Jump to content

Talk:2022/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 17

Deaths of sportspeople in November (Result:)

there are a lot of people with in importance inline tag in the November section of the death section, this section is about the sports people in said section here are all the sports people

We need opinions on these people any thoughts??? 4me689 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep Gorshkov and Salming. Also just as an aside, can we cool it with the importance inlines? It is a little jarring when you look at an article where every other entry is tagged with one and I think it can cause someone to read it and conclude we have no idea what we are talking about. Obviously, I’m not asking to omit them but can we use some discretion and go to the talk page with entries we think aren’t important if we already have a couple inlines? PaulRKil (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Why include Salming? He didn't win any gold medals, nor have any other great international accomplishments. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The Olympics are an amateur sporting event, but ice hockey isn't. Gold medals aren't the best way of measuring success in the sports, as opposed to achievement in the NHL (exceptions being the Soviets, if we're ever debating people likeVladislav Tretiak and Anatoli Firsov . Salming was a star of the sport and I'd have him as a borderline inclusion, but I can't back up my argument with much hard data, as most of his achievements aren't quite as unique as the other two ice hockey deaths on this year's list - Mike Bossy and Guy Lafleur. Even taking into account that Salming was a defenceman, I can't provide a great case for him. I know you won't like me using the NHL over international events, but it's the premier space for the sport. The Voivodeship King (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
If he was one of his sport's best players, RS would say so. There's nothing in his article to indicate that he was. If he was widely regarded as being one of his sport's greats, that reliably-sourced info should be added to his article. WP bios of many of the best sportspeople - including Pelé & Novak Djokovic - clearly state how good they are/were & the specifics of that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The NHL itself regards him as one of the greatest players. It is a list, but it is an official release by a major organization for what it is worth so to me, that is a reliable enough source. [1] PaulRKil (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Being in the top hundred of a league of a sport doesn't indicate substantial international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
You asked for a reliable source and I'm not sure there is a more reliable authority on ice hockey and overall player accolades than the NHL itself. PaulRKil (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
It can be a factor when combined with other sources. Paul has a point; if the national league itself (especially in the American hockey following, the largest single-country hockey fandom by absolute size) has distinguished you, you're pretty spectacular. I'd prefer to see more sources indicated notability, which I haven't seen yet, but if supporters of inclusion can show he was acclaimed.
InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm saying that being in a top 100 isn't enough; it's not a top 20. It doesn't indicate being one of the greats or at/near the top of a sport. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The list didn't rank them by number just an alphabetical list of players and it was a collection of the 100 greatest NHL players, a league that has had over 100 seasons and 7700 players who have played in the NHL over the course of its existence, I'd say is a pretty exclusive list. This isn't even taking into consideration the accolades awarded to him by European leagues.
Either way, it is borderline for me. PaulRKil (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Inclusion of this specific athlete as well would not substantially harm the article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOHARM isn't a valid argument for inclusion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I personally agree that the criteria for these articles is too rigorously enforced, and that less sufficient international notability guidelines in comparison to where we are today is necessary. We should be more lenient on inclusion; too many people are being excluded/removed/flagged because of notability. We should be more focused on good articles (or at least make an effort to improve and better promote "Year In" articles instead of only policing content inclusion here) even if it comes at the expense of a few people or events who aren't as internationally notable as others mentioned in both here and in year in articles. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Davide Rebellin was added today. Of the five listed above & him, the only one who may be internationally notable enough to include is Gorshov. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think his inclusion harms the article, but I would not oppose his removal. Seems notable, but walks the line when it comes to inclusion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Have we come to a consensus here? I'm willing to exclude Salming as well if it means we can remove these dang importance inlines.PaulRKil (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 missile explosion in Poland (Result: no consensus)

