Talk:2022/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

2022 FIFA World Cup

Will there be a FIFA World Cup taking place in 2022? I don't see why not, but there is no article about the 2022 FIFA World Cup.Where will it take place anyway? Joseandricardo, 18:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2015

European Extremely Large Telescope will be completed in 2024 not in 2022. 46.46.228.34 (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done - You didn't provide a reference but I found this - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

2022 Commonwealth Games

My understanding of WP:RY is that only the Olympics and the FIFA World cup are eligible for automatic inclusion in year articles. All others require discussion, which has not yet occurred, either on the WP:RY talk page, nor here. Restoring tag, although I would be justified in deleting the entry pending discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Old animated features join the Walt Disney Signature Collection line

All the theatrical re-releases of old animated features to join in the Walt Disney Signature Collection line:

• Mulan (On Blu-ray February 2022)
• Chicken Little (On Blu-ray October 2022)
• Tarzan (On Blu-ray February 2023)
• Tangled (On Blu-ray October 2023)
• The Emperor's New Groove (On Blu-ray February 2024)
• Meet the Robinsons (On Blu-ray October 2024)
• Atlantis: The Lost Empire (On Blu-ray February 2025)
• Bolt (On Blu-ray October 2025)
• Lilo & Stitch (On Blu-ray February 2026)
• The Princess and the Frog (On Blu-ray October 2026)
• Brother Bear (On Blu-ray February 2027)
• Wreck-it Ralph (On Blu-ray October 2027)
• Hercules (On Blu-ray February 2028)
• Frozen (On Blu-ray October 2028)

Note: All the theatrical re-release of old animated features will be released for a limited time on Signature Collection Blu-ray, once in February and once in October, because Tangled is not anywhere else except on Blu-ray for a limited time only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.247.95 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Eclipses

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

COVID-19 speculation

I'm not sure that it's worth speculating on the 2022 year page about when COVID-19 may or may not end-- perhaps we should just truncate the statement about COVID-19 at "2022 will also be heavily defined by the COVID-19 pandemic" and not speculate on end date? 128.174.42.242 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It should say nothing. WP:CrystalBall. This is an attempt to predict the future rather than inform about a scheduled and likely event. Slywriter (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the guidance. Someone later in the year can do a better job evaluating the degree to which COVID-19 defines the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.42.242 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop reverting before get yourself in trouble. Ill request Page Protection. No need to waste your energy. Slywriter (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. I'm an infrequent editor who was just kind of perturbed by the highly speculative nature of it when I first saw it while working on something else, and got overinvested. Have a good rest of wherever your time zone is! 128.174.42.242 (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

How about "The COVID-19 pandemic will enter its third year at the start of 2022, although it remains to be seen whether it will subside or become endemic as the year goes on." Do you think this is sufficiently neutral & non-speculative? 21:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:B5:C560:3C93:D31B:677 (talk)

"it remains to be seen" is clearly not encyclopedic and the statement you suggest should not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The text was added anyway by the IP. I removed it and agree that it should not be included. --McSly (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How about "Like 2020 and 2021, 2022 is heavily defined by the COVID-19 pandemic due to the origin of Flurona, a combination between COVID-19 and flu"? It is encyclopedic? 170.51.100.250 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit frequency to 2022

Since it's not that far from yet another January 1, how is the switch from 2021 to 2022 handled and in what frequency/speed? 108.80.19.34 (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

To avoid hundreds of edits as the year changes in different timezones we dont change anything until it changes in the UTC/GMT Time Zone. MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

"Fixed"

In the "Predicted and scheduled events" section: "January 1 – Following the 2018 enactment of the Music Modernization Act, and assuming no further extensions to the term of copyrights become law in the interim, all sound recordings fixed before 1923 will enter the public domain in the U.S...."
What the heck does "fixed" mean? Is that an 'autocorrect' error? Thanks. 63.248.183.81 (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

In this context, it means that the audio has been captured in a medium that allows replay or reproduction. It's the term the US Copyright Office uses: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.pdf clpo13_(talk) 04:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps!! I wanted to create a wikilink to "fixing" in the article, such as Fixation in Canadian copyright law (that's all I could find), but of course this is the U.S. Maybe I could link to some sort of copyright law article or something... 63.248.183.81 (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried to wikilink several different ways and each time "Show preview" but I can't figure it out. I've enlisted help in my edit summary. Not that I am sure that this is the appropriate article & section to link to...or do we want a wikilink? Thank you all. 63.248.183.81 (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

* Organisation*

Could the events please be divided into the various months they take place in? Thanks!AAEexecutive (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

They will be as required. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022 (2)

Remove the following entries for lack of notability:

• Indonesia and Malaysia independence days. 100th anniversary can be argued as notable, 75th is eh, 77th and 65th is definitely not.
  • I also think we should debate whether or not Pakistan's and India's 75th should be included. I think their notability is questionable. The only anniversary that should be included is Egypt's, though all 100th anniversaries should be documented if there are more. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't include anniversaries in main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

closing as it's been  Already done --Hemantha (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

SA parliament building fire (Result: exclusion)

Being a domestic event it should not be included in this list. However, CNN International and BBC both showed this in their headlines also Times of India prominent Indian English language newspaper had it on one page. 08:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Many domestic events receive a lot of international media coverage; we still don't include them. Jim Michael (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the content on Year articles are domestic events Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The large majority of events on main year articles are international. Changes of head of state/gov are considered international because they change their relations with other countries. Jim Michael (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

To add the 2022 Kazakh protests on 2 January. 2607:FEA8:F423:A400:2C16:17C9:903D:7096 (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It appears that domestic events do not qualify for this article, per above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The US Capitol attack in 2021, as well as any general election, coups, resignations, and most of the content on year articles, are all domestic events, so in that case that means they also should not be included. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

In the archives of Talk:2021, I argued for removing the 2021 United States Capitol attack from 2021 due to it being a domestic event. Jim Michael (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The protests in Kazakhstan cease to be a purely domestic matter when there is a deployment of Russian troops and the activation of an international military alliance mechanism. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Joan Copeland (Result: exclusion)

There is no known international notability for Joan Copeland. I don't know why she would be included on the main list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:E524:2E42:8BF3:9B59 (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Sidney Poitier deserves a photo (Result: image of Poitier included)

Unless, a more international notable entertainer dies in the next weeks of Jan., Poitier remains the most internationally notable entertainer, for his connection to the Golden Age of Hollywood, his filmwork, and his groundbreaking legacy as the first Black actor to win the Oscar.

