Jump to content

Talk:2022/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Takeoff (Result: exclusion)

I am seeing the makings of a needless edit war over the inclusion of Takeoff. Lets settle it here instead. Should Takeoff (rapper) be included in the article? For me, it is borderline inclusion. He is not as prolific as Quavo or Offset (rapper), but the trio has been a pretty substantial fixture in Hip Hop, in the US and internationally, for the better part of the 2010s and now. I think his death is notable enough to be included. PaulRKil (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to lack of international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
include albeit as a borderline inclusion, if we include Coolio, we must include Takeoff as well both are on the same level of notability, not to mention he was part of a very popular group, just like Ronnie Spector, if we include Ronnie Spector we must include Takeoff, include Takeoff. 4me689 (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
There is no comparison. Ronnie Spector was a highly influential frontwoman who was also inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, arguably dwarfed only by Diana Ross in her field of her era - and even then that’s in large part because Phil Spector intentionally sabotaged her career, as has been well-documented. Not remotely comparable levels of notability. TheScrubby (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean no comparison, ronnie spector was part of a pop group that was as big in the 60's as Migos was in the 2010's. Tell me, if spector died in the 1970's instead of 2022 would you say include, going by your logic she wouldn't be included. 4me689 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
If she died in the 70s she would still be included as her primary period of notability in terms of her work was in the 60s and she would still be inducted in the RRHOF whether or not she would be dead or alive. Furthermore, Spector wasn’t just another member of The Ronettes; she was the frontwoman, the face of the band and the band’s namesake (we wouldn’t include her bandmates, for example). Yours is not an appropriate comparison; Takeoff did not achieve a comparable level of notability to Spector, and making such comparisons don’t help your case for Takeoff. TheScrubby (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious what about quavo and offset the other two members of Migos 4me689 (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Neutral...but I will say that 4me689's arguments heavily rely on WP:AON (all or nothing) to the point where it does seem to be like a textbook example of AON. I'm fully aware that AON is primarily dealing with AFDs, but I personally think that AON also applies to other scenarios outside of AFDs, like this one. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
This is a perennial problem on this page to some extent. We definitely need to remember that consensus is still key, and all the inclusion decisions we make here are objective editorial decisions, even if we have 'precedent' to refer to. JeffUK (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Exclude - never even heard of the guy. Never even heard of Migos. Deb (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Exclude per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The large majority of people haven't, and we shouldn't have our inclusion decisions made by fans. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Exclude, and I have heard of him (and Migos). Takeoff released a single solo album, which was top 10 in the US and Canada but in no other country with reliable chart statistics. The two singles from that album reached #54 and #99 in the US. He featured on a few other singles by other artists which didn't do much either. So not much doing there. His work with Migos is more well known (including international success), but IMO being one-third of that group doesn't push him over the line for this. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
You know? I agree with that take. exclude PaulRKil (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
well, you win, exclude 4me689 (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Shah Cheragh massacre (Result: exclusion)

is the Shah Cheragh massacre notable enough for inclusion, this event seems to be all over the news, I'm neutral and not really leaning to any side. but that's just me I'm curious on what other people think. 4me689 (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Exclude unless there is confirmation of involvement from Iran in relation to the ongoing protests. Otherwise it seems to be a mass shooting or terrorist attack that would be included in 2022 in Iran PaulRKil (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Weak exclude it doesn't seem that internationally notable from my research. If there is sufficient proof otherwise provided here, however, I'd be happy to switch my opinion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Powerball Jackpot (Result: exclusion)

In the US, the Powerball has reached a $1.5 Billion USD jackpot. If (and only if) this jackpot sets a world record, should we include it? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Exclude, the lottery is obviously domestic. I mean no one else outside of the United States is going to win it. 4me689 (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Exclude as per 4me689. TheScrubby (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreeing with thescrubby and 4me689 PaulRKil (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Exclude, no way. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Exclude because it's nowhere near important enough. It's trivia & we don't include things on the basis of them being world records. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I realize this is technically closed now however I think that if it does set a world record it might warrant inclusion in the US specific 2022 article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I would agree. I've already listed it in 2022 in the United States' predicted and scheduled section. And being American myself, I've already bought my tickets ;) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't gamble. It's why I hate lootboxes in video games. Yep. Although there is an issue with one of the sections of that article which I have added a template to with a reasoning. Doesn't seem to hard to fix but it makes readability difficult. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Exclude But deserves a mention on 2022 in the United States. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Tense of the article

