Talk:2023/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 200000000000000000000000000000000. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090714041927/http://www.nfi.no/english/norwegianfilms/show.html?id=1050 to http://www.nfi.no/english/norwegianfilms/show.html?id=1050
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207034441/http://www.anime-int.com:80/works/burn-up/scramble/story.html to http://www.anime-int.com/works/burn-up/scramble/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

In fiction removal

At least put it in see also 96.52.7.8 (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

we normally don't have it in main year articles, and I don't think there's an article for 2023 in fiction. 4me689 (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on the main year inclusion criteria on WikiProject Years talk

Hi guys; I thought I would inform you of an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years concerning changing the criteria for inclusion on main year articles. You can view it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposed reforms for Main Year article inclusion. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We need to figure out inclusion standards for journalists, race car drivers, trading card makers, fashion designers.

As I said in the 2022 talk page. My thoughts : And I don't have any stake in this. Journalism figures are hard to measure in my view because well..... it's an Americentric field. The Peabody award is American. So are Emmys. And these are the only two major recognizable awards that I can think of that measures notability for Journalists. There are other international awards such as the Elizabeth Neuffer Memorial Prize, but it was established just 10 years ago. We won't be able to tell if that makes sense.

The Emphasis on " international awards " as a measure for notability in my view puts a crimp in fields such as Journalism, Literature, because it's going to be very very hard to determine notability, and that's the truth. Besides, how about people such as Anna Wintour ? She technically has no awards whatsoever.

And it's not just Journalism and Literature, it's race car drivers, trading card makers, fashion designers. My worry is that the standards we use for atheletes, and actors/singers does not work for EVERY field. Hint : It might even be.... Americentric. 2601:204:CF81:EC80:D48D:85F2:364D:A875 (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We're discussing this presently in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Things going to the public domain (Result: exclusion)

there has been repeated additions of "In the United States, books, films, and other works published in 1927 will enter the public domain, assuming there are no changes made to copyright law." should this be kept or removed cuz it seems to be normally removed off the year pages when the year has begun. 4me689 (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need it, it's basic maths. Not to mention that it's a domestic law in the US, and many countries have similar copyright laws with different lengths of time for different types of works, and many other laws have sunset clauses (classified documents, statute of limitations, etc.) JeffUK 11:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Per JeffUK. Copyright laws differ in every country, and even if the works are internationally popular it shouldn't be included. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep it on 2023 in the US per JeffUK. Not everybody lives in America InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Fay Weldon (Result: exclusion)

Should Fay Weldon’s demise be included in the deaths section? She seems reasonably international as far as the Anglosphere goes. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude because she has little international notability. Some of her novels selling in some other countries isn't sufficient; that's true of a large number of authors. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline Exclude due to insufficient fame garnered by her work InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude Her works are not internationally important, nor she is well known outside Europe. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Include This is probably my personal bias, but she was mega-famous in the UK and the Antipodes from the 1970s onwards, although it may be true that her work is not widely read nowadays. Deb (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Does that make her international enough? Many writers are very popular in a few countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. Her works are used today in schools across the UK. I'm not sure if she was popular in the US or any other country though. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Tehemton Erach Udwadia (Result: exclusion)

Should Tehemton Erach Udwadia (not a made up name, trust) be included in the January deaths section? He seems to be like one of those scientists that are included in previous articles (such as June 2020). Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline include. He wasn't known beyond Southeast Asia as much, but he was certainly a notable figure in science based on his achievements. I'm additionally wiki-linking his name in this discussion to lessen the chance of people doubting Udwadia exists. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude because I don't see any evidence of him having significant international notability. Working in more than one country is very common & is nowhere near enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude Doesn't seem to be doing anything of high importance outside India. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Kevin McCarthy's speakership election in the US Congress (Result: exclusion)

Do we really need that here? I think we've established that US domestic elections, even if strange, aren't notable enough. It's historic but not really that belonging here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not; it's entirely domestic. Why did you reinstate it? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Domestic events can be of great importance. Perhaps we should revisit the domestic policy. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

They can be of great importance domestically, which is why they're on year by country articles. In any case, this isn't important & shouldn't have been added to this article. The only elections that are for main year articles are general/presidential ones. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's face it, year by country articles get fewer views than Jean-Christ Wajoka. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That's no reason to add domestic events to main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If you want to change consensus, there are active discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Domestic events can be important and be listed, but this doesn't even meet that threshold. I agree with Hopkins though on year-in articles getting less views, and for the sake of putting readers first, we do need domestic events. Not this one, though. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't add domestic events for the sake of page views. If we were aiming to maximise page views, we'd include the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident as well as some celebrity weddings on 2022. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a no-brainer: no way. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

While it was interesting and the most votes since before Civil War, the end result was the same as the expected result, so really was just political theatre. Had a surprise Speaker emerged perhaps it would be notable enough for this page. Slywriter (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude Obvious local political event. --McSly (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It was great for C-Span's ratings, indeed. But, it didn't stop the planet from rotating. So Exclude, as it belongs at the 2023 in the United States page. GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Very easy Exclude; to argue otherwise would be pure Americentrism. Purely domestic political event that didn't lead to any change of government. It's rightly covered in 2023 in the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude per @Slywriter. It was a domestic political theatre mainly just a drawn out process delaying the inevitable. Just as @TheScrubby says it's rightly covered in 2023 in the United States. FireInMe (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Inline citations

There's no exception for predicted and scheduled events. In fact, all the more reason for them to have to include citations to prove they are not invented by the contributor. Deb (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. FireInMe (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I fully endorse the instantaneous removal of anything on year articles which do not have reliably sourced citations. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sports

We have far more sports events in this article than in previous main year articles. Which ones should be removed? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing for the sake of it doesn't help anyone. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not for the sake of it. Main year articles only include the most important international sports events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait until they pass, then determine notability. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't wait for that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Elaborate. FireInMe (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

According to who else? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You're seriously claiming that we need to wait until sports events have concluded in order to determine their level of international notability?! Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

For most world championships, except for obviously single-country sports like American or Australian football, yup. We represent the world better. Deal with it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

We didn't do that for previous main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sir, welcome to Year in Topic. You will see how this works. For my part, I would remove all the ones that are tagged. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of them aren't tagged, but most should be removed. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I do believe that we should get rid of sports event that's not worldwide, e.g. Asian Games, Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, European Games, CONCACAF Gold Cup, etc. We can't have one rule for one continent and another for the rest. Deb (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s a good idea…but I think I’d be willing to keep one or two of the most important mainly continental events, or those largest in scope, especially if there are quite a few different cultural regions at play. Examples of this phenomenon would be the pan American games (since there’s not only Latin America but also white America) and the Asian games due to the large population of Asia and how East Asia, Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East are all distinct cultural groupings which just happen to be on a single continent. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Roberto Dinamite (Result: exclusion)

I do not believe this individual is anywhere near notable enough to be included in the deaths section. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude I agree, not a notable figure outside of Brazil. Nemov (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude due to insufficient international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Works from 1927 entering US Public Domain (Result: exclusion)

I found a statement from this article to be added:

• January 1 - Books, films, and other works published in 1927 enter the public domain.

There is one where media works came to public domain this year. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion further up this talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't include this in main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Earl Boen (Result: exclusion)

Does Earl Boen deserve to be in the deaths list? im just wondering :) ShaggyAnimate (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. I only really know him from the Terminator movies. He was great in them, but I don't know if his notability stretches beyond that. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if he's doing anything notable outside acting. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude because he has no international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - I'm familiar with a lot of actors but I've never even heard of him. Deb (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude I know many of the characters he voiced but I never would have placed the name of the actor to them. He clearly didn't achieve that much notability from the characters. FireInMe (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Lean Exclude. He’s a sort of famous actor, but only had a supporting role, and really only famous for one movie. You can’t make the same case for him as you could with someone like Zoe Saldaña. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude He's just not notable enough. Nemov (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude due to insufficient international notability, per all above. TheScrubby (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Charles Simic (Result: exclusion)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Simic#Personal_life_and_death

He seems to have awards from many international organizations for his poetry work. 2601:204:CF81:EC80:D48D:85F2:364D:A875 (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No, very few people viewing this article will have ever heard of him. Just another desperately unknown figure who achieved decent things. Not enough to be included, I would say. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Ruslan Khasbulatov (Result: no consensus for inclusion)

Should Ruslan Khasbulatov remain included? From what I can tell he seems to be a purely domestic Russian political figure with scant international notability; and who is mainly known for his role in the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, which was an unsuccessful coup attempt. TheScrubby (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude because he's a domestic figure. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You can be notable and have most of your contributions confined to a country. Years being exclusively international is a much worse view than years being mostly international, as you fail to take into account notable figures and trailblazers. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Include Not all domestic politicians have to be excluded and, in some cases, their political careers are sufficiently well known to be included. In my opinion, this is the case of Khasbulatov. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

What achievements make him notable enough to include? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. My opinion is the same as Alsor. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude I'm kind of baffled at why we're even arguing this one. He's not a key international figure or a former head of state. Nemov (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Austria Football 02: I invite you to give your two cents here rather than continuously removing the importance tag when this discussion has yet to be concluded, and Khasbulatov’s international notability has not been sufficiently proven here. TheScrubby (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheScrubby This was not an unsuccessful coup attempt, this was a successful coup carried out by Boris Yeltsin and not by Khasbulatov! The constitutional crisis in Russia in 1993 led to the end of the young democracy (duality of power between president and parliament - Supreme Soviet) in Russia and ensured that there was a "super-presidential" system of government in the Russian Federation from that moment on. The constitutional crisis of 1993 (also known as Black October or Yeltsin's coup in Russia) led to today's dictatorship of Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin's hunger for power created Putin's current power system in the first place. The deputies of the Supreme Soviet under their parliament speaker Ruslan Khasbulatov were on the good side during the constitutional crisis - they had the law and the constitution behind them. The deputies of the Supreme Soviet deposed Boris Yeltsin as President of the Russian Federation for repeatedly violating the Constitution, and in return appointed Ruslan Khasbulatov as Interim President! Unfortunately, this only lasted until Boris Yeltsin and the army violently had the White House in Moscow shelled with tanks on October 4, 1993 and had all deputies of the Supreme Soviet arrested, including Ruslan Khasbulatov! You dear @TheScrubby don't seem to know much about this topic! Finally, Ruslan Khasbulatov is an important political figure in Russian history based on the facts I outlined above and is therefore definitely important enough to be listed among the dead in the main Wikipedia article for 2023! At least as important or even more important than a British writer or a Jordanian Prime Minister! Khasbulatov was in fact the declared interim president of Russia! Austria Football 02 (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not Yeltsin or Khasbulatov was in the right or was the “good side” is irrelevant here. None of this demonstrates anything other than Khasbulatov being a domestic political figure within Russia that belongs in 2023 in Russia. And, for the record, Khasbulatov was never appointed interim President - it was Alexander Rutskoy, previously the Vice President under Yeltsin. If anything he would have a stronger claim for inclusion here than Khasbulatov. TheScrubby (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheScrubby No one can tell me that people like Jeff Beck and George Pell are more important in world history than Ruslan Khasbulatov, who was practically the antagonist of Russia's then President Boris Yeltsin during the 1993 constitutional crisis (also known as Yeltsin's coup, Black October in Russia) . Look how many international media have reported his death. Now if the former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi were to die (hopefully not, hopefully she will have many, many more wonderful years), you would note her 100% on the main article of 2023.I am definitely not saying that other Russian Parliamentary Speakers belong on the Wikipedia main article (definitely not!), but he is important enough! He led the Yeltsin opponents during the 1993 constitutional crisis, he was the face of the opposing faction (Supreme Soviet) during one of the most important domestic political events in Russia in recent decades! Especially because this event was the origin of what is currently happening in Russia in terms of domestic politics! By the way, on the 2015 main article was also noted Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtzov. No one can tell me that an opposition politician like Nemtzov was more important in Russian history than Ruslan Khasbulatov! In the end I want to say that I definitely don't want to remove Jeff Beck, George Pell or Boris Nemtzov from the 2015 and 2023 main article, I just say that a Ruslan Khasbulatov definitely belongs on the main article of the year as well! As an Austrian I have 100% nothing to do with Russia or Russian politics, I'm just saying that this person is important enough to be on the main article! Austria Football 02 (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We don’t use whataboutisms to argue for people, especially if they are from categories that are fundamentally impossible to compare, such as Jeff Beck and George Pell as you brought up - both internationally notable in their own right in their own respective categories. We don’t use international media coverage as a criteria for inclusion here; that is something that we have long repudiated here. Nancy Pelosi would not be included here in the event of her death because she was also a domestic figure who held domestic posts, and whose international counterparts would never even remotely be considered for inclusion here. Boris Nemtzov should also be removed, although an argument could be made for him as a borderline inclusion, especially given the circumstances of his death - but nevertheless not everybody has the free time and inclination to comb through every yearly article of domestic figures. Once again all your arguments in favour of Khasbulatov point to him being a purely domestic political figure who is already rightly included in 2023 in Russia. I highly recommend you take a look at the political figures criteria we’ve had in place for some time now, which you can read in the FAQs at the top of the page. TheScrubby (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we put 5 images for January just like last year? (Result: depends how much space there is at the end of the month)

Here are the possible contenders 1. Constantine of Greece 2. Jeff Beck 3. George Pell 136.158.124.85 (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The number of images per month depends entirely on how much space there is at the end of each month, which is impossible to determine until after this month has concluded. It’s as simple as that. The number of images included in January 2022 is irrelevant. TheScrubby (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Only Constantine II should get a picture from those three. But it's too early to discuss. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Constantine II should get priority yeah, though Beck is also fully deserving of an image as one of the most important and influential guitarists of all time. TheScrubby (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Jorge Ballesteros (Result: no consensus for inclusion)

he was a olympic shooting world champion, is that makes him notable enoguh in the world? ShaggyAnimate (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

oops autocorrect sorry, i was meaning "enough" ShaggyAnimate (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

If we included Opympic gold medalists, these articles would be endless. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We already have a consensus for some years now where Olympic individual gold medalists are included. Though we exclude those that won only team gold medals. As for Ballesteros, while he did win gold medals in various shooting tournaments, he never competed in the Olympics. Count me as Neutral overall, given that he was clearly very accomplished in his field, albeit a field that is admittedly extremely niche. TheScrubby (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well it's a bad consensus then given how many gold medalists there have been. We should include people based on fame more so than merely achievements, especially when said achievemts are redundant. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Fame isn't a good measure. There are dozens of reality show participants, TV presenters etc. who are much more famous than most highly-accomplished scientists. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

George Pell (Result: inclusion)

Does having been Secretariat of the Economy make him internationally notable enough? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I’d lean towards inclusion - Pell was regularly described as among the most senior (specifically the third most senior) Catholics in the world (certainly the most senior an Australian has ever gotten), and among the most powerful and influential in the Vatican. Combine that with his notability over his role in dealing with the child sexual abuse scandals within the Church, and his own downfall and imprisonment (and acquittal) due to personal allegations of child sex abuse. Yeah, easily among the most internationally high profile senior Catholic figures of recent decades. TheScrubby (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Very few recent figures in the Catholic church have left such a divisive legacy as Pell, who died at age 81 from cardiac arrest after minor hip surgery. He was once considered the third most powerful person in the church, and the rise, fall, and redemption of a powerful conservative has served to both energize and muddy the conversations within the church about sex abuse and justice."

