Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Requesting thoughts on separating events and deaths in year articles

This is something that's been lingering in me for a while. I would like to know from other editors whether it is necessary to move deaths into their own article, and while personally neutral, I can come up with arguments both in favor and against what would be an extremely systematic change to year articles.

  • In favor of separating deaths would make year articles more focused on actual events. More prose could be included while keeping main years at an optimal article size, and most people don't really care too much about a vast majority of deaths; the only ones from last year with generally lasting impacts or thoughts were Elizabeth II, Shinzo Abe, Benedict XVI, and Pelé, and if you squint at it, maybe Olivia Newton-John and Angela Lansbury. Since deaths themselves have also caused lots of discussions, separation of deaths will cause reductions in both the quantity and intensity of content disputes, allowing us to focus more of our energy on improving articles rather than wasting our time on debating.
  • Keeping deaths on main year articles would uphold longstanding tradition on year articles. Especially for some years, many internationally notable people passed away, and their deaths should be just as prominent as many of the events on main year articles. These people at least came seriously close to changing the world, and their exclusion would be an insult to not only their fans but also the world at large. We've done this for a while. Why change?

There are some WP:NOHARM arguments I can come up for both separation and retainment.

I would additionally suggest that if separation becomes the plan, most people presently listed on main year deaths pages become photos on death lists instead. Since that article would naturally be bigger and contain much more room for deaths, the most notable people should get photos and not just mentions. I would also suggest linking the death lists. Both would only apply, however, if consensus is to separate from main year articles, which I will restate I am taking a neutral position on for now. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Deaths should certainly be a part of the year articles. I do believe though that many of the figures included are desperately irrelevant, and we should minimise the number of people mentioned. Also, Gorbachev was a highly notable and important passing in 2022. A huge loss for history. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Support reorganization of deaths, as I believe I've said previously. We already have articles such as Deaths in December 2022 that serve this purpose. Births and deaths currently make up the majority of many year articles, which is far more space than they should take per WP:PROPORTION and WP:SUMMARY. Appeal to tradition is not a valid argument on Wikipedia (or in life, really). I think that at least for modern years, deaths should be removed from year articles, and all citations/images should be moved to those pages. Deaths that qualify as events (such as Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II or Assassination of Shinzo Abe) should instead be included in the list of events on their respective days. I'd also add that the births section seems irrelevant, as the birth of someone who will be famous in the future is not relevant to what happened in a given year. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Births & deaths should stay on main year articles. They shouldn't be removed due to there being deaths lists elsewhere on WP. The deaths on main year articles are of people who have substantial international notability, which is different to the deaths lists elsewhere. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed alternative measure of deaths

In order to reduce the amount of discussion and debate needed, I'm proposing that deaths still be included, but severely cut down from where they are today. Our current criteria for deaths is arbitrarily set, and some decisions just baffle too many people (most notably the inclusion of Coltrane and the exclusion of Bill Russell in 2022, whose results both caused a noticeable amount of attention and controversy). The majority of our efforts are wasted on discussing, not improving. So for here, I would propose that deaths be severely limited and potentially have quotas. Keep them to the deaths which not only have extreme international notability but extreme international recognizability, placing a gallery of 4-5 figures with their death dates in parentheses besides their name. We can sort them like this, using the year 2022 and the World Leaders section as an example:
World Leaders (use 3rd level headers in article, bold text for this example)