I would agree, though there’s currently no space for an image yet. The only question is who should get an image first: Poitier or Richard Leakey? Be curious to hear what people say as to which of the two should get an image first. TheScrubby (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

He 100% deserves a photo. However, if added now it shows up in the References section. I agree with TheScrubby that it should wait so it won't show in References section - CountingStars500 (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Bob Saget (Result: exclusion)

I’m aware that he would have had fans internationally through his role in Full House, but is Bob Saget really internationally notable enough for inclusion on the main page? He was certainly notable in his home country at the very least, but as far as I know (though I could be wrong) he was never exactly an A-lister. Curious to hear what others have to say regarding whether or not Saget merits inclusion here. TheScrubby (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

His US influence alone plus the success and popularity of Full/er House warrants an inclusion. He was well known in the 90s and arguably one of the most known of that period. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

But he wasn’t notable for something. Sidney Poitier was notable for being a groundbreaking actor and a civil rights activist. Saget did not have that level of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:9939:B47:C069:E2EC (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Poitier's not in question, yes. Even putting aside all his activism and work as ambassador, he made history as the first black Best Actor Oscar winner. Highly internationally notable actor, and one in line for an image once there's space. TheScrubby (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

His impact is not just in the US, but worldwide. Bob Saget had an acting career for 40+ years. He had acted in such notable tv shows as Full/er House, AFV, and HIMYM (all of which had global acclaim and fandom), and had several Comedy Specials. His wasn’t exclusive to the US, but that was were a good portion of his fandom was. This does not exclude him from worldwide recognition as his impact in the US sitcoms was much the same in other countries as the shows he was notable for were accessible in other countries not just the US. His social media presence is also of notice as he has accumulated over 2M followers on the platform of TikTok. It shouldn’t be of contention for his inclusion on the list. This seems like this is some personal bias by The Scrubby that is getting in the way of Bob’s inclusion on the list Jerry Steinfield (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no personal bias involved at all (I’ve seen Full House and HIMYM and personally greatly enjoyed both shows). We are conscious of the fact that American pop culture figures with scant international significance tend to end up over-represented on these international lists, and it is something that the regular contributors here have been conscious of in trying to deal with throughout the last year. I oppose Saget’s inclusion, and I do so on the grounds already expressed by Black Kite and Jim Michael - and just as Jim Michael and Alsoriano have already made clear, international coverage does not equate international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hard to see how Full House and AMF don't have him meet the bar. Both remain in syndication and Full House is definitely aired internationally. I suspect AMF is as well but can't find a definitive answer online.Slywriter (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Bob warrants inclusion. As evidenced by articles on BBC, France24, NDTV, and ABC (Australian Broadcasting Company) News.Windyshadow32 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, it seems as if Bob Saget's comedic career did have some international notability ? According to BBC News, where it said, " Although Saget was idolised by many comedians for his profane and often cutting act, he was best known in the US for his role in the sitcom, Full House, where he starred alongside the actors John Stamos and fellow comic Dave Coulier." It seems as if his wikipedia article never described his stand up comedy career..... https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59932429?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_medium=custom7&at_custom2=twitter&at_custom3=%40BBCWorld&at_campaign=64&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_custom4=95195EF6-71B5-11EC-8315-8BC34744363C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:1F2:329B:6B95:F7F9 (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Include Saget – International obituaries (death is being covered internationally). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As has been said many times, international coverage ≠ international notability. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to make sure that we are all on the same page, what is the difference between international coverage and international notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:8437:D51B:7C:8553 (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Significant international notability is required to be included in the Births & Deaths sections of main year articles. It means things like winning international awards. For example, if an actor won the Academy Award for Best Actor & the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role he'd qualify. Hundreds of entertainers have international coverage & popularity without having significant international notability, which is usually due to at least one of their films, TV shows etc. having many fans outside their home country. Actors who've died during the last few months who are in the latter category include Michael K. Williams, James Michael Tyler & Saget. Jim Michael (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

How about Kirk Douglas then ? He did not win an Oscar, only a honorary one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.209.248 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

