This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
in my opinion the second picture should go to Robert curl, as we already have a world leader picture in the form of Shinzo Abe, the third picture should go to dos Santos cuz of his longevity as the leader of Angola, I wonder what everyone's opinions is. 4me689 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My money's on Curl too. At the end of the month, I think it would be Curl, Abe, Dos Santos (but please, not the pic you're proposing: I don't think it's appropriate to have the flag of a country that isn't his in the photo behind him) and a fourth one depending on who will die. And if no one more relevant dies, I would support Brook (for his important role in show business) or Echevarría (the Hispanic quota that I think the Year in Topic is missing). I "long" for some important woman to pass away...this Year in Topic is very masculinized. All this if there is room for four images. _-_Alsorian (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be Curl & Abe until there's space for a third. Abe is by far the most notable person & Curl by far the most notable non-politician to die this month. The pics should be of people from different fields; it's not justified for both to be of politicians when a highly-notable scientist also died. The other politicians shown here are nowhere near as notable as Abe. Japan is the world's third-largest economy. None of the other politicians are from countries which are developed or among the ten largest economies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Jim Michael saying last year that if more than one highly notable head of government/state died in a single month, it would make sense for there to be an exception to the variety rule and that we should in that case prioritise these figures. In the case of this month, I feel quite strongly that this scenario applies - it goes without saying that Abe should get the first image (mainly due to the circumstances of his death), but the second image should instead go to dos Santos - given that he was head of his country for almost 40 years (and was the second-longest serving President of any African state) and was a highly significant and influential figure in the continent. TheScrubby (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dos Santos is nowhere near internationally important enough to be an exception. Angola is one of the least developed countries, so despite his very long term as leader, he didn't have major international effects. Even if Abe had died naturally, he'd have a photo because he's by far the most notable person to die this month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you understate dos Santos's international significance, which global obituaries empasise, particularly with his involvement in the Congo Wars - and Angola is one of the least developed countries in large part due to (arguably) the legacy of dos Santos, as well as the civil war that he presided over until 2001. I'd be curious to hear what others have to say, but I thoroughly disagree with the premise that dos Santos was nowhere near internationally important enough to be an exception (I can't quite say the same about the other leaders who passed this month though). TheScrubby (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I have already expressed that this month should be an exception where the images should all go to the (highly notable) leaders who passed, if we were to omit one of the three I’d agree with 4me689 and prioritise dos Santos over Ramos. TheScrubby (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should limit the month to three photos and those being Curl, Abe, and Zawahiri. I think these three have international notoriety that outpaces other people being considered.PaulRKil (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing to describe COVID-19 Pandemic (Result: keep)
It is unsure about the situation of the COVID-19 Pandemic which is either ongoing or not around but it is not so much of a big deal now. 86.128.56.73 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the impacts have been lessened since 2020 and 2021, it is clearly ongoing. It continues to evolve new variants, continues to affect society and the economy and public health in numerous ways, and billions of people still aren't fully vaccinated – all of which is more than enough to justify inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to start this section for reference on his inclusion. I'm leaning towards include as he's won an Emmy, appeared in multiple renowned films (some international films at that) and (IMO) has just as much reason to be included as James Caan. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're including Caan, Liotta & Warner - all of whom have very few awards & aren't considered to have been among the best actors - we're going to include many each year. I think we should exclude all of them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined towards a neutral position, leaning towards opposing - from my point of view Warner's notability wasn't as great as that of either Caan or Liotta, and even those two are borderline inclusions at most. TheScrubby (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using my usual metric of "proper" obituaries in international heavyweight sources, although many do exist a number of them are AP type copy and pastes. Compared (certainly) to Caan and (to a lesser extent) Liotta, there doesn't seem to be the coverage there. Black Kite (talk)17:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Russell (Result: exclusion)
Should Bill Russell also be excluded from the 1934 article as well or keep him there? He lacks international nobility but I’m curious. Kyu (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude from both due to insufficient international notability. The inclusion criteria for Births sections are the same as for Deaths sections. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jim Michael, this seems to be a trend when non-notable people die, they get added to the birth sections and they don't get removed cuz older years ain't as cleaned up. 4me689 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I see. I’d figure I ask cause I wasn’t so sure. I also added the importance tag on Pat Carroll because I’m not 100% sure if she should be here because not a lot of people even heard of her, aside from playing as the voice of Ursula in The Little Mermaid. I also don’t think Nichelle Nichols should be here either because she is only known for playing as Lt. Uhura on the original Star Trek series. Kyu (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning on exclude for Russell. Definitely exclude for Carroll, while Nichelle Nichols could possibly be a borderline inclusion due to the prominence and significance of her role in one of the most internationally notable television shows of all time - though I’ll wait and see what others have to say. TheScrubby (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude Nichols due to a lack of international notability. Playing a major role in an internationally popular show is true of hundreds of domestic actors & doesn't create international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely 100% include for Bill Russell. An 11-time NBA champion, more championships than any other individual in the history of American team sports. Beyond that he also broke down barriers for African-Americans in professional sports and was an icon of the American