I'm sorry if this has already been discussed, but why is the article, at least the events section, in current tense (is) and not past tense (was)? If that is how the majority of Wikipedia is structured including most 'year' in 'country' articles, why is this page differnet? If this is a mistake, I would be happy to change it, but if it is not I am curious to know the reason why. Johnson524 (Talk!) 14:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Unlike most WP articles, year articles are written in the present tense. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Please don't ever change this. The present tense is used for all year articles, from the dawn of time until the present day. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
But articles of future years are in the future tense. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The use of historical present tense seems quite common in other 'year in review' sources too, it's not just here JeffUK (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of tenses, the past-tense of the verb "to lead" is "led", as I mentioned with the Ukraine crisis; please go to the incident about Netanyahu in the November 2022 section and fix this. I cannot fix it, as I have no account. 2600:6C52:6E00:854:75B4:749C:F064:604C (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Interim leaders (Result:)

Should interim heads of state/gov who didn't do anything significant during their time in those posts - such as Balakh Sher Mazari (who was Caretaker Prime Minister of Pakistan for five weeks) - be included? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

yes, all people who have been heads of state/gov at least once should be included, that is including interim heads of state/gov, just like Balakh Sher Mazari. 4me689 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Include they still were head of state and exercised those powers thereof. PaulRKil (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Did they lead governments or states? Yes. Interim, yes, but they did. I think so even if it had been PM 15 hours. It doesn't matter if they did something significant, the important thing is the office they assumed. There are some HoS and HoG who have ruled with full executive powers and left no significant legacy! _-_Alsor (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Day of Eight Billion (Result:)

Is this milestone important enough to include? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. As we've done with other items, we don't really include these kinds of milestones, records, anniversaries, etc. PaulRKil (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I do support it being on the event section, tho I don't think it should be on the lead. 4me689 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Can it be officially verified somehow? What source would we use? It seems a big milestone for humanity and the world, so I lean towards inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
It's impossible to prove on which day the human population reaches 8 billion, but 15 November has been designated by the United Nations as being the day on which it's recognised as happening. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this issue...I'll probably lean towards whatever side is more widely supported, and if one side is about to attain consensus, for the purposes of speeding up the debate, I'll probably side with them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually, it is already important enough to include this because this is the day where a milestone reaches and it happened in every other year. -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I feel as though it should be included. It's a world milestone that has only been happening every decade and is likely to slow in the future. Also, the 2011 article includes the 7 billion milestone and the 2000 article includes India's 1 billion milestone. Julianstout (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022 (Result: not done)

Would you like to add this following line to the introduction paragraph above, "2022 marked many prominent deaths of...":

It is also expected for this year to reach 8 billion people at end of 2022, according to released projections from the United Nations. It is also even projected to reach 8.5 billion people by the year 2030. World population growth is starting to slow down, despite it continuing to increase.

Source of this info:

--2601:205:C001:EA0:D2E:95F5:7A12:B8D7 (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This is poorly written and can't be added as is. Deb (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
We already have a discussion on this. I recommend you put your comments there. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022 (2) (Result: done)

Please add this event to this article:

6 August – Terrance Drew is sworn in as prime minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis. [Reference supplied] 2600:1010:B12A:AE74:F835:F68:51C5:4C62 (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Done Deb (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 collage candidate images and topic suggestions (Result: options A, B1, C3, D, F, G, I, K)

Give your opinion on what topics should be included in the collage and what should be left out. On some subjects feel free to add in subject to the image gallery the minimum is 8. 4me689 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I choose all of them as collages since they are a influence to the defining year and most people have heard of these events that happened recently. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