I hope we're able to reach a solution which enables us to keep notable deaths while reducing the amount of times we have to go to discussions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging recent discussion participants (@Thebiguglyalien, @TheScrubby, @Jim Michael 2, @Deb, @Sir Jack Hopkins, @Nemov, @GoodDay, @MarioJump83, and @FireInMe) for their thoughts. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this plan because it would make the articles less good. I've been reading & editing these articles for years & you're pushing for bigger changes to main year articles than anyone else I've seen. Russell has very little international notability & the vast majority of people who aren't from the US or fans of his sport haven't heard of him. The only reason I've heard of him is that he was added to 2022. Had that not happened, I'd still not have heard of him. We've wrongly made an exception for Coltrane. He was a good actor who deserved his domestic awards & I've been a fan of him & especially Cracker for years, but he's a domestic figure who merely has fans in many other countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Could you further explain why you think that these proposed changes would be "less good" and not seemingly scrutinize me for being bold and proposing changes? We already have death pages here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It'd remove most of those in the Deaths sections, which are for those who have substantial international notability. The lists of all deaths don't indicate who's internationally notable. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Which is why I propose that as an alternative, we put photos in the Deaths in Year X articles for people who have substantial international notability. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Appeal to tradition is not a valid argument and should not be considered when determining consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Again, I'm just not seeing the issue here. There's always going to be some level of debate about certain people. It doesn't seem arbitrary to me after monitoring this for six weeks. The international notability standard isn't fool proof and there can be some debate about who meets the criteria, but that's fine. I support Coltrane's inclusion and I love Bill Russel, but he was a famous basketball player before basketball became a more international sport. Also, how do you put quotas on deaths? I don't feel like my time is being wasted. Nemov (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm personally a readers first Wikipedian...the primary concerns I see with the content of deaths these days are lack of relatability (especially among Millennials and Generation Z), the frequency and occasional high intensity of discussions regarding less than 200 characters or a single photo, and (continuing on my first reason) the acceptance of now-somewhat controversial methods of inclusion. While it's helpful to mention notable people, we already have articles for deaths. I'm a supporter of some cross listing between articles, but we have too much.
Jim often brings up fans often adding one or two people to year articles and us often having to revert edits, but that frequently deters new editors if anything. It's not that we should see people adding their fans as not "enemies" (which I'm afraid some people have done and thereby borderline demonized fandom) but take these as signals that we should consider implementing some changes. This circles back to Readers First; we're the most popular source of knowledge on the internet and we pride ourselves on the freedom of anyone being able to contribute, but we discourage the masses from participating if we just revert. It's disappointing, and I remember seeing my edits reverted when I edited Wikipedia as a 14-year old middle schooler. The hostility which I see slammed upon me whenever I promote new ideas by the regular few reinvigorates those feelings and forces me to empathize with all the other people of all ages just trying to mention a person who they believe is notable. If we're getting a lot of those people adding the same person but we just dismiss all of them as fans arbitrarily without further consideration beyond criteria, we're not putting readers first. Not only that, but ignoring the next generation and their thoughts in the name of pursuing "pure internationalism" leads to Wikipedians becoming not contributors but gatekeepers, further promoting ownership behavior. This would be a bit more acceptable on Britannica or Citizendium where we would be writing for a more purely-academic audience, but Wikipedia is a much more diverse place than the library at Oxford. Our year articles should reflect our diversity and not only be limited to awards ceremonies winners and world leaders.
My proposed solution is to spare us of endless debates keep it to obviously notable and preferably well-known people only so we don't have to always debate every afternoon on whether Person X deserves to be in a main year article. By hatnoting deaths into their respective articles while only mentioning the ones which would snowball clause as agreement (and providing photos), we not only avoid endless debates over a single line of text and maybe a photo but we also forward readers over to a list of all the people who passed away in a given year. When these readers know that we have these other articles that exist, combined with the idea that anyone can edit, we have a new generation of editors contributing not only to years and deaths lists as they happen but also to so many other places on our wiki. I brought up quotas in the original proposal as a suggested limit to only keep deaths and births at the most obviously notable, but I'm open to hearing more ideas. I just wish that we'd be generally more constructive in approaching newer ideas instead of striking down everything with appeal to tradition or "I don't like it". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
If we allowed editors to add people based on popularity, voting etc., main year articles would be swamped with insufficiently notable people but scientists, academics etc. who've made important contributions to their fields would be excluded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Which is why I'm proposing we just get rid of deaths entirely and limit it only to the most obviously well-known and notable people. Gorbi, Pope Benedict, Pele, etc. You'd get your way on Coltrane and 90% of the other deaths and exclude them. If Deaths stay, we should be listening to our readers. It doesn't help that for entertainers, many are also beginning to question the need for awards like BAFTAs and Oscars in the first place. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Why are you on here arguing for removing the vast majority of deaths, but at the same time saying on Talk:2022 that the criteria for deaths is too restrictive as you push for Barbara Walters to be included? Pushing those contradictory positions at the same time destroys your credibility & makes it very difficult to assume good faith. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Arguments on Talk:2022 I make are in the perspective of not removing deaths. Arguments under this thread I make are relative to the proposal. If deaths were to stay, we should be more lenient. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Which would you prefer? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
My proposal of removing former US vice presidents/first ladies/second ladies from the 'death' sections, was oppose by at least two editors. Such opposition would likely have occurred, with my plan to remove the same from the 'birth sections'. Decide what you all will, as I can't do the actual deletions, if I'm only going to meet resistance. Maybe - the solution is to delete all International Year pages & just have Year in Country pages. I know that'll never happen, but at least on the country specific year pages, the inclusion criteria bar is lower. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
If anything, reducing hostility towards new ideas should be the first order of business. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
We only oppose removing Gore & Cheney. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It was enough, to make me walk away from making anymore deletions. Since I don't accept any opposition, this entire topic will need to be work out among yourselves. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually part of me likes that idea. There is no such thing as something being purely international except for maybe the United Nations, and even then the UN's main offices are all in the Western World. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
At this point I'm willing to support any measure that reduces the undue focus that suggests "which famous people died" is the most important aspect when reading about the encyclopedic facts of a given year. Having the deaths section at all borders on WP:TRIVIA. If people stop arguing about inclusion and actually improve the articles for a change, that would be an added bonus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I would support deletion of the birth/death sections from all the International Year pages. Best to just have them on their respective country year pages, if at all. Their deletions, would remove the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This is fine with me if there are those who cannot abide by the current system in place. I'm still not sure why we're nuking this, but I can live with this if it reduces the bickering. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
My sincerest apologies for the delayed response. First of all, you are right about how much time is devoted to resolving disputes, and you are right to push for change because Wikipedia, at the moment, is a brilliant but imperfect invention littered with flaws.
The criteria for inclusion should similar to what you requested; heads of state, internationally acclaimed athletes, e.g. Pele, and actors, e.g. Morgan Freeman, and similarly known people from other fields, e.g. Stephen King. The pictures in the deaths section should be how you requested, as they are in this article.
Best wishes. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Internationally acclaimed is also a term that's subject to a great deal of debate over which people qualify. How international & how acclaimed? Is Shane Warne internationally acclaimed enough? How about scientists - who'd qualify? How would entertainers' acclaim be measured? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose any significant changes to the Births & Deaths section. Yes there are a lot of debate over the inclusion of various figures, but I don’t see how there’s anything wrong with that (well, besides when users waste people’s time by bringing up figures that are obviously lacking international notability, and whose outcomes are foregone conclusions). There’s always room for improvement, but I don’t think the answer ought to be treating dandruff with decapitation at all. TheScrubby (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment. As a reader of the 2022 page, a few problems jump out to me:

  1. The page is very long.
  2. We have two separate timelines: events and deaths (three on some earlier year pages that include births). This is a problem because as a reader, I would like to be able to scroll approximately halfway down the page, and find approximately June/July, or at least not have to hunt around for where the timeline (re-)starts.
  3. Deaths occupy about half the article, which seems disproportionate.
  4. There's a Nobel Prizes section (OK, seems random).

My opinion is that the primary purpose of the Year articles should be to summarize the year, and deaths are just one type of event that happens in a year. Therefore:

Proposal: Structure the article around a single unified timeline. Each day should list only the single most important/impactful/notable event of that day. Some days the single most important/impactful/notable event will be a death. For some days we will have to debate relative importance/impactfulness/notability, and perhaps consensus will be to allow two events in truly exceptional circumstances.

The advantage of this pattern is that it puts a natural cap on how much content can be included (365 items, give or take leap years and exceptional circumstances). I also think it's much easier to determine a "winner" for each day, than to evaluate the nebulous criteria of "international notability". To take the most recent RfC as an example: the answer would be an easy yes: include Barbara Walters because no other event is proposed for 30th December. If she had died a day later, the answer would have been an easy no: Pope_Benedict_XVI wins (maybe I'm assuming too much about the cultural alignment of editors for this example, but hopefully you might agree that these debates would be easier more often than they are hard).