Civil Rights movement. I don't see how this could even be a question, frankly, especially when the article includes a "sprint canoeist," a sport no one has ever heard of, with a three-line long article, simply because they won an Olympic gold medal in 1956. As for Nichelle Nichols, I also say include because of the ongoing global cultural relevance of Star Trek, even if not everyone knows her name. Besides that, her deceased Star Trek co-stars were all included in their respective articles: DeForest Kelley in 1999, James Doohan in 2005, Majel Barrett in 2008, and Leonard Nimoy in 2015. Dragonbacon (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If one's death is excluded from a year article, it goes without saying that they would also be excluded on the year article for when they were born. So yes. And regarding the Star Trek cast, I have no real issue with the inclusion of Nicholls, though I would argue that Barrett ought to be excluded as she wasn't part of the core cast. TheScrubby (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Jim, I don't know who made you the authority on what is "domestic" and what is "international." Please see my response to TheScrubby below for Russell's international notability. Dragonbacon (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By what standard are we defining "international notability" here? I know this has been debated endlessly before but it really does feel like a fatally flawed system when it would have you exclude Bill Russell and include Yelizaveta Dementyeva. Dragonbacon (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Final point: if an Olympic gold medal is all it takes to be "internationally notable," then Bill Russell automatically qualifies because he did, in fact, win an Olympic gold medal. In the same year as Dementyeva, even. Dragonbacon (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed on-and-off over the last year and a half, but there has been a consistent issue when it comes to who should be included so far as sports figures go. The only real points of consensus we have r.e. the sports field is that those who won individual Olympic gold medals (not won in teams) are included and that the most prominent sports figures from the most internationally played sports (such as cricket, soccer and tennis) are included. Sports that are only popularly played regionally (such as baseball and rugby) or predominately domestically/one country (such as gridiron football or Aussie Rules football) are a lot less certain, though it'd be nice if we got some consistency and clarity regarding this. I'm largely staying neutral on Russell, though from my perspective his notability and significance seems to be primarily limited to the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few points: basketball is absolutely played internationally. The NBA is followed internationally and its stars are known the world over. Virtually every country has its own basketball league, many of which are extremely popular stateside (e.g. China and Eastern Europe). It may not be "the most" internationally played but that is an arbitrary measure. Russell is well known internationally, there are obituaries in major newspapers all over the world, in many languages, and on Wikipedia there are at present articles on Russell in 53 languages. He is a titan of sports in the 20th century, omitting him from this article is basically the same as omitting Babe Ruth from the 1948 article, or Gordie Howe from 2016. He won more championships than anyone in the history of North American team sports, both as a player and as a coach, and is one of only five people inducted into the Hall of Fame (an institution with inductees from all over the world) as a player and coach. I understand that not everyone can be included but I don't think the admins here understand the degree of prominence Russell's shadow casts over international sports. With all due respect to Yelizaveta Dementyeva, who I'm sure was a nice person, people are not coming to this page to see her listed. She won a gold medal in one olympic games in a sport no one has ever heard of, and her wiki is 3 lines long. People come here to see Bill Russell. To not include him is to make articles from recent years less complete and informative than articles of past years, where athletes of far lower stature than Russell are included. Dragonbacon (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His only significant international notability is an Olympic team medal, which by consensus is insufficient. Outside the US & his sport, very few people have heard of him. It's highly unlikely that the equivalent of him from any other country would gain support for inclusion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bernd Bransch was an Olympic gold medalist in a team event and he is in the section for deaths in June, so on those grounds Bill Russell absolutely should be included in deaths in July. Unknown artist (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not really much of an argument for inclusion, when another figure with insufficient notability falls through the cracks. If that’s his only claim to notability, being a non-individual Olympic gold medalist, Bransch should be excluded. TheScrubby (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When a sport's premier league is in a particular nation, it doesn't seem fair to discount the achievements of a person in that league. Say, a Spanish footballer with an entire career in La Liga. Would a basketballer with a very strong career between the Venezuelan basketball league and Argentinian basketball league be given a place here, because they played notably in two countries? It seems short-sighted to discount playing in one league because it is domestic.
Specifically in the case of Bill Russell, I quote from his page: "Russell is widely considered to be one of the greatest basketball players of all time.", "he captained the gold-medal winning U.S. national basketball team at the 1956 Summer Olympics.", " In 2011, Barack Obama awarded Russell the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his accomplishments on the court and in the civil rights movement." In addition, he is tied with Michael Jordan for most NBA MVP awards. Tied. With the G.O.A.T.. He has more MVP awards than LeBron James, Magic Johnson and "his prominent rival" Wilt Chamberlain. If he were a modern era player, he would have a greater international history through the Olympics, but in his playing career, the basketball was for amateurs only, not optional based on players as it was today. Russell CHOSE not to play in the NBA immediately, postponing his debut to play for the United States. Before he had played an NBA game, Russell captained the team to a gold medal. As a pre-rookie. By choosing to play the Olympics and winning a gold medal, in addition to the other achievements of Bill Russell, he deserves a place on the Deaths List. Sincerely, The Voivodeship King (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russell is very notable in the US, but has little international notability. Some sports are much more internationally notable than others. Some sportspeople are very well known in one country, but little-known in the rest of the world. Try mentioning Russell to people who aren't American or basketball fans - they've very unlikely to have a clue who you're talking about. The only reason I've heard of him is because his death was added to this article. If I didn't read Wikipedia, I'd still not have heard of him.