A, B1, C3, D, F, G, I, k of course the Russian invasion Ukraine and the death of Queen Elizabeth should get a image on the collage. the protest in Sri Lankan led to big changes over there, the assassination of sensuality was a big one in Asia, the Olympics has the biggest sporting event every year. 4me689 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Prominently include at least one depicting the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because it's by far the world's biggest event of the year. Exclude the Tonga eruption & abortion protests because they're nowhere near important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree with the Russian invasion, but something other than a drab green picture of a tank would be better. Do we have something with the Ukrainian flag or Russian 'Z', something clearly in Ukraine? JeffUK (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A, B2, C2, D, F, G, I. I realise that's only 7. I don't think H is notable enough (considering we've had an earthquake that killed 1000, flooding in Pakistan that killed more, and a heatwave that killed 12000 in Europe this year), J is domestic, and the COVID-19 vaccine is really a 2021 story. I suspect we'll get a better image for C after today as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite and Jim Michael 2, what about the monkeypox outbreak, is that a good idea, I certainly think it is. 4me689 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Include monkeypox, in addition to Ukraine, the Olympics, the Queen's death/funeral & the Afghan earthquake. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
guys, what do you think about this collage I just made. I use the new picture of Queen Elizabeth II that I haven't brought up yet which is her lying-in-state. 4me689 (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I would swap the photo of Elizabeth II's coffin and change Tonga for monkeypox. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The photo that purports to show Abe's assassination does nothing of the sort, it just shows a road. These images need to be much more meaningful and relevant. The suggestion that certain options have been chosen by consensus in the very limited discussion above is ludicrous. Deb (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@Deb: FYI there was a later discussion that consensus said that we should replace the Assassination of Shinzo Abe with the 2022 World Cup 4me689 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@4me689: So why is it still there? Deb (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
D, E, K, and A. But I believe that we should include most inventions that are created from science and technology. But, why not include the media and retail as well? It would be better though, as they are defining moments of this year. -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@4me689 Any more ideas to be added besides this? -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed NASA's DART in this discussion right here but most editors disagreed 4me689 (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
"the minimum is 8". Once again User:4me689 is pushing a personal view without consensus. Deb (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
There should be a discussion about how many images to include per collage. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The third picture for September (Result: Frank Drake gets third photo after Elizabeth II and Jean-Luc Godard)

There's a lot of hesitancy on on Frank Drake getting a photo int he death section. My opinion the third photo should go to Frank Drake as we already have a Hollywood worker in the form of Jean-Luc Godard, but in my opinion I fully support Louise Fletcher replacing Goddard, as fletcher is more notable. In my opinion it should be Frank Drake, Elizabeth II, and then Louise fletcher. Though I am still open for Godard to get the fourth picture, if they will ever be room for one. 4me689 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Louise Fletcher is absolutely not more notable than Godard. You'll note that Godard was one of the very few people each year to get a full entry at WP:ITN on his death. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • To Black Kite: I would not replace Godard for Fletcher but it was only a suggestion because of Hurt and Poitier being Oscar winners themselves. I could easily go to the 2007 article and change Deborah Kerr’s image for Jane Wyman because Wyman won an Oscar while Kerr did not despite being nominated several times. Kyu (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
To @4me689 I do not agree with having Drake here. I only suggested Fletcher because she was an Oscar winner plus keeping Godard is important because he’s more well known than Drake. Plus, we already have William Hurt and Sidney Poitier in terms of Oscars so I’m thinking we should have someone else other than Drake. I never even heard of him until recently so if you want him so bad, have him. Kyu (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Godard actually won an Academy award as well, an Academy Honorary Award which is awarded for "extraordinary distinction in lifetime achievement, exceptional contributions to the state of motion picture arts and sciences". Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Strong Oppose any notion that Fletcher is more notable and more image-worthy than Godard, as per Black Kite. TheScrubby (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What should be the standards of inclusion for musical artists ? (Result: inconclusive)

International Awards ? Well that would exclude people like Tony Bennett, Coolio, Johnny Mathis, who had 0 awards outside of the US.

Top Chart hits in other countries ? 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:4039:838D:EE48:D702 (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's dependent on a case by case basis. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with InvadingInvader 4me689 (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the initiative, in the wake of the discussions to do with Coolio’s inclusion. One thing I’d like to bring up in relation to this is whether or not being a recipient of a Grammy Award is automatically sufficient for inclusion here. The fact that Coolio was a Grammy winner was brought up multiple times as justification for inclusion, yet there seems to be no real consensus on whether we should include Grammy winners (there has been far more discussion on say, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, where they are included on a case-by-case basis and as a secondary point for inclusion rather than a primary, automatic point for inclusion). TheScrubby (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Grammy awards should only be a factor if said musical artist is/was not from the US.
Coolio IS from the US; so other factors should be considered such as does said Musical artists have multiple top ten hits ( albums or singles ) in more than just one country ? 2601:204:CF81:B1A0:E154:CDAE:75F8:C645 (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2 @4me689 So recently, I've learned that India's highest court has ruled that abortion is legal for all Indian women up to 24 weeks into abortion, and a Kenyan court has ruled abortion to be a constitutional right. This recent development has proposed me to suggest this, since Jim and I are in a very heated debate over the inclusion of landmark domestic events like when the US high court ruled against abortion.