This has its own article, but the other arguments for excluding the similar incident in Naslavcea, Moldova also applies to this. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Include: The fact Poland is a member state of NATO is the difference maker for me and makes the incident a significant close call for any escalation of this conflict. PaulRKil (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
But there was no physical response to what appears to have been an accidental one-off. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Wait. Just like Moldova, I believe inclusion is contingent on if, and if so when, Russia escalates. If Russia escalated in July 2023, no. But if Russia escalates before the memory of both Poland and Moldova disappears (it's hard to say but I would suggest January 2023 as a start date to put that limit), we can retroactively include both. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi

Just a heads up, but Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi did not die in November like this article claims. That was merely the date of his death's announcement. He actually died on October 15, 2022. -153.33.150.96 (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Microsoft’s (now proposed) acquisition of Activision Blizzard (Result: no consensus)

There was briefly a discussion about this event months ago that proved inconclusive, as per above. So consider this a revival of the discussion, with the central question being do you think Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard has sufficient international notability/significance for inclusion here, or is it a primarily domestic event? TheScrubby (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

include, one of the biggest purchases of the year, which meant a lot of things for companies and Wall Street. 4me689 (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Borderline include. Yes, they're both American companies, but their influence is of a worldwide importance within the gaming industry. Assuming this deal is completed, this deal will put Microsoft and their franchises in a position where they can better compete against Tencent specifically. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Borderline include both companies have massive global reach and I believe it is one of the largest videogame acquisitions PaulRKil (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Exclude because it's a domestic event due to both companies being American. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
If two American companies have major international impacts on an industry, it should be listed as an international event. It's domestic in technicalities only, and this view ignores effect in favor of solely looking at identity. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
What major international impacts has this acquisition caused? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Exclude - Obviously a domestic event, and the fact that there's money involved isn't relevant. Incidentally, when User:InvadingInvader expanded this event (introduced into the Year article by the well-meaning User:The Optimistic One), they may not have realised that you are not really supposed to copy text word-for-word from another article (2022 in the United States) and you are supposed to mention this in the edit summary as well - see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. A strange rule, I know, but there it is; you'll know next time. Deb (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Exclude with the possibility of a future Inclusion. It's really a wait and see of how impactful the acquisition is. So, while I'm not downright opposed, I do think it should be placed on the back burner for the time being. FireInMe (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I can agree with this take, yeah. TheScrubby (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Include. For the reasons I gave previously. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
If it's not certain, there's no way its inclusion can be justified. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Nobel Prizes section (Result: retain/status quo)

How much detail should be included? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I like what it is right now I would argue that the 2022 article has been looking more better than ever before. I don't think we need images on the Nobel section, I was stupid to add images on the Nobel Peace Prize section. 4me689 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
The Nobel Prize section should be deleted from all 'Year in...' pages. PS - We already have an article with a list of all the Nobel Prize winners. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
you know, @GoodDay:, what I'm willing to agree with you on, is deleting the Nobel Peace Prize section (even though we disagree on a lot of things) here at least this time we found common ground, though I'm going to warn you you're going to be in a very small minority, cuz when I initially went to this talk page to talk about deleting the Nobel Peace Prize section, everyone but me and Jim Michael, wanted to keep it, even Deb who would normally agree with you wanted to keep the section. 4me689 (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
"...Nobel Peace Prize section been in every main year article for the last 100 years"? That's impossible, as Wikipedia has been around for only 21 years. I'm also confident that there wasn't even any internet in 1922. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
you know what I'll just remove that 4me689 (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe at the moment, you should be concentrating on something else. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks fine right now. Doesn't seem to damage the article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, we should not be having these mini-votes on what to include or exclude in Year pages. Such decisions should be made in an RFC, preferably at WP:YEARS. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
A discussion on WP:YEARS should be linked from here so that it this article's regulars know about it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
It's absolutely 100% fine as it is now and should not be deleted. These are some of humanity's greatest and most notable achievements in their respective fields, and deserve a mention. We had this discussion before anyway. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
That mention should be in the form of a single entry in Events. A separate section is unwarranted. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I think its worth keeping. The Nobel prizes map humanity's advancement. Finding X-Rays, radioactivity, understanding atoms better, forming the Red Cross and many other Nobel-winning feats are very much notable and winning one of these awards is a testament to it. It concisely recognises the most important inventions, discoveries, peace missions and writings of the year. Personally, I'd be willing to disregard the Nobel in Literature due to many other writing awards and milestones being measurable but we can't include all Nobel Prizes bar one. The Voivodeship King (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No-one's disputing their importance, but why should they have their own section? Doing that is strong implying that they're by far the most important event of each year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Kirstie Alley (Result: exclusion)

Because I am certain there will be edit wars over her inclusion, do we include Kirstie Alley?

