let's look at other months to see if more photos in that month is really necessary. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

On a separate note, I think it's ridiculous to try to balance the different fields. Choose the most notable people. The reason why photos are included is to see the most notable people on the list, to distinguish them and give them prominence to one who is browsing the list. If I'm the second most important Nobel laureate/entertainer/politician/sportsperson in the eyes of eight or so people and for that reason don't get a photo on the deaths list, I would be almightily put out. Except I wouldn't be able to be, as I would be dead. Sorry. Off topic. I'd be interested in getting some other opinions on this. Am I in the minority here? 1.146.117.56 (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It's often difficult to compare the notability of people from very different fields. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022/Archive_10&oldid=1137749389"