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

The proposed sentence will look a little something like this:

The year has also seen abortion becoming an increasingly more contentious and addressed issue, with courts in India and Kenya ruling the practice as legal while the United States removed constitutional protections to abortion, sparking nationwide protests which leaked into some European countries.

Abortion is an international issue, and a growing one by the day, but I can understand if too many of these events would flood the article. The lead sentence would solve this; it addresses the internationalness of the issue while keeping things as concise as possible and not inserting domestic rulings on the practice into their own events.

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

Exclude due to there being no evidence of a connection between countries' changes/clarifications of laws. If most of the world were moving the same direction regarding abortion laws, there'd be a good case for including it. However, Kenya & India are moving towards allowing it, whereas Poland & the US are moving against it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
It's becoming a more global issue increasingly dividing countries. That alone should warrant at least some mention. I don't think we need to judge its inclusion based on connection. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Exclude; they're unrelated legislative changes in 3 countries; absent any sources identifying it as such, it's not a global 'movement' of any sort. you could find any subject and identify a handful of countries that have legislate more or less strictly for it over a couple of years. JeffUK (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
It's not specific to this year, so it's difficult to justify including it in this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Why not phrase it as a continuation of a heightened attention to the issue? InvadingInvader (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
That's not relevant enough for this article. The only two countries who've had major changes in abortion laws in the 2020s which have triggered major protests are Poland & the US. Poland's were in 2020 & 2021. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
India's was actually a major expansion in abortion; previously abortions had marital and other related restrictions. Kenya was a reaffirmation, so not as notable but would likely fit if mentioned in passing as part of a trend. Poland wasn't in 2022, so we can leave it out of a sentence Hungary was similar to Kenya but just for the opposite direction as the reforms. And don't forget the minor UK protests against and in favor of Dobbs. I'm leaning towards inclusion since it addresses an increasingly-important social issue which has mostly taken part in a large amount of minor and major domestic events not normally suitable for their own entries here. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose because it's not notable enough, I didn't even know that Kenya and India had ruled in favour of abortion until today. 2022 won't be remembered as the year in which abortion laws were changed but as the year Russia invaded Ukraine sparking a worldwide crisis, the year in which right-wing nationalist movements experienced a resurgence in Europe, and the year in which most countries subsided their COVID-19 policies.
And as for a more minor note: The US courts did not "rule against abortion" (implying a federal prohibition on the practice). What was ruled was that abortion does not fall under the category as a federally protected right (meaning it is up to the states and not the federal government to decide on abortion's legality). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 23:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Exclude as per Jim Michael, JeffUK and Dunutubble. TheScrubby (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 Brazilian general election (Result: merged under one entry and put on October 30)

How should this be reported in this article? I'm no expert when it comes to the politics of Brazil. The October 2 entry says: The 2022 Brazilian general election is held to elect the offices of the president and vice president, one third of the Senate, the entire Chamber of Deputies, and numerous state legislatures and governorships.

The offices of President and Vice President are still disputed and will be concluded on October 30 via runoff. As of now, I added underneath upcoming events: 2022 Brazilian general election: Incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro will face opponent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in a runoff election after neither candidate secured a majority in the first round of voting.

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

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

I would favour combining them into one entry, but for October 30, rather than October 2. Deb (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we have too much election coverage in main year articles. We shouldn't include multiple rounds of the same election in separate entries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Made the changes per this discussion, thanks all. PaulRKil (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022 (Result: not done)

there's already a talk page consensus to exclude technoblade 4me689 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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

In the june section a new sentence should be added stating "June 30 - Youtuber Technoblade is declared dead from cancer in a video titled 'so long nerds'". SkyHorseBoy (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

no, there's already a consensus to exclude technoblade, closing this down and updating the FAQ. 4me689 (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BAFTAs (Result: secondary factor for inclusion if the recipient is not British)