A solely domestic Spanish footballer wouldn't be included on main year articles. A basketball player would be unlikely to have a very high-achieving career in multiple countries, but if he did he could be eligible for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede defeat on Russell, but one point you often make is that knowing who somebody is is not a criteria for inclusion. Take the debate earlier this year about Dwayne Johnson that spun off from the death of Scott Hall. You argued that it did not matter that Johnson was very well known, because he wasn't notable. Regards, The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A person being well-known (even internationally) isn't enough for them to be on main year articles. If it were, many reality show participants, socialites & other 'famous-for-being-famous' people would be included. I didn't say Johnson isn't notable - I said he has little international notability. That's why I don't think he should be included, despite being known of by hundreds of millions of people across many countries. Some other frequent editors of main year articles have said similar things in regard to well-known people whose notability is solely or mainly in one country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lack of consensus on whether or not to include Nichelle Nichols. I believe for many of the reasons stated for other American actors and athletes who have died in 2022, we should Exclude her. PaulRKil (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think she should be included. She was tremendously important in the history of television for being the first African-American woman in a significant role. Certainly better known abroad than James Caan, Richard Taruskin, and several others who appear on the list. Her death has been reported in lots of different countries. [1][2][3][4] At a quick glance, popular culture (film&music) on the list is currently represented by 21 white men, 3 white women and Ms. Lata Mangeshkar as the single woman of color. On contrast, 52 athletes are included, even if they're not internationally known. We should include Nichelle Nichols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1110:118:A377:15E1:DBE0:6326:5D9C (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She was important in the history of US TV only. James Caan is far more well-known outside the US. Millions of people outside the US know of Caan & his work, but few people outside the US, other than Star Trek fans, have heard of her. The deaths of both of them were reported in many countries due to them having fans in many countries, with the coverage of her being Star Trek-centred. We don't make exceptions for people based on their demographic, and Americans are over-represented. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For once, I'd agree with including her. The reason she's not known by name is that she was the only regular female character in Star Trek (so most people would recognise her if you said "Uhura", even though a lot of them can't spell it). Thus she's important as a black woman on TV. I don't know about other countries, but she was practically the only black woman regularly seen on British TV in the 1960s, too. Deb (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I’m thinking Newton-John shouldn’t have an image here as we already have Sidney Poitier in January, William Hurt in March and Jean-Louis Trintignant in June. I understand that Peter Brook and James Caan’s images aren’t in the July section and I don’t think Newton-John fits in the August category for images. I was going to say the same thing about Fidel Ramos as we have Benigno Aquino III in 2021, his mother Corazon in 2009, but apparently dos Santos died the same day as Shinzō Abe and it’s kinda silly to have three politicians since Robert Curl is the only one of the three who isn’t a politician that deserved to have an image. Kyu (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well we need to have a notable entertainer of some kind for August. And Oliva Newton John is highly notable; her acting career aside, her singing career had top ten hits in the US, UK, Australia, I mean that proves notability. 2601:204:CF01:1840:F0C0:DFE3:49BD:3976 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I highly agree with Jim Michael, she was a famous cultural figure that expired millions of people over Generations, she deserves a photo 100%. 4me689 (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lets get a consensus on the usage of honorifics and titles such as 'dame' or 'sir' for births/deaths. Neither should be included, it is not the reason why these individuals are listed in the deaths section. Even when it would be warranted such as for Presidents and other non-royal world leaders, we don't precede their name with their title. In 2018 under deaths, we have Bush 41 listed as George H. W. Bush, 41st President of the United States (b. 1924). Not as President George H.W. Bush (b. 1924). Exclude them entirely. PaulRKil (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We’ve always included “Sir” and “Dame” when it comes to such figures (regardless of whether or not we want to change that now), and it’s a false equivalency to invoke Presidential figures, where such a title has never been included, especially in photo captions. So I don’t know why that point is consistently brought up by you. TheScrubby (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude due to insufficient international notability. Most of the coverage surrounding her death are due to the (tragic) circumstances of it rather than the notability of her career itself. TheScrubby (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the Stabbing of Salman Rushdie#Political response section. Iran. Nuclear talks. "US Department of Justice's August 5, 2022 allegation that Iran had planned to assassinate US national security advisor John Bolton in 2020... Hezbollah supporters hailed the attacker on social media, calling him a hero, and using the hashtag "holy stabbing" in their posts". Sounds like international repercussions to me. --Gaois (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't. The reaction of Hezbollah supporters (and Iranian authorities) is natural and that Bolton could be the target of an assassination attempt (nothing is confirmed) is not a reaction at all to the Rushdie stabbing. There've been no sanctions, no emergency meetings, no expulsions of diplomats...I'm missing things. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include It received worldwide news coverage and the way I look at it, if it can make it to the Wiki's In the News section, there shouldn't be a problem with it being in this year's article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Doubtful It dropped off the news headlines very quickly. It would be different if it is definitely discovered that there was a political motive - and exactly what that motive was. Deb (talk) 12:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is Piero Angela notable enough for inclusion. this dude has already been added to the death section twice already, so I'm making the talk page just to see what everyone's thoughts is, any thoughts??? 4me689 (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on Wolfgang Petersen being included in the death section? I'm creating a talk page discussion about this for reference. I'm leaning towards inclusion for the fact he made blockbuster films, was a well known director and was a two-time Oscar nominee. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because although he was a successful filmmaker in his native Germany as well as the US, he has no awards. Nominations aren't important enough. He isn't considered to have been one of the best filmmakers. His notability is significantly below that of Paul Verhoeven, who likewise has been a successful filmmaker in his own country as well as the US but whom has significant awards from multiple countries. We don't & shouldn't include most of the European actors who have been in notable films on both sides of the Atlantic; I don't think we should treat filmmakers differently in that regard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include, albeit as a borderline inclusion, looking at his resume, it's safe to assume that this dude is famous in other countries outside of Germany and the United States and is successful in many other countries around the world. it looks like a dude who would be included in these types of articles. 4me689 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be inclined to include him as a borderline inclusion, as per 4me689. Which naturally means I’d also be opposed to his image being included. TheScrubby (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include. I think he's pretty well known worldwide. I certainly knew of him. Maybe not quite a household name, but still very significant. Deb (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