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/01/cardinal-george-pell-complex-legacy.html 2601:204:CF81:EC80:D48D:85F2:364D:A875 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Include due to his significant role in the Catholic Church and subsequent scandal. Neutral on an image. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we put an image of George Pell in the deaths list? I mean, he has an image in the deaths list of the 1941 article, so why not put an image of him in the 2023 article's deaths list? ShaggyAnimate (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

oops, i mean births list ShaggyAnimate (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

of 1941, sorry, i was pretty quicky ShaggyAnimate (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

While I agree with Pell’s inclusion in the article, there are other figures who ought to take priority for an image. Such as Jeff Beck and Constantine II. TheScrubby (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

First photo of collage suggestion (Result: all discussion on collage premature as of now; hold off until later in the year)

I think that the storming of the Brazilian congress should be in the collage when there are eventually enough photos to make one 69.80.22.185 (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure. And also the funeral of Pope Benedict XVI. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - neither the storming of the Brazilian Congress nor the storming of the US Congress in 2021 should be included in the photo collages; and their inclusions here overall are, at most, borderline. TheScrubby (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do you consider that the assault on the most important institutions of a country are not sufficiently notorious when they are developed in apparent coup attempts? _-_Alsor (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Even if this is viewed as an attempted coup, we don't usually include those on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

My stance for unsuccessful coup attempts is to include/exclude based on deaths, scale, and destruction, but I also factor in associated movements, associated figures, the rarity of coups or coup attempts in such country (exclude most coup attempts in places like Syria or other known battlegrounds), media coverage, and reactions. Those first few reasons are why I believe Brasilia and J6 are no-brainers for inclusion since they significantly damaged notable government buildings and involved thousands, while Germany should not be on main year articles since it was only a comparatively smaller group, even though Brasilia (at least to me) got about as much international coverage as Germany. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It is for the reasons that you argue that I think the (ramshackle, quixotic) coup attempts in Brasilia and Washington can be added as borderline inclusions, but do not merit images on the photo collages for the main yearly pages. If the coup attempt was successful (such as with Myanmar in 2021), or if mass protests led to a change of government (such as with Kazakhstan last year), then those are far more internationally notable and do merit places on the photo collages. TheScrubby (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with likely getting rid of stuff like Brasilia and J6, but I would also consider collage additions of protests which went global to a significant degree, where everybody was watching them akin to a World Cup match. In recent memory, only Mahsa Amini (and if you squint at it, George Floyd) would fulfill that. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Not yet. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Too early to say. We're less than 10 days into this year. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The 2023 storming of the Brazilian Congress is entirely domestic & shouldn't be in the article, let alone its collage. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Support both Benedict's funeral and the storming of the Brazilian congress, when the time comes, unless a more notable event happens before. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Why should the Brasilia riots be included in this article? They were a one-day, domestic attack in which no-one was killed. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You can't be serious, Jim. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I am. Even if you regard it as a coup attempt, it's not important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose any collage images until at least halfway through the year. I wouldn't object to either of these events being included in the Events section though. Deb (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Deb. It's way too early within the year to determine what images should go on the collage. Let other events play out and then determine. FireInMe (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Jorge O. Calvo (Result: exclusion)

Should we add Jorge O. Calvo to the deaths list just like we did with Jose F. Bonaparte in the 2020 article? I dont know who's more famous, but i guess jose f. bonaparte is more famous than him ShaggyAnimate (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

forget it, jose f. bonaparte is more famous than him, dont add him to the list ShaggyAnimate (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither merit inclusion but one of the individuals you mentioned died close to three years ago... Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

yeah i know that, duh ShaggyAnimate (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Walter Cunningham (Result: exclusion)

Does Walter Cunningham’s achievements as an astronaut merit inclusion here? I bring this up because an importance tag has been placed on his entry for some time now, and no discussion has taken place yet. TheScrubby (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There has long been a consensus that being the last of something does not merit inclusion. I'd say exclude. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Sir. Exclude him. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude due to a lack of international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Include because he was the last member of the Apolo 7 mission ShaggyAnimate (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

See the comment by Sir Jack Hopkins. TheScrubby (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

i know that but apollo 7 was international you know ShaggyAnimate (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

walter deserves to be included in this article because apolo 7 was international ShaggyAnimate (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Murtaza Rakhimov (Result: exclusion)

Should Murtaza Rakhimov death remain included? Nemov (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude, very localised fame. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - domestic politician that belongs in 2023 in Russia. TheScrubby (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley (Result: exclusion)

Should Lisa Marie Presley death remain included? Nemov (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think she should be included, but she was an entirely domestic figure and, knowing the people inhabiting this particular talk page, it’s impossible she will remain there. Exclude her, spare us a lengthy Wikipedia debate. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

She should definitely be included, the amount of media attention alone warrants it, regardless of the debate of her being a domestic figure. FrankieM344 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

What kind of grounds for inclusion is that? We never include people based on media attention. Otherwise entirely non-notable people such as Gabby Petito would be included. We include people based on international notability, and being the daughter of a (very) internationally notable singer is not grounds for international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Completley agree, I remember news coverage being rejected as a factor in including people's deaths since long ago. It's a long-established consensus. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Gabby Petito's coverage was directly linked to her going missing and murder. Lisa Marie Presley had coverage about her career throughout the decades, I don't think those two are a fair comparison. That being said I lean exclude (for the time being) in regards to Presley. FireInMe (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The point is, Presley was notable first and foremost as being the daughter of Elvis, and if she was known for anything else, it was for her high profile marriages to Michael Jackson and to a lesser extent Nicolas Cage, as well as her being the mother of Riley Keough (who as an actress has achieved greater notability than Lisa Marie, albeit still not sufficiently internationally notable for inclusion here). Her career can hardly be described as internationally notable, and she didn’t enjoy anywhere close to the success of her father in her forays into music. TheScrubby (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in full agreement with you on those points. FireInMe (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Presley should be included. Aside from being Elvis's daughter and an ex-wife to Michael Jackson and Nicholas Cage, I don't see any inclusion on LMP. Kyu (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude She's a domestic figure. Nemov (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. I think her fame is notable enough for inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Easy Exclude - she had no international notability and her main claim to fame, which even most obituaries emphasise first and foremost, is the fact that she was the daughter of Elvis Presley. We don’t include people because of the notability of their parents, and Lisa Marie does not automatically gain the notability of her father. This discussion would not be taking place in the first place, and nobody would be trying to include her had her father not been Elvis. TheScrubby (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And her other claims to fame are her ex-husbands. Again, she's clearly domestic and I change my previous opinion, easy exclude. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude because she has very little international notability. Main year articles don't include domestic figures due to their fame or media coverage. If we did, we'd include dozens of reality show participants, TV presenters & socialities. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I waffled on this one, but I'll say Exclude for the time being. FireInMe (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The name of Lisa Marie Presley should be added as having passed away on January 13, 2023 under the heading "Deaths". Churn.the.Butter (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

She's being discussed above. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Question (Result: status quo on what is listed in deaths entries)

can i/we put in the deaths list the things that those notable people were famous for? La Orca Masorca (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

If you mean stating which film, song, competition etc. each is best known for, no, because it's excessive info. Occupation is sufficient. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Carl Hahn (Result: no consensus for inclusion)

Should we add Carl Hahn to the list? He was the president of the Volkswagen Group La Orca Masorca (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Oui, in my redundant opinion. Have a nice day! Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, and I think heads of businesses - even if they're multinationals - are rarely important enough. He made VW more successful, but many people have done likewise for their companies & I fail see how that makes him an important international figure. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sports criteria tier list (Result: implemented as proposed)

@InvadingInvader: has (on the WikiProject page) come up with a proposed tier list for sports figures that I think would be an acceptable basis for how we can include sports figures as well as sporting events. With minor edits, this is how such a proposed criteria would look:

Tier 1: Association football, Cricket, Golf, and Tennis - as well as individual (not team) gold medalists of international sports competitions such as the Olympic Games. Include figures if at least globally known within the sport's culture.

Tier 2: Baseball, Ice hockey, Rugby football, and Basketball. Include figures if globally known beyond the sport, and include the most notable of the sport's world ambassadors or most widely-successful promoters.

Tier 3: National footballs (Australian rules football, Gaelic football, Gridiron football), Lacrosse, Field hockey, and everything else. Generally exclude with exceptions made only for the most outstanding, arguably “once in a generation” type figures, equivalent to Pelé and Lionel Messi for soccer, or Don Bradman and Sachin Tendulkar for cricket - though in the event of inclusion they will not be prioritised for an image.

Feel free to discuss, and propose amendments where you feel is necessary. TheScrubby (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, though we should be reasonably lax when it comes to enforcing this. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Include on tier 3. I'm sure that this tier will help the article to be improved. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean you support the tier criteria as proposed? TheScrubby (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am. This is how I choose. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

While we’re sorting out this criteria, where does everybody think boxing and wrestling fit in the tier list? TheScrubby (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Tier 2. Wrestling is not a sport, while boxing has its occasional unavoidable, universal superstars. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean professional wrestling? The Optimistic One (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Professional wrestling is what I’m referring to, yes. TheScrubby (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Tier 2, but I'm also open to Tier 3. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd move cricket to Tier 2 and Rugby to Tier 3. Reviewing Google Trend data for web search[1]/news[2] coverage cricket is closer to basketball than association football. Rugby is far below baseball/basketball. As far as the Olympic are concerned gold winning medalists would have to be taken on a case by case basis. There are a lot of gold medalists and not every gold medalist is internationally notable. Nemov (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Support TheScrubby's revisions, though I am also open to Nemov's suggestions. Presently there is an ongoing discussion on whether to axe the deaths section entirely on the WikiProject page; in the event such proposal succeeds, I would propose that this criteria be used for adding photos on Births and Deaths in Year X Articles. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Super Nintendo World (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.

---

One more thing to say, do you all think that this event will be included in the article list?

• February 17 - Super Nintendo World is planned to open to the public in Universal Studios Hollywood in California, albeit reservations are required from park guests at grand opening.

I have heard that the place is opening in Hollywood, plus this place previously opened in Japan. Also, that place is starting to open in places like Florida and Singapore. Since this is related to video games, I think that should be important enough to include it in this article. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. IT might be more relevant in a 2023 video game article but I Don't think it quite fits here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Not convinced it should be on any WPYEARS article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude due to zero international notability, as per InvadingInvader. TheScrubby (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf @InvadingInvader @TheScrubby But it is exclusive to SoCal, which is the most influential and leader of entertainment to cities in global. Are you going to think that theme park openings, especially roller coasters, are notable enough or they have significant and factual sources to be added to this article? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. You just explained why it's not appropriate to include here. It's exclusive to SoCal so it doesn't have international notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, but at least it opened in Universal Studios Japan, Singapore, and Epic Universe. In all which are located in different countries and a state. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No opening of theme parks or rides should be included on the main yearly pages, regardless of location. TheScrubby (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheScrubby Reasons on opening of theme parks or rides snot being included on the main yearly pages, regardless of location, although it is influenced worldwide. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

With little exception, it shouldn't be on ANY year article. Not even the "Year In" ones. Only exception is if we start a "Year In Theme Parks" series of pages. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Pop culture things such as amusement/theme parks, films, plays, TV/radio/web shows, singles, albums, concerts, novels, fashions etc. have no place in main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2 But what is the reason why pop culture things don't have any place in main year articles? How? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Because they aren't significant. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:37, 17 January 2023 (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.

References

2023 New Zealand general election (Result: included once date was announced)

Can you add the 2023 New Zealand general election in the date unknown box. 122.58.18.103 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 That depends on the location. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait - I think we should wait until the election date is officially called, especially since the election isn’t actually due until, at latest, January 2024. TheScrubby (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Re-open a new request when the date is announced ~ Eejit43 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Gina Lollobrigida (Result: inclusion)

I think, she's famous enough for an inclusion? 136.158.124.85 (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd support inclusion. She seems to be internationally recognized and historic to world culture. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Support For those unfamiliar, here's a good overview of her career[3]. She's sufficiently notable for her career outside of Italy. Nemov (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. Doesn't strike me as being particularly notable, certainly a pretty domestic figure, with some (albeit limited) recognition in the rest of the world. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Include as per InvadingInvader and Nemov. TheScrubby (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Support per above, I can agree on other reasons editors gave out. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Include per above. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:5158:F2E0:33F:651E (talk) 05:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ken Block (Result: exclusion)

Does Ken Block deserve to be in the deaths list? Just wondering :) 190.99.113.95 (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure... _-_Alsor (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. He's a racing legend, but is he internationally notable or well-known, outside racing or motorsports? Motorsports has been past it's popularity back in 2000s. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude Not international notable. Nemov (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude due to insufficient international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Include Block was a household name in the international car world; it's easy to find outside the US (Bild,BBC, Deccan Herald, China Daily). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What are his international achievements? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What are Cunningham and Khasbulatov's international achievements? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

They don't appear to have any, so they shouldn't be here either. Substantial international notability is a requirement to be listed in main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that year articles should not be exhaustive in listing deaths, but looking at 2022, I find it difficult to argue that Block is less internationally notable than many listed there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If you'd say what exactly his international achievements are & which other sportspeople you're comparing him to, we could work out if that's true. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You can read the Ken Block article for yourself. I fail to see how his wide range of motorsports achievements are less notable than a wrestler who won a single Olympic medal. Additionally, Block had wide recognition outside of motorsport due to his popular video series. Block has orders of magnititude greater Google new hits than many of the atheletes mentioned for the last few months of 2022. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have & I don't see anything that makes him important enough. The vast majority of people outside the US haven't heard of him. If there are any particular sportspeople who are included in other main year articles whom you think shouldn't be, you can discuss them on the relevant talk page(s). Winning an individual Olympic gold grants automatic inclusion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Which Athletes ? Name them. 2601:204:CF81:EC80:D48D:85F2:364D:A875 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude There's a difference between "household name" and "known in the international car world" (what is an international car anyway?) Sorry but this is another US celebrity assumed to be internationally known. I agree that Cunningham should also be excluded; I've never believed that astronauts should be automatically included. Khasbulatov, if I'm understanding correctly, was the leader of a state for a time, so falls into a different category. Deb (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to apply that level of exclusivity, a large portion of the sporting figures in 2022 should be culled. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "that level of exclusivity". Gold medal winners and world champions have a specific achievement that can be measured. Is there something similar you can point to for Block? Deb (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline exclude. Most people outside of the US and Canada haven't heard of him, and the niche of racing doesn't seem to be as internationally important or culturally/counterculturally recognized as anime or cryptocurrency. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Racing in general are more significant culturally in Indonesia so some of my friends knew about his death in my personal experience, but overall racing is nowhere that prominent as it was back in 2000s, nor it will ever be again. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a tough one personally to say exclude...I wish racing would become more popular but this is the world we live in. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude due to lack of international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a tough one but I'll say Borderline include. He was a notable racer based on Google Trends Top 5 countries are not even the United States but rather South Africa, Hungary, Paraguay, Argentina, and New Zealand. FireInMe (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't include based on Google Trends; that measures popularity, not notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair enough point. However, it does dismantle the argument that he "wasn't known outside the United States" that is patently false. FireInMe (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

He wasn't known outside the US to people who aren't fans of his sport. In comparison, most people who aren't football fans know of Pelé. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Block also wasn't known within the United States to people who aren't fans of his sport, just like most sportspeople. I agree that many people who aren't football fans know of Pelé but to say most would imply that you surveyed nearly 8 billion people, which would be very impressive. FireInMe (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If a survey were done, I feel sure that it would show that most people in the world have heard of him. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I do agree a significant amount of people would have heard of Pelé. But would it meet the bare minimum threshold of 50%+1 to constitute most of the world? Potentially but it's not a guarantee. FireInMe (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You certainly won't find many people in Brazil who don't know who Pelé was, regardless of whether they are interested in football. Deb (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Deb Yes, that I can agree with you on. FireInMe (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A substantial proportion of people who know of Pelé were born after he retired. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Highly likely, but I haven't seen any numbers. FireInMe (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral Although he was a co-founder of DC Shoes and that company influenced other countries and parts of a foreign land, I saw those editors that oppose and exclude. Plus, DC Shows also became part of a global brand like Nike and Under Armor. I might not know if any other people from other countries have heard of him, at least the co-founder participated in racing sports and other Motorsport events. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Include since he is very notable for moto racing. And he was an co-founder of DC Shoes brand that had opened stores worldwide. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:CD9B:1D0E:A169:4C27 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral Can't think of anything, only of more editors voted for include. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:5158:F2E0:33F:651E (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Super Bowl LVII (Result: exclusion)

Greetings, should we include this event in this article?