He won several major awards, including a Britannia Award & a Golden Globe. Jim Michael (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Exclude. Very sad, but pretty much unknown outside the US. Including Saget and excluding (for example) Bob Dole would be nonsensical. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with you in general, a far more appropriate comparison would be Michael Nesmith, another entertainment figure who arguably had far greater notability than Saget and who is not included (which I strongly disagree with, but consensus went against me). TheScrubby (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Include. I wouldn't say he is "unknown" outside the US. I'm not in the US and his death is being reported everywhere, lots of people know who he is. Honestly, out of all the people who are on the list I'd say he's probably the most well known internationally. Certainly more than Viktor Saneyev or Beatrice Mintz... GevBen (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Try asking people about him who aren't fans of Full House or HIMYM. Even if he were an A-lister (which he wasn't) & well-known around the world (which he isn't), he'd still have no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, even when confining ourselves to entertainment figures who have passed this year so far, the claim that Saget was more internationally notable than Sidney Poitier is just nonsensical. TheScrubby (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Beatrice Mintz was a influential scientist who contributed to the study of Embryos, and therefore had more international notability and impact. Also, as Jim said, being famous world wide, doesn't mean notability. Or else, we would have kept Tanya Roberts, or Larry King last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:8437:D51B:7C:8553 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite. Also, Saget wasn't even close to being "world famous". I knew who he was, but I guarantee you that 95%+ of people here in the UK would have had no idea. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, Sidney Poitier was 1,000 percent much more famous internationally than Saget ever was, and was highly notable and influential in American History, and Cinema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:8437:D51B:7C:8553 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Culturally in the modern world Bob has/had a better presence. If you were to give a list of all these people I highly doubt it they’d know Eric Elst, Beatrice Mintz, or even F josé. Those people weren’t in the eye of people as much as a well known 80s/90s tv sitcom star. Saget still had popularity today whilst these others had virtually 0 modern recognition (like current day and age not 60 years ago). Whilst Bob Saget wasn’t the most popular he definitely held a higher presence in the cultural landscape of modern society. Jerry Steinfield (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Cultural relevancy does not equal notability as most of the nobel prize winners would not have been included. I don't see how comparing a scientist to a entertainer means anything as they are two diffrent fields. Besides, if we're basing this list on cultural relevancy, alot of people from the UK, and the US would be included, and alot of non Western entertainers would not, simply because their fame is not world wide. F. Jose might not be " culturally " relevant, but he is a notable writer and he is a influence on Flipino culture. That should meet the standard.

Should we bring back Tanya Roberts ? Larry King ? Simply because they're famous ?

In science, I thought we all agreed that in order to be included on the main list, that one has to be notable for advancing a field in science, and/or winning a nobel prize for that advancement. Beatrice Mintz meets that standard. Same goes for Eric Elst. He might not be " culturally " relevant, but he is notable for advancing the field of astronomy.

As for Bob Saget, a better example to compare him to would be Sidney Poitier. Everyone agrees that Sidney Poitier should be on the main list, and deserves a picture as well, he is notable for being the first Black Man to win an Oscar, his civil rights work during the turbelent 1960s, and his diplomatic service. I don't see Bob Saget being at that level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:8437:D51B:7C:8553 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t even think it’s fair to compare Saget to Sidney Poitier. Sidney primarily was a movie actor, activist, ambassador, and director. Whilst Saget was primarily a tv actor and a comedian. Acting in tv is different in many ways compared to the experiences in movie. Both had been in both fields, yet neither were dominant of both. Also Sidney mainly had success in a different era from Bob which can differ the results of how considerably notable they are. A bettee comparison would be Norm McDonald who is in fact included on the deaths of 2021. Full House was a highly viewed show constantly getting 15M+ ratings and it’s finale had almost 25M viewers. The show consistently topped Neilson ratings, and would attracted the attention of many worldwide families. I’m not saying Sidney isn’t important I’m just saying that to compare them is improbable as they both differ in several ways. Jerry Steinfield (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

1. By the same token, I don't think it's fair to compare Saget to Beatrice Mintz, which with all due respect, you did do. You compared Saget to Mintz, and multiple other people even though they were not in the entertainment industry. Another person even said that Saget was the most internationally well known person, and I quote.

2. Poitier was not notable because of his success alone, a popular movie star does not equal notability. he was notable for being the first Black actor to win an Oscar, and for being a major part of the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, as well as helping to shepard in Bahamian Independence.

3. Views doesn't mean notability. If we went on views alone, then every American TV Star would be included, and this page would be filled up. We have to look for the notable factor. Betty White last year, she was in many TV shows, popular ones at that, but that was not her notability. Her notability was the fact that she was the first women to have control of the TV production. Or one of the first.

And even she was put aside for a picture in favor of Vincente Fernandez because her impact historically was in the US while Fernandez reached the wider spanish speaking world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:8437:D51B:7C:8553 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It wasn’t a full on juxtaposition just merely a small comparison that it seems a bit biased that such contention against his inclusion when those with less notability are included. Don’t directly target me as if I was the only one who has done that. And you twist my words as I said that (and meant that) Bob is the most known of those people I had listed. I know notability DOENST mean international known, but as I have stated numerous times before, yet it has been glossed over is that Bob popularity in the tv shows. The justification for his inclusion compared to others seems a bit misleading, as the qualifications are all over the place as no one editor has given an answer that isn’t vague. Additionally The US is one of the most impactful countries with its impact spreading to many others. Not even to mention the worldwide impact of Bob. If what makes them notable, and what discounts bob for the position, yet qualifies the standards of Norm McDonald’s inclusion doesn’t not equal a fair standard. Honestly there really is no fair comparison or standard by which these celebrities should be judged against one another. Now I remind us that we are going for either keeping or removing Bobs inclusion on the list. That is the goal we are working towards and we need civility Jerry Steinfield (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll just point out that while I was personally opposed to Norm Macdonald's inclusion, consensus went against me and he was included because he was judged as being highly influential amongst other comedians - in other words he was viewed as a "comedian's comedian". There was also the point made that Macdonald, as a Canadian, had more notability outside of his own country (even if said country was the United States, where he seems to have spent the majority of his career). Also "The US is one of the most impactful countries with its impact spreading to many others" is Americentrism, and not an argument we use around here. TheScrubby (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is it that Bob Saget, an American actor was included in the death section when last year Bob Dole was denied from the 2021 death section? A far more influential figure...? 72.168.142.72 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This is being discussed in the Bob Saget discussion of the Talk Page. That is where the majority of the belligerent arguments are harping in the matter Jerry Steinfield (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Politicians and Entertainers should not be compared with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:8437:D51B:7C:8553 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Saget should not be included as argued by Black Kite and Jim Michael, but it would be an entirely false comparison to make between Dole and Saget. You simply cannot compare political figures and entertainment figures, they’re fields that are totally incomparable and these “whataboutisms” ought not to be made. TheScrubby (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Include Bob Saget might not be as notable as Sidney Poitier, but we can and should list them both. He was most well known in the US, but even outside the US he was far more notable than most of the people currently on the list. It's not just that he was slightly more well covered. A search for his name in quotes yields over 33 million hits on Google. Eric Elst, who was deemed worthy of inclusion on this list, only yields 7 thousand. Saget's more well known by a factor of thousands. The 2021 list shouldn't exclude Bob Dole or Tanya Roberts either. Excluding them makes you look ridiculous. It's obviously just a result of bias against America or pop culture in general, or American pop culture in particular. - 2603:9000:E408:4800:CC75:E247:F99C:88C0 (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, for a long time there’s been issues with Americentrism and bias towards including a disproportionate number of American figures whose notability was such where had they been from any other country, they would not have even been considered for inclusion. Hardly anybody would have said a word about the idea of including Dole for example had he held the exact same equivalent positions or had the same achievements had he been from any other country than the US. Also ridiculous to compare a figure whose significance was in the scientific field like Elst to an actor, particularly one of scant international significance. TheScrubby (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