And as an aside, she absolutely shouldn't be in the lead PaulRKil (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Exclude because she has no international notability. All her awards are domestic. Like thousands of domestic entertainers, her death has been reported by the media in many countries because she has fans in many countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree on exclusion PaulRKil (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Exclude as per Jim Michael. TheScrubby (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Include PolPot1975 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Why? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Get her out of here. Never even heard of her. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Exclude. I also removed her from the 1951 article too. You’re welcome Jim Michael. Kyu (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
She's one of the examples of someone of similar notability to Robbie Coltrane. Including him enables people to argue for many other entertainers on the same grounds as those which gained Coltrane's inclusion. I don't know how to argue against that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll say Exclude I only knew her from the Jenny Craig commercials. FireInMe (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 Germany coup d'état plot (Result: exclusion)

I know it’s on the Germany section, but I feel like it should be on the main Page for the year 2022. But that’s just my thoughts 2603:8080:7D07:7700:885:7B11:FCF:3B66 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Idk what to think. It's certainly a notable domestic event, but it wasn't January 6. If it happened, I would say YES without a doubt. But because it didn't happen, that leans me to think exclude. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Exclude because it was a domestic plot by a fringe group which had no chance of succeeding & wasn't attempted. Main year articles shouldn't include any domestic plots. It's nothing like as notable as the January 6 United States Capitol attack, which shouldn't be on 2021 because it was domestic & a failure. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Exclude It was merely a plan and it was suppressed. If this is included then any planned and suppressed government overthrow should be included for the sake of consistency which would be crazy. FireInMe (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Exclude. Nothing happened, arrests were made on suspicion anyway. PolPot1975 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC) PolPot1975 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Exclude. It was stopped from happening. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Exclude, and have an open mind to reopen and revisit the January 6 United States Capitol attack as well (which I think is at most a borderline inclusion, but in no way should be entitled to an image on the main collage for the 2021 page). TheScrubby (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
It was domestic & had it happened in any other country it wouldn't be in 2021, let alone in its collage. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Collage

I think the collage in the lead does more harm than good for a number of reasons.

  1. Accessibility for readers: There are too many images and far too much text in the caption, finding the image that goes with the string of verbiage is like a particularly cryptic Spot the ball, for someone with normal visual acuity who is a native English speaker. Making the image really nothing more than decoration, as the context is too hard to discern.
  2. Accessibility for editors: Editors cannot boldly add or remove an image to the collage, the amount of editing required to create a new collage image (likely from scratch) in some external editor, then manually set up the 'imagemap' coordinates is beyond most editors' patience if not ability. e.g. I really don't think 'monkeypox' is a defining part of 2022, and the Abe image needs changing, it's just people in a road, I came here to change these but even though I've been around for a little while now, I simply cannot do so. This collage is just going to be stale most of the time.
  3. The current content: "A picture of a road a while after something happened" is probably the most glaring example that really doesn't seem to add any value, but few of the pictures are representative of the events themselves, let alone the year as a whole. It says to me "This year, people stood in front of buildings, there was a tank, and some bacteria".

I think that 'the year 2022' is an abstract concept that cannot be represented visually, so my first proposal would be, per MOS:LEADIMAGE ("Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.") simply not having a lead image would be a good solution.