• February 12 – Super Bowl LVII scheduled at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.

There is a Superbowl prediction that will happen in Glendale, Arizona in few months, plus a few sports. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No, because it's a domestic event. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It's one of the most watched sporting events in the world, so I say include. Domestic, sure, but bloody notable. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

To include the Super Bowl on an international year article would be Americentrism. TheScrubby (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

We never include domestic sports events. We don't include any of the Grand Slams because tennis isn't considered international enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose - domestic sports event with little interest outside the United States, for a sport (gridiron football) that is not widely played outside the United States. We wouldn’t include the AFL Grand Final, for example. The FIFA World Cup this is not, in terms of international sporting notability. TheScrubby (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheScrubby Although, it is found only in the USA and no other country has that, why wasn't it notable enough to include it, when there are events like politics in the USA, included in international year articles? 204.129.232.191 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

We’ve had issues with Americentrism in the past, and we’re not now going to add anything that would reinforce it. Not everybody has time to go through all the past year articles to trim it of domestic, internationally unnotable events. The Super Bowl has no international notability, as it is for a sport that is mainly localised to the US, and for which every team is American. We have pages like 2023 in the United States for a reason. TheScrubby (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Which domestic US political events are in main year articles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2 @TheScrubby, Look at 2023 in politics and government and Last year. That especially includes Capital Storming in the beginning of 2021 and national elections. Then, you will know what I mean by why some non-political events aren't included and added to this year's article and how to include some of them by discussing this page by each event. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The January 6 United States Capitol attack should be removed from 2021. Most general/presidential elections are included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

To me, I might either say Include or Neutral. Super Bowl Events might be important to many of Americans. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s not the way we do things here though. We’re not going to add domestic competitions for sports that are localised mainly in one country, nor will we apply a different set of standards for events from one country compared to the rest. We wouldn’t include the Super Bowl just as we wouldn’t include the AFL Grand Final, the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, etc. TheScrubby (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

However, you do have a decent point, unlike other sporting events, we aren't sure that if players from different countries have recognized this event or partake in. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - This is an easy oppose. This is an American event for which people outside the US have very little interest. Nemov (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. No one cares about the Super Bowl outside of America. If American Football was a more globally dominant sport, then I'd be open to inclusion, but the only people these days who care about American football are America, maybe Canada, maybe Mexico, maybe London, and maybe Munich. That's it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Include People and users outside the USA, can watch the sporting event, although it is only hosted in United States of America. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:CD9B:1D0E:A169:4C27 (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You could say the same about literally any other sports competition. That doesn’t make it internationally notable at all. TheScrubby (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I can understand about the point you got. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

References

A few points...

Discussion started and derailed by a disruptive, vitriolic user who has since been blocked.

1) El Chapo's son was captured and arrested on January 6th. It made global news and had impact on global criminal enterprises. It came after large gun battles on the streets between the Mexican Armed Forces and cartel soldiers. Also the arrest of the Italian mafia man is absolutely of enough important to merit its inclusion in the events list. 2) Isn't 2023 designated as the 'Year of the Millet' by the United Nations? Usually recent year articles make note of UN year designations. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Domestic arrests of criminals aren't important enough for main year articles, even if those criminals have international connections. We decided to stop including UN Year of things because they're trivia. The only exception would be if something very important resulted from it, such as the year of oncology resulting in a cure for cancer being found. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC) If those criminals are involved in/were involved in or head/are instrumental in major global criminal operations that impact millions of people around the world and dozens of different countries then, yes, in fact they absolutely are. You already have 2 domestic quadrennial elections in the events list. How are they remotely more impactful or notable than the arrest of a mafia kingpin who has been one of the most wanted men in world crime for several decades? Or the arrest of a drug baron son of one of the most infamous drug barons in history influential in the operations of a cartel pumping drugs into dozens of countries around the world being arrested in a quasi smallscale war? I don't mean to insult you here, but I think your sense of perspective is a bit off. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC) The UN should designate 2023 'Year of Crimefighting' and 'Year of Taking Out the Trash'. That would probably offend the delicate sensibilities of bleeding hearts liberal editors like you, however. Crimeworshipper. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC) National elections are usually included. They often result in a change of government. Those two organised crime figures will quickly be replaced. High-ranking organised criminals being arrested isn't rare & each of those two arrests were domestic. The 2023 Sinaloa unrest was arguably a battle, but nowhere near being a war. I've not indicated being liberal or biased, so cut out the insults. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Domestic governments are also generally replaced in every quadrennial election (much quicker than highranking organized crime kingpins can be). There is absolutely nothing noteworthy or unusual or interesting about the Beninese and Antigua elections of January 2023. In fact a large percentage of the people living in these countries didn't even vote in them and weren't even aware they were happening. You very clearly have an issue with people including the arrest of high profile organized criminals in the events list. These events were absolutely noteworthy. Absolutely rare (one of them had been on the most wanted list for decades before his capture, the other is the son of one of the most infamous drug kingpins in history) and absolutely became international news. I cannot think what possible reason you could have for 'not considering these events more important than the Beninese and Antiguan elections of 2023) other than your own subjective feelings about organized crime and criminals. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC) I've created and improved many crime-related articles, so the implication that I want to minimise their coverage on WP is proven false. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC) While I agree that the arrest of an internationally famous criminal should be included, why on earth you choose to insult an editor with a senseless political attack is beyond me. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Arrests are rarely included in main year articles, unless the arrestees are very important in a field other than crime, such as being a head of state/gov. Being arrested is an inherent risk for criminals. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC) What are you basing this on, exactly? There are numerous high profile arrests of criminals listed as events in countless year articles on Wikipedia. Arrests of high profile criminals are generally highly noteworthy and tend to dominate international headlines, especially when they're involved in organized criminal rings that impact dozens of countries around the world. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC) I just want to add. The arrest of El Chapo's son resulted in 10 soldiers, 19 cartel members and several civilians being killed in the ensuing disorder and chaos, 2 planes (1 passenger, 1 military) were also struck with gunfire. In what Universe is that not noteworthy enough for a mention in the 2023 events list for January. Are you being facetious here? 88.110.119.72 (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC) They're important enough to be on year by country articles, but not main year. Where would you draw the line? How about arrests of (suspected) terrorists, illegal arms dealers, serial killers, serial rapists? How about celebrities arrested for less serious crimes? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Those all are already included in main year articles. To give an example off the top of my head, the arrest of Jeffrey Dahmer is included in the 1991 article. The arrests of many terrorists are included in main year articles. Not year by country. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC) The large majority of them should be removed. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Okay. Get to work then. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Just an observation. Has anyone considered semi-protecting this TALK to prevent unconfirmed accounts from wasting experienced editors time? This is a good example of where it would be helpful. At least take the time to confirm the account before coming here to be hostile. Nemov (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Should we ask an admin to semi-protect this talk page? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Sorry, are you accusing me of wasting time? Or the Jim Michael 2 guy? My suggestions for the article were genuine. I don't see why the El Chapo arrest and subsequent unrest isn't included in the events list. I also was curious why Year of the Millets was removed. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC) He's not accusing me; I'm one of the regulars on main year articles. Nothing relating to Dahmer should be on any main year article. Though internationally notorious through media coverage, he was a domestic US figure. Insufficiently notable things are added to main year articles every day. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Well it is. As are the arrests of MANY of the types of criminal which you suggested are not included in main year article events lists. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC) The answer to that is to remove those which shouldn't be there, not add more. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Why have you suddenly decided not to include events like this for the 2023 article? Why do you think people would want to read about, hypothetically, the 1991 routine Togo general election in which the Togo Labor Part increased its share of the vote by 3.37%, as opposed to the 1991 arrest of a serial killer of international infamy and heinous crimes. You're actively making this article terrible, uninteresting and irrelevant to the vast, vast majority of the people reading it. For what purpose? How can you possibly look at 'your current consensus', seemingly adopted ad hoc for 2023 and 2023 alone, and think that makes sense and will make the article in any way better? 88.110.119.72 (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Pretty sure I asked for this very thing a few days ago. This IP address hasn't made any edits in 10 years and is suddenly pursuing another editor, making this personal and political when it clearly isn't. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC) I have made a request to increase the protection. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC) I didn't make the edits from 10 years ago. Funnily enough many people have dynamic IPs which change regularly and are often used at earlier or later dates by other customers of the same ISPs. I attacked the other editor because of his ludicrous suggestions that the arrest of El Chapo's son and the subsequent chaos which ensued (which has its very own article on Wikipedia, I might add) and the arrest of the Italian mafia man were 'not important' and 'not worth including in events' for 2023. In fact, hilariously enough, the FAILED attempt to arrest El Chapo's son in November 2019 is included in the events list for 2019. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Obviously such an event should be excluded, the people who created those articles were for the most part different from the ones who are making this one. Consensus changes. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC) "October 17 (2019) - Shootouts erupt in Culiacán, Mexico, after the arrest of El Chapo's son, Ovidio Guzmán López, on an arrest warrant for drug dealing in the United States. Eight people are killed and 56 convicts escape from prison; 7 are recaptured by October 18. Guzmán López is released in an effort to restore peace and to prevent more bloodshed." Sorry, it was October 2019. This is hysterical. What is your angle here exactly, so fiercely resisting the inclusion of these events in 2023 events when they are REPLETE throughout every other main year article. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC) But hey, Antigua had an election on January 18, 2023 in which nothing of note happened and an established party slightly increased its share of the vote. Wow. Earthshattering stuff, truly. Idiots. Go ahead and ban me. I don't care. This website is a joke, and editors like you are contributing to its ever increasing lack of coherence and respectability. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC) The biggest problem that main year articles have is insufficiently notable things being added to them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Okay. Well you need new people in charge of the 2023 article. Because it's a joke, and your consensuses are moronic. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Main year articles need more good, regular editors. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) My angle here is that the arrests of certain individuals are noteworthy and should be included, and that proportionate representation does not equate to proportionate attention. However, I believe you’ve gone about this the wrong way, hurling unnecessary insults at experienced editors, transforming this debate into right vs left, for which good faith cannot be assumed for an IP editor with zero prior editing history. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Who cares what way I've went about it. I'm right in what I'm saying and the article should be adjusted accordingly. Take whatever punitive measures you want against me, but at least fix the goddamn article and block whoever keeps applying [importance?] tags to perfectly reasonable additions (such as the Bolsonaro riots in Brazil), or the crashing of a plane in Nepal resulting in 72 deaths. Jesus... 88.110.119.72 (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Those are domestic events, so they shouldn't be on this international article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Those tags are a source of criticism themselves. To be honest, I understand some of your grievances, but being vulgar and sanctimonious is not a strategy I would recommend using. There are serious problems with Wikipedia’s objectivity in certain political articles, to the point where I avoid them at all costs, because they are micromanaged by a select group of politically motivated individuals, but [importance?] tags are far from Wikipedia’s worst error. Don't insult other editors, please. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Of course. There is nothing wrong with [importance?] tags, but they seem to be being applied almost obsessively to events in this article. The Bolsonaro one is gone now but it was added to it in the past. There are now tags for the Nepalese plane crash and the arrest of the mafia dude (and I've seen other importance tags for January events, although I forget which ones). When you combine that with the way that editor earlier attempted to dismiss and rationalize not including something like the arrest of El Chapo's son (or at the very least the utter chaos that ensued following it with literally thousands of Mexican troops involved in all-out battles with cartel soldiers and passenger planes being hit by bullets and dozens of deaths etc. etc. etc.)... I don't know. I guess you could say it got my back up combined with the compulsive importance tagging I've been witnessing these past few days. Something strange is going on here with this article. In my humble opinion. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Oh wait yeah, the US House Speaker fiasco and its 15 votes was originally an event listed in the article before being removed, it too was hit by the importance tagging. To be honest, the House Speaker fiasco seemed like another perfectly reasonable addition to me. It made frontpage news in my country (not the US, not even in the same continent). It was also a historical situation and surpassed the previous House Speaker gridlock fiasco in 1923. Honestly I think every single event that has been listed for 2023 so far has been hit by an importance tag and I'm willing to bet it's probably the same editor if you look through the edit history for the page. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC) The US House Speaker election is entirely domestic as well as being trivial. Not all events have been importance-tagged & several editors have placed them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Please read the talk page section dedicated to the House Speaker election. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Okay, so 'Americentrism' nonsense used to justify it. I think I'm beginning to get the picture here. Anything related to America or larger, more dominant nations (particularly Western) or whatever tend to get excluded and bandwagoned but a completely forgettable, routine election in.. say, Antigua, that most of the country's inhabitants couldn't even tell you anything about gets included because... they're black and poor, basically. That's basically the gist of it, right. Pretend events that are also completely domestic and local are worthy of inclusing when it happens in some peripheral, powerless part of the world. And subesequently pretend events that actually are impactful and grab global headlines aren't worthy of inclusion aren't because... they actually are relevant and impact the world and global consciousness. What a shame. Honestly the 'domestic' thing could be applied to basically ANY event. Every event is effectively 'domestic', whether it has wider reaching consequences or not. What arbitrary, gatekeeping nonsense. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Most events are clearly domestic so we don't include them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Elections that elect the executive branch (presidential for France, parliamentary for the UK, e.g.) from all countries are to be included in these articles, very little to do with skin colour. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC) No they aren't, actually. At all. Are you talking about specifically the 2023 article? I'll keep an eye on that and see whether you all stick to that, somehow I doubt every executive branch elections will be included for 2023. By the way, executive branch elections are still domestic events. And the vast majority of them have far less influence and impact and relevance in global affairs than many events you've removed from this list or refuse to add to it are. And no, it absolutely is about skin color. But you're obviously not in the habit of being genuine and straightforward, like the typical Wikipedia editor you are. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC) I don't understand why you're being so rude to me, I've been willing to discuss, and have admitted that you're right before. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC) It's nothing to do with the demographics of the countries the events take place in. National elections are included; local & regional aren't. Domestic events aren't included: we don't even include the Mahas bombings, so the idea that we should include the election of a speaker is ridiculous. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) And why don't you include the Mahas bombings, exactly? Numerous other similar bombings and terrorist attacks are included in the 2020, 2021 and 2022 articles. There are several entries for the Nigerian bandit wars alone, for example, in recent main year articles. In what reasonable world is the routine Antiguan elections which resulted in no change of leadership more significant and of more 'international notability' than a terrorist bombing in Somalia that killed 35 people? Why would you include dozens of national elections that are of no international notability or significance, which are themselves domestic events, over things like major operations in drug wars impacting the international drug trade. Your consensus is crap. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC) The only joke here is the pathetic, vitriolic attitude of this unregistered user. We have a basic policy around here, which is to include people and events based on international notability, not international media coverage or what is relevant to one country. You’re seriously arguing for the inclusion of purely domestic events, particularly those which would not be included if they took place in countries other than the US (such as the purely domestic and internal House Speaker election, which you’re seriously arguing should be included while at the same time ridiculing the inclusion of the national elections in Benin and Antigua - when we have consensus for including national elections, although there has been talk of potentially limiting these to just elections that result in a change of government or leader), and you’re justifying your arguments based on problematic precedents of domestic events and people being included on older Year articles (not everybody has the time to go through every Year article and trim it of domestic events and people). Above all, you have no right to come on and ridicule users (as well as make bad faith insinuations about our motives) who have worked on this project for some time (in many cases, years), and to dismiss consensus as “crap” because you personally disagree with it and believe that your views are better and more valid than everybody else’s. That is NOT the way we do things at Wikipedia. Hope somebody has reported this unregistered user. TheScrubby (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC) The IP should be blocked for repeated incivility & making false accusations, even if all of his suggestions of what to include are in good faith. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC) International media coverage is a significant part of international notability, funnily enough. What is relevant to one country is often relevant to many other countries. Almost everything only happens in one country. Almost everything could be called a domestic event. Using 'it's a domestic event' to try and remove events that provoked high international attention and had a far larger effect than the single country they happened in is absurd. Almost every country around the world pays close attention to US elections. Barely anyone in Antigua itself pays attention to Antiguan elections. In this instance you DON'T care about international notability. Why are national elections (themselves domestic events) all included when they are quite often of NO international notability, exactly? While the arrest of an international criminal organizations leading figure which led to mass instability and violence and death and destruction in Mexico apparently of 'no notability' despite being global headlines in most of the world. You have a basic policy that we've already established doesn't apply to any other main year articles because apparently 'consensuses change'. That's why it's 'crap'. Because it's incoherent, inconsistent, arbitrary nonsense that you're using to gatekeep listed events and push an 'anti-Americentric' agenda, in addition it seems to just an anti-Western and anti-relevance agenda on the 2023 events list. But carry on, by all means. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Are you from Antigua and Barbuda, or do you know someone from there? If not, what makes you think you know how much they care about their elections? Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Would it matter if I did? It would be anecdotal regardless. I'm willing to bet when turnout figures are released, however, you'll see very few people there even turned up to vote. And I can probably count on a single hand the amount of times the Antiguan general election of 2023 was mentioned in media outside of Antigua itself. So why is this domestic event of absolutely no international relevance or notability included when several other 'domestic events' that had major repercussions for dozens of countries around the world neglected simply because it's a executive branch election? A user just stated that what matters to one country is not relevant to Wikipedia. Antiguacentrism has no place on Wikipedia. Even if Antigua were fixated on its own elections (they weren't, I assure you). 88.110.119.72 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC) You've worked on it for years but you don't have the time to go through older main year articles and remove all the 'domestic events' and so forth that make your consensus for this current year article a hypocritical joke. Don't you think it would be easier to just include 'domestic events' in the 2023 article which are of international relevance and impact and notability? Can you tell me what exactly isn't classifiable as a 'domestic event'? Because a lot of the things you're claiming are 'domestic events' had as much international impact as the apparently 'international events' you already have listed for January. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC) I suggest you read this article before replying again. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC) I suggest you get new editors for this article. And adopt the traditional consensus from previous main year articles. Because this has been an appallingly poor main year article so far and it's pretty much entirely due to your obstinate refusal to include 'domestic events' which were actually of significant international impact and renown and attention (such as El Chapo's son being arrested and the chaos that ensued and its impact on international drug trade, that impacts more than just Mexico and caught the attention of most countries around the world, for reasons that appear obvious to practically anyone but the quaint little band of Wikipedia editors in charge of this main year article, for some mysterious reason). Stop engaging in pedantic tit-for-tats with people actually trying to improve the article. Swallow your pride and just include 'domestic events' which are actually of significance and international renown and impact. You know they're going to be included at some point. What on Earth are you trying to achieved by obstructing their inclusion at present. You just included a helicopter crash in Ukraine in which 14 people died. That's a domestic event. It caught minor international attention because a highranking government official died in it. Hence it's rightfully been included in the article. The same can be said of many of the 'domestic events' I have mentioned here. In many cases far more so (such as El Chapo's son). 88.110.119.72 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Anyway, I am done arguing with clowns. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Once again I agree with you, the recent articles are plagued with shocking exclusions of extremely important and well-known (albeit mostly domestic) figures to accommodate space for virtual unknowns, to the point where they are far too long to navigate through comfortably, especially if you're searching for a specific event/death. Nobel prizes being included is also very arbitrary. However, the way you are speaking to people is simply unacceptable. Change your mood, because you're not getting anywhere in here or in life with such appalling lack of manners. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Had you focused the topic solely on the arrest of El Chapo’s son, everything would have been fine. Instead you have chosen to completely disrupt even your own topic that you started, and decided that it’s okay to make bad faith accusations of the regular users here, and to insult us and to dismiss consensus on various topics and fields here as “crap”. You have now been reported over all of this. We are not going to be intimidated, pushed around and insulted by one user, and we are not going to overturn consensus built up over the years by multiple regular users because one user thinks their opinion is worth more than everybody else’s. International notability is the bar for inclusion, and consensus is reached through discussion (be it for individual figures/events, or for overall fields such as politics and sports, as you can see with the criteria in place which you can read on the FAQs section), not through attacking other users. We have consensus to include events based on international notability and significance, not purely domestic importance and significance (for which we have Year in Country pages). We apply the same standards for every country, and do not discriminate or have a bias in favour of any one country. We have consensus to include national elections (elections that decide who governs an entire country) regardless of turnout, not local elections or internal party elections (with the exception of those that result in a change of head of government/state), no matter what the size of the country is (and the jibe about “Antiguacentrism” barely deserves to be dignified with a response; you don’t see the overwhelming majority of entries on the main yearly page as at all relating to Antigua). We are not going to overturn any consensus because an abusive unregistered user disagrees and thinks they knows better than everybody else. TheScrubby (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