David Sassoli and Presidents of the European Parliament (Result: inclusion)

I have to ask. Because every dead person now, that's famous in some way or another, it's going to be debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:8437:D51B:7C:8553 (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Not "every dead person that's famous in some way or another" is debated, just those whose international notability/significance are questioned. I would lean towards opposing inclusion, albeit a weak oppose. The President of the European Parliament, which was Sassoli's main point of notability, is as far as I know the equivalent to the position of Speaker in a Westminster parliamentary system - in other words a presiding officer rather than anything resembling a head of government/state. If he had served as President of the European Commission, there'd be no doubts about his inclusion. That said, the President of the European Parliament is also described as "representing Parliament in all legal matters and external relations, particularly international relations".... so really the question of whether or not Sassoli ought to be included depends on whether or not figures who held this position should be included in general. Curious to hear what others, such as @Jim Michael: and @Alsoriano97: have to say on this. TheScrubby (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: I alert you to this discussion. TheScrubby (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly support the inclusion of David Sassoli. The European Union has three representative political figures: President of the Commission, President of the European Council and President of the European Parliament. It is true that diplomacy is led by the High Representative, but undoubtedly the three above are those who internationally are the image of Europe. The President of the EP has the role of leading the most important international legislative assembly in the world, since it is there that measures affecting billions of people and the destiny of a macro economic power such as the EU are approved and debated. From my point of view, Sassoli's importance is indisputable. Although the debate is interesting. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Good morning, the President of the European Parliament is one of the three leaders of the European Union, presiding the only directly-elected institution of the EU. Moreover, referring to Sassoli, before entering politics, he was one of the most famous journalists in Italy, serving as TG1's anchorman for years (in Italian). So, IMHO, I strongly support his inclusion. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, now that I've heard your arguments and Alsoriano's, I'd be happy to retain Sassoli, and it seems that there's general agreement on including figures who held any of the three President positions in the EU. Though if anybody else would like to comment and give their two cents either way, by all means go ahead. TheScrubby (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

He certainly has significant international notability, although it's difficult to know where exactly to set the bar in regard to politicians. Jim Michael (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Support At this point we're getting too picky about who is notable enough to be included. Sassoli was president of the EU Parliament (it's not some minor political post) and had international nobility (I mean it's the freaking EU). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, consensus is now firmly in favour of inclusion - and is a consensus I also agree with. TheScrubby (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Ronnie Spector (Result: inclusion)

Should Ronnie Spector be included? I mean I see both sides of the argument: she was extremely popular during the 1960s but probably only in the U.S. She's a Hall of Famer but that doesn't represent international nobility (I don't know). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Exclude because she doesn't have significant individual international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Include - highly influential lead singer and founder of one of the most notable girl groups of all time, and being a RRHOF inductee is certainly a key indicator of notability. Her songs with The Ronettes remain widely recognised staples to this day, and it's generally accepted that her career peaked in the 60s partly because her husband Phil Spector went on to sabotage her career later on (on top of all the abuse she endured during their marriage). Musicians ranging from Brian Wilson, John Lennon, Billy Joel and Amy Winehouse have cited her as an influence. I think the concept of excluding musicians on the basis of lacking "individual international notability" is a flawed one that would leave out too many whose work and contributions were central to, and essential to their band's success, and thus their international notability. In my view they ought to be, and should, be recognised regardless of whether or not they had chart success as solo artists. TheScrubby (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