both look they have enough International nobility for me to approve for inclusion, I mean they look like they have a pretty good resume. 4me689 (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can collages be added to main year articles, recently a discussion has been opened up in the Talk:2020 page about collages an idea brought up by the user KoopaDaQuick, I also had this idea but just forgot about it until very recently. it would bring more originality to this pages and would make every main year article look unique, the idea is like the collages in the decade articles, we're a couple photos are in the info box and you can click on them to go directly to the article that picture is from. I want to see what everyone's thoughts on adding a collage are, and if yes list what pictures would be on a possible 2022 collage. 4me689 (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, giving each year a montage would be a good idea. I don't know if we want to do one as plentiful as the one I did for 2020, but maybe we could do it in a similar manner as the ones we already use for the decade articles. KoopaDaQuick (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. We're not here for "originality", and the collage included on 2020 is pretty meaningless and not well-designed. I can see the point of making the main year article look unique, but we'd need something much better than the existing example. This should be raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years if you want to proceed with it. Deb (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're probably not going to use the style of the collage that is currently on the picture on the 2020 article, we're more than likely going to use the style that is used in the decade articles. Also, @Jim Michael 2:, @TheScrubby:, and @Black Kite: what do you think about this, they're the main contributors. 4me689 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jean-Jacques Sempé inclusion (Result: inclusion)
I'd be leaning towards borderline including French cartoonist Jean-Jacques Sempé as it appears he's had some international notability, seeing how he has worked on publications not only in his native France but also the U.S., Germany and with his obit saying he had "international acclaim". I feel like he'd be worth including here. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude due to him having little international notability. Thousands of notable people have worked in more than one country; that's not enough to justify them being on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Include Published in at least 30 languages, and his children's book series has received several adaptations. To be honest, I was surprised that Sempé was still alive until this year. His most groundbreaking work dates to the 1950s and the 1960s, and his creative partner René Goscinny died back in 1977. Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude. 12 deaths just isn't notable enough for this page, sorry. There's a bit more flexibility when it comes to terrorism/violent incidents, but we're talking about a natural disaster here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. Citizens of three nations were killed. That is by definition international. There is no set threshold for casualties coming from a natural disaster, is there? Should we make one? The Voivodeship King (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"LEAD", and "LED"
In the summarization paragraphs at the top of this page, the text of the fourth paragraph reads:
"...has caused the displacement of 16.8 million Ukrainians (8 million internally displaced persons and 8.8 million refugees) and LEAD to international condemnations..."
The text that I've italicized should say, "and LED to", as the correct past tense of the English verb "to lead" is "LED". But, as the article is semi-protected, there is no way for me to correct it. Can someone with access please fix the spelling error? I've emailed Wikipedia itself, but nobody's fixed it. 2600:6C52:6E00:854:8DC:4F10:EA72:35E4 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in my opinion he is a borderline inclusion because he coached other countries other than the baltics like the USA and also has an Olympic gold medal. 4me689 (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Balkan rather than Baltic. He played in Germany & coached the US team, but didn't have any significant achievements when doing so. Team medals don't grant inclusion on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude, he wasn't all that known outside of Brazil. Furthermore it wasn't the last uncontacted tribesman in South America or in Brazil for that matter. 4me689 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ralph Eggleston & Kazuo Inamori are two people that were added recently, and they both have importance inline tags who were added at the same time.
Ralph Eggleston - borderline inclusion,
an American animator, art director, storyboard artist, writer, film director, and production designer at Pixar Animation Studios. who won a oscar for writing and directing a short film called For the Birds.
Kazuo Inamori - borderline inclusion, was a Japanese philanthropist, entrepreneur and the founder of Kyocera and KDDI. He was the chairman of Japan Airlines.
Inamori was elected as a member into the National Academy of Engineering in 2000 for innovation in ceramic materials and solar cell development/manufacturing, entrepreneurship of advanced technologies, and for being a role model for relating science to society.
Exclude Eggleston because of what Jim says (and let's remember that not everyone who gets Oscars is ever included) and I’ve my doubts about Inamori. He was chariman of Japan Airlines, a major company, but I don't think this is a direct ticket to be included. I tend to support his exclusion as well. _-_Alsor (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, on the note of astronauts, only include them if they accomplished a first (like Mae Jemison being the first black woman in space), if they've had a substantial career outside of space (like now-US Senator Mark Kelly), have done something significant for space research, or have become media stars in their own right with regard to their astronaut work. If an astronaut is the subject of a movie which attained the success of Hidden Figures (as an example), I think it's okay if we throw them in. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why remove Charlbi for "not having international mobility' ? Im sure nobody knows who the hell Richard Braggs or Briggs (cartoonist) is . Well, they might know Charlbi. She's relevant. Richard was 88. Nobody cares. Rhodewarrick471 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
because she didn't really star in any major movies, I mean, I didn't really know her until she was bought up in this very talk section.