2023 invasion of the Brazilian Congress (Result: borderline inclusion)

This was a one-day, non-fatal, domestic event. Buildings & some of their contents were damaged/stolen, but the buildings remain in use & the gov in power. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral, but leaning towards exclude, for the reasons you've given. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. In addition to damage, it's led to massive amounts of arrests, the possible extradition of Bolsonaro, and involved a very large amount of people. Such amount is why I support inclusion of the Brazilian drama and J6 while would prefer to exclude the Reichstag incident from a few months ago. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Damage, thefts, injuries & arrests are commonplace for riots. The severity of each wasn't unusual. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The targets, buildings that house a nation's federal legislature, supreme court, and presidential palace are not commonplace. This was a large and coordinated attack whose participants were directly influenced by the deliberate rhetoric of national leaders. It wasn't a city hall or police station that burnt down. This wasn't just any riot. PaulRKil (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The buildings weren't burnt down; they were damaged & repaired. The gov remains in power. The attack had no international involvement, it was stopped within a day & no-one died. We don't usually include coup attempts - even when people are killed - so including this makes no sense. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

At most, this is a borderline inclusion, as per the arguments proposed by InvadingInvader - ditto the events of January 6. In no way should the event merit a collage image though. TheScrubby (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Include per InvadingInvader PaulRKil (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Vakhtang Kikabidze (Result: exclusion)

Should Vakhtang Kikabidze's death remain included? Nemov (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I struggle to see how he qualifies as internationally notable, seems to me like he was a reasonably local Soviet celebrity. I move towards exclusion. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude There doesn't appear to be much notability outside the former Soviet states. Nemov (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude Negligible notability outside Soviet states, and I just knew this recently without prior knowledge. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Predicted and scheduled events clean-up

As with many year entries, the predicted and scheduled events for this year are cluttered with entries that were likely put in at points where there were less strict standards in what we include in main year articles. I propose we remove the following:

• All celestial events with little to no impact internationally or scientifically (eclipses, distances of satellites, etc.)
• All non-global competitive events (Eurovision, Africa Super league, Pan-Asian games, CONCACAF Gold Cup, etc.)
• Any election where the outcome doesn't effect world leaders

I think these are reasonable, but in my point of view I'd also remove any global games that aren't a globally popular sport ie the rugby world cup doesn't have nearly as much international notability as the olympics or the FIFA world cups but that is my own perspective and I don't think there'd be much agreement. PaulRKil (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Eurovision shouldn't be here. It's popular, but not an important or serious competition. It's a popularity contest in which countries award the most points to the countries they most like rather than those whose songs are best. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I completely about eclipses. Hardly anyone notices. Absolutely irrelevant and occupies too much space. The Eurovision Song Contest is however global given how Australia and Israel, Azerbaijan and Armenia compete. Keep that one, even though Jim Michael 2 is completely right about how the winner is awarded. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep Eurovision. While Jim makes a good point on deciding the winner, it's an international popularity contest. My opinion concurs with Hopkins on Eurovision, and further commenting would be redundancy. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude Eurovision and the celestial events. Wouldn’t be opposed to removing election entries that don’t result in a change of government/leader. Neutral on the rest. TheScrubby (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude the celestial events in general, although there may be one or two exceptions for extremely rare events like transits of Venus.

Alt proposal for elections: What I would propose additionally is to add a new section to main year articles for elections. We've done something like that on 2022 in the United States for all the American elections that year, and if we have all general elections included in their own section (neutral though lean exclude on including less important elections like American midterms), people who want electoral data for the year can more easily sort through it rather than having to count everything out of the events space. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn’t be opposed to it - have it limited to national elections (exclude local elections and state/provincial level elections - basically exclude any election that doesn’t determine who forms government nationally), and perhaps bold the elections that result in a change of government/leader. TheScrubby (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Request to semi-protect this page (Result: done for two weeks)

There is a user whose name I will not mention (due to good faith), but I highly suspect he is the sockpuppet of a previously banned user who vandalised this article yesterday. I suggest we make this page semi-protected, to clamp down on vandals and potential sockpuppets, as was done in previous year articles. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

ShaggyAnimate has been indeffed for frequent vandalism. This article is semi-protected; are you suggesting semi-protecting this talk page as well? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This talk page has now been semi-protected for two weeks, not just because of the vandalism but also because of the events of yesterday with the abusive unregistered IP. TheScrubby (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The arrest of Ovidio Guzmán López (Result: exclusion)

Should the arrest of Ovidio Guzmán López, son of Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and prominent drug lord, be considered to have the substantial international notability for inclusion here? TheScrubby (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude this domestic event. López having international connections doesn't make his arrest, the related unrest or any future action taken against him by the Mexican gov internationally notable. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Lean exclude Not sure if this is more significant event internationally, as in actually affecting other countries outside American continent, which in that case would be internationally notable. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Include, because people visit these articles for events like this one, even if they are domestic. However, I'd also like to note that if we include it, the IP address from yesterday will have learned that violence and vulgarity does the trick, on Wikipedia at least. Hopefully not. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Whatever happened last time was ridiculous and should never happen again. By the way, and sorry for my choice of words, I have noticed that IP is in favor of coverage of events based on their political viewpoints and/or worldview, as well as how much it was covered within their country, rather than being actually inclusionary, as in inclusive with countries across the world like including events from Africa, Carribean, Latin America and Asia, which the IP seems to oppose. I personally had a problem with increasing lack of inclusion, but I recognize that international notability and how much it actually affects other countries outside of their origin are important factor towards inclusion with the article. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude, it is his son and I don't think he had the level of notability as his father. He wasn't the leader of the Sinaloa cartel either. In my point of view, we should treat leaders of major drug cartels in the way we treat leaders of major terrorist organizations ergo only events surrounding established leaders of the orgs are included. PaulRKil (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Boarderline Include News about the cartel is more than a domestic event since these crime bosses have an impact in South/Central/North America. Nemov (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Ovidio Guzman Lopez, while being a high ranking member, was not the leader of the Cartel. His significance is due to his relation, even though there are figures that outrank him and whose arrests we wouldn't include here as well. PaulRKil (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude as per PaulRKil. TheScrubby (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline Exclude. The Sinaloa Cartel is old news, only substantially affects the Americas, lacks the importance of a domestic event to be included here (nowhere near as important as Bin Laden or El Chapo) and comparatively unnotable to Matteo Denaro. It's a notable arrest, but not enough for a main year. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I’m aware 30 people died in the ensuing ordeal. A public skirmish like this is what we should be aiming to include in year articles. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Events with similar death tolls are common during many armed conflicts. There have been many attacks/battles/clashes/offensives during the Mexican drug war which have similar or higher death tolls. We don't usually include them because they're domestic & not outstanding. There's no good reason for making an exception for this arrest & related unrest. López will already have been replaced & there's no indication that his arrest will be a turning point in defeating his cartel, let alone in ending the conflict. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Owen Roizman (Result: no consensus for inclusion; substantial international notability not proven)

Does Owen Roizman have the substantial international notability to be included here, for his work as a cinematographer? Another figure who has had an importance tag places for some days now. TheScrubby (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

well, the exorcist win an oscar, so yeah, he's notable enough to stay in the list ShaggyAnimate (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

wait, i see that the only crew members of the exorcist who win an oscar was William Peter Blatty and Robert Knudson, now i dont know if let him stay in the list or not :/ ShaggyAnimate (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We typically only include Oscar winners from the Best Director and Best Actor/Actress and Best Supporting Actor/Actress categories - otherwise there’d be too many inclusions from the entertainment field. Roizmann was neither the director of The Exorcist nor one of the actors, and in any case Roizmann did not win an Oscar for cinematography for that film, nor did he win any Oscars in general (with the exception of an Honorary award). Furthermore, people don’t automatically gain the notability of the films they worked on. TheScrubby (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

owen roizman deserves to be in this list and heres the reason why: he received an Academy Honorary Award in 2017 La Orca Masorca (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There is already a section dedicated to this debate. But if I speak my mind, it wouldn't go down well. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Include, sure why not. Don't see a problem with him in. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You reckon he has the substantial international notability for inclusion? So far there hasn’t been a strong argument in favour of inclusion in his case. TheScrubby (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

While his achievements never one an Oscar, there's little doubt in my mind that he was very accomplished and brought together Oscar-winning films. Neutral, leaning toward inclusion for me. The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

2023

I came here looking for the number. I think the year should be specified as 2023 (year). Consider the entry for 32. It differentiates, and the number is before the year. In any case the entry for the number 2023 is found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_(number)#2001_to_2099 It is unfortunately minimal. 142.163.194.184 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC changes at some point from the number to the year. You can see the discussion from 2016 here. Double sharp (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend you propose this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years and start an RFC. As for my opinion, I'm neutral. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

As we have very very few articles on numbers above 2000, I don't see why we need to do this. There's no reason to disambiguate when we only have one article. The articles that we do have in 2001-2099 seem to be mostly WP-SYNTH, trivia, and/or poorly sourced anyway. I would support this if there was an article about something other than a cardinal number called '2023' that was in common use, (e.g. 911,999 ) JeffUK 16:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Who should we add an image of? (Result: wait until space becomes available for January)

A: Constantine II B: Jeff Beck C: Gina Lollobrigida D: George Pell La Orca Masorca (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Constantine II. I think all monarchs should get pictures. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Constantine II. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Once there’s enough space, I have no objections to this ordering of image preferences in particular - so Constantine II, followed by Beck, and (if nobody else more notable passes) then Lollobrigida. TheScrubby (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I’d now prioritise K. Alex Müller for the potential third image, over Lollobrigida and Pell. TheScrubby (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

And now David Crosby as well. Will be hard to choose between Beck and Crosby to prioritise for an image, as both were highly internationally notable in music. TheScrubby (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I would argue neither deserve an image. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Lucile Randon (Result: borderline inclusion)