If not, I think an info box like that in New York City would be a significant improvement, allowing the images to have captions in-line which is infinitely easier to read and it's editable using the visual editor; but to change the article (or year infobox) to work like that is far beyond my ability. JeffUK (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the collage in NYC's infobox is substantially better & I'm in favour of changing the format of the collages in year articles to the one in that article. Making them collapsible would be another improvement. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I second this. Easier for readers and editors alike. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree I like the New York one alot it makes it easier to read. LoreMaster22 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Should the NYC collage format be only on this article to start with to see what the reaction to it is, or should we go straight to discussing on WP:YEARS whether or not to use it for collages on other year articles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Years would probably be better, no point testing it here if there’s no consensus; I think I can mock up a demo in sandbox to take there. JeffUK (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Please do. It'd be good if more people would join the discussion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Robbie Coltrane inclusion vote (Result: borderline inclusion)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to include. There is a rough to clear consensus that whatever the standard for inclusion is or ought be, Robbie Coltrane meets it. For respondents expressing this in terms of notability, there is a consensus that Coltrane is sufficiently notable/noteworthy, in part through coverage of his self, his career & his death in international media (as demonstrated by Politrukki), to be included in this list. While some arguments, both in support & in opposition, were better formed than others; none of the oppose arguments were sufficiently "better" to outweigh the emergent consensus. NOTE: Additionally reviewed the previous discussion, which also did not contain any dispositive opposing arguments. (non-admin closure) Ryk72 talk 03:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Additional explanatory comments:

On closing:
The role of an RfC closer is to determine if a consensus exists. The standard, as defined at Wikipedia:Closing discussions, is a rough consensus; further defined at WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS as the "sense of the group" concerning a particular matter under consideration. While consensus is not a vote, the proportion of editors in favour of or against a matter is not an irrelevance; after weighting for alignment with policy & guideline, and strength of argument, it is a key factor for the sense of the group.
Where the respondents overwhelmingly fall on one side of the matter, for the minority to prevail, their arguments need to be exceptionally strong or those of the majority exceptionally weak.
In this case, the close was not made based on a simple head count. After weighting the arguments for alignment with policy & guidelines, and for strength of argument, none of the exclude arguments (neither alone nor in concert) were sufficiently strong as to outweigh the predominant include viewpoint.
On the responses:
In this RfC, no respondents cited core policy (five pillars + COPYVIO + BLP), which might be dispositive; no respondents cited other policy or guidelines (excepting RFCEND & RFCNEUTRAL on procedural grounds). Accordingly, no responses received increased or decreased weight based on alignment/misalignment with policy or guideline.
No responses appeared to have been made in bad faith; and no responses were discounted for that reason.