We have a recent consensus to exclude band members who lack individual international notability, making exceptions only for the most important figures in that category, such as Keith Richards. She's never been at his level. Jim Michael (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it much of a consensus when only two users (yourself and the now-retired GuzzyG, who by and large proved an obstructive presence on return, and after seeing everything he personally said about us it is impossible to interpret any of his contributions to these Talk pages as being based on any good faith whatsoever) outright expressed support for the idea (which I think you acknowledged when you said at the end of last year that it'd be useful to reach a consensus on the question of members of internationally notable bands. Though there's stronger agreement on the RRHOF not being used as a central criteria for inclusion; at most a contributing factor for inclusion), but nevertheless I think it's a serious mistake to exclude figures on that basis. Especially in the case of Ronnie Spector, who was The Ronettes personified and their leader, front woman and founder (I can at least somewhat understand your argument if we were talking about Estelle Bennett or Nedra Talley). Likewise, Graeme Edge, Dusty Hill and Michael Nesmith should all have been retained in my view, and I strongly believe that their recent exclusions on grounds of lacking "individual notability" is profoundly mistaken (and should be reversed) and demonstrates how excessively self-limiting such a criteria would be if it turned into a permanent consensus. Band members of internationally notable (be it in terms of popularity on the basis of charts or record sales, or in terms of influence, or otherwise) groups ought to be recognised especially if their contributions are key to their international notability and success. Richards and the Stones BTW were also significant fans of Ronnie Spector and The Ronettes (even if they didn't wear it on their sleeve quite to the level of Brian Wilson). TheScrubby (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't take being a fan of or being influenced by into account. Are you saying that lead singers of internationally notable bands who have little or no individual international notability should usually be included? Jim Michael (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not necessarily being a fan, but being influential amongst other significant musicians should certainly be a contributing factor in determining inclusion. And I'm saying "individual international notability" should straight up not be a factor/criteria when we're talking about internationally notable bands/groups - the question should instead be whether said band members were/are deemed significant enough in terms of their contributions to their bands. Which is where using say, the RRHOF can be useful as a contributing/secondary factor for inclusion in that they typically induct band members deemed the most significant and relevant to the band's success (which they more often than not get right - though there are exceptions where they definitely made regrettable choices, such as Bob Welch not being inducted with Fleetwood Mac and Ronnie James Dio being excluded when the RRHOF chose to induct only the original line-up of Black Sabbath. On the rare occasion they also end up going the other extreme and induct members of lesser overall significance, such as Ian Stewart with The Rolling Stones and Vince Welnick with The Grateful Dead. But these are very much exceptions to the rule). TheScrubby (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Margaret II of Denmark's Golden Jubilee (Result: exclusion)

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark celebrated her Golden Jubilee on January 14. Perhaps this should be listed. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That's for 2022 in Denmark. We don't include anniversaries on main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

But Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee is listed? anto475 23:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Removed Jim Michael (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

What are the actual standards for inclusion of deaths? (Result: dismissed as we don't include figures on the basis of the number of Wiki language articles they have)

Sampling of deaths deemed acceptable for inclusion and how many other wikipedia's have an article on them:

Sidney Poitier (86)

Bob Saget (65)

Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta (53)

Meatloaf (49)

Francisco Gento (46)

Thích Nhất Hạnh (39)

Toshiki Kaifu (39)

Richard Leakey (36)

Hardy Krüger (32)

Eric Walter Elst (32)

Ricardo Bofill (29)

Jean-Jacques Beineix (25)

Louie Anderson (23)

F. Sionil José (17)

Thierry Mugler (16)

Jean-Claude Mézières (14)

André Leon Talley (12)

I could keep going but when the person with the 2nd most Wikipedia articles in other languages is not deemed "International enough", we really should be asking whether this page standards are purely arbitrary for inclusion. Slywriter (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Bob Saget does not have international notability. We have already established this.

Sidney Poitier was the first Black Man to win an Academy Award. Ibrahim Keita was a head of state and Government of a country ( so of course he has to be included). Meatloaf was a influential Hard Rock Musical artist. Thierry Mugler was a influential fashion designer.

Bob Saget did not have any international notability. Clear and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:5863:32EC:300F:D365 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yet 64 other wikipedias have an article on him. Seems pretty international to me. Everyone keeps saying "not international" yet applies no actual standards. Above is clear as day signs that his article has been created in more wikipedias than anyone on this page except Sidney Poitier Slywriter (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Sondheim when he died last year, had only 35 other wikipedia articles. And yet he was included, and his photo was also put up. That's because he was a highly influential composer and lyracist in his field.

Has Bob Saget met the standard ? Has he ? You tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:5863:32EC:300F:D365 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The number of non-English pages on Wikipedia has long ceased to be a standard for defining the notability of a subject. And so it should be. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely seconded what Alsoriano said. If we went by the number of language pages a subject has on Wikipedia, Corbin Bleu is one of the most internationally notable and significant figures in world history. Which, of course, is absolute nonsense. As for Saget, there has already been a discussion about his inclusion, which you can read through. TheScrubby (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Louie Anderson (Result: exclusion)

Louie Anderson had no international notability. So why on earth is he being constantly added ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:2918:F351:1B2B:15F7 (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You jumped to a conclusion that he wasn't internationally notable. I didn't see a discussion to determine one way or the other.

What makes you assume that he didn't have any international notability? -User: CountingStars500

Having looked at his article (which I had to do, as I certainly had no idea who he was), it doesn't suggest that he does. See also Barry Cryer which has just (rightly) been removed - most of the UK will know who he is but I suspect he's fairly unknown outside it. Black Kite (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I also never heard of him before. But, that's not really the point. This topic should be called simply "Louie Anderson" NOT "Got to repeat this: Louie Anderson had no international notability", it starts with a conclusion rather than trying to reach a conclusion. -User: CountingStars500

If a person is internationally notable, that should be clear in their article. He's clearly a domestic figure. Jim Michael (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: It has already been established that other sources can show international notability of someone that is not on their Wikipedia page. -User: CountingStars500

Other sources can show a person's international notability, but if they have it, that should be evident from their WP article. We don't have discussions about the large majority of people, because only a small minority are debatable. Fans often add people who, like him, have no international notability. As you hadn't heard of him until you'd heard he'd died, why are you arguing in favour of his inclusion? Jim Michael (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: Why do you think I'm arguing for his inclusion? I'm not, I merely don't like how the title of this thread was named based on a conclusion. I in fact don't think he should be included. But, that doesn't negate the fact that this thread's title should be neutrally named. -User: CountingStars500

The conclusion is based on reading his WP article. As with most people, we don't need a discussion. This one was started by someone annoyed at him being repeatedly added. Jim Michael (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: As I said other sources can express more about the person than their WP article. You seem to be missing that point. A significant amount of bios on Wikipedia are lacking information that other sources have. It was also pointed out (by you I believe) that awards such as the Emmy equals notability. Louie Anderson awards are mentioned on his page. I don't know why you contradict your standard? -User: CountingStars500