We shouldn't include people for being the oldest verified to be living at the end of their lives - a title which has been held by dozens of people - nor for reaching a particular age. The only exception should be Jeanne Calment because she was the oldest of all time. Likewise we shouldn't include people for being the richest, tallest or shortest, heaviest or lightest, only/last survivor, most prolific, having had the longest career etc. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline inclusion - I make the same argument here that I made in favour of Kane Tanaka last year, which I’ll quote in verbatim:

out of billions of people on the planet who have lived over the last century or so, only about 1,000-1,500 end up living to 110 and over at any one time. And of that miniscule number, just four have been officially verified to have reached the age of 118 and over - Tanaka herself was the first of just two people to reach that milestone this century alone. Their longevity may be their only point of notability, but it doesn't make it any less significant, especially when we're talking about their significance in the field of gerontology (it's said on Tanaka's Wiki page as well that she "has contributed to the debate that the maximum lifespan for humans could be 115–125 years"). Just including any supercentenarian or current "world's oldest person" title is not what I'm advocating, but the ones who made it over 118 I think should be an exception. Having said that, I would oppose the inclusion of "last survivor" supercentenarians such as Emma Morano (last person born in the 1800s), Violet Brown (last subject of Queen Victoria), Nabi Tajima (last person born in the 19th Century), and other such figures, for none of them reached the 118 milestone… they absolutely are important if we’re talking on a biological scale and the field of gerontology. And I don’t think the inclusion of the four 118+ year olds (plus the oldest ever man, Jiroemon Kimura) would be too much of an issue, particularly given that only one has died at such an age in the last 22 years, and there are only two prior to that. So long as we strictly limit ourselves to them so far as supercentenarians are concerned. TheScrubby (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Rarity doesn't grant international notability. There's nothing special about 118. If you'd said 120, you'd have a good case. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"There's nothing special about 118." -- erm, what? She was the 4th oldest verified person in history. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it's not rare, I said it's nothing special. 120 is special. There's no reason to set an inclusion bar at 118. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

So, being the 4th oldest verified person in 5,500 years of recorded history (and an estimated 117 billion humans to have ever lived) is "nothing special". I don't think your argument makes sense. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You could say likewise about extremely tall/short/heavy/light people or people who have very rare conditions. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Strong include. All people who have held the title of oldest living person should be guaranteed an inclusion because they are representing their respective years. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There are dozens who've held that title. How do they represent their years in anything other than gerontology? Who thinks of 2022 as the year that Tanaka died? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. It is exceptionally rare for a human being to reach 118. That makes her a notable individual. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Why set the bar at 118 rather than 116, 117, 119 or 120? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Many supercentenarians died (RIP) at around the age of 116 and 117, and only four people managed to surpass the age of 117. Until we see more people die at the age of 118, it should be considered as the bar. I would support increasing the bar into 120, or the oldest living if there's a lot more people dying at that age, but not enough people died at the ages above 117. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Include Being nearly 119 years old is a far more significant feat. Until there's more people that could reach 118, 118 would be absolute minimum for inclusion. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude, I don’t think this is notable. We don’t include whenever the current tallest person or shortest person when they pass, don’t see why we’d include the current oldest person. We should only include the record holders in main year articles. PaulRKil (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The majority of people voting in favour of inclusion (borderline or otherwise), are doing so because she made it to nearly 119 - and only four people in recorded human history has officially been verified to have lived from the age of 118 onwards. Not because she happened to be the world’s oldest living person at the time, which in the majority of cases we would exclude. TheScrubby (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

No-one has said why we shouldn't likewise include the few people who are the world's tallest, shortest, heaviest, lightest, richest etc. people of all time. How about sole survivors of various disasters? People held hostage for the longest time? People who have the most kids? There's no reason to single out the oldest few. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's OK to include them at this stage, 'The world's oldest person' tends to get page-space in multiple upstanding publications, 'The death of the worlds fattest/smallest/tallest' is more resigned to tabloid pages; Also, death and age are inextricably linked, so the 'age at death' is more relevant than any other statistic. If we get a year with more than a few 'oldest person in the world' deaths, then it becomes undue weight and we need to pick the one or two most prominent. JeffUK 19:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The arrest of Matteo Messina Denaro (Result: exclusion)

Does the arrest of Matteo Messina Denaro, Godfather of the Cosa Nostra, have the substantial international notability for inclusion here? The event currently has an importance tag placed on it, so it’ll be good to reach a consensus on this. TheScrubby (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Lean towards inclusion, but some questions needed Exclude – In comparison to above, being a top Mafia boss of all bosses are much likely to impact worldwide crime. However I have some questions. Do Mafia have a fraction of power they had prior to 21st century? Or do they actually impact other countries outside United States and Italy at this point in time? MarioJump83 (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The short answer is no, the power of the mafia has been in sharp decline since the 80s in both the USA and Italy. A majority of the mafia's white collar criminal enterprises have been stopped by RICO laws in the US (spearheaded by figures like Rudy Giuliani when he was the DA for SDNY) and similar laws in Italy. Meanwhile, any type of street level crimes and drug trafficking have long been taken over by other groups such as Mexican cartels. Simply put, the Italian mafia is nowhere near the prominence it once had. PaulRKil (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As such, worldwide impact is near-negligible at best, which isn't enough for this event to be internationally notable. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude because it was an ordinary police arrest (no battle/unrest) which was domestic & he'll have already been replaced. We can't say that it'll be a major turning point in the downfall of the Mafia. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. People come to these articles for events like this one. We shouldn't fail readers. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

They go to articles such as 2023 in Italy for them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I lean toward Exclude, the Cosa Nostra has been in decline for decades and nowhere near its former prominence in the mid 20th century. His arrest, therefore, isn't too notable in my point of view. PaulRKil (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline inclusion...among the most notable arrests. I also agree with Hopkins; we and the criteria should be reflecting what our readers want to see, and frankly we don't market our Year In articles enough. Unless you want to buy out Times Square and Piccadilly Circus advertising these Year In articles, we're only making it worse by excluding everything our readers want to see in the name of what seems to be an oligarchical criteria. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If we were aiming to maximise popularity & page views, 2022 would include the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident, Depp v. Heard, Anne Heche's death & various other pop culture things. Huge numbers of readers want to know about them, but there are plenty of appropriate places for them. We rightly exclude them from main year articles. Some domestic arrests gain international media coverage, but they aren't international events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

So do you want a page filled with things readers do not care about? Read [4], please. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't say anything about including insufficiently notable things. Do you want main year articles to be filled with domestic & pop culture events in order to increase page views? Include Squid Game & the deaths of Sarah Everard & Gabby Petito in 2021? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

No one reads 2021 to find either of the individuals you mentioned. We should add what people would like to find in our articles. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Many people do. The deaths of Everard & Petito were among the world's most high-profile of 2021, and received far more media coverage than the deaths of most of the people in that article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Which is why we shouldn't base our criterias for inclusion solely on one idea or another. As I've told you millions of times, Jim, we can't expect to do the best things for our readers if we exclude the events which gain substantial media coverage solely for not being notable by your standards. The ideal criteria is one where it's determined by a case by case basis because there are too many exceptions to come up with a otherwise-uniformly enforced criteria which makes everyone happy. I'm with you on excluding Petito, but this isn't an example of an event which deserves a Petito comparison. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude as per PaulRKil - would be a different story if we’re taking about the head of the Cosa Nostra in its mid-20th Century prime, but as it stands this lacks the sufficient international notability for inclusion. Also, the complaints of one abusive unregistered IP does not speak for or back up any claim that “People come to these articles for events like this one”, which is something that is honestly impossible to back up and would be a poor bar for inclusion for any field. TheScrubby (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. Head of the Sicilian Mafia is notable. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Boarderline exclude - This might have been a bigger event 50 years ago, but it's not much of one today. Unless there's some kind of change, this doesn't' warrant inclusion. In light of the exclusions of the Ovidio Guzmán López arrest it makes little sense to include this piece of news. Nemov (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yukihiro Takahashi (Result:)

does Yukihiro Takahashi deserves to be included in here? idk i just dont know :/ La Orca Masorca (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude due to insufficient international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. Interesting figure, well known in Japan but not international enough. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Borderline inclusion as the co-founder and lead vocalist of the internationally notable and influential band Yellow Magic Orchestra. TheScrubby (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

YMO has little international popularity. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2 I thought you said that popularity doesn't equal notability? Remember in regard to my Google Trends comment in regards to Ken Block you said "We don't include based on Google Trends; that measures popularity, not notability.'" Do you have a change of heart? FireInMe (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I stand by what I said, but international chart hits are regarded as indicating international notability. It's why Coolio & Irene Cara are included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

They may not have achieved great chart success internationally, but YMO have been frequently cited as a major influence internationally on genres such as electronica, synthpop, and to some extent hip hop as well. Not to mention when it comes to the development of video game music. For those reasons, on top of Takahashi being a central member of the band, I think he should get in as a borderline inclusion. TheScrubby (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude Not a well known or notable figure outside Japan. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude The band would be on the fence for inclusion and a member of that band isn't important enough internationally to deserve inclusion. Nemov (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

C/2022 E3 (ZTF)

Rare green comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) made its closest approach to Earth in roughly 50,000 years in the late hours/early hours of February 1/2. Captured international headlines, lots of interest. Affected the entire globe, naturally, being a celestial phenomenon. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64388483

Yes, Jim Michael 2. We know you 'think it's domestic' and 'don't think it's relevance'. Just spare us all the tediousness of you responding, thanks. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Everyone's entitled to reply. It'd be useful to discuss criteria for what science-related events are important enough for main year articles & which should be on subarticles such as 2023 in science. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeti Airlines Flight 691

Why can't we include the plane crash in Nepal? It made international headlines, and there are many other crashes of similar magnitude listed in previous years. Someone keeps deleting my entry. The ganymedian (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure, seems a bit odd to me that air disasters are considered domestic. Certainly not a notion I agree with. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thread derailed by the same severely uncivil IP who returned after his block expired

Because there is a small band of editors relentlessly patrolling this article and ritualistically applying importance tags to perfectly legitimate entries and having them removed. So far they removed the arrest of El Chapo's son and the mass unrest/smallscale conflict that ensued after it. They have removed the arrest of Matteo Messina Denaro. They have removed several other entries that made international headlines and captured the world's attention. Their stated justifications were always vague and highly contradictory. Amounting to goalpostshifting and selective reasoning. I notice they didn't dare apply an importance tag to the Israeli unrest (which I myself added). It absolutely deserves to be on that list, however the other events they've had removed were of just as much notoriety or in some cases significantly more as the recent Israeli unrest. I can only assume their motives are to make this year article as boring and empty as possible. Why they wish for this is anyone's guess. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC) I've already given my reasons for excluding this crash. Some plane crashes are obviously much more important than others. No-one for example would claim that this one's notability is even on the same scale as the Tenerife airport disaster or the Metrojet Flight 9268. No-one wants to make things boring & empty, although making articles very long & exciting isn't a goal either. There are plenty of sites who offer those things, but we're an encyclopedia. We've had long discussions about why arrests are rarely important enough to include in main year articles. We rarely include convictions, so to include arrests is bizarre. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Yeah and as we've been over a dozen times, every single other main year article has countless examples of high profile arrests (many considerably less notable and of significantly less worldwide impact than El Chapo's son and Denaro). You completely ignored that and continued to lie (or espouse falsehoods at the very least) repeatedly about the scale of the Cartel he headed, and the scale of the unrest which followed. Like I said, goalpostshifting and ad hoc, contradictory standards for what constitutes 'international notability'. You are very clearly trying to make this article as empty and boring as possible. You are a pervasive degradation to this article. And I strongly suggest you retired your account and stop editing Wikipedia. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Not all the other main year articles include such things and many insufficiently notable things are added to main year articles. None of what I said was untrue. I'm well aware of the 2023 Sinaloa unrest, which I've edited. No-one is trying to make the article empty or boring. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Yes, they do ALL include such things. The 2019 article literally has the FIRST ARREST of El Chapo's son which resulted in somewhat less unrest and resulted in him being released a short time later in order to 'keep the peace'. Passenger planes were struck with goddamn gunfire during the 2023 unrest. Parts of Mexico were completely shut down and thousands of troops were drafted to bring back order. It was an extreme event that impacted what is arguably the most powerful criminal organization in the world with operations in dozens of different countries and multiple continents. You can keep claiming you're not trying to make the article empty and boring, but your every action is an attempt to make the article emptier and more boring. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Many incidents with similar or higher death tolls have occurred during the Mexican drug war. The discussion regarding that was closed with consensus to exclude it & would've happened even without my input. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Yes because you and several editors repeatedly made the same false claims about the Cartel itself (repeatedly downplaying its size and significance, as well as revenue and global reach), Guzman's standing within said organization (repeated false claims that he is not the leader of said organization, but his own article and many sources claimed he was elevated to the rank of leader after his father's arrest, albeit it seems to be as a co-leader with other sons of El Chapo and others, the exact hierarchy of these organizations is hazy at the best of times anyway for obvious reasons), the unrest itself (downplaying the deaths and scale, such as frequent aerial battles and use of Mexican Armed Forces helicopters and planes in order to combat the Cartel soldiers along with thousands of troops). That is why the decision was made to exclude. You and several others repeatedly made false claims either out of igorance, or maliciousness. Either way, you're not fit to be making these decisions and editing these articles. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC) You were blocked last month for incivility & personal attacks on this talk page. You're now repeating it in the same place in regard to the same topic which we already settled as exclude. It was a battle of similar intensity as some others of the Mexican drug war & many other conflicts. The large majority of battles aren't on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Yes the majority of them are, actually. There you go making false claims again. You also claimed that serial killer arrests were not included on previous main year articles and you were completely wrong about that too and proven wrong. Why do you incessantly make false claims? Why don't you take a couple of minutes out of your day to actually briefly research the claims you're making? You are completely out of your depth here. Stop vandalizing this site. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Most battles aren't on main year articles. There'd be many on each article if they were. I said that serial killer arrests aren't usually included. However, insufficiently notable things are added to main year articles every day. Being civil is required for all WP editors. You're breaking that rule & derailling this discussion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Yes most widespread unrest involving dozens of deaths and military action and aerial battles and countries being semi-shutdown are included on main year articles, Jim. You repeatedly falsely claiming that they're not doesn't change that fact, just like you repeatedly making false claims about excluded events in this main year article doesn't magically make them true. What you say and what is are clearly 2 entirely different things, aren't they. The vast majority of serial killer arrests and mass killings are actually included in main year articles going back decades. You'd know if you'd ever bothered to actually check them. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC) I've gone back as far as 1900 & most of those types of things aren't there. Why are you continuing to derail this thread by going off-topic? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC) There is absolutely no point continuing to do this with you if you're just going to repeatedly lie. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC) None of it's lies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

By all means, add the flight disaster. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Please semi-protect this talk page. The 88 IP who was blocked for incivility & personal attacks on here last month is doing the same thing again & I think should be re-blocked. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not being uncivil at all, and pointing out flaws and mistakes you are repeatedly making (intentionally or unintentionally) is not a 'personal attack'. 88 is an incredibly common IP range for ISPs here. I have never been blocked from Wikipedia. It doesn't take a genius to briefly read back through the previous arguments on this page and repeatedly see your name pop up constantly making erroneous claims incessantly and slapping importance tags on valid entries and constantly and aggressively trying to persuade other users (through false claims about the subjects you clearly have no knowledge of and haven't bothered to even have a cursory readover of), over and over and over again) to exclude perfectly legitimate entries in the events list.

You are the very definition of a problem editor. And if anyone needs to be blocked, it's you. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You have the exact same IP & are talking about the same things in the same way, yet you're saying it wasn't you who commented here last month? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand that most IPs are recycled through ISPs? I frequently get the IPs of people who have made comments years ago or months ago on articles I've never visited. I don't even have the same IP as the IP you're referring to. It's not the 'exact same' at all.