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We'd be better off deleting the birth/death sections from the International Year pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
That is what I am proposing, but allowing for a death to be reintroduced as an event in the main timeline. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure with this one. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose This should reduce bickering within the talk pages of recent years, but does this solve anything? Debates would still be happening, and much higher bar would not solve it. Not to mention people that knew them in the past (people with COI) would come to these talk pages. I'm seeing this already with the ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I've repeatedly said that Nobels are given far too much prominence by having their own section & that they should instead be a single entry in events.
Your plan includes including Walters, but you wouldn't if she'd died a day later because of Benedict or a day earlier because of Pelé. We can't have a quota & the importance of things doesn't depend on what else happened in the world on the same day. It's common for two internationally notable events/births/deaths to occur on the same day. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I like this idea, but I would limit it only to notable funerals or deaths which have their own articles, such as the funerals of Queen Elizabeth, Gorbachev, Jiang Zemin, and for past years Ronald Reagan, Adolf Hitler, Pope John Paul, etc. The funeral itself can be the event. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. If the death itself does not have its own article, then how notable is it really? Get rid of the deaths section and put the truly notable deaths in the main timeline as an event. Quotas can be a separate discussion. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
We're not claiming that all the deaths are notable. We're saying that the people who died have significant international notability. Including only the people whose deaths have their own articles would mean that 2022 wouldn't mention the deaths of Sidney Poitier or Pelé. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm OK with not including Sidney Poitier or Pelé. Their careers and notability were primarily established in previous years. They have no substantial connection to the world of 2022 other than having died in it. Contrast with Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II and Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI - the funerals were significant, international, notable events in their own right. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
It's always been standard for main year articles to include the births & deaths of people who have substantial international notability. The vast majority aren't going to be removed just because a tiny number of editors think it'd be an improvement. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia and how WP:Consensus works. Things are not set in stone because they're been on an article for a certain amount of time, especially when it's a relic from when lists of WP:TRIVIA were still welcomed and there are legitimate concerns about WP:PROPORTION. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I understand it very well & we don't overturn long-term ways of doing things for a tiny number of people who want to undo the work of many editors & change it radically. We've already discussed & rejected the idea of not including deaths during previous years. This is a variation on that. There's also some "I want x included, but if (s)he isn't, we should remove most/all of the others as well". Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
There's also some "I want x included, but if (s)he isn't, we should remove most/all of the others as well". – This is a misrepresentation of what OP is proposing, and I feel like you know that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
It's clear that's II's aim. He persists in pushing his claim that Barbara Walters was an international giant, the top of her field, the greatest of the great, a trailblazer, a smasher of glass ceilings, a world-famous glowing inspiration to all female journalists etc. When he's seen that we won't agree with his inflated view of her & that several editors have said that she was a domestic figure who merely sometimes interviewed important people of other nationalities, his response is to push for removal of most of the others. He won't respond to most non-Americans knowing so little about her that they'd struggle to talk about her for 30 seconds. Likewise to me pointing out that Amanpour has easily surpassed her in everything but length of career, yet she isn't on 1958. Fans adding or wanting to add insufficiently notable people is an everyday occurrence on main year articles & it can't be that he wants to promote female journalists in general because he hasn't added Amanpour to 1958 nor given her a word of praise. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I don’t discount the wisdom of tradition, but I don’t think we should be bound to do things a certain way if consensus is that an alternative standard would improve the articles. I get that “substantial international notability” is the current standard, but it seems to be a very difficult standard to apply consistently, judging by the Talk pages. I think it would be easier to let the rest of Wikipedia decide which events are notable (and this would include some deaths, so it’s not like we would be excluding deaths entirely). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
There won't be such a consensus. This is merely the latest in a long line of attempts by a small minority of editors who are new to main year articles who make a failed attempt to radically change the scope &/or inclusion criteria of them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The above comment implies that "regular editors" have authority over newer editors – probable violation of WP:OWN. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The regulars don't claim to own the articles, but we know more about how things are done, as well as inclusion criteria & what consensuses were reached. You've made several attempts to change main year articles substantially. None of them have been close to reaching consensus & you've contradicted yourself in regard to whether you want these articles to be shortened or lengthened. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I disagree, you appear extremely hostile to any form of change despite many cases of disgruntled readers and editors. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Disregarding trolls, scammers, spammers etc., most of those disgruntled editors misunderstand the inclusion criteria and/or want to add one (type of) thing or make radical changes that the community doesn't want. In the large majority of cases, they wouldn't be improvements. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I’ve said before that I oppose significant reforms that would involve either changing the Births/Deaths section into something unrecognisable, or getting rid of it entirely - I absolutely oppose treating dandruff with decapitation. Some users here are rationalising this on the basis that too much time is spent “discussing, not improving”, yet it is through these discussions that we were able to come up with the criteria we now have in place for political and sports figures (and I do hope something similar could be achieved with entertainment figures especially, and I’d be more than happy to work with the likes of @InvadingInvader:, @Jim Michael 2:, etc. to work towards those ends), and have firmly established that substantial international notability is the basic bar for inclusion, not who/what is notable in one country - we have substantially fixed what had been, prior to 2021, a profoundly broken system riddled with systemic, predominately Americentric bias (and in case anybody attempts to deny that there is systemic Americentric bias on these international year pages, the fact that these pages use the American mdy dating system when the overwhelming majority of countries internationally use dmy speaks volumes), and where inclusions were entirely arbitrary and minor figures from one country would be included while their international equivalents were scrutinised and removed. It’s true that the way things currently are isn’t perfect, and that there is much work still to be done. It’s true that outside of the fields of politics and sports, the vast majority of figures that are included are done so on a case-by-case basis. But there is nothing wrong with discussions over figures as said discussions have the potential of providing useful, important precedents for future inclusions - as well as bringing to the spotlight events/figures that are either of scant international notability and should be removed, or were internationally notable but happened to be overlooked by most editors and were therefore not included. I disagree with those who want to remove the Births/Deaths sections entirely; I seriously doubt that readers would expect or react approvingly to such an action (many users here claim their views are to include what readers expect), and that including the deaths of people with substantial international notability across all major fields (while predominately domestic figures are accordingly included in the Year In Country pages) is an important part of the summary of the year that readers expect to see. If we reduce this to event entries of deaths notable enough for their own individual pages, literally the only deaths (well, the overwhelming majority) that would be included would be heads of government/state. And still, we would have issues with systemic bias - virtually every modern US President has had pages devoted to their deaths and funerals regardless of their individual significance/significance of their term in office - a luxury that is not automatically afforded to the overwhelming majority of world leaders from nearly every other country. In short, as I’ve said before, there’s very much room for improvement, but treating dandruff with decapitation should not be the answer. TheScrubby (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why removing them should be off the table. All content on Wikipedia needs to be considered depending on how relevant it is and whether it benefits the article. There's no rule against significant reforms, and if anything they should be encouraged when there are policy and guideline concerns involved (in this case WP:PROPORTION and WP:TRIVIA). The birth/death sections were established before the modern set of guidelines and the manual of style. The only reason they're still there is because we've failed to update the year articles since then. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Because removing all the deaths would make the articles less good, it'd be undoing the good, hard work of many editors & is against consensus. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