Where do we stand on the BAFTA Awards, and its recipients? Should it be considered a major international acting award on a comparable level to the likes of the Academy Awards and the Palme d’Or, or should it be considered a predominately domestic acting award not unlike the Emmys and the Logies? As I indicated in the Robbie Coltrane discussions, I lean towards the latter and that as with other similarly domestic awards, it should not be regarded as an automatic inclusion criteria for actors and film-makers. TheScrubby (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Neutral I think it's a major award, but alone doesn't prove beyond discussion that someone should be included on this page. We could still agree to include someone who has only been awarded BAFTAs if there were otherwise still internationally notable. (For reference, there are many, many national film industry awards). JeffUK (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Neutral, well not as powerful as a Academy Award, it's more powerful and relevant then the emmys and/or a logie I don't know how more important that is, though I could argue that we could include some Bafta award winner.4me689 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
They're one of the more important awards, though less important than the Oscars. More weight should be given to BAFTAs given to non-Brits. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I have little objection to that, yeah - with more significance given to BAFTAs awarded to non-Brits, especially for more international productions. TheScrubby (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Overall, I'm Neutral. I just noticed conflicting points in regards to BAFTAs. I want to thank TheScrubby for opening this discussion to solve this. Much appreciated. FireInMe (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I would vote to Include the BAFTAs in a majority of instances (though there might be occasional instances where a certain lack of justifies some exclusions); those two ceremonies are generally considered to be the gold Standard. I'm also on the same page as Jim Michael when non-Brits win BAFTAs. BAFTAs are between the Logies and Oscars on the rank of notability, but they lean closer to the Oscars. I'm American and The NY Times app notified me of the BAFTAs but not the Logies. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
We're not going to list the winners each year of any entertainment awards; this section is about the importance of awards in deciding who we include in the Births & Deaths sections. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification; I would say that a BAFTA isn't deprecated like the golden globes are. I'd say that they could be considered major awards. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't dispute that they're major awards, but winning them doesn't grant international notability to Brits. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Neutral But I'm far from convinced that Academy Awards automatically convey international notability either. Deb (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
They only do for non-American winners. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Gerben Karstens (Result: exclusion)

is Gerben Karstens notable enough for inclusion, the importance tag on this dude has been removed and re-added over and over again, just asking before I put my opinion, any thoughts????? by the way please do not give a basic response like, no International nobility 2022 in the Netherlands, give a good detailed response. 4me689 (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The importance of him has been removed from his article? Well, it comes down to if the information is true and supported by reliable sources. Did editors remove the important points about him because it was untrue/unsourced? Or it was true and they simply vandalized his article by removing true information? FireInMe (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
He was really only known in Europe, and most Americans, Asians, Africans, and Australians can be comfortably assumed to have not known Karstens. For this reason, I would say Borderline Exclude. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I would concur with InvadingInvader. FireInMe (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
And he was hardly known in Europe. Exclude him. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Exclude because his only major accomplishment is an Olympic gold medal in a team event. There's a consensus that team medals grant insufficient international notability for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Exclude as discussed above. Deb (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 featured article requests (Result:)

in my opinion, I feel like we should nominate the 2022 article for the feature articles, we should nominate the 2022 article for the 31st because that's the end of the year and it will serve as a retrospect of the year, it'd be pretty cool but I'm going to get a talk page consensus here first so no one will complain, any thoughts??????. 4me689 (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I would agree with you, beside being a current year, it is also the most important years like previous ones. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
2601:205:C001:EA0:59C3:33F1:3736:18CE This comment makes absolutely no sense. It seems like you are trying to derail discussions on this page by making nonsensical interventions. Please stop that. Deb (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Deb I agree with you that the comment makes no sense. But, I think it might be a language-barrier issue a translation gone awry? Does this IP have other such comments that makes you think that they're trying to derail discussion? FireInMe (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
FireInMe I'm concerned that, in recent days, we've had a number of IPs turning up on the talk pages to intervene in discussions without anything useful to say. I don't know what's behind it, but it's an unusual pattern of activity. See [1] (harmless in itself, but look at this IP's other contributions), [2], [3]. Some of these sound like the same person. It's not unusual for people to come to the Talk page to ask for the addition of items we might not agree with, but this type of random comment is making me suspicious. Deb (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
some of those IPS may look like sock puppets on one of the sock puppeteer like Niko the Biko or Counting Stars 500. 4me689 (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Deb Oh, I see. Yeah, I can see your point of view if a pattern is emerging. Thank You for the clarification. FireInMe (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
FireInMe And now appearing on other Talk pages: [4] Coming from exactly the same part of the world. Deb (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's good enough for FA quite yet. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Activision excluded (Result: no consensus either way in the first place; new discussion thread opened)