There you go with more false claims. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You're not just using the same IP, you're talking about the same things in the same way on the same talk page as you did last month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

IP, you are coming in way too strong. Your concerns are legitimate, and they are already being addressed in the proper forum for such issues. The way you are expressing them is not acceptable and will almost certainly get you blocked for a longer period of time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion 88 IP is not being uncivil this time, he is raising legitimate concerns, is cracking funny jokes and is clearly attempting to improve this article. Seasoned Wikipedia editors have become too sensitive and protective over these articles. 51.7.239.161 (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

He's clearly being uncivil & isn't making any jokes. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Not uncivil, no editor is free from criticism, he hasn't insulted, just criticised. 51.7.239.161 (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair criticism is reasonable, but that's not what he's doing. He's falsely claiming I'm incompetent & am lying. He's making provably false claims, including that the vast majority of arrests of serial killers are on main year articles. He's pushing - in the wrong section - for inclusion of an event that was excluded last month by consensus after a long discussion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The IP-in-question has been blocked for block evading, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are there no images for January? The month is over

I think, we should put images for January. The month is over! 136.158.124.85 (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

There's no space apart from next to the refs, where we don't put images. I agree that this is a problem, but how could it be solved? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree JW221374 (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

So we shouldn't put any images for the month of January because we don't have enough space? Please explain to me? How this thing works on here? What if someone more famous like Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin die last month? We shouldn't put an images for them because we don't have enough space for them? 😒 What if Queen Elizabeth die last month? It's hard to see there's no images for the month of January. I think, we should put 1-3 images! Maybe 1-2 if we don't have enough space for 3 images. 136.158.124.85 (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

You're saying we should put them next to the refs? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't tell me, we will not put images again for the month of February if we don't have enough space. I can't comprehend your point about space! 136.158.124.85 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

When they were added, they appeared on the lower right, next to the refs, where we don't usually include images. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

Under Events, for January 1 and January 11, please add the 2023 Kabul airport bombing and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Afghanistan bombing. 2600:100C:A21B:9ED1:7157:FEF:56A2:4E05 (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done because they're not important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Gianluca Vialli?

I think, he shouldn't get an image for the month of January. He's only a Domestic Figure. Here is my candidates Jeff Beck or David Crosby: We should choose only 1 from this because we don't had enough space to include both of them. Constantine: Must be included Gina Lollobrigida: Must be included George Pell: He's notable but we don't had enough space to include him. Shouldn't not be prioritized I think, we should put 2-3 images for the month of January. Please remove Gianluca Vialli. 136.158.124.85 (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Except that he was internationally renowned. 2600:100C:A21B:9ED1:7157:FEF:56A2:4E05 (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Granted, you can say the same about Crosby or Beck - both highly internationally regarded and influential musicians, with the latter consistently cited as among the greatest and most influential guitarists in history. Both deserve an image; but of course due to limited space only one should get it to represent the field of music. TheScrubby (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023

Please add this event:

• 19 January – Strikes and demonstrations begin throughout France against the government's pension reform project, which plans to raise the retirement age to 64.

I requested you to do so. 2600:1010:B12F:8241:4023:8412:3E31:EDA7 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done because it's not important enough. It's on 2023 in France. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023 (3)

There is something you can add to that, which is an event:

• 1 January: Extinction Rebellion made a statement that for 2023 it had made "a controversial resolution to temporarily shift away from public disruption as a primary tactic", after 2022's traffic blockages and throwing soup on the case of Vincent van Gogh’s "Sunflowers" painting.

It had a source in there. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:29C4:2554:6BDC:ECFB (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: not important enough small jars tc 08:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done because it's nowhere near important enough. Main year articles are for important events & people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023 (4)

I also found something for you to add:

Mediacorp began soft-launching its new unified branding across television, radio and digital media products (except CNA and CNA938) while also being teased on their social media accounts, with the inclusion of the "M" prefix to signify their recognition in the digital-first environment. The Mplifier branding is set to take effect full-time from 1 February of the same year.

This date is from January 16. -- 2601:205:C001:EA0:29C4:2554:6BDC:ECFB (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

not important enough small jars tc 08:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done because it's nowhere near important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Pervez Musharraf (Result: inclusion)

Should his demise be included in the death section? He served as President of Pakistan from 2001 to 2008 Andyandress (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

All heads of state and government are automatically included, so yes. The Voivodeship King (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

100% include. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong include Musharraf, who is also a firm contender for an image once there’s space. TheScrubby (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong include Musharraf should also be an image in February and his passing should be put in the lede when appropriate. PaulRKil (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Bengali Calendar

I don't know if it is the right place say this, but it seems in the "2023 in various calendars" it is written 1430 for Bengali Calendar. But it should be 1429–1430, because the 1429 Bengali year is going to end on 12/13 April 2023.

Bengali years start on 13/14 April every year of the Georgian Calendar. Zeeshan Y Tariq (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Burt Bacharach

Should he be included? I think, he's famous enough. 136.158.124.85 (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - No question. Nemov (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Yes (obviously). Sigh. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Notable by all means. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Include as one of the most important and influential pop composers of the last century. As an aside, what an awful year 2023 is turning out to be in terms of music deaths. First, Jeff Beck. Then, David Crosby. Now, Bacharach. And those three are just the tip of the iceberg (and the three most notable music deaths by far as of now). Feels like 2016 all over again, sadly. TheScrubby (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Obviously. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Should we add Lisa Loring to the deaths list?

she was the little girl behind Wednesday from The Addams Family, like, The Addams Family was kinda international, right? 2800:2181:5400:36B:7C96:3453:ED18:9AFD (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude due to her low notability. Her death would've gained very little media coverage if not for the recent release of Wednesday. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude former child actress, not sure I ever knew her name. Deb (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude as per Jim Michael and Deb. TheScrubby (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - Internationally known? nope. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

ok geez, then why dont you remove John Astin from the 1930 births list 😒 186.139.64.4 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude Not known internationally. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Add Hsing Yun to the deaths list?

he was the founder of the Buddha's Light International Association 186.139.64.4 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude because he's not notable enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say Include because he was the founder of a branch of Buddhism. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hundreds of people have taken part in starting branches, denominations, sects etc. of various religions/movements. It's nowhere near founding a major religion. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No one founds major religions these days anyways, so that argument is pretty easily invalidated. We're not going to likely ever see another Jesus, Mohammad, or Siddhartha. Founding a religion followed by more than you and your close friends is a massive accomplishment already, and for being considered a major figure within the Buddhist religion's recent history, this should be an easy include if we are to keep including deaths in year articles. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Include He was the founder of a branch of Buddhism, and that branch has members in >50 countries, which is a big accomplishment on their own right. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

should we add Princess Marie Gabrielle of Luxembourg to the deaths list?

she was a Luxembourgish royal, and i thinks all royals need to be included, right? 186.139.64.4 (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know to be honest. Based on a Village Pump discussion currently ongoing, it looks like we're actually going to be no longer listings deaths. However, if they are to stay, I don't know if she would be included. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that, even if they decide to move the deaths section to another article, it would be best to have a list ready to start with, to discourage new contributors from adding random figures they happen to favour. Deb (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

If the list stays, I would lean towards exclusion due to lack of international notability, even for a royalty figure. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Latin alphabet in Uzbekistan (Result: exclusion)

I suggest removing the entry. According to Uzbek alphabet, such move was announced several times in the past, but never followed through, and the only sources are from the beginning of 2022 referring to plans. I can find no confirmation of any official change today, and the Uzbek version of the government website still defaults to cyrillic. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included under any circumstances - it's domestic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, I think it it fits within the broader question of prevalence of either script, similar to driving direction, so I wouldn't oppose keeping it if it really happened. Its scope is thus broader than national elections, for example. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I see it has been removed, which I would agree with on the basis of the evidence presented by Yerpo: there is no sense in including something that does not appear to have happened. Now, if it did happen, I would support the change: script changes are pretty significant. Double sharp (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Domestic event. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, the only reason i included it is to be paired with the "detailed logarithmic timeline" article, but as i see is unconfirmed i'll stop editing it back Ericulture (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

First Collage Suggestions

Obviously the year is still new, and therefore we can't really decide the biggest moments of the year yet. However, the following are my suggestions on what we could include on the first collage

2023 Turkey and Syria Earthquake; this has definitely been the biggest moment of the year so far

The US-China balloon incident. This represents an escalation in tensions between the world's 2 most powerful countries, it should definitely be mentioned

The Brazilian Congress storming; I know some might call it a domestic event but it has definitely influenced Brazil's relations with other countries, given it was one of the main topics when Biden and Lula met yesterday

The Peruvian protests; easily the biggest protests of the year so far. I think it deserves to be in a collage.

The C/2022 comet sighting; this is literally the only time any living person will get to see the comet.

The recent UFO sightings over the US and Canada. This definitely deserves a mention.

The avian flu pandemic definitely needs a mention. I don't think 2023 can be mentioned without it

I am not sure what the other 1 could be. I guess it would be added later on TRJ2008 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Please, please, let's forget about any collages until much later in the year. We don't have to have them and we don't have to have a certain number either. Deb (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Chinese balloons

This has had an importance tag put on it & removed, neither by me. This is very international & has gained a lot of international media coverage, but I think it has insufficient importance due to there being no significant effects so far. If international sanctions are imposed in reaction to this, it'd make it important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude has had international impact but has come to nothing. A lot of noise but little transcendental. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Include. I'm at a loss. A major escalation of an arguable Cold War II between two most powerful countries in the world. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Since when are the US and China the two most powerful countries in the world? Deb (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

As a further comment, your standards are contrary to WP policy. There are too many RS's to list on the Chinese Spy Balloons. We don't adhere to your standards; we adhere to WP Policy. And consensus isn't on your side either; on the active ANI discussion regarding your conduct, the closer of the Coltrane RFC not only stated that consensus clearly states that Coltrane should have been included but also that your standards of international notability were REJECTED by the wider Wikipedia Community. Like it or not, media coverage can make something notable on Wikipedia. If you want to go propose something on the Village Pump to counteract the current order of policy, I invite you to do so. But currently, media coverage can fulfill Wikipedia's policy on notability.

Arguments to exclude because of fans, GONE. The belief that we can trust you not to bludgeon discussions, GONE. Your local consensus, GONE. Evidence of firmly establishing such local consensus, GONE. Acceptance of your standards by the larger community, GONE. "International notability", GONE. And the merit behind a vast majority of your arguments, like "we don't do this", THEY'RE GONE AS WELL. They're ALL gone. So why are these arguments still here? I feel like I'm Keir Starmer the day before Liz Truss resigns. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Include. This is a significant international event between two of the world's largest powers. Not sure why we're even discussing this and it should be withdrawn. Nemov (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the first to question its inclusion & it should be discussed. No armed conflict, sanctions, cancelled business deals, deaths or injuries. So far it's just been a shootdown, criticism & in China, one person being dismissed from their position. What's most strange is that S Korea & Japan didn't respond. They either didn't notice the balloon, or noticed it & didn't think it was a problem. Canada responded only with criticism. It flew several thousand miles before it was shot down. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If the world cares about it to the degree as shown by the populace through media, politics, and scholarly articles, no matter what the substance is, it is a notable event. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

i think we should exclude AKA from the deaths list

AKA was only notable in south africa, and the proof is that he only win awards from his country (South Africa) and his continent (MTV Africa Music Award) 2800:2181:5400:480:483D:E3BB:64DE:D4B6 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - He seems to have little notoriety outside SA. Deb (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support I wanted to put importance tag on AKA some days ago. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This isn't a page called "international 2023" Very Average Editor (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, countries that have a large number of notable deaths have their own year pages. The consensus established by the most prominent editors on the page is that only VERY notable domestic figures and events are included. Almost all entries must be international in some respect. For the above editors, remember to Be bold with your edits! If you don't think AKA is notable, remove the listing. If another editor disagrees and adds AKA back, that's the time to add a subsection to discuss it. The Voivodeship King (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, we should exclude him. Lack of general international notability. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If we are to keep listing deaths in year articles (which we might not), Exclude AKA due to lack of significant influence. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Shoichiro Toyoda

I think that he deserves to be included on Death section. Although someone deleted his name because he was "domestic", Toyota Motor Company expanded its business globally as far as building first factories in North America and Europe, and started manufacturing Toyota Lexus when he was the president. -What can I do for someone?- (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

If we are to keep including deaths, then this is an absolute yes. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, he had received more than a couple of dozens of honours and decorations, and more than 20 of those were from outside of Japan, such as Legion of honour, Knight commander, etc.. -What can I do for someone?- (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Include for me. Toyota Motor Corporation is from memory the largest car producer in the world by sales and he internationalised the company. The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Include if death section remains. He's not well known outside Japan, but his work is internationally notable for expansion of Toyota into an automobile giant we know today. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2023

Here is the event I requested for you to add:

• February 11 – 2023 Yukon high-altitude object: Justin Trudeau orders the takedown of an unidentified object over Yukon, which is later shot down by a United States Air Force F-22 Raptor using a AIM-9X Sidewinder. The Canadian Armed Forces has been deployed to collect and analyze the object.

I used it with one of these sources. — 2600:1010:B12F:8241:69D6:4C47:90B4:B2DC (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is unlikely to be notable enough to merit inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Done, It has an article, how can it not be notable? JeffUK 09:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

We should revisit this as the object shot down is not believed to be chinese in nature and seems to be an overreaction due to the paranoia related around the chinese balloon. PaulRKil (talk) 13:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Who should get an images for February?

So far, only 2 people are qualified for images! 1. Pervez Musharraf 2. Burt Bacharach 136.158.124.85 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. Nobody really "qualifies" because we choose pictures based on level of notability and some months don't have many notable people. If you're wondering who could be used as a possible third picture, Ivan Silayev may be appopriate. PaulRKil (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 Yukon high-altitude object

Does the 2023 Yukon high-altitude object warrant inclusion? We've learned that the object was not from a foreign adversary and was likely from a private organization. I don't think this warrants inclusion even with the international cooperation. If anything, it can be mentioned in the entry about the shootdown of the chinese balloon with something like "subsequent high altitude objects were shot down in the succeeding weeks" etc. but I don't think its inclusion is otherwise notable enough to be here. PaulRKil (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The singular Yukon incident on its own doesn't deserve a mention. The dozen or so high altitude object incidents (NOT including the Chinese spy balloon, which is to be treated separately) in February 2023 absolutely do deserve mention, however. They have captured global headlines like few other things this year, led to news conferences. Caused shutdowns of busy airports in China and caused domestic stocks there to plummet. Led to the Chinese government warning its citizens through text message to avoid the area the objects had been sighted in.

On its own the Yukon incident is nothing spectacular. Combined all these high altitude objects of what remain unidentified objects have provoked wild speculation, interest and caused actual physical effects around the world.