Raymond Briggs is notable because he was a really famous cartoonist, whos were very well-known and respected around the world. in contrast, Dean wasn't known that much around the world, she wasn't really that well-known outside her home of South Africa. 4me689 (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael 2: let’s bring this up here instead of reverting over and over again. I think that the approach you’re taking to Xinjiang is not helping the article, and the true magnitude the UN report isn’t fully understood. You’re comparing apples to oranges when you are bringing in the invasion of Ukraine; this event is defining of the year to the point where it’s in the lead. No event except maybe COVID reaches that level. Astronomy can’t be compared to Ukraine but yet it’s on this list and I support its inclusion. Additionally, in edit summaries, you did claim something along the lines of “crimes against humanity happen all the time”. When does the UN of all agencies make this sort of statement in such a public manner against one of the most powerful countries in the world? Not to mention that the effect of this report are wide-reaching. Countries around the world are being asked by the UN to keep Uyghur deportees away from China. H&M pulled out of Xinjiang even before the paper was released. World leaders of both China and are on this like crazy. The media treats this with the same level of importance as Gorbachev’s death. Heck, this even made the current events tab on the Main Page. And you’re saying that the genocide in Xinjiang (which even Wikipedia for all its neutrality acknowledges it as a genocide) doesn’t matter enough for the article 2022? InvadingInvader (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a report that's critical of a domestic situation in one country. The UN & other supranational orgs often make criticisms of various countries. Many countries have perpetrated and/or been accused of crimes against humanity. The vast majority of these instances aren't mentioned on main year articles & I don't see why this one should be. Unless some major international consequences (such as sanctions, military action or travel bans) result from it, it's domestic. So far, the only response to the report is a few countries agreeing with it & China rejecting it. Various complications in regard to refugee situations exist in many countries. The size &/or power of the country doesn't make this of major international importance. The media publicise various people, places, events & things because it gains them views/sales. Using media coverage as a measure, you'd have to conclude that many members of the Kardashian-Jenner family are among the most important people in the world. Being on the Current events portal &/or ITN doesn't grant a place on main year articles; the inclusion criteria for each are very different. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's supranational criticism of a domestic policy, which is commonplace. It's not accompanied by any action. The only reason being given for including this but not the large majority of similar reports, speeches, criticism etc. in main year articles is that China is a large, powerful country. That seems to be implying that if the country the UN were accusing of human rights abuses & crimes against humanity were for example Eritrea, Haiti or Myanmar, we'd be agreed that we wouldn't include it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that the report being published is an international event that is on-topic for this article. The single biggest repercussion you can point to is "H&M pulling out", which, as you say, happened before the release of the paper, again proving the release of the paper is not itself a turning point. We can wait and see if there are more significant responses on an international level; we don't have to rush to publish anything!
No-one is saying 'the genocide in Xinjiang doesn't matter' and it's unhelpful to use straw-man arguments like that.
Oppose inclusion. The report presents only potential issues, with the wording being careful to only indicate that the the presented issues are a possibility, and not a direct allegation. Given the tone, it seems that notability requirements are not met. Carter00000 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's necessary to include. The media and organizations in support of the Uyghurs do say that this report had months of unexpected delays and this was widely anticipated. (see WashPost, Amnesty International, Reuters, the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, BBC News, an article from CNN about the report before its release, and ABC News). International coverage this wide of an organization as influential as the UN accusing a country as large as China should be mentioned, and any comparison to Ukraine would be comparing apples to oranges; not every event of the year has to define the world as widely as the invasion of Ukraine. I'm open to changing how its written, but the UN coming out with allegations and reports of this has very large ramifications for the future. The UN in itself is mired in controversy and editors may have different opinions on if the UN is effective, but its position in global affairs and its power over countries as the closest organization to international law and policing renders it as the most powerful organization in the world. If the world government says that you're possibly committing crimes against humanity after a thorough investigation and 48-page report is released, your reputation is screwed pretty badly, even for a country as large and as powerful as China. The report additionally calls for more brands and businesses to boycott Xinjiang (see Al Jazeera), and the consequences for increased attention to China's actions in Xinjiang have already damned the country to half of the developed world. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...the UN coming out with allegations .... possibly committing crimes against humanity ... calls for more brands and businesses to boycott ... How can that be worthy of a place on a main year article? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With sole regard to inclusion on this list, what matters more than the content of the report itself is how much the world cares about it and what the world does about it. By focusing more so on the content less than the impact, you downplay the ramifications. I'm personally against including Depp v. Heard here in its present form, but if for some reason it became crucial for international relations (for some reason, let's not get into the nitty gritty of the scenario), it should the here.
I'm not sure if you recognize that the official position of the world government, which the UN is the closest thing we have to a world government despite all its controversies, is that there is evidence for probable crimes against humanity (and alluded but not verbatim-mentioned genocide) happening in Xinjiang. The Uyghur situation is shifting foreign relations; western governments, most notably the United States, have acted legislatively or openly in protest against the Chinese government in Xinjiang. Now, the world in general recognizes that crimes against humanity are likely happening in Xinjiang, which is a first for a long-running, ongoing, and recent (5 years of substantial media coverage or less) event which can really only be superseded by some domestic affairs (George Floyd and Jan 6 in the US to be specific), Ukraine, COVID and the following economic events like inflation, and Afghanistan.
Additionally, focusing now on Wikipedia itself, consensus is clear, as established by Polyamorph, that this report is worthy of being included in the current events page (see this discussion). The Current Events project and 2022 are two different things, though notable international news that project-wide and Wiki-wide consensus thinks should be on Current Events, especially something like the world reacting to Xinjiang, absolutely should be listed here as well.