Responses & discussion which, in part, relied on a slippery slope argument carried lower weight for that portion of the response. A consensus for the inclusion of Coltrane does not imply consensus for the inclusion of Alley; and the inclusion of the latter might also reflect consensus. No responses were completely discounted based on this reason. This lower weighting was not a determining factor.
Responses & discussion which, in part, relied on straw man argument carried lower weight for that portion of the response. None of the include responses were based on notability of Coltrane's film work; none of the include responses were based on "demand from fans"; in the context of this RfC, arguments against these unasserted positions are not strong. No responses were completely discounted based on this reason. This lower weighting was not a determining factor.
Many of the responses were of the form "is sufficiently foo for inclusion" or "is insufficiently bar for inclusion". These are two-part arguments - i) the standard for inclusion is or ought be (foo/bar); ii) the subject (does/doesn't) meet that standard. In so far as a sense of the group, the foos have it - that is, the consensus of respondents is that notability is the standard, and that Coltrane has it sufficiently to merit inclusion.
Two respondents referenced sources in support of their arguments. Accordingly, their responses received higher weight than responses which asserted a position without reference to sources.
On "international notability":
Four responses, and significant portions of the discussion, made reference to the terms international notability or internationally notable. Two respondents asserting that Coltrane meets this standard; two respondents asserting that he does not.
To the extent that "notable/notability" is used to mean "documented in independent reliable sources" (the sense as at WP:N), with "international" a modifier resulting in "documented in independent reliable sources published in multiple nations" or similar, the responses by Pickalittletalkalittle & Politrukki are a rebuttal to the assertion that this standard is not met.
To the extent that "internationally notable/international notability" is meant as a term of art, with a meaning distinct from the sense of "notable/notability" at WP:N, this is a viewpoint which did not gain traction in the RfC responses. NOTE: The use of "notable" in this sense; loosely defined, separate & distinct from its WP:N sense is inopportune. Editors are encouraged to work towards consensus for a well defined, well documented, set of inclusion criteria.
Some editors asserted a de facto consensus for an inclusion standard based on "international notability" (in some sense of that term), but did not link or reference a discussion forming this consensus. This argument might have carried greater weight if it had referenced such a discussion. This was not a deciding factor; RfC respondents either rejected this standard or felt that it was sufficiently met.
Addressing some specific comments & questions below:
Including somebody on the yearly pages purely on the basis of international media coverage has been repudiated (we even have it included on the FAQs of this talk page). The decision ... disregards this entirely. During the RfC, and explicitly in response to it, an FAQ entry was added. Neither this FAQ entry nor the disruptive nature of its addition influenced the outcome of the RfC. (Nor have the subsequent involved edits to the RfC header influenced this extended close rationale.) Had the FAQ entry pre-dated the RfC or referenced an explicit discussion, it might have carried significant weight; but it did neither.
The closer didn't acknowledge Coltrane's lack of international notability. Consensus of the RfC is that Coltrane does not lack international notability.
On review, I am confident that the close fairly reflects the consensus of the respondents to the RfC - the sense of this group - and decline to amend it substantively. I have, however, modified the close statement for clarity. - Ryk72 talk 22:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Comments