The article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-altitude_object_events_in_2023#List_of_events

Definitely a bizarre, global phenomenon. 81.170.33.176 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

My perspective is that there's a phenomena akin to the Seattle windshield pitting epidemic and the subsequent balloons are private ones that are being shot down now that the skies are being scrutinized. I don't think these are notable, considering the fact that NORAD said they weren't Chinese or adversarial in any way. PaulRKil (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You're a buffoon. You know nothing. 81.170.33.176 (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Grow up. PaulRKil (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It's not significant in its own right and should be excluded. Deb (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Simpleton. 81.170.33.176 (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read and abide by Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Deb (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)]

Probably not. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude From what I have seen, this is very much domestic event. It's likely that the object is private-owned. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Leiji Matsumoto

I'd like to ask other editors if he is notable enough for inclusion on Deaths, although he has been referred to as "legendary manga creator". -What can I do for someone?- (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. When I read the pages of directors or producers they often state "one of the most (verb) in (country/era/world) but that isn't present for Matsumoto. News articles often use embellishments in an attempt to gain readers. Could you give some more information as to what achievements make Matsumoto notable enough for the Deaths list? The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears to me that he contributed some works outside of Japan during the 1990s. But there's much work needs some explaining. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Ohio Chemical Spill

Certainly deserves a mention, it was a domestic affair but the severity of the spill and the release of chemicals into the atmosphere combined with the evacuation make it worthy of a mention in my view. Had/has potentially much larger range of effect and negative impact due to atmospheric release. It certainly made headlines around the world, people are still talking about it although they really seem to be trying to stifle media circulation of the event and the aftermath. 81.170.33.176 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Does this event even have a Wikipedia page? I haven't been able to find one. Can you please include a link? The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@The Voivodeship King: 2023 Ohio train derailment, I assume. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, yeah you got it. Was just about to link it. 81.170.33.176 (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Like The Voivodeship King, I'm doubtful about this one. If something like this happened in another country, it would probably hardly get a mention in the US media. Deb (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not in mainstream US media, which tends to be very, very Americancentric, but I'm sure it would be mentioned in most other countries. There was a fairly bad Arctic oilspill in Russia in 2020 that made international news, and earned a spot in the 2020 Wikipedia article. I don't think it was widely covered in US media either.

I think this chemical leak is potentially far more devastating as it involves stratospheric release and contamination, depending on how well the cleanup goes. But even the potential for causing widespread global damage through stratospheric chemical pollutants is worthy of a mention, see for example Chernobyl.

Complete disaster was averted with Chernobyl, and actual deaths and damage were actually quite minimal and localized in the end, but due to what POTENTIALLY could have happened... it was one of the defining events of the 20th century.

I don't mean to suggest the Ohio Chemical Spill has the same gravity as Chernobyl, but it needn't to still be worthy of a mention here. In my view. 81.170.33.176 (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like most of the concerns listed on the page are theoretical and minor so far (one dead fox and dead fish). Can we come back to this debate until more information about the effects has come to light? I think it has the potential to be notable but the effects that have happened so far aren't convincing enough just yet. The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

For now, no. There is a LOT of media spin on this episode with opportunistic news sources looking for political adversaries to blame and its hard to really measure the actual impact based solely on media reports. We did not include the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in 2013 and that caused numerous fatalities. At the very least, it is an Americentric event. PaulRKil (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that major environmental disasters should be an inclusion, no matter what. Some say this looks like it could be the next Chernobyl (especially the Chinese, who have deemed it "ChernobylOhio" per Business Insider article cited later in comment), and the media across Western Europe and a few other countries seems to be seeing this story as notable. WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply to speculation by reliable sources. If something like this happened in Russia outside of the war in a place close to a river, I think this would get a lot of attention, unless a company tried to cover it up (like maybe an oil spill in Nigeria covered up by Shell or Total Energies). I think that the derailment fulfills the criteria, and moreover, it's been covered outside of US media as well (see France24, BBC, Sky News Australia, ABC (Australia) News, and the Indian Express. The Chinese internet has also notably reacted to the derailment with excitement (Source: Business Insider). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It led to a mass evacuation of the town. It's definitely worthy of a mention in the article. It's domestic like almost any event could be classified as, but like I said it involves stratospheric leakage of toxic, extremely hazardous chemicals which aren't just going to stay contained over the skies of Ohio. They will blow with the winds and fall in other parts of the globe.

Chernobyl was largely contained too. Actual deaths and damage from Chernobyl were limited to a very small localized zone in Ukraine. However it's the potential cataclysmic impact that it COULD have had which is what made Chernobyl so infamous and chilling to this day.

It also doesn't even need to be anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl to warrant a mention. It's easily as serious, grave and significant as the dozens of oilspills and other environmental catastrophes listed in previous year articles.

I firmly agree the Ohio Chemical Spill should be included in the Events List. 81.170.33.176 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The only one of those events that has actually occurred was the evacuation of a single town. Let's wait and see if this becomes more important. Right now, the effect on the environment has not been on a large scale, but could grow larger as time progresses. The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude Let's be honest. If it had happened in a lesser "relevant" country we would not be having this debate. No fatalities, no major containment measures beyond evacuation of a town. In 2023 in the United States is correctly posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Did Oder river disaster got listed on 2022? I'm certain it has not, and it's very hard to see this get included. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Petar Zhekov

Is Petar Zhekov internationally notable to be included under the February section? . He was member of the Bulgaria squad for the 1966 FIFA World Cup, but the team did not win the World Cup that year. For athletes which we included those who have won Olympic medals or some notable domestic accomplishment or honor. He was awarded the European Golden Shoe which is for the top goalscorer in European football leagues. Does that award make him notable enough? WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I see that he won 44 caps for Bulgaria, which in my book would be enough to qualify him. Deb (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If we are to keep including deaths in year articles and preserve the status quo, then I would say a hard yes. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed the tag. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

should we add Slim Borgudd to the deaths list?

he was a Formula One driver, do y'all think that makes him notable enough? 186.139.72.30 (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude he seemed to only have two seasons and no championships. PaulRKil (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Although he entered Formula One, 10 races qualified & 6 races completed, out of only 15 races of entry in 2 seasons. It does not seem that he has sufficient enough notability, unfortunately. -What can I do for someone?- (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude Deb (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude MarioJump83 (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

should we add Gérard Latortue to the deaths list?

he was a former interim prime minister of Haiti, does that make him notable enough? 2800:2181:5400:480:D939:11CB:B0C:2F9A (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Possibly. Let's have some other opinions. Deb (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok 2800:2181:5400:480:D939:11CB:B0C:2F9A (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think he would be sufficient, if we are to keep including deaths, based primarily on his work for the UN as well as being a world leader. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That he was acting PM is irrelevant. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think so, we had a conversation about this in the 2022 talkpage. I think the resolution was the fact they're acting or interim isn't relevant because they still inherited the executive office of whichever country they're in. PaulRKil (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is there still no images for january?

c'mon guys, the month is already over, what's making you guys take so long? 2800:2181:5400:480:D939:11CB:B0C:2F9A (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Not enough space, sorry. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

To add on to what @Sir Jack Hopkins said, the length of deaths in January isn't the inherent issue. Take a look to the right, all the infoboxes for the year take up all the image space for the article. If we add images now, there will be formatting issues. Once the entire article gets longer, it'll free up space and allow us to add images without formatting conflicts. Expect for that to occur in either June or July unless this year becomes incredibly busy for events. PaulRKil (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

ok i guess.... 2800:2181:5400:480:C8C1:2211:A74F:8CC1 (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Should we add Alberto Mario Gonzalez to the deaths list?

he was an Argentine footballer who played as a forward for Argentina in the 1962 and 1966 FIFA World Cups, does that make him notable enough? 2800:2181:5400:480:C8C1:2211:A74F:8CC1 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

He scored one goal in nineteen appearances with Argentina, didn't win any medals and doesn't appear to have had a very notable club career either. Simply participating in a World Cup does not merit inclusion. Besides, I think it's worth looking into the possibility that the person who asked this question is the connected to the person who previously vandalised this article and had an obsession with including irrelevant Argentinian figures in the deaths section. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

i dont know what are you talking about 186.139.72.30 (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes you do. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm certain that this is you. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose Doesn't seem to have any notable records. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Rafael Viñoly

should we let him stay in the deaths list?, i'm not sure about his notability, just give me your opinions 2800:2181:5000:5E:AD71:9DF6:ED7F:FA2 (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

i will kinda say "include" but i'm not sure about it... 2800:2181:5000:5E:AD71:9DF6:ED7F:FA2 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as him not being a Pritzker laureate, I don't think he needs to be included. That should be our yardstick with architects. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Exclude and please stop adding topics whilst you're pending investigation. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This is borderline exclude to me. Pretty notable internationally, but isn't significant enough as in got a Pritzker. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The Notability of Formula One Drivers

I propose a discussion on what achievements are needed by a Formula One driver to qualify as notable enough for the deaths list. I think two race victories would be a fair margin. This doesn't exclude older drivers as much, when points were for fewer drivers and at lower values, although there were far fewer races in the fifties and sixties than there are now. This would include, to use modern examples Sergio Pérez and Charles Leclerc, while excluding Pierre Gasly and Esteban Ocon, which I think is reasonable. Of course, I'm interested in everyone else's opinion on this. Thanks, The Voivodeship King (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

As I've said many times here before, it's totally dependent on the context, any type of local consensus we come to is irrelevant and we shouldn't be making pseudo-policies in the talk page here. Someone is free to add any who dies if they feel it's relevant to the year as a whole, and we're all free to revert, then discuss, their inclusion. JeffUK 16:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A local consensus would streamline to process of inclusion and, if one can be achieved, would mean one less profession requiring an analysis of different achievements by different methods and measures. The Voivodeship King (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I think two victories is way too low. I don't follow racing but I do know some names and I've never heard of any of the drivers you mention. I'd suggest that coming in the top three in the championship at least once would be a more realistic measure - unless they are well known for something else. Deb (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I think finishing in the top 3 overall in a season is fair and I'm happy to use this instead of the more lax two victory criterion. It's also worth noting that for the examples I used, both Leclerc and Perez still qualify and Gasly and Ocon are excluded. The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

John Motson

Motson was primarily known as a commentator for BBC. Although he gained a certain level of notoriety in the UK (particularly England), he surely didn't have the kind of international reputation entries in this article should have. Deb (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

He was a legend in sports commentary here in the UK. Among the most recognisable voices on sports TV/radio, with a career of 50+ years. Not sure about internationally, though. So, whilst I greatly admired and respected the man, I wouldn't object if he was excluded from this page. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I suspect only in the UK. Deb (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we should exclude him. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Include, as he was the voice of the FIFA World Cup to millions of households. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Only in the UK. Deb (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Exclude even if he was the voice of the FIFA World Cup during 1990s, not everyone would know about him at that time, as back in the day there's almost no Internet for much of the world. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Include. I can't think of any football commentator with his level of notability. The voice narrated the glory of football of the two previous generations. The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Only in the UK. Deb (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, but that's one of the most important domestic leagues, not to mention England internationally. I don't think I'd offend anyone by saying England is one of the three most important historic domestic footballing nations alongside Italy and Spain. The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Germany, Brazil and Argentina might have something to say about that... Deb (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Shozo Sasahara and Gary Rossington

Both of these have recently been added by User:Unknown artist and I would suggest that neither of them belongs here. I believe we've already established in discussion that one gold medal at the Olympics isn't really enough to get an entry here - see how short Sasahara's article is. As for Rossington, I know that Lynyrd Skynyrd was a notable band, but if we include every founder member of every band, we'll be back to square one. The number of articles Rossington has in other languages suggests he wasn't exactly a household name. Deb (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

My experience on year pages has been the opposite of that - individual gold medallists are automatic inclusions. Rossington is definitely up for debate. I would also question the inclusion of Romualdo Arppi Filho, if anyone else cares to weigh in. The Voivodeship King (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

yeah, i'm not sure about him tho, he was the referee of the final of the 1986 soccer world cup, which was a highly international event 186.139.62.116 (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought that it was recently decided that they aren't, or shouldn't be, automatic inclusions. Deb (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. On which talk page was it decided? The Voivodeship King (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong word. It's not decided that they should not be included. Likewise, it's not decided that they should be included. However, the latest discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years indicate that not many people are in favour of them being automatically included. Deb (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Romualdo Arppi Filho should definitely be removed. Any objections? Deb (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Anybody want to keep Rossington? Deb (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Moot. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Robert Blake (actor) and Tom Sizemore

Are these actors household names anywhere but in the US? And is Blake not better known for the murder charge than anything else? Deb (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Moot. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 collage photos

Is this time still too soon to add collage photos? The 2020s article also has its own image with nearly a third of the decade passed, but is it appropriate to be added with only 21%-22% of the year passed? Thingofme (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

We should wait to at least July - August of the year to determine collage photos. Thingofme (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Peshawar Suicide Bombing

I don't think we need this in the opening, do we? It was not some year defining attack, nor was it a particularly unusual event for the general region. Tragic as it was, less than 100 people died and it was completely forgotten the day after. 2.98.201.84 (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree and I've removed it. People are often much too quick to assume that the most recent news story is going to be one of the most important of the year. Deb (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. At this point, these kinds of attacks are happening very frequently. While the 100+ death-events, in my opinion, should be mentioned in the Events section, they should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are significantly impactful that it can lead to worldwide repercussions, like 9/11 or Taliban capture of Aghanistan. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Births and Deaths have been removed

Why is everyone getting removed? I’m extremely confused. Kyu (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see this RfC. Births and deaths section had been a hotbed of tensions on years articles for two years, and frankly, people are done with it. Now they are being removed altogether from years articles, and instead people are directed to putting deaths instead on Deaths in 2023. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@MarioJump83 hotbed of tension...but why?? 45.113.88.174 (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:2021 and Talk:2022, as well as their archives, for the context of what I said. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I did look and should I remove the births and deaths from the other years as well? I finished the 2004 article yesterday and wonder, do I do the same as the others??? Kyu (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You may do it, but up to 1980, as there's no death pages for every month before 1980. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

They also topic banned two or three of the editors who were opposed to this radical change, even though they had made so many contributions to this article(s). To me it seems tyrannical and reminds me of something. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I see. I guess if that is the case, I’ll have to hide (almost) every image of the deceased that are not in the year they died article. It seems silly but I guess that’s the future of Wikipedia. Kyu (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Only one editor was topic banned. Another retired temporarily. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

NATO and Trump indictment

Why are these two things marked with the “importance?” tag? The first indictment of a U.S. president and a country joining NATO seem like events of clear worldwide importance to me. GevBen (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

1.By WP:BPLCRIME, every accused is innocent and what is notorious is his conviction (the same process that has been followed with the rest of the international leaders).

2.About Finland. The process of "accession negotiations", which follows the ratification of each of the members, has yet to begin. The process is not finished. It has only begun. I suppose that by the end of the year we will know something and, therefore, its accession will obviously be included in Year in Topic. That's why I said "not relevant news, yet". _-_Alsor (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think either of the currents inclusions should stay. Both of these events can be represented much better in later events: when Finland actually joins and if Trump is arrested/trial. Yeoutie (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Yeoutie it's been reported that Trump will surrender himself to authorities next week, most likely on Tuesday. Are you suggesting that the inclusion should be made when that happens? If so, I honestly wouldn't mind waiting. Losipov (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Losipov I feel like that would be much more appropriate and I would probably support its inclusion, although of course we'll have to wait and see as I think its teetering on international nobility as of now. Yeoutie (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe that we should include when there is a formal sentence that indicates that Trump is criminally responsible. As we have done with other former international leaders. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

By this logic, shouldn’t elections also be excluded since they can be better represented by later events (the inauguration)? I might see your point with regards to Finland and NATO, but an indictment of a former U.S. president is a pretty big deal in its own (not to mention he won’t necessarily even go to trial). GevBen (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What is relevant in elections is Election Day, when the citizenry decides. The inauguration, however pompous it may be, is a simplistic act of formality. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. Deb (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@alsoriano97 I've reverted the removal as a courtesy to @GevBen, given that only around a day has passed since the discussion was opened, as noted in your edit summary [5], which is very short period, given the typical time-frame of the previous discussions on this page. I suggest you allow for some more time for discussion, as is customary for this page.

I note the discussion was started by GevBen. It would seem to be a common courtesy to at least allow GevBen a further chance to respond, given there has only been two exchanges between yourself and GevBen, where you made the last comment. Each person has real-life obligations, which may prevent them from making immediate responses to discussions. Given their evident objection to the removal in their recent revert of the maintenance tag [6], and you subsequent direction to the talk page [7] after this exchange, it seems unreasonable for you to conclude the discussion so quickly, after only such a limited amount of time has passed. I understand that other editors have also responded, but I really do feel that GevBen should be given a further chance to respond, given the previously mentioned exchange.