As stated before, I'm a readers first Wikipedian. In the end, I don't believe that removing a dandruff by decapitation is the best idea. However, it might be the one we need the most...either off withers head or implementing a widely-supported criteria which balances both international notability and the interest of the readers, and while Scrubby and I have made progress on athletic figures for deaths, I'm not sure that we can continue to refine our criteria to mutually-amiable levels across year articles without running into significant opposition. Both the previous Americentric status quo and the present exclusively-international status quo have too many issues, mostly including too many figures people don't care about and excluding too many figures that people do care about. In media especially, there is too much controversy surrounding awards and their necessity, and by the dozen we get readers upset that a certain person isn't on the list, and more than a few exclusions in the end have proven to be extremely controversial, deterring potential regulars off Wikipedia and in the process creating an environment where comparisons to a cult or a cabal have more merit than anywhere else on the site, even if such merit is minimal.
Personally speaking, while I've proposed as of yet two criterias, my ultimate personal preference is "Was an event, birth, or death notable enough across at least a few well-populated countries?". It's that simple. But it seems impossible to get people to agree to this, as many people are either keen on making Main Year Articles the most exclusive club in the world or an airport terminal where every passenger gets a listing. Such controversy is the reason I'm why I'm more supportive than ever before of just removing the section entirely from main years and just hatnote it instead to the Deaths archives. 2022 in the United States has done this already: too many people are notable, and for the purpose of letting our article be more inclined towards events, the unofficial consensus is to keep that specific article on events (though I have proposed that these notability discussions be instead focused on adding sidebar images to deaths). While dandruffs shouldn't be removed by decapitation, the repeated need to debate every single remotely-contentious entry is causing the issue to look more like a tumor than a dandruff. It wastes not only our time editing on Wikipedia, but also sucks the energy out of our lives offsite. Unless we can come up with a criteria that everyone agrees on, we're stuck resolving a brain tumor without the tools of an actual hospital. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The year in the US articles have spun the deaths off into separate articles for the most recent few years. The list is still the same. What you're suggesting wouldn't put the list of deaths of internationally notable people in another article, it'd abolish the list. There should be lists of deaths of internationally notable people & main year articles is the best place for them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
What even is the definition of internationally notable? We have no clear consensus on what that is, and going too far towards the positions of one user or one group off users causes an outcry. I've been both on the giving and receiving end of it, and that's not even to mention the implications our users have. I proposed a severe limiting to only the most obvious inclusions in order to both adapt the list to those who want to see change and to partially appeal to tradition, but it seems that removal is gaining a lot more traction. Internationally notable isn't something that two or three people can come up with; unless we can come up with a generally-applicable criteria/definition for "internationally notable" where everyone is happy, either severely limiting it to the most notable people or axing the section entirely is the best bet. One could even make the argument that since most readers on Wikipedia are North American/British/Indian/Australian, we should atone for our readers and be more lenient with an English Wikipedia centered on the English speaking world (though this is NOT an argument I personally sponsor). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Since we have significant divergence in opinions on what reforms would be appropriate, I wonder if we could take a step back and see if we at least agree on what the problem is. For me, it is fundamentally an issue of WP:PROPORTION. Looking at 2021 and 2022, the Deaths section occupies more than half the article, leading to two large separate timelines, resulting in a poor navigation experience for readers. Is there consensus that this is an issue that warrants action? Conversely, does anybody think that this is not the case, i.e. that the current volume of deaths is actually proportionate, or that the two separate timelines are somehow a benefit? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Events, Births & Deaths should be separate, because they're different things. Many people viewing main year articles are looking for particular events, births or deaths. The more recent they are, the more deaths they tend to include because of the huge increase in internationally notable people. We've reacted to this by raising the bar for inclusion slightly & coming close to defining the inclusion criteria for political & sports figures. Recent years obviously have far fewer births. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Wars, elections, sports, natural disasters… are all different things too. Why not give those their own sections? Why are births and deaths singled out? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Because births & deaths are very different to events. Main year articles never have different sections for different types of events & it'd complicate things if we did. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I’m certainly not suggesting separating types of events into different sections. I’m saying that I see births and deaths as types of events, of equal status to any other type of event, so if we shouldn’t have different sections for different types then we shouldn’t separate births and deaths either.
Clearly you disagree on the basis that births & deaths are very different to events - but this isn’t clear to me at all. Why do you think they are? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
They're very different things. Many readers visit main year articles to look for particular births & deaths, which is a good reason to separate them. It's helpful, useful, efficient & easier for readers & editors. With other events, many are in multiple types. For example, if 2022's events were sectioned, would the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack be in the section for armed conflicts, Asia, attacks/crime, international relations or religion? It was all of those. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Would the Death and state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II go under deaths, royalty, politics, United Kingdom, cultural, or celebrities? It was all of those. The only distinction for births and deaths is that whoever created the years articles in the early days of Wikipedia decided to sort the information that way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
That's another very good example of why we shouldn't split Events into subsections. Unusually, her death is important enough for her to be in both Events & Deaths. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
That's what we've been trying to tell you this whole time. We shouldn't split things into multiple lists, but you insist on keeping deaths split. And if something isn't important enough to go in "events", then why is it in the article at all? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
It's only about 1% of deaths which are important enough for the Events section as well as the Deaths. That's not a problem. The deaths are in the article because they're important enough to the year. Biographies usually start by saying when the subject was born & (if dead) when they died. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the early days of Wikipedia, I speculate that the reason we have deaths separated is because those early editors took inspiration from the Britannica Year in Review / Book of the Year series of books - which would also explain why Nobel Prizes get their own section. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I've said several times that Nobels shouldn't have their own section. They should be in a single entry in Events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I've tried to take both of these approaches; spreading out other topics and suggesting we remove births and deaths. It's clear that there's a small handful of users demonstrating WP:OWNERSHIP of the years articles to keep them exactly as they are, disrupting any sort of change or improvement. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