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

Yes

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

No

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

Discussion

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

@4me689 please refrain from pinging me in discussions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
ok I thought I would let everyone know from the previous discussion 4me689 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this...I think that he isn't as internationally notable as a few other entries, but he remains immensely popular around the globe, so I'm honestly stuck. If he remains popular across the globe and many editors are in favor of his inclusion, then I don't see a problem with him being included, and I would choose to include/exclude Coltrane if a majority of editors support one side for whatever reason (aside from "I'm voting for/against inclusion just to make some editor mad"). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, Coltrane was never “immensely popular” around the globe. His character of Hagrid was internationally recognised, and Harry Potter is obviously internationally notable. But actors, especially supporting actors, don’t automatically gain the notability of the roles they played, and most casual fans or people in general who would recognise Hagrid would not recognise the actor’s name. Essentially, we can’t confuse the notability of a character with the actor who played him. Furthermore, Coltrane won no major international acting awards, be it as Hagrid or as anything else. At this point, it almost feels like rehashing of all the points said in the original discussion, to which I don’t have much more to add. But the inclusion of Coltrane would be an aberration when other actors of his level of notability are regularly excluded here. TheScrubby (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Also why is this RFC being added to unrelated fields such as politics and religion? TheScrubby (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't know, I just copied it from the one on Wikipedia years. 4me689 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
It's only relevant to the first two of the six - society & biographies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I’m a little confused about something: Deb says that Coltrane “won the BAFTA for Best Actor an unprecedented three times in a row” however TheScrubby says Coltrane “won no major international acting awards.” Which one is it? FireInMe (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
BAFTA, like the Emmys and the Logies, is a primarily domestic award and wouldn’t be what we’d count as a major international acting award. TheScrubby (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
He means no major awards from countries other than the UK. The people who vote for awards favour their own country's people, films, TV shows etc. Having this RfC will likely lead to fans of other people of a similar notability level - Gilbert Gottfried, Paul Sorvino, David Warner, Marsha Hunt etc. - asking for the same ridiculous amount of debate in regard to their inclusion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The BAFTA jurors are selected from multiple countries though. Doesn’t this solve bias towards British only actors? FireInMe (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm an American and I'm very familiar with the BAFTA's as a prestigious award. What are the major international acting awards? I'd put BAFTA right behind the Academy Awards. The Golden Globes are a bit of a joke. Nemov (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
The BAFTAs are clearly Anglocentric. We shouldn't include people whose only awards are from their own country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
There’s non-British people that has won BAFTAs though, and the juries are multinational. FireInMe (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but there's a pro-British bias & most of the foreign jurors will be Anglophiles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Sadly, this is also true of the Academy Awards. Winners of the two have been almost identical for most of their history. Deb (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Awards' juries usually have a bias in favour of people, films etc. of their own country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Going by the BAFTAs discussion, it looks like the outcome is that we would tend to include non-British recipients and that it is otherwise considered a predominately domestic award - which means that the point against Coltrane's inclusion on the basis of lack of major international acting awards still firmly applies. TheScrubby (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Also pinging @Wjfox2005: for an elaboration of his comment - given his only other comment with relation to Coltrane was accusations of trolling against those who have (very good reason to have) firm reservations about Coltrane's international notability and suitability for inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Just to add - I'm not trying to claim that BAFTAs are not primarily domestic awards. Coltrane's Best Actor award was a TV BAFTA, not a Film BAFTA, and it's unknown for anyone from outside the UK to win that. As with the Emmys, I imagine. Deb (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The primarily domestic nature of the BAFTAs, Emmys & Logies are the reason that people from their respective countries winning them doesn't indicate international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Pickalittletalkalittle: read the top of this section, before you put down you comment. 4me689 (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@4me689: would you kindly remove (Just Note: international coverage ≠ international notability) from the RFC question per WP:RFCNEUTRAL? I think I could do that myself, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. I don't think that minor infraction has affected anyone's opinion so far, so no need to notify participants. Politrukki (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I put that there cuz I want people to know that they need to think about his Awards, not his international coverage. and there's a long-held consensus here that international coverage ≠ international notability, nevertheless I will remove it 4me689 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Pickalittletalkalittle: @Politrukki: We are not going to include Coltrane on the basis of international coverage. That has long ceased to be a criteria for inclusion on the yearly pages - how many times does it need to be said that international coverage does not automatically equate international notability and in no way leads to automatic inclusion? That is a consensus that has long been established here (and indeed has now also been included in the FAQs on the top of the page), and we are not going to overturn it for a minor actor like Coltrane. TheScrubby (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

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

@Curbon7: Okay, I wasn't aware of the 30 day rule for RFCs, though having said that discussions over Coltrane had been taking place intermittently since the 14th of October (granted, also not 30 days since but still a fair while) and it's clear that there is no consensus in favour of inclusion and that those that spoke in favour (and the onus is on those arguing in favour of inclusion) have completely disregarded and failed to address the very substantial arguments against inclusion and Coltrane's level of notability - and instead either just saying he's notable without backing it up or using only international media sources when international coverage does not automatically equate international notability, as has been established for some time here. There was no indication that any of that would have changed, and that at this point both sides were merely repeating and rehashing the same arguments already made - and that consequently it's clear that no consensus can be reached, which is also why the original discussion started on the 14th also ended. TheScrubby (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@Curbon7:, should I re-add the "Just Note: international coverage ≠ international notability" thing on top of the question that was there before or is that a violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL, cuz there's a long-held consensus here that international coverage is not equal to international notability
(also you mind go and reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey) 4me689 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