Those sources, if they exist in relation to the subject of a WP article, should be added to it. Emmy Awards confer notability, but not usually international. Jim Michael (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Louis Anderson as per Black Kite and Jim Michael. TheScrubby (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Bill Fitch (Result: exclusion)

Does Bill Fitch meet the requirements to be included? I don’t see that he has any international notability… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:BD0B:2533:9904:DDAB (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Surprised that this has to be asked, to be honest. Pretty obviously belongs in 2022 deaths in the United States, at least in my view. TheScrubby (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Fans often add people such as him who have no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

DART

Isn't the fact that DART is planned to crash into an asteroid in an attempt to divert its course in September 2022 significant enough of a mention on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.134.255 (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Question

Just a quick question over if these people should be included: (Betty Davis and Götz Werner)? I feel that Olympic gold medalists should be included seeing how they are champions of a global sports event. Also, I'm not so big on having two images placed together in the death section because it's not used in the other years wiki articles and might present another issue of: who should we stack together and should it be by date or occupation, etc. I feel that the individual pics is the easier route. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

George Crumb (Result: exclusion)

George Crumb was originally added. But was then removed, but now is added on again apparently. Does he have enough international notability to be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.97.41 (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m not knowledgable enough on Crumb to really say; but from a cursory glance he seems like a borderline case at best. Overall, count me as neutral for now. I’ll defer to somebody like @Jim Michael: on this. TheScrubby (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

He won a Pulitzer Prize, a Grammy Award & an Edward MacDowell Medal - all of which are American. Therefore he should be on 2022 deaths in the United States rather than here. Jim Michael (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think that works, the Grammy Awards and Pulitzers aren't just awarded to Americans ... you could equally say that the Oscars are American. Having said that, I agree that Crumb, though borderline, probably doesn't qualify. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying that those awards are American, not that all their winners are - although Americans are considerably more likely to win them. Jim Michael (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Would Singer Tony Bennett if he were to die right now qualify seeing as if most of his awards are American ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:FDBF:A225:3D08:3BBC (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Awards aren't the only indication of international notability. Many of Bennett's albums & singles charted in other countries. I don't think anyone will oppose his inclusion in the main year article of his death year. Jim Michael (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t think there’s any real comparison between Crumb and Bennett in terms of notability - Bennett will almost certainly be included without controversy. As for awards, the Grammys and Pulitzers are arguably far more Americentric in terms of who is awarded than the Oscars. And while the Oscars is mainly awarded to English language films and figures, we also include people who won awards such as the Palme d'Or, César Awards, the Asian Film Awards, etc. TheScrubby (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Bennett's notability is substantially higher. Organisations that give awards are usually biased in favour of people & works from their own countries, so major awards by multiple countries, such as those which Adele, Paul McCartney, Gene Hackman & Jack Nicholson have, indicate high international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Abune Antonios (Result: exclusion)

Do patriarchs of “lesser” Orthodox churches merit inclusion on the page, or should we limit inclusion to a patriarch of the Orthodox Pentarchy and the other four old churches (Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Georgia)? PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

He should be excluded due to being a domestic figure. Jim Michael (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Cardinal Luigi De Magistris (Result: exclusion)

He was the head of a major Vatican Diacastery. And I think last year, the users agreed that a cardinal who served in a diacastery would be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:2C10:20EF:362B:51A1 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall a discussion on that point, let alone a consensus on it. Jim Michael (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I brought up cardinals last year and, from memory, the users present at the time agreed to Popes and cardinal bishops. Was De Magistris one?The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Virginia Giuffre v. Prince Andrew (Result: exclusion)

Its high level of media coverage & controversy don't indicate high notability. This case's international effects are fairly trivial. It's a civil case, settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. Andrew & his descendants are far too far down the line of succession for any of them to stand a realistic chance of becoming the future monarch, so this is merely one of many examples of bad publicity for a British royal. Jim Michael (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would exclude it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• I see. So you want to exclude people from the deaths listings because they don't have "international notability", yet a story that has been covered by press literally all over the world doesn't have "international notability". You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. At this stage it looks like you're simply gatekeeping the article based on what you think is notable. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

As several people including me have said on main year articles, international media coverage doesn't prove significant international notability, so there's no contradiction in what I said. Many events receive substantial international media coverage which don't have a substantial amount of international notability. That's usually because, to maximise their profits, the media publicise what they believe will gain them the most sales, pageviews etc. On main year articles, we rarely include court cases unless they involve people of great importance such as heads of state/gov. Beyond bad publicity, the effects of this are very small. Jim Michael (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite, then I'm sure when Biden stumbled while boarding the Air Force should be a news item included in 2021 as was reported in RB from Spain, Italy, China, Greece, Portugal, Brazil, Japan, Malta, Austria, Germany, France, Nigeria, India, Saudi Arabia, Romania... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Many trivial things receive a great deal of international media coverage. This is why the inclusion bar needs to be substantial international notability. International media coverage doesn't prove that. Jim Michael (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that example is trivial. This one clearly isn't, as it received sustained international coverage over a number of months, unlike that one. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I would have to concur with Jim Michael and Alsoriano under the circumstances. Had this gone to court and, say, Andrew was found guilty, it’d be a different story especially given the effect it would have on the institution. TheScrubby (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