I removed a domestic event here. User:4me689 immediately reinstated it, claiming that there was consensus to include. I checked the talk page and found no mention of it, so I removed it again. User:4me689 reinstated it again, referring me to a nonexistent archive entry. I checked the archive and found that there had indeed been a discussion, in which he insisted it should be included and the only other participant said it should not. The discussion was then closed with the heading "Microsoft & Activision Blizzard (Result: inclusion)", which was clearly not the case. I would now be guilty of breaking the 3-revert rule were it not that this is vandalism by User:4me689 and an apparent attempt to push his own preferences. This is only one of several discussions where he has misrepresented consensus. If I see this again, we will have to go to ANI. I should add that if someone can point me to a discussion where there was consensus to include this event, I will take back what I just said. Deb (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

If there was a conversation that had broad consensus, it wasn't here. I combed through the archive. PaulRKil (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Deb But why do you think that Microsoft and Activision Blizzard are a domestic event? Are they an influence on internationals? Or do company mergers happen in one country or continent? -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The fact that this "event" is already listed in 2022 in the United States is a pretty good clue. Deb (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm on the same page as @Deb and @PaulRKil. Who decides to put the result down? Seems like it's closing down the discussion prematurely without further discussion. I think Deb is in her right to remove it unless proved otherwise. FireInMe (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Deb I found this: Talk:2022/Archive_1#Microsoft_&_Activision_Blizzard_(Result:_inclusion). This was from March, but I'd be willing to re-discuss Activision's inclusion InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
After further examination, it looks like to me that Deb is in the right. Consensus was never established, and closure was "reached" by assumption by 4me689, who added "Result" tags to all discussions. I'm confident that most of us are aware you shouldn't close discussions you're involved in. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@InvadingInvader Are "Result tags" allowed on Wikipedia? I never see them except for this talk page. To me it seems like it shuts down discussion. FireInMe (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm personally unsure...it's seemed like that consensus so far has allowed for them but I personally don't think that they contribute too much either. I'm opening to ending the practice. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with invading invader, I'm also willing to re-discuss this. sorry for me reverting a lot, when I initially reverted it I did it by the previous March discussion. I'm also sorry for closing discussion early, we need to talk about this event now. in the meantime I'll be happy to revert any re-adding of the Microsoft and Activision event. 4me689 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Have no issue with the practice of adding a “Result” tag in and of itself, at the end of a discussion - though in this specific case it really should have said “no consensus/inconclusive”. TheScrubby (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
When and How can we determine a result has been reached? And if a result has been reached can nobody contribute to discussions? Days, Weeks, Months, Years, Decades, even Centuries can pass and users can't contribute towards greater consensus? That's what concerns me. FireInMe (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think there’s necessarily a set time and I wouldn’t necessarily overthink it (especially in cases where the outcome is a foregone conclusion as per WP:SNOW), but if there’s enough demand and the decision on a particular event or figure is controversial, you can always re-open it if the consensus against it isn’t overwhelming. I think in this case, it would be appropriate to reopen and start a new discussion on whether or not the Activision event should be included. TheScrubby (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree with you that it's appropriate to reopen and start a new discussions such as in regards to Activision. It's just when I think of the word "result" I think of set in stone no changes can happen once there's a result. So, what if someone makes an edit on the 2022 page on pick a day, say August 20, 2038 but the consensus during 2022 says X should be excluded or included. FireInMe (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Funnily enough, although most of the time they don’t necessarily add the “Result” on the title of the discussion, I have over the years come across various Wiki talk pages where what you describe actually does apply. I think in such cases, it’s perfectly valid to restart discussions after some years (well, the amount of time really also depends on the strength of said consensus) and seek change if you feel your case for it has sufficient merit and would be supported (so long as there’s no WP:CANVASSING involved). TheScrubby (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The practice of adding a “Result” tag before the discussion has concluded is certainly unusual and for the editor who began the discussion to pre-judge the result is definitely bad practice. There are proper ways of closing a discussion and these haven't been followed in the case of any of these collage discussions. By all means open a new discussion, but it should be made clear that it has re-started by creating a new section header. Deb (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022/Archive_11&oldid=1126518522"