  • Appeal against decision to include - the decision by @Ryk72: was clearly on the basis primarily of international coverage as per Politrukki's comment. Yet it has been made clear that such grounds are absolutely insufficient for these pages, and that over the last couple of years the notion of including somebody on the yearly pages purely on the basis of international media coverage has been repudiated (we even have it included on the FAQs of this talk page). The decision by Ryk72 I believe disregards this entirely, and therefore has made Coltrane's inclusion here all the more of an aberration. At the end of the day none of the main points against Coltrane's inclusion (particularly by myself and @Jim Michael 2:) were sufficiently addressed by those who voted in favour of inclusion. This'll most likely end as a tenuous case of borderline inclusion purely on the basis of a head count of votes, but in no way should this result be treated as anything other than an aberration and an exception to the rule. TheScrubby (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I back this appeal; including him goes against our guidelines. Many domestic figures of a similar level of notability - such as Kirstie Alley - can have their inclusion argued for on the same basis. They have awards - but only from their own country. They have fans in many countries, so the media in many countries reported their deaths. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't support this appeal. The closing editor summed it up well. I disagree that Kirstie Alley could be argued on the same basis as I would oppose her inclusion on this list. There's a bit of subjectivity here and this doesn't seem like something worth opening up again. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The closer didn't acknowledge Coltrane's lack of international notability. Alley's awards are of similar importance to his & the media coverage of their deaths is similar. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Noting, as closer, that a) I have seen this; b) the process for challenging closes is at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; c) per that process, I am happy to review, and either amend the close or expand the close rationale, and will attempt to do so in the next 32 hours. - Ryk72 talk 22:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The "FAQs" at the top of the page are not Wikipedia policy or guidelines, they're just the opinion of one or more editors who decided to edit this page at a particular point in time. What is policy, however, is WP:DUE, which mandates us to give airtime to things in mainspace proportionate to their coverage in reliable sources. That Coltrane received exactly such coverage upon his death and is therefore included is compliant with the policy, and the closer did a good job. Wikipedians don't decide what's important and what isn't, we merely reflect what reliable sources decide.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
    No. The FAQs come as a result of consensus emerging over decisions and discussions to do with inclusion of figures on this page for almost two years now, and is not merely a prerogative or opinion of “one or more editors”. The consensus built up over these Talk pages and implemented by nearly every regular contributor to these pages is that international coverage does not automatically equate to international notability (and I’ll let @Jim Michael 2: further elaborate on that point), and that’s the way things are here. Other pages and Wiki features may have different guidelines and standards for what’s sufficiently notable, but for here we include figures based on international notability, and minor actors whose deaths get international coverage because they played a supporting character in an internationally notable franchise (and as has also been established here for some time, actors do not automatically gain the notability of the films they’re in) with fans in many countries, but whose names are virtually unknown outside of said fanbases are not examples of sufficient international notability. What you’re advocating for would also see other minor character actors with scant international notability such as Kirstie Alley included. TheScrubby (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subsequent comments

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

The only discussion on here this year that's anything like this one is that regarding Gilbert Gottfried, but it turned out that the three accounts arguing for his inclusion & greatly overstating his notability were operated by the same fan, who's since been blocked.
We've included Coltrane simply because of his popularity, because his media coverage merely reflects that. By that reasoning, we'd include several Kardashians & Jenners. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to touch Gottfried...I'm friends with members of his family IRL so that does create a potential COI. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Technoblade rediscussion (Result: exclusion)