It wouldn't be an improvement. The number of people who want to keep things as they are is far higher than the number of people who want the radical changes you suggest. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm seeing several users express concern with the format and try to fix specific known issues while the same few users attempt to disruptively cite consensus without engaging in meaningful discussion. Also, even if that were the case, policy considerations outweigh numerical support and style preferences. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
We've discussed things more than enough. Removing all or the vast majority of deaths wouldn't be a solution or an improvement. Some of this being motivated by resentment over people they're fans of not being included due to lacking international notability makes this worse. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I think Jim makes a good point, but this only further justifies not only separation but a general axing. Notable funerals or periods of mourning in themselves can be placed under events. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't justify axing them. It's cutting off an arm to treat a broken finger. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I think we've reached the point where we need to get the ball rolling on a sitewide discussion with how to handle year articles and possibly get a manual of style page created. It's clear that we're not going to get anywhere here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
No, we've already spent far too much time on this discussion. Time which could've been spent removing trivial, pop culture, local & domestic events from main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I suggest that the reason so much weeding time is needed is because there is no clear codification of purpose or standards for the main year articles, meaning editors are pulling in different directions and thereby creating work. If editors had some clear documented guidance I believe far less trivia would be added. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Things/people that are nowhere near notable enough are still added every day, despite consensuses regarding various things, FAQs & hidden notes. Many people want to promote whoever or whatever they're fans of. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
It's better to persuade those editors into joining us, even if it means making a few exceptions, rather than hardline-ing a criteria and reverting them. That to me is the biggest reason for a lack of regulars. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The people who add those things/people don't want to become regulars. They only want to include a particular person, sport, band, single, album, concert, film, TV show, radio show, play, poem, novel, website, newspaper, book, fashion, building, road, business, invention, law, crime, protest, military operation, unusual/severe weather occurrence etc., in many cases unsourced or unreliably sourced. Make exceptions for what? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
"The people who add those things/people don't want to become regulars. They only want to include a particular person, sport, band, single, album, concert, film, TV show, radio show, play, poem, novel, website, newspaper, book, fashion, building, road, business, invention, law, crime, protest, military operation, unusual/severe weather occurrence etc., in many cases unsourced or unreliably sourced." – See Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Consider making exceptions for a select few of recent pop culture's most requested figures per the people who want to add things. If we get a lot of people wanting them, it doesn't seem right to ignore them and drive them off. Consider leaving messages on their IP or User Talk Page saying something along the lines of "Please remember that on Wikipedia, we require content to be supported and cited from reliable secondary sources, such as academic journals and newspapers." And don't forget to tell them "If you have any questions, feel free to ping me or let me know whenever you need assistance." Be nicer to them, and help them to become editors. Don't let a criteria stand in the way of recruiting potential new editors. If so few people want to enforce a criteria, should it even be enforced? It's like prohibition in 1920s America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The large majority wouldn't respond well to that. They're fans whose interest in main year articles is only to add the one person/thing that they want to.
If we did as you suggest, we'd include trivia every year. For 2022, it'd be the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident & Depp v. Heard, just because fans want us to. Most of the media & public think that the slap is massively more important than the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack. The large majority of people haven't heard of the latter & wouldn't be interested if they did. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Over and over and over, again, I made the repeat point so many times that I support not going with absolutes on implementations and decisions. It feels like as soon as I make an argument, you just take it to the extreme, and the extreme is precisely the OPPOSITE of what I want and what a LOT of people want. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree some more views would be helpful, but I don't think we've reached RfC territory yet. We would need to formulate some clear options. At the moment I think everyone has their own variant of a solution and possibly limited alignment on what each of us thinks the problem is. I might try drafting a straw man set of guidelines which can be debated in a structured fashion, possibly via one or more RfCs. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Potential RfC questions:
Question 1: Which of the following should be the inclusion guideline for births and deaths on Main Year pages:
A) Include all births and deaths.
B) Include all births and deaths of people with substantial international notability.
C) Include births and deaths only if the birth or death was itself a notable event (determined by whether a separate article exists for that event, or whether their article has a substantial section covering their birth or death as an event).
D) Do not include any births or deaths.
Question 2: If births and deaths are included, where on the page should they be included?
A) In separate sections for births and deaths.
B) As events in the main timeline.
Question 3: If births and deaths are included, should there be any limit or quota to how many are included?
A) No, include all that meet the inclusion criteria in question 1.
B) Yes, limit it to the top 5/10/50 (specify which), ranked by consensus on a case-by-case basis.
C) Yes, but only as part of a scheme for limiting the number of events overall to a maximum number (5/10/50 - specify which) within a given time period (day/week/month/year - specify which), ranked by consensus on a case-by-case basis.
My answers would be C,B,C(30 per month).
What are all your opinions on the coverage and neutrality of this set of questions?
Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
B, A, A. Quotas would mean excluding some who should be included & including some who shouldn't. This was (probably unintentionally) demonstrated well by the person who said only one event/birth/death per day should be listed, saying that Walters' death should be included on the basis that it was the most important thing to happen that day. However, had she died a day earlier or later she wouldn't be, because of the deaths of Pelé & Benedict. Whether a quota is number per day/week/month/year or number from various demographics, situations like this would be guaranteed. Likewise with (types of) events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree. My vote would also be for B, A, and A. TheScrubby (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't approve of this set of questions. It includes options that have no reasonable support and encourages what are essentially impossible combinations (A,B,A, for example). I also don't think an RfC on births/deaths is appropriate; what we need is a full evaluation of how year articles are written. Most types of articles have been standardized since 2005 to take into account changing standards on Wikipedia, but the years articles have not. They still basically look how they looked two decades ago, essentially ignoring sitewide standards, which is a dramatic failure on the part of this project and its members over the years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
We won't reach a consensus to make any of the radical changes suggested. None of them would improve main year articles. Improving these articles should be our priority, and the biggest change that they need is for the flood of local, domestic, trivial & pop culture events & people which fans add to them every day to be removed. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
What you're saying is that we shouldn't discuss anything and we should just do it your way. I shouldn't have to explain why that's inappropriate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous straw man. I'm saying we shouldn't waste a huge amount of time discussing ways in which we could make these articles much worse. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Can both of you turn down the intensity a bit? Seems like BOTH you guys are WikiLawyering again and not working to achieve consensus, rather just repeating the same opinion over and over. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
C, A (using the gallery format I originally proposed), A. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it's not necessarily a bad idea to propose these questions, but preferably also look at merging some of the questions together, in order to encourage more people to think about it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Create Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Years relating to this WikiProject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Longer or shorter?