So, just to confirm, a story which received sustained international coverage (incuding numerous front page stories in both the US and the UK, and elsewhere) over a number of months isn't internationally notable. On that basis, how can the Canada convoy and Novak Djokovic postings (amongst others) be justified? Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I don't want to see the year pages overrun with minor domestic stories. But this ticks all the boxes - a high-profile American court case, with a plaintiff living in Australia and a member of the British royal family, attracting sustained and detailed coverage from all over the world. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The box this case doesn't tick is significant effect. The Canada convoy protest is domestic & therefore shouldn't be included. Djokovic is the world's best singles tennis player; he was the defending champion & favourite to win the Australian Open, so him being deported is of substantial international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Where did the box marked "significant effect" come from? Don't see that in RY either. And that is very difficult to judge anyway. What is "significant"? Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Many members of the British Royal Family have received a lot of negative media coverage. This is yet another example of this. I can't see how it could reasonably be argued that the effects of this case have been beyond that, so it's not really significant. Jim Michael (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah.... so do we think we have a consensus on this either way, at this stage? TheScrubby (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion for Brazil floods (Result: exclusion)

Should the 2022 Petrópolis floods, which killed 171 people, in Brazil, on February 15, be included in the timeline? It is currently the deadliest meteorological event of the year and a significant flooding event since 171 people died from it. Technical note: Event made ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously notable. I've restored it. Black Kite (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• No, because they're a domestic event. No-one disputes that they're notable & are on ITN, but they don't fit the criteria for main year articles because they're not an international event. Many domestic events receive international media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• So what you're saying is that no disaster is internationally notable uness it happens in multiple countries? Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No, because some have significant international effects &/or are responded to with substantial assistance from other countries. The 2020 Beirut explosion is internationally notable & fits both those criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yet WP:RY says only this - "Disasters may be added. The importance of these disasters can be demonstrated through various international news sources. High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion into the article." There is nothing requiring international effect, only international coverage. Indeed, the same page defines "International notability" as One way to demonstrate the required notability is that the event received independent news reporting from three continents on the event. Events which are not cited at all, or are not linked to an article devoted to the event, may be challenged on the talk page. If you're going to introduce additional caveats for inclusion, they need to be codified somewhere, which means discussion. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Since that was written, the issue of international media coverage not proving international notability has been raised during many discussions. I'd say the consensus is in agreement with that, but I'm opening a new discussion below about this below. Jim Michael (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Does international media coverage prove international notability?

There's been a lot of disagreement on this matter, especially in relation to the deaths of internationally-known domestic figures including Michael K. Williams, Sarah Harding, James Michael Tyler & Bob Saget as well as domestic disasters which don't have international assistance in response. Jim Michael (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, you can't phrase it like this, because it's a leading question and that's not neutral. And also, of course, because we know that you and others will simply agree that it doesn't, and then you can carry on as things are now (I mean, I could claim that you literally made the "international assistance for disasters" rule up on the spot). There need to be strict criteria, they need to be agreed, and those discussions need to have wider viewership than the regulars on this page. In other words, you need to create an RfC, and it needs to be publicised (probably at WP:CENT). Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Although articles should be written neutrally, there's no rule that what's written on talk pages has to be.

Inclusion criteria for main year articles have been altered several times without RfCs. A recent example is Olympic medals being sufficient to make sportspeople notable enough only if they're individual golds. Jim Michael (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and that's the problem. Because there are only a few editors commenting here, "rules" are created via that clique, rather than via community consensus, because the discussions aren't visible to anyone that oesn't have the current year article on their watchlist. Furthermore, because the "rules" aren't actually posted anywhere, well-meaning editors come here to post material that they believe passes the criteria, only to have their edits reverted because of a conversation that happened between three or four editors a year ago which no-one else heard about (not to mention the "rules" that are bascially made up on the spot). This state of affairs can't continue, I'm afraid - it's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

(By the way, RfCs do need to be written neutrally, which is why this is the only option at this point). Black Kite (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It'd be better if main year articles had far more regular editors. Jim Michael (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I quite agree with you there. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I only joined last year and only edit semi-regularly. My opinion is that we obviously don't want American bias, but we don't want to disregard people who were Americans for having American awards (I think Georg Hegel made this point about upheaval a bit more eloquently in one of his works). Clear-cut rules are the best way to go and I'm happy to contribute.The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Firstly, "no", the way 'international media coverage' works, especially with online news sources, is they all publish or re-hash syndicated news sources in bulk, so simply regurgitating a story from another country has no bearing on whether the event or person should be on this page. However, in-depth detailed coverage from multiple international sources may indicate that something was an event that's worth considering. However I think the comments about 'there need to be strict rules' are missing the point entirely. I think what is or is not 'important enough' to merit a mention on these pages is inherently subjective, and we should be open to discussing inclusion of any person or event if an editor wants to make an argument for doing so. JeffUK (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Gary Brooker and Mark Lanegan (Result: borderline inclusion for both)

Both musicians with a similar level of notability who died within days of each other. But are either of sufficient international notability (for example neither are RRHOF inductees) for inclusion here? Curious to hear what others think about r.e. whether they should be included here or whether they ought to be relegated to Year In Topic. TheScrubby (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