It's nothing like the world reacting. The vast majority of people have no interest in the Uyghurs, how the Chinese gov treats them, nor what the UN says about it. It's not a popular topic of conversation in factories, shops, offices, pubs, living rooms, parties etc. Despite this being reported in many countries & being on WP's main page, its peak daily views were less than 14,000. A supranational org has criticised China for it, and another supranational org as well as two countries have agreed with the report. China has rejected it & nothing has changed. If this results in China becoming a world outcast like N Korea is, then it'll be important enough for this article. As things stand, it's mere criticism. That's something the UN has given many times, including for human rights abuses, crimes against humanity etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did the ITN group overwhelmingly agree that the Chinese report belongs on the Main Page? Between this talk page thread as well as the ITN candidate thread, only you and Carter (who btw is actually on WP:AE for disrupting community consensus) have valiantly opposed this being included. Most people only mentioned oppose once and never commented again, or switched from Oppose to comment/neutral or support, and a majority of the opposition only didn't think it was worth posting because the article wasn't ready at the time (which has been fixed)? What I think you're doing is looking at events solely based on internal context and not what the world cares about. It's a balancing act, but the world has shown me (as well as a lot of other people through media coverage and community consensus) is that people care about this. Is there another instance of the UN OHR making this sort of allegation within the past 2 years? InvadingInvader (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ITN criteria are very different to those of main year articles. Inclusion on one doesn't grant inclusion on the other. Likewise with exclusion. Some other editors agree with me in this discussion, and in edit summaries.
Like I said, the vast majority of the world doesn't care about any aspect of this. The large majority of countries haven't made statements about it. Look at how low the report's page views are, despite being on the main page. If you try to start a conversation about it with your colleagues or in a social gathering, you'll be met with awkward silence, then someone will quickly change the conversation.
You asked for another recent UN criticism of another country for serious human rights abuses, so I linked a UN ref from earlier this year about Myanmar. Do you think that should be included in this article? If not, why include their criticism of China, but not of Myanmar? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yeah there seems to be a huge argument here, not everyone who is editing these Pages has put their Mark here yet.
Yeah I would say Exclude as per Jim Michael, and I don’t really have too much to add beyond what Jim’s already said. We can always revisit this as well, if this UN report leads to substantial consequences which directly affect the Xinjiang issue. TheScrubby (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@4me689: - very chuffed to have been thought of. Personally, I support inclusion. The main argument against this is that such reports regarding the Myanma (this is the demonym, not a spelling error) Government and the Rohingya people were not included. It is worth noting that merely because the Rohingya genocide has not been includes does not mean that it isn't notable. Were we resting on our laurels? In the Xinjiang camps, at least 1,000,000 have been detained, including some Kazakhs and Kyrgyz peoples who are also being sinicised by the Chinese government as they are also Muslim (according to the page). Another argument is that the Uyghur genocide is "not a popular topic of conversation", but earlier it was noted that by looking at popularity (or to be verbatim, views) would indicate that the Kardashians and Jenners are some of the most important people in the world, which is not reliable in terms of notability. But genocide is not a popular topic of conversation as it involves callous death. Nobody talks about it because it is considered polite in the majority of social circles to keep conversation "light" (vapid and meaningless). I conceded on Bill Russell last month, but I think this is an even stronger argument than that. I accept but disagree with the opinion that this genocide could not be notable. The only issue is that genocide occurs over time. We had an issue with too many entries regarding the Ukrainian Invasion and we would have the same issue here is documenting every action. These reports are the simplest and most notable way to note these events. By the way, I probably won't see your rebuttal for this until at least 08:00 Thursday, 08/09/22. Sincerely, The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The UN's recent criticism of Myanmar's gov includes accusations of various frequent serious human rights abuses which aren't limited to the Rohingya. What reason is there to exclude that, but include the accusations the UN made against China's gov? No-one's claiming that these things aren't notable; the issue is that they're not internationally notable enough for a main year article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What people think is more important than what actually is. The morals are debatable, but if people care about something, they talk about it. The media is a reflection of this; I would not have sponsored the inclusion of Depp v. Heard in 2022 in the US based solely on what was happening inside the courtroom, but because people care about both the people and the impact it has over future trials like it, I think it belongs. Same with Xinjiang. The UN has criticized Myanmar, but people don't really care about Myanmar for some reason, though when the UN criticizes Xinjiang, we care about it. We view this as the capstone (so far) of the allegations of what's going on in Xinjiang, and this is far more of an international event than Depp v. Heard. Additionally consider how the world has awaited this report; multiple sources describe the report as long awaited or using similar terminology, by many groups.(see The Economist, The NY Times on the Uyghur diaspora, the Guardian, Canada's Global News, CNN (even prior to the report's release), the Christian Science Monitor, and the Taipei Times). InvadingInvader (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depp v. Heard isn't international. The great interest in it by the media & public is due to both parties having long been famous. Even if that case sets precedents that are relevant for future cases, it's domestic - so it doesn't belong on this article.
Far more people are interested in China than Myanmar because China is the world's most populous, second-most powerful & third-largest country. Myanmar is one of the least developed countries, whose only significant effect on the world is its refugees. However, the vast majority of people also have no interest in the Uyghurs; the low page views of the report, despite it being covered extensively by the media & on our main page, prove that. They & the UN report about them aren't a common topic of conversation. Try starting a conversation about the Uyghurs & it's unlikely that anyone will know who you're talking about & even less likely that they'll be interested. If you're saying that we should include the UN harshly criticising a national gov for human rights abuses that possibly amount to crimes against humanity on main year articles, we should include their statements on Myanmar as well as China. If you agree with me that such criticism without significant international action as a result isn't of significant international notability, we should exclude both statements. It makes no sense to include one but not the other; the UN's criticism about both governments include some of the same type of accusations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read my argument again; I brought up Depp v. Heard with regard to 2022 in the US, not listing it here on the internationally-focused 2022. We agree on not including Depp v. Heard here, but since US media cared about it, the trial belongs there and is notable enough. I'm comparing a domestic event and a domestic media reaction to a domestic 2022 list.