Should main year articles be longer or shorter than they currently are? Several people say that they're too long. Many say that the inclusion bar is far too high & we should include far more entries - which would obviously make them much longer. Some of the same people are arguing for both those strongly conflicting viewpoints. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I think they're way too short when it comes to events at least, and they're based more so on if something happened in multiple countries rather than if it's notable in world history or subcultures/movements important to world history. We're in the type of environment where the island with Canada and Denmark is included, yet some of the inciting incidents of the worldwide Black Lives Matter movement (Specifically the Killing of Oscar Grant). Keeping the length of main year articles down is one of the smaller reasons for me supporting the removal of deaths altogether. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I've said the non-violent dispute over uninhabited Hans Island is far too petty to be included. The killing of Grant & the vast majority of BLM-related incidents are domestic. The George Floyd protests are an exception. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Domestic incidents which start an international movement, or contributed to the beginning of an international movement, should be allowed. They were the key catalysts to one of the biggest international movements we've ever seen, and given that these movements in themselves are too broad/extensive to cover every event individually on years (and would be better listed in decade articles), inclusion of the inciting incidents on year articles seem like the next best thing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Those kind of domestic events with substantial international impact and influence, such as those to do with the US Civil rights movement, the Internal resistance to apartheid in South Africa, and (to a lesser extent) the aforementioned George Floyd protests (I’m firmly of the view though that the repeal of Roe v. Wade in the US is nowhere near the same level) I would agree should be exceptions to the rule for domestic events - though especially with more recent examples it’s usually hard to tell without the benefit of hindsight years down the line, once the full (international) impact can be properly assessed. TheScrubby (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree in principle. Though based on content listed on Oscar Grant's article, I'm convinced it's one of the key instigators of the movement. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Even if his death were one of the key instigators of the creation of a protest movement, it wouldn't make it anywhere near important enough to include. There are thousands of more important organisations/companies/groups than BLM & we don't include the events that led up to them being created. About 99% of people outside the US haven't heard of Grant, and if his death were important to founding BLM, it wouldn't have taken 4 years. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