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

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

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

Exclude. Sorry, but I think you greatly overstate his fame. I'm an avid gamer myself, but I'd never heard of him until recently, and gamers aren't (yet) comparable to movies/actors in terms of cultural impact. His death is in no way comparable to a monarch who ruled the Commonwealth for 70 years and oversaw the decline of the British Empire. This was already discussed previously anyway. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Exclude - this is yet another example of someone grossly overstating the notability, fame etc. of someone they're a fan of. The vast majority of people have never heard of him. Mainstream news had very little interest in him. He isn't even important to his field. Kirstie Alley - who also shouldn't be included - played a main character on one of the most popular sitcoms & was far more notable & many times more famous than he was. We don't include most Olympic medallists. Main year articles need to be based on international notability. They shouldn't be led by fans or pop culture. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Disclaimer, if you didn’t see above: I’m not a big Minecraft person anyways…I just did the research. Most of your argument relies on the fact that YouTube personalities can’t be internationally notable; that is not the case. How would a sitcom star with a domestic (or limited international) reach be more important than a YouTuber with international reach? The article under your interpretation biases “old money” value and “older” careers and fails to recognize a newer type of way to be famous exists, and your definition of international notability is too exclusive. Mainstream news did cover him (see sources previously listed, as well as how his death was covered by CBS News and CNN), and his death was, per PC Gamer, the top trending YouTube video of 2022. Why would a domestic sitcom star be more notable than an internationally-relevant YouTube personality? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Coverage does not equal notability. We don't measure notability by the coverage a person gets. If that was the case, Bob Saget would have been included. Which most of us scoffed at.
We measure notability by how the person is recognized in other countries. Awards are typically the best way to measure that.
Sidney Poitier recevied an Oscar, a Bafta, along with a whole slew of honorary awards from many countries. That makes him notable. If the person does not have awards, than we move onto other factors such as chart hits ( for musicians ). Olivia Newton John is therefore notable because her songs have hit the charts in many countries.
But on the grand scale of things, You really think Technoblade is comparable to Sidney Poitier ? 2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
You're comparing Technoblade, a simple entry, to Sidney Poitier, someone famous enough to be in the lead? Not all famous people are equal, but he's certainly notable enough at least for a mention. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
We don't measure fame though.
Fame does not equal notability. Or else, Most people on the death list would be excluded, simply because they're not covered enough on mostly American news media. Which is basically Americentrism as Scrubby here as stated in the last 2 years.
We do however measure notability. What is he or she known for ? And is what he or she known for, measured in the global context if that makes sense ?
We don't include Poitier because he's famous. We include Poitier because his notability is recorded, measured in the awards he has gotten. Oscars. Baftas.
William Hurt was not as famous as Technoblade, but we don't measure fame. We measure notability that is recorded and measured, Hurt won an oscar, bafta, and Cannes.
I don't see how Technoblade meets that standard. And this isn't me being snobbish, I'll happily include someone like Warren Buffett who is very notable globally for his investing work. 2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that most of the encyclopedic notability for Technoblade comes both from his popularity playing Minecraft but also his advocacy. According to YouTube (see sidebar directly across the video link in my original response), the fundraiser in Techno's name has led to over $24 million USD through YouTube donated for cancer research; a further $500,000 will be donated to the Sarcoma Foundation of America (source: GameRant. I believe fame is a factor towards notability, which may not necessarily not equate to it, but should be weighed. Given that also awards and rankings of all merits, notably the Golden Globes and the USNews College Ranking, are increasingly controversial, I think that awards deserve still factorable but reduced weight compared to other measures. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
1. But Technoblade has not been recognized in any field whatsoever, which does not make him notable. Sir Capitain Tom Moore who died last year, was famous for raising alot of money for charity. And yet we don't include him, because he's not notable for something.
2. I'll happily include the creators of Minecraft if and when they die. They created minecraft and got a Bafta for it. 2601:204:CF81:EC80:955A:5FA9:915A:C2E (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I think Google Trends should be part of the equation towards determination but it should definately not be the bar for inclusion. It only goes as far as 2004 and many people gained their notability before 2004 examples include Elizabeth II, Sidney Poitier, Angela Lansbury, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Jean-Luc Godard. Technoblade's notableness definitely was confined within the existence of Google Trends. I'll say Exclude Technoblade. FireInMe (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
He wasn't even YouTube famous. I've watched YT videos every day for years & the only reason I've heard of him is seeing his death being added to this article. If I didn't read this article, I still wouldn't have heard of him. Whether you're talking about fame, notability or popularity, he's not one of the top 100 people to have died this year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I think it's time for me to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you @Jim Michael 2 definitely not top 100. I also never heard of him prior to his death. FireInMe (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Invading Invader, It's also worth remembering that gaming personalities are almost solely young people, given that the ability to stream video globally is such a recent invention. The same for YouTube. The Voivodeship King (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and the vast majority of middle-aged & old people haven't heard of even the most popular personalities of such sites. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022/Archive_13&oldid=1134122199"