I strongly disagree with the claim that people show little to no interest in Uyghurs; multiple sources have covered this actively. Just look at the media as of recent, and all the sources I've linked in my previous replies. Google Scholar shows over 1600 articles on Xinjiang Camps this year alone. Google Trends shows a spike around the beginning of September for Xinjiang queries. In San Francisco (where I am as of writing), arguably the most international city in the United States save for New York and DC, we all know that this exists, but the same way I don't bring up Palestine and Israel with friends who hail from that region, or the Armenian genocide with my Turkish friends, I don't bring it up because it's a sensitive topic. Even if we wouldn't talk about it openly, we'd still search for it, explaining the spike in Google searches.
Some media sources are interested in the Uyghurs, but the vast majority of people aren't. If 80m people are interested, that means 1% of the population are. The spikes you mention are due to the recent UN report. They're short-lived & are tiny in comparison to those relating to many other things that've happened this year. The vast majority of people who've read the main page during this week haven't ever clicked on its link to this report; its low page views prove that. Do you merely avoid mentioning the Uyghurs to your Chinese friends because it'd likely be a sensitive topic for them? Or do you not mention the subject to any of your friends, because you know it's highly unlikely that they'll be interested? The UN's statements this year on Myanmar & China are similar in many ways. If you want to exclude Myanmar, what are your reasons for that? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Some media sources"–nearly every reliable source in the world which covers international news have addressed the Uyghur genocide at some point, and most of them have covered the recent report.
BTW, I'm Chinese myself. I'm personally not comfortable talking about Xinjiang and the genocide there outside of online discussions like this. Extremist America gets "a little" crazy sometimes ;)
On a personal level, I would be okay with including Myanmar actually. The world, however, has paid more attention to Xinjiang, but if Myanmar is proposed on the talk page, I'd support it with Myanmar on this list because of the UN's role and its severity. When deciding between including one or the other, though, because of more coverage, media or otherwise, I'd include Xinjiang over Myanmar. If for some reason the UN released an exorbitant amount of crimes against humanity reports this year, then I think we might need to cut down on their inclusion here, but given the circumstances, unless the UN revealed that a massive genocide of some group people which rivals that of not only our worst genocides but even the loss of life under Mao Zedong, this is the most damning report for any country yet issued by an organization as internationally influential and powerful as the UN. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion. The arguments in support of inclusion note widespread coverage by both academic sources and news media of the Uyghur genocide, as well as the importance of this event in the scheme of global affairs. The fact of the matter is that this is a major U.N. report that has been awaited for four years and is extremely significant in the U.N. treatment of a P5 UNSC member. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)06:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments against include there being no action or consequences in response to the report, which the supporters of inclusion are ignoring. Are you in favour of including this year's UN accusations against Myanmar, or only those against China? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors, including me, think that re-elections shouldn't usually be included in main year articles because they don't involve a change of government & hence are usually of little or no international significance. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one, and it was reverted because other re-elections are on the article, so removed all of them to resolve the issue raised, before seeing this discussion. I definitely don't think re-elections are relevant. I'm actually not sure that changes of government are necessarily important enough to go on here either; take a country like the UK where power changes hands in a stable and normal way between one or two political parties every few years, I don't think it's actually a significant event in the scope of the year as a whole. Change of the type of government, e.g. 'First democratic elections' or an 'ousting' or 'coup' maybe. This is relevant as we're about to change the prime minister (not the governing party) and even though that does have effects on an international stage; I don't think that it's necessarily important enough for the main year article. JeffUK (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on a case by case basis. I'm usually in favor of a larger and more influential country having their re-elections counted, or if a movement faces a significant defeat or setback. A good example would be Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide re-election where only the US state of Minnesota and Washington DC voting against Reagan in the electoral college, or Macron vs. Le Pen where the right-wing movement was defeated for the second time in a row. But if it's a country as small or as influential on the world stage as Tuvalu or Mali re-electing their president, I would support Jim Michael here and keep it off. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. It all depends on the election itself. Does it show that a significant movement was defeated or maybe even more popularly supported than before? Was it one most notable reelections in the nations' own history? I think it's ultimately a case by case basis where it all depends on the impact of the election. In general, though, if it's Obama v. Romney for instance, or when Merkel was reelected as chancellor for the second time, keep it off.
I bring up Macron vs. Le Pen Round 2 because even though Le Pen lost, she and her movement gained a lot more of a foothold as observed by independent analysts and Le Pen herself (see PBS and BBC) I also brought up Reagan in 1984 because aside from Minnesota and DC, the entire country voted Republican on the electoral college level. Some fictitious elections which should be included would be if Gavin Newsom defeated Ron DeSantis for presidential re-election by a 48 point margin in the popular vote, a J6 style event happens in Russia the day after Putin is re-elected, or any of the instances Deb mentioned in her comment. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, the main person that updates these things on the year articles his name is RookieInTheWiki. @RookieInTheWiki:, what's your opinion on this. 4me689 (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there's not much point in including them in countries that aren't major powers where there's no change of government. Exceptions might be where the re-election comes as a big surprise - for example, if the previous President of the United States had been re-elected - or where there is suspicion of corrupt practices, resulting in political unrest. Deb (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support his inclusion if no one else of better notability died within the surrounding days. He is a very accomplished astronaut. His article is ready to be even posted on WP:ITN if you want to go ahead and do that as well. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we've got into the habit of including every astronaut, and I strongly feel it's time we stopped, unless they are particularly important for something else. In this case, I see no particular significance and I would oppose his inclusion. Deb (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is John Landy notable enough for inclusion. He's been added over and over again.