10th millennium BC Review

Someone told me that I should contact the WikiProject:Years about this page since I want the page to get into the FA. I just noticed that no pages in this wikiproject have reached FA class, so I'm wondering how I should improve the 10th millennium BC page to get it in the FA. FerdinandLovesLegos (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This is something of a controversial issue on the Years WikiProject right now, and we're still trying to come to an agreement on what articles related to this project should look like. If I can make a suggestion, you should practice getting an article to WP:Good article first so you can get a better feel for the little quirks in Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. You seem to know what you're doing, but getting an article to WP:Featured article is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, and that's doubly so if there's no similar FA to compare it to. With that said, don't let me stop you from making any changes to the article that you think should be made. Once an article is already GA, the most important things to look into are usually cleaning up the prose so that it's really well written, checking the sources to make sure they're all really high quality, and doing detailed research to make sure all notable aspects of the topic are covered (without going into unnecessary detail on any of them). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Alright. I should probably get the 8th millennium BC to Good Article status since right now it's Start Class. I'm pretty shocked it's start class tbh, but I will try to get that to good article status first and move on from there. Thanks for replying! FerdinandLovesLegos (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Defining international notability

I’ve started this section in light of some of the comments on the Talk:2022 page as well as @InvadingInvader:’s comment further up regarding international notability and how best to define it. For the sake of first time readers and such, it would be useful to get an agreed upon definition of what exactly constitutes international notability, for which current consensus is that substantial international notability is the bar for inclusion for the main international yearly pages.

Putting aside the criteria in place for political and sports figures (which are also in line with what constitutes international notability), this is roughly how we define international notability - though of course if anyone would like to alter/upgrade this, they’re free to do so here.

International notability is:

  • Notability that goes beyond one country or one region/a handful of countries, and is not merely domestic.
  • Being the recipient of multiple major international awards, rather than just awards that are domestic and mainly given to those from their native country. In other words, representing their country on the world stage
  • Having an impact with their work in their relevant field beyond their home country/region, and are of international consequence; being an essential, central member of an internationally notable group; or achieving international notability beyond their most famous work (in other words, for example with actors they would be internationally recognised in their own right rather than say, being known as “x character in y franchise” and only being known internationally by fans)

International notability is not:

  • Measured by international media sources/obituaries. They’re essential on this Wiki for who is notable enough to warrant an article, or for other lists, but not for a page that is focused on the most internationally notable figures and events. Furthermore, using media sources runs the risk of perpetuating systemic bias, particularly in favour of figures/events from the Anglosphere over figures/events from the non-English speaking world.
  • Measured by the number of Wiki language articles or article views. Anybody can create language articles, including hardcore fans of celebrities, as is prominently the case with Corbin Bleu. Page figures can be an indicator of what is trending at the time, but cannot be used as a factor for determining international notability - which is not a popularity contest; nor are the international yearly articles meant to resemble tabloid papers (so we wouldn’t include trendy human interest stories that is not of lasting international significance).
  • Measured by the number of fans somebody may have internationally.
  • Having one set of standards for figures/events from one or a handful of countries, and another set of standards for figures/events from everywhere else. What’s notable in one country is not automatically notable elsewhere, and we would not include figures/events if their international counterparts are excluded. Americentrism or any other form of systemic bias is firmly repudiated.
  • Including people on the basis of quotas, tokenism or positive discrimination.

This is essentially how we’ve defined international notability over the last few years, though if I’m missing anything others are free to comment and this can be updated accordingly. TheScrubby (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is how you have defined this or a small group of users have defined this, but it means nothing:
  1. Unless you can point to a specific policy/guideline page, RfC, or other sitewide discussion, then there's no grounds to suggest that it's the current consensus when so many users seem to disagree with it.
  2. Per WP:OWNERSHIP, a WikiProject may not require that content be cleared with it before being added to an article.
  3. Even if these things weren't true, WP:Consensus can change.
Between the discussions here and at Talk:2022, it seems that it's more likely for a sitewide consensus to form against these standards, not for them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, although international notability has been in place as the standard for inclusion since mid-2021, it’s been a standard that was decided upon multiple discussions rather than one dedicated discussion, and it is a consensus that was put into practice by multiple regular users through edits on the main page (not just one or two, but virtually all regular users since mid-2021, be it myself, Jim Michael, Alsoriano97, Deb, PeaceInOurTime, MrMimikyu, 4me689, JeffUK, Nemov, FireInMe, MarioJump83, PaulRKil, et al.). However, it’s understandable that it’s an issue how up to now, we haven’t had an explicitly defined explanation of what comprises international notability for the benefit of new users/users from elsewhere in Wikipedia who have now come on arguing in favour of Barbara Walters and wanting more information on our inclusion criteria and what international notability entails. Hopefully with this, we are able to rectify such concerns, and potentially use this space as a constructive forum to make improvements, add anything that’s missing, and to address whatever issues people would have with the international notability criteria as is laid out here. TheScrubby (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Again, I'd like to point out that nothing on this talk page affects the standards of the year articles. This talk page has no power or authority over what can actually go in the year articles. Any consensus formed here is entirely unenforceable, and users are still free to add whatever they like to year articles regardless of what's decided here. Reverting edits because they disagree with a WikiProject's standards is WP:OWNERSHIP, and users who engage in ownership should be sanctioned. This is why I suggested that we open a sitewide discussion about a manual of style page. That way we and the rest of the community could discuss the standards, and the consensus would apply to year articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Not true; we can & do form consensuses here. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
You may be interested in reading this excerpt from WP:PROJGUIDE that relates to criteria set by WikiProjects:

However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay. Contents of WikiProject advice pages that contradict widespread consensus belong in the user namespace.

So essentially, no. Any consensus you form here is just an opinion, and attempting to enforce it is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Those examples (whether or not to include a criticism section/ibox/template) are about layout rather than content. With the exception of the few people who want to remove the Deaths section, we aren't advocating changing the layout. It's the inclusion bar that's the main issue. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The policy Thebiguglyalien cited used examples which don't relate to our dispute in a technical, but the policy cites such as a few cases. In this instance, there is no reason to say that what Thebiguglyalien cited above doesn't apply to our hullabaloo, especially if your reasoning is based on the examples. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there even an advice page that reflects local consensus here? —Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The FAQs do some of that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
TheScrubby, thanks for initiating this. The elephant in the room is that some editors have US fatigue, and are wary of US subjects inundating the list. So objective criteria of notability for this page can address that. My caveat is that the United States has a population over 300 million. There are 50 states that humans have grouped into one country, as opposed to say, a union. Some of those states have GDPs larger than most countries. "International notability", as being used often on WP (not just WP:YEARS), seems to be driven by country borders, amassing "notability points" for multiple countries, regardless of populations of said countries. That seems to unduly account for the US share of the world population and its impact to overall number of people (and readers), regardless of the country which they reside. Again, I understand the backlash. So how to balance it for readers, both US and non-US?—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
If you're suggesting that we're under-representing the US, that clearly isn't the case. China & India each have over 4 times as many inhabitants as the US, yet we have far more entries relating to the US than to either of the other two. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
And if we change it, presumably because of representation that looks proportionally wrong, what is the "right" mix we are targeting? With China and India on top? And what about representation of women? —Bagumba (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
China is under-represented because the secretive nature of its gov means that very little of what happens there is known about & few of its people (other than heads of state, scientists/academics & people in its diaspora) are internationally notable. We usually only hear about China in relation to disasters & criticism of its gov. In comparison to its huge population, India doesn't have many internationally notable people either. Therefore, the US is by far the most represented country.
The large majority of notable people (international or not) are male, due to the large majority of people in filmmaking, sport, politics & science (4 highly-represented careers) being male. We don't do positive discrimination, tokenism or quotas - nor should we. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
We are an English encyclopedia...it's not a bad thing if we cover the English speaking world more. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Being Westerncentric makes us biased. The 2021 European floods are included in 2021 but the far more deadly 2022 Africa floods aren't in 2022. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Include both then. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, it is helpful to start codifying the current approach. Having said that, I disagree that these are practical criteria. Fundamentally, main year articles must be compliant with core content policies, so any local standards need to address WP:OR and particularly WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.. Remember that the subject of the article is the year, so we still need sources that establish any inclusion carries WP:DUE weight in describing that year. Some relevant excerpts:
  • ... in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
  • Undue weight can be given in several ways
  • Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
I want to draw attention to how important sources are to all content discussions, and any disputes should be resolved through evaluation of sources. Contrast this with the discussions currently happening on Talk pages, where citations are almost totally absent. Where citations are mentioned, they are usually dismissed as "merely media coverage", with this notion of substantial international notability somehow being a kind of super-notability that transcends sources.
The current approach leads to inclusion decisions that are subjective, inconsistent, and which cannot be verified as correct.
Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
It was mentioned above that International notability is not...tokenism or positive discrimination. But that does seem like what is being proposed, to place less reliance on WP:WEIGHT because perceived deserving groups are underrepresented. But we first need to agree in principle on how do we measure that such tweaks are "successful". And we first need to agree that the results based on WEIGHT are even a problem to begin with. —Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
We could amend the criteria to be source-based, such as requiring a person or event to have appeared in a “Year in Review” publication from a reliable source. But that has its own issues, and ultimately I think the scope of the main year articles is so broad that it is impossible for any editor to have sufficient knowledge of global events that they can make a judgement on international notability (given that such knowledge will necessarily be filtered through media in that editor’s own country/culture/language).
The only way forward I see is for the articles to become list articles (“list of events in 2022”), where the inclusion criteria can be much more mechanical and less prone to bias.
Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Making the articles lists wouldn't help. We'd still have frequent disputes about what/who to include. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I partially agree with Scrubby, and partially disagree. Apologies for the late response btw.
On one hand, preferring international events or people is definitely something we should do. When it comes to politicians people across the world would only have an easy time remembering current incumbents' names for notable offices (if at all), and unless they are assasinated in office or had an effect similar to Pelosi in the States or Abe in Japan, wouldn't be internationally notable. Pelosi is one of the few politicians who has never held head of state or government in his or her country yet is internationally notable.
I also do not think that notability should be determined by media coverage alone, though it should certainly be factored, especially if many sources around the globe cover an event. I think if both the BBC and Hindustan Times cover a US event, we should seriously give it consideration. Likewise, if the BBC and major US media outlets focus heavily on an Indian event, it should be given serious consideration. Not an automatic insertion, but a discussion certainly. I should make it clear that the BBC and Hindustan Times themselves aren't the minimum, just simply used as a measure of international media coverage. Regardless, there should be some substance in the event or death. Did it significantly impact the international perception of a country? Or was it just a one off.
My biggest issue with the current criteria is that it relies on "international absolutism", giving very little leeway. This enables any meritful case inclusion to be almost instantaneously defeated with the two words "It's domestic". Even if it isn't, the perception of "international events only" would perceive that events which otherwise severely affected a lot of people or defined a nation and gained almost universal media coverage should be excluded. This is the type of argument which is likely to severely inhibit any further progress on including a lot of notable events. By changing the base philosophy of inclusion to "international preferred" rather than the previous "international absolute", we enable the inclusion of the most significant domestic events. Many events we now consider internationally notable, if we had those debates in the months after their occurrence, would likely not be seen as that. The inclusion of internationally known and referenced domestic events is something we should definitely include more of, and "being domestic" has been used to unrightfully remove too many events.
This is reflected more so in fandom. I strongly agree that we should not SOLELY decide inclusion based on fans. However, I believe that we are doing MUCH more damage than good by completely ignoring them. It seems like that if someone is asking to be
Another flaw which I see occasionally demonstrated is the lack of inclusion for figures from internet culture. Given the young age of the internet compared to economics, government, and science, . We're opting to include athletes over actors. This isn't something I see all that often, but trace amounts of this sentiment have been found in the past.
Wikipedia ideally should both reflect what people want to see and new things to discover. Put simply, my ideal criteria for inclusion is "significant notability, internationally-notable preferred". Consensus on sub-criterias under this philosophy can decide the rest. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Figures from Internet culture are rarely important enough, unless they're internationally notable for something else. Many hundreds of sportspeople clearly have substantial international notability due to their titles, medals etc. Actors likewise due to their international awards. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Why aren't they important enough? If our population is starting to question the importance of awards in the first place to an extent never seen before (heck the Golden Globes got cancelled one year, and criticism of the Oscars seems to come from all directions), it doesn't seem right to characterize awards as important. It also seems like that only a few editors on Wikipedia subscribe to this view of international notability specifically; a headcount of all people who have edited articles or care about years shows a very different view. You often cite that you don't have enough regulars on Years articles; maybe this is because that there aren't enough people who agree with you, and maybe liberalize inclusion a bit more to appease to them? Don't be afraid to compromise, Jim. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Positive discrimination: International notability is not: Measured by international media sources/obituaries. They’re essential on this Wiki for who is notable enough to warrant an article, or for other lists, but not for a page that is focused on the most internationally notable figures and events. Furthermore, using media sources runs the risk of perpetuating systemic bias. I support combatting systemic bias. However, there's a conflict with concurrenly decrying "tokenism or positive discrimination". A WP policy is WP:WEIGHT, which some people seem to contend results in too many Americans. So perhaps we downplay that to push "international notability", but that is by definition "positive discrimination" i.e. ...sets of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which such groups are underrepresented. But some supporting this type of positive discrimination later say, no worries to Indians or women, they aren't as notable, and WEIGHT works just fine there. What is the objective criteria being used to support these assumptions about representation of groups that aren't reflected by WEIGHT?—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, this implies that nearly all Americans that are added by users to the main yearly pages are automatically internationally notable. None of us have an issue with the inclusion of internationally notable Americans just because they’re from America. The issue is, and was especially bad prior to the standard of international notability being established in mid-2021, that minor, purely domestic American figures were being added without scrutiny to the main year pages whereas their international counterparts were typically questioned and excluded. I mentioned further up about the example with John B. Anderson, but I also point out that at the time people like John Dingell and Ralph Hall were being included without question - as well as any and all US Cabinet ministers and failed Presidential nominees. Meanwhile, years ago when I tried to add Doug Anthony, the longest-ever serving Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, he was immediately scrutinised and questioned, as were nearly all senior ministers and political figures of the overwhelming majority of countries. Prior to 2021, had say, Philip Ruddock or Dennis Skinner, or whoever else may be the equivalent of Dingell or Hall in any legislature passed away, they would have been removed almost immediately. For years, on the 2018 page the image of John McCain - a predominately domestic US politician who was also a failed major party Presidential candidate - was included in the August deaths section over that of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a twice-serving and internationally significant Prime Minister of India. It was 100% one standard for American politicians, and another for the rest. Figures from predominately American sports such as baseball and (to a much lesser extent) gridiron football were easily included whereas the same standards did not apply to other similarly notable sports from other countries. Minor character actors such as Conchata Ferrell and James Michael Tyler were added (or were tried to be included) by a ridiculous number of users/fans despite their lack of international notability - even now most of our issues with fans that InvadingInvader above have expressed concern about have been with situations like these; the low points being cases like those of Marsha Hunt and Gilbert Gottfried, where there would be lengthy, wasteful discussions where one user/fan would abuse multiple accounts and try to generate an artificial consensus via sockpuppets, when most other actual users were in fact opposed to inclusion. For these reasons I firmly oppose any softening of the position against using fandom as a criteria for international notability. Meanwhile, from virtually every other country the standards for inclusion for entertainment figures has always been considerably higher, and most of the time they can only be added if they were the most famous and acclaimed figures from their country. Once again, one standard for Americans and another for everywhere else. It is all of these examples (and many, many more) which demonstrates why so many regular users are in favour of the current international notability standard, and that all this is what we refer to most of all when it comes to combatting Americentrism - not having one standard for figures and events from one country, and another for everyone and everywhere else, and add American figures just as we would figures from anywhere else. Because there is absolutely no way that going back to how things were prior to 2021 is at all a tenable or appropriate course of action. TheScrubby (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
...minor, purely domestic American figures were being added without scrutiny to the main year pages whereas their international counterparts were typically questioned and excluded. All entries should be scrutinized, even "purely domestic American". Use the policy WP:WEIGHT as the one standard. Conversely, the locally-defined, non-objective "international notability" critera placed an effective quota on American subjects, while promoting Eurocentrism and perceived "impact" of being known in a small neighboring country with a low population. It said to ignore coverage of Americans in non-American reliable sources. Does this represent Indians proportainely? Women?—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
If you mean are Indians or women represented in proportion to their populations, then no. If you mean are they represented in proportion to their international notability, then yes. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree, all entries should be scrutinised regardless of country. I disagree that any quota is placed - the only “quota” as such is the requirement of figures/events to have substantial international notability, and I don’t think figures from any country should be treated special or have different standards applied. I cannot see how removing Americentric bias and treating American figures no different from how we would treat figures from elsewhere is at all a bad thing. Americans are *still* the demographic most represented on the main yearly pages even after we have applied the current standards, so I don’t see how anybody here can be accused of Eurocentrism or, more absurdly, anti-Americanism. TheScrubby (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
We include people based on their international notability, not quotas/tokenism or any form of discrimination. Some demographic groups will be more represented because there are more internationally notable people among them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Since when, and based on which specific discussions has this been agreed upon? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years/Archive_16&oldid=1159204161"