I further note that the maintenance tags are still on the entries, indicating to readers the contentious nature of the entries, so there is really no urgent deadline to meet for their removals. Carter00000 (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Consensus: 3-1. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As I've said above, its a matter of common courtesy of allowing a person who has raised their objection, to have a fair chance to respond and make their concerns known, given the short timing. I've acknowledged above that other editors have also responded and I'm aware of the current state of the discussion. Carter00000 (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Clearly you have not been attentive to many discussions on this Talk Page. When a consensus is abundantly clear and strong, there is no rule requiring a reply. As you well know (or should know), Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Therefore, your last edit is disruptive. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have still yet to hear an actual reasoning behind removing the Trump indictment. The idea of a former US president being indicted of a crime, whether he’s found guilty or not, is a big enough deal to mention on its own. Every time a U.S. president was impeached is mentioned in the “events” section of that year (except, conspicuously, Trump’s second impeachment) despite the fact that all of them were acquitted later. I just don’t understand the logic behind your point. GevBen (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It is sufficient to understand that an indictment is one thing and a conviction is another. We cannot include all the judicial phases of each accused international leader. It is also sufficient to take a look at how we have dealt with the cases of other international leaders. We are not going to make an exception. That is what 2023 in the United States is for. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No one said we need to include "every step of the judicial process", obviously the beginning of an investigation or every instance of someone testifying at a hearing aren't worth mentioning, but you'll have to agree that a full blown indictment, the first of its kind in US history no less, is an important development that's worth mentioning. When it comes to a country as big and as important as the US is, and when it comes to someone as relevant to world politics as Trump is, this is a pretty massive deal on its own even before the trial or conviction. GevBen (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It's still just another phase of a long judicial process. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Strong exclude as per Alsoriano, among others, and reject the Americentric arguments by GevBen. As for NATO, the inclusion of Finland, it should be included once Finland formally joins, as per Yeoutie. TheScrubby (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hard exclude & reject Americentric arguments per TheScrubby and in favor of including Finland accession once they formally join later this day. Honestly, events relating to crime should not be included unless it has a major impact on a worldwide scale. Trump's indictment is nowhere near that, since he is not a president of U.S. anymore. He may well be not the first time a president has been involved in a serious legal trouble, see Ulysses S. Grant. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment I've removed the entry for for Turkey's ratification of Finland's entry to NATO, given the current consensus here, and the fact that it has been superseded by Finland's official entry in to NATO in the entry under April 4th. Carter00000 (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

As much as it doesn't seem right to you, the consensus is clear (again), so you can remove Trump's entry. This is how Wikipedia works. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Alsoriano97 I've removed the Trump arrest entry, as per the current consensus on the talk page you have referenced, and taking into account the valid BLPvio concerns which you previously raised. Carter00000 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was about making useful information accessible, not about making up justifications to further your agenda. Like it or not, American internal politics are very relevant to the rest of the world, especially since we're talking about a prominent political figure currently running to lead the world's largest military force. Even if you personally think rejecting "americentrism" is more important than relaying important information, it's still a top news story all over the world that's relevant to everyone. But I can see I'm in the minority on this, so I guess it's decided. GevBen (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

GevBen makes a good point, but frankly, I'd say exclude the indictment. I think that this is important, but this was overly sensationalized to me. The US article for 2023 events is a good place for it, and maybe even on that page's collage, but not for here. Maybe if Trump is convicted, that could be listed here. Finland's NATO accession, though, should be included as a no brainer. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 World Baseball Classic

I have a feeling that this event should be added on the main article. This year's WBC is probably the biggest one ever. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Include. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Include. Carter00000 (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Include. For the first substantially noticeable time, baseball has become a popular sport outside of the US and Japan InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Nicola Sturgeon resignation

I'm curious to know if we'd include this in the main year article. Scotland is technically its own country as part of a union within the UK but I feel this exchange of power is more suited for the UK article. PaulRKil (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Scotland is not a fully sovereign country so Sturgeon’s resignation have no place in Year in Topic. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Obviously a very notable event that should absolutely be included, but knowing this talk page I'll just go for the easy exclude and avoid elongating an unwinnable consensus. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Include. Notable change in leadership. Scotland is notable enough, InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. Resignation of British PM Sunak would be notable, but Scotland is only a part of the UK. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not 'technically' its own country at all, the exact opposite in fact. It's an administrative region of the UK termed a 'country' by the UK itself, which is not equivalent whatsoever with the much more standard definition of a country in English, which is a sovereign state. Scotland is most certainly nothing of the sort, and in fact has less autonomy than many regional subdivisions of countries such as federal states or autonomous regions.

FYI, the West Country is also called a 'country' (in its very name), as country can mean any loosely defined region of land (including the woods behind my garden).

The fact that the UK calls (some of) its administrative subdivisions 'countries' and rather arbitrarily and haphazardly divides itself into geographic regions it terms 'countries', has about as much bearing as North Korea calling itself a 'Democratic Peoples' Republic'.

In the traditional sense of the word, it's not a country (sovereign state) at all.

This is an entirely domestic affair that didn't generate any real buzz outside of the UK. It may have been mentioned by some conservative outlets in the US and other parts of the English-speaking world due to the transgender prisoner controversy Sturgeon became embroiled in before resigning, but that's about it. 81.170.33.176 (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. Not that it's not important, but it's important mainly in the context of the UK and it's already present in the events for 2023 in the United Kingdom. Had she died I would absolutely support her death being included. Deb (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Exclude I followed the topic of Nicola Sturgeon for years and her position as a First Minister of Scotland is not really that important in the grand scale of things. Pretty much a domestic figure. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Bit belated, but thoroughly concur with the exclude consensus here - if Scotland was an independent country, that would be a different matter entirely. TheScrubby (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Voorschoten train crash

Should the 2023 Voorschoten train crash be added to the article? Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. Death toll of only one. Minimal coverage internationally. Domestic incident. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sadly just another train crash. Keep it out. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Exclude given the low death rate as mentioned above. Carter00000 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Signature Bank

Stop removing this. It was the 3rd largest bank failure in history and it comes 2 days after the 2nd largest bank failure in history in Silicon Valley Bank. This is massive, and more big banks will likely follow (a smaller bank with several billion in assets already failed on March 8). It's a crisis to rival, and almost certainly far surpass, the 2008 crisis. 88.110.121.113 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

3rd largest bank failure in the history of a single country, the United States. Stop confusing crisis with panic. Stop confusing Year in Topic with 2023 in the United States. And wikipedia doesn't works as a crystalball so "more banks will likely follow" is not considered. This is not a Lehman Brother's situation, so calm down. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Propose to add the entry to the existing entry on SVB, given that the global media has tended to portray them together as a single story, rather then separately. Consensus among RS's (and on WP) are to report the news as part of the aftermath of the collapse of SVB, combining the two into a single topic. The notability requirments of inclusion should be met, given the SVB story has been reported internationally in almost all available RS's. Both events also have their own WP articles and a summary article for the bank collapses in March. Carter00000 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

international coverage ≠ international huge notability. This has been said a thousand times and you should know that. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

On WP, including these years pages, we follow core WP policies such as WP:WEIGHT & WP:DUE for inclusion of content. Carter00000 (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Who questioned it? _-_Alsor (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You may review the below discussion to see the difference between the two criteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1138613935#Long_term_ownership_at_WikiProject_Years Carter00000 (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I dispute the statement that international coverage ≠ international notability. It's not always one or the other, and coverage should be considered but not ultimately the sole thing which determines notability. As stated by Carter, our due weight policies are much better for deciding. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I second the proposal to have a single entry highlighting the bank failures and the losses sustained by intl banks like credit suisse. PaulRKil (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree too. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. This suffices as opposed to multiple entries. 88.110.121.113 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You're right. It's significantly worse than Lehman Brothers. This is tip of the iceberg stuff, and you do not need a crystal ball to see the dominoes already beginning to fall. You just need a basic understanding of economics, which you clearly lack. 88.110.121.113 (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Just don't be overdramatic. Many experts and financial authorities are calling for calm. And, for God's sake, to say this is worse than Lehman Borthers...._-_Alsor (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

They're calling for calm, because panic never helps anything. They are also predicting more banks will fail and dark times are ahead. And yes, it is absolutely worse than Lehman Brothers. 88.110.121.113 (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

For banks, I would just include First Republic, SVB, and Credit Suisse. They're all bigger and more notable; plus more coverage on those three banks exist. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Kenyan Cult

With over 100 deaths and 400 people missing, given the unusual circumstances in which the cultmembers committed suicide as well... I think this is definitely worthy of inclusion within the events list. Thoughts? 79.69.119.219 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

A death toll over 100 is quite significant. Is there a Wikipedia page on this? Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a page on the cult, with a section on the event. Carter00000 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It's almost certainly more than 100. 400+ people remain missing, and I think a good percentage of them are assumed dead. They're still recovering bodies, but had to pause to properly document them. There's a good chance many bodies succumbed to predation given they died in the rainforest.

It's tragic, and I think fairly significant. Mass cult suicides like this have happened in Sub-Saharan Africa a few times in recent decades, but they're still fairly rare. I think the last one on this scale was the early 2000s. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Weak exclude on my part, pending further developments in this thread. I'm thinking that this would be better placed in the year where the starvation is estimated to have happened and the mass grave was first buried. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to suggest the starvation/gravedigging began in previous years. Where are you getting this from? Many people were found deep into the process of starvation, still alive, but barely. All of the bodies seem to be recent burials in shallow graves. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we wait until more accurate numbers and further details are published? Deb (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see the harm in adding it for now and then either updating it as more information comes in or removing it if needs be. I think, as things stand, it’s absolutely relevant enough to be in the events list for April, just the discovery of starving people and over 100 dead bodies in addition to several hundred being missing.

That seems noteworthy enough to be right now. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but it must be accompanied by a citation from a reliable source. Deb (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay. How's that? I struggled to think of how to word it, I'm not going to lie. And I can provide more sources if needed. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright here are a few more:

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/children-account-majority-kenyan-cult-deaths-interior-minister-2023-04-28/

https://www.citizen.digital/news/malindi-cult-shock-as-12-more-graves-discovered-number-rises-to-27-n318390

https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/sso/?content=eyJpdiI6Ino2N3o1aWZVVEtBOUdweEtnNXFnYVE9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiWWZQOUM2cHNGTHlvUmh3S21WcFl0UlI3SXllU25ndHlnaUxzVjdRelVOSGNUemtpZ1QyQXhTRFRhL3lqdGlZZ1FUbks5ZENUa0Y0cXJaNDZ6QnM5ekxUNmNyVlFJR2tldW1VSVhLa1ZITW89IiwibWFjIjoiMTY0YjZjNTg4YzI1YjZmNzZmNGM0NTkwMjFjZDFlMzA3NjhkYTcxN2U4NzIwZjgzYjhjY2ZjOGJmYmM5MDdmMSIsInRhZyI6IiJ9

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230426-kenyans-fear-for-relatives-linked-to-cult-as-search-for-bodies-resumes 79.69.119.219 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds perfect. Thanks for adding. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Moscow Drone Attack

Is this worthy of the events list? It seemed to mark a serious escalation in the war, according to analysts and commentators, regardless of who (if anyone) will ultimately be found responsible for it. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody was even injured, Putin wasn't even present, and I doubt it marks a "serious escalation". If the building was heavily damaged, with significant casualties, and/or Putin had been present, that would have been far more significant. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

These were my own thoughts on the affair, however most sources I read seemed to think if marked a significant escalation since it was, presumably, a direct attack on Putin himself deep in Russia. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Zaporizhzhia Evacuation

Is the evacuation of a town near Zaporizhzhia power plant worthy of the events list? Considering the increasingly dire situation within the plant itself and the increasingly unstable nature of the plant and its operation. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65515443 79.69.119.219 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If the plant itself is destroyed, that would probably be notable enough for inclusion. But I doubt the evacuation of a nearby town warrants inclusion, especially given that millions have already been evacuated/displaced elsewhere in the country. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I think if it was definitively established that the town was evacuated due to the increasing instability of the plant and fear of some catastrophic imminent meltdown (as the article I read seemed to be heavily implying) it would potentially warrant an inclusion, however as far as I’m aware the reason for the evacuation of the town has not be attributed to the nearby plant and may just be due to the impending shelling of the region and assault by Ukrainian forces. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Here’s the article, for reference. BBC seems to have been implying for around a year now that things are getting steadily worse at the plant an international bodies have issues stark warnings about a potential impending nuclear catastrophe:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65515443 79.69.119.219 (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say this singular event isn't notable enough, although if a further meltdown or similar happens that would definitely warrant inclusion. This info should probably be included on the topic page though. Yeoutie (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

DR Congo Floods

Over 400 deaths, and rising. Shall I add it to the events list?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-65521521 79.69.119.219 (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I would support adding it as it seems notable enough. On a related note I would also support adding Cyclone Freddy as a another event with its estimated 1,400 fatalities. Yeoutie (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm surprised Cyclone Freddy isn't already there. Not only for the high fatality count but also for being the longest lasting cyclone in history, by far. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Advancements in ai (ChatGPT)

Is this a popular topic to be added in the heading or february section, including microsofts integration of chatgpt with bing. RoundStrider (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose AFAIK, Crypto and NFT of late 2021, and AI Art of early 2022 are trends that aren't put on the year article, and I don't think this should be included either. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I think if we are to prosify year articles, the advancement of AI should get a paragraph or two. But we are working with a timeline; only maybe the initial release date should be added. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I've removed a paragraph added to the lead, pending the outcome of this discussion. Please find the paragraph for reference below, as it may be useful to the conversation.

"2023 has seen the rise of generative AI models, with applications across various industries reaching new heights. These models, leveraging the advancements in machine learning and natural language processing, have become capable of creating realistic and coherent text, images and music." Carter00000 (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove Xi Jingping's call with Zelensky?

To me, at least, just because they held a phone call does not necessarily mean it was significant. I would argue that it belongs in a more specific article, such as China–Ukraine relations, 2023 in Ukraine, or 2023 in China. I was going to remove it myself, but I figured it would be better to get consensus and see if others think it should belong. Thanks in advance. Losipov (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t particularly feel it’s important enough to be there at all, especially given the other events from early 2023 that have been omitted due to a seeming lack of importance. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. If something concrete immediately came from it then I would support its inclusion but that looks unlikely as of now. Yeoutie (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Exclude this event, as per Yeoutie. TheScrubby (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Nah man; it's just a phone call. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 Marburg Virus Outbreak in Equatorial Guinea and Tanzania

There have been 2 Marburg virus outbreaks in African countries in the early months of 2023, combined there appears to have been a total of 41 deaths from 49 cases. This is, by far, the deadliest Marburg virus outbreak since 2004 in Angola. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_virus_disease#Epidemiology 79.69.119.219 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It may be the deadliest, but the death toll is still very low. I think it would need to be 10 times higher and/or spreading to various other countries, to be considered for inclusion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Reasonable. Let's hope it doesn't get to that point. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We certainly have to be very attentive to the development of the situation. For now it is not relevant to include it. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Ultramassive Black Hole

Does the discovery of an ultramassive black hole (the first to be measured using gravitational lensing) in late March warrant inclusion in the events list? My gut says include. Thoughts?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-65109663 92.5.110.146 (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Impressive and exciting discovery, but I don't consider it notable enough for this page. Even larger black holes have been found, and this one doesn't provide anything fundamentally new, other than the discovery method, which is already used in other areas of astronomy. It's already mentioned on 2023 in Science. Wjfox2005 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)