In my opinion, exclude, because he's a very local figure. 4me689 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he wasn't even a politician - he was made Governor of Victoria (my home state), but that's a ceremonial role that he was appointed to in recognition of his athletic achievements. At most he ought to be maybe considered a borderline inclusion, but only on the basis of world records he achieved in his athletic career. Otherwise, I've got no issue with his exclusion. TheScrubby (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether to include its closing. While it is an American roller coaster, it is (or should I say was) the #2 world record holder in terms of height and #3 in terms of speed. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes the coaster is big, and yes the park it's in Cedar Point, is one of the biggest amusement parks in the world, with Millions visiting it per year. however the closing of Dragster is pretty much domestic. and I would rather Exclude it.
with that being said, world record-breaking coaster openings are notable in my opinion, you got to represent all aspects of media when it comes to these articles including amusement parks, we tried to bring the variety from every sorts of stuff, from gaming to Sports and even amusement parks. and I would argue the opening of Top Thrill Dragster in 2003 is notable in itself, as it was the first full circuit 400-foot coaster and in my opinion it should go for every time a coaster surpasses the height or speed record, like the opening of Kingda Ka in 2005 or the opening of Formula Rossa in 2010.
Kind of busy with other things both on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia, but when I get a spare moment, I'm wiling to help make that list. I might go retroactively add the Dragster to 2003 if it's not already there.InvadingInvader (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opening & closing of amusement parks & anything within them are domestic & are nowhere near important enough to include on main year articles, even if they break records. Main year articles don't include people, groups, places, things etc. on the basis of them being the largest, smallest, tallest, shortest, heaviest, lightest, fastest, richest, most popular, longest running, most publicised etc. - regardless of location or field. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be listed in the 2022 article, it is not yet scheduled, and it could be as late as 2024 before it happens. Suggest it is removed until such time as a date is announced. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean towards exclusion, though I’m closer to neutral than anything. But I don’t think he had the international notability for inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond belief that Alsoriano97 believes there shouldn't be any pic, when the Queen is arguably the most notable death of the entire year so far, and possibly the last 10-20+ years. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Alsoriano made it perfectly clear in his last edit summary that there simply isn't the space for her image yet - which I agree with. I don't think anyone here's seriously arguing that Elizabeth shouldn't get a photo here ever. We can afford to wait until more space is made available, there's no need to rush-include an image before there's even space for it. TheScrubby (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wjfox. The only deaths that remotely could be considered bigger within the past 20 or even possibly the next 5 years than Her Majesty are Gorbachev, Shinzo, and Michael Jackson, and Trump or Putin if they died in the next 5 years. I’d even go as far to suggest a photo from her funeral be featured in the montage at the top of the page. I’d support using the same size for photos. InvadingInvader (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually believe that for now, no image of Elizabeth should be used. Just until there's enough space - after which she 100% ought to be prioritised first and foremost. TheScrubby (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wjfox2005 and InvadingInvader, I am really amazed. Either I'm not explaining myself well, or you don't understand how this works. Photos will be added as long as there is enough space to include them. Whether it is the Queen of England, the Pope or Putin. It is even insulting that you think that my last editions are because I question the notability of Queen Elizabeth II. You should have read the explanation of my last edit first. The croop made by 4me689 finally allows a photo of Elizabeth II to be included, and if there are no changes to the list of deceased in September, it's going to stay (even if she's not my favorite). I insist: no space, no photo. Period. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a space issue with the current image, honestly living with a minor formatting concern is better than leaving the image off at this stage. JeffUK (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is no problem. But the format is the format, and we are not going to ignore it because we can't stand a few days without posting a photo. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely incorrect. She represents a movement and her blacklisting makes her an extremely notable activist who received perhaps the harshest treatment of any activist during the 20th century.
There are plenty of hollywood actors in here and an even larger number of foreign domestics. I get a feeling that you don't want to be accused of being America centric. Ingrid997 (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should the deaths of Shinzo Abe, Mikhail Gorbachev & Elizabeth II be in the lead? I think they should, because although heads of state/gov die every year, these three are particularly notable. Their deaths are among the most significant events of this year, and decade. Most main year articles having insufficient leads doesn't mean that this one should. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to use the crop tool to get at least three pictures on the month of August, and MrMimikyu1998, thinks I shouldn't crop it and use the original, which I really want three because I don't really want 2 per month because it just be lame. I came here to stop a protential editing war and see what the consensus here on this subject. 4me689 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, I think two is better so that you can see their faces. I mean sure I have a 20/20 vision and I can see Miyake’s face in this image but if it were to be cropped more, you can hardly recognize it from someone who has a desktop computer.
.svg){kind=small}
American Nobel chemist, Robert Curl
2nd President of Angola, José Eduardo dos Santos
12th Prime Minister and 51st President of Peru, Francisco Morales-Bermúdez
.jpg)
Removed Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