They don't have a "similar level of notability" (unless you've never heard of either of them). Lanegan is obviously notable, as you can see from his extensive 107-citation article. Brooker, however, is more dubious - his band had hits, but there wasn't much of a solo career there, and his article is correspondingly thin. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Brooker due to a lack of individual international notability. Include Lanegan as he has enough. Jim Michael (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, "individual international notability" isn't a criteria we use, or should use. I said both are of comparable levels of notability as on cursory glance (I'll confess I'm not entirely knowledgable on either figure) both figures are mainly notable for the bands they rose to fame with, which are Procol Harum and Screaming Trees respectively. The former has greater international notability (although you'd still be hard pressed to say they were among the most internationally notable and significant bands of their period), and Brooker was of course the central member of the band and the sole constant member. If we were to include any member of Procol Harum at all, it would be Brooker. He did also receive an MBE, although that was more to do with his charity work and is in any case mainly an indicator of British notability rather than international. Lanegan's solo career on the other hand is certainly more notable than Brooker's.... though overall I'd say both are borderline cases at best. Hence why I brought both up; happy to go with consensus in this case. TheScrubby (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Brooker is borderline - we've had the discussion quite recently about members of bands where they are only really known for that (Michael Nesmith wasn't it?). Lanegan on the other hand, apart from his extensive solo career has been a member of two internationally-known bands and has also collaborated with a number of international artists, so I think that pushes him well over the line. Full obituaries in most major countries' heavyweight papers (New York Times, The Times, Le Figaro, Bild, O Globo etc.) are usually a good signifier. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Lanegan I’m happy to defer to you and others, with my only further comment being regarding him being a member of internationally notable bands. It’s true that he was in Queens Of The Stone Age although AFAIK he was not a founding member and was in for a relatively short time. Regarding Nesmith, there were discussions and for a while he was removed, but what was ultimately central to the argument for removal was the whole “individual international notability” criteria proposal, which as you can see with the Ronnie Spector discussion on this page (and where I argued that it is a profoundly mistaken proposal, and that the removals of the likes of Nesmith should not have happened), there was never any consensus for it - with the only actual consensus being using RRHOF inductions as secondary, rather than primary criteria for the inclusion of (rock) musicians. TheScrubby (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that we reached consensus that significant individual international notability is the inclusion bar for main year articles. It's the reason that we've excluded many musicians, including Sarah Harding, Michael Nesmith & Ronnie Spector. Jim Michael (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus reached on “individual international notability” being the bar for musicians from internationally notable bands - it was only explicitly agreed by two users, one of which had a history of bad faith in the way he approached these pages. Sarah Harding was excluded because she both lacked international notability individually and her group’s popularity and notability were extremely UK-centric. The only clear consensus that came out of those discussions on Talk:2021 is that being a RRHOF inductee does not automatically lead to inclusion, and that it should be considered a secondary factor at most. Which is why for example Calvin Simon was not included since this consensus was reached. TheScrubby (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Sally Kellerman and Oscar-nominated actors who didn't win (Result: Kellerman excluded and case-by-case basis for the rest)

Should Sally Kellerman be deemed internationally notable enough for inclusion? It seems she was added primarily on the grounds that she was an Oscar nominee, although she didn't win and as far as I know consensus is in favour of the inclusion of Oscar recipients - furthermore her notability seems to primarily rest on her performance in M*A*S*H, and that as a whole it seems she was not among the most notable or significant actors/actresses of her period. Curious to hear what others think, at the very least. TheScrubby (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Judging by previous examples, being an Academy Award nominee isn't enough to qualify. We'd need to debate whether her role in M*A*S*H (the film version) was enough, like Haya Harareet last year for her role as Esther in Ben Hur. The film did inspire the long-running TV show of the same name. Anyone else? The Voivodeship King (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if the film version did lead to the massively successful TV series, I really don’t think that ought to be considered a major factor regarding this - nor should any other cast member be included on those grounds (the likes of Donald Sutherland and Robert Duvall will almost certainly be included without controversy, but for notability they obtained outside of this film). It’s also worth noting that Harareet was ultimately removed from the 2021 page, albeit as a belated removal that came after intermittent discussion over the course of months. TheScrubby (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Borderline, this one; she's recognised worldwide for the TV series, of course - whether that's enough is the question. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the character Kellerman played in the film was played by Loretta Swit in the TV series. I think out of the movie cast only Gary Burghoff reprised his role in the TV series. TheScrubby (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes - I was confusing her with Loretta Swit. In that case, I'm unconvinced she's notable enough. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is very simplistic; we should include Oscar recipients alone, or risk convoluting the article and increasing its size too much. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

How about people such as Glenn Close, who was nominated 8 times for Oscars, but never won, while at the same time receiving other awards in other film festivals ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:E944:8339:CC3F:FCF (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously that only applies to those who only appear in film (because many actors have extensive TV resumes). But I don't think you can be that simplistic with Academy awards. I'm pretty sure that we'd include (as mentioned above) Glenn Close, or indeed Johnny Depp, Liam Neeson or Sigourney Weaver. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree - Donald Sutherland is another major example. I don’t think we should exclude an actor/actress because they didn’t win an Oscar - we still include them on a case by case basis depending on their overall notability and significance, and depending on what other significant international film awards they received. Which is especially important when we’re talking those from non-English speaking countries. It’s just that in this particular case, I don’t think Kellerman has the notability to be added here, and therefore should be relegated to Year In Topic. TheScrubby (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Nominations aren't important enough. Exclude Kellerman & Neeson. Include Sutherland, Duvall, Close, Depp & Weaver. Jim Michael (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Liam Neeson in the event of his death? I can’t agree with that at all. Though I obviously agree with excluding Kellerman. TheScrubby (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Neeson's international notability isn't high. He hasn't won any of the top awards. We don't include people based on their popularity. Jim Michael (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

As I think we've just agreed, awards don't equal notability. Neeson would obviously be eligible, though obviously let's hope that isn't for a very long time yet (he's only 69). Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Awards are the closest thing there is to measuring an actor's international notability. It's a better measure than the opinions of journalists & critics. Jim Michael (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, apart from the fact that many awards are decided on by journalists and critics! Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

We did include Leonid Kuravylov two months ago, I don't think he has won any of the top awards, either ENglish speaking ones or Russia's awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:D89F:3E82:EDB9:DBD2 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Removed because he has no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, if we just included actors/actresses based on the top awards, then it would be well Anglo/American/European centric. Since most of the top awards in Film are in Europe, America, the UK, it would exclude alot of people, simply because they weren't lucky enough to win an Oscar or a BAFTA, or a Golden Globe or a Cannes Award, That being said, I do support excluding Kellerman. I just think for people like Neeson, it would take a little bit more nuance . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:D89F:3E82:EDB9:DBD2 (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

What's the case for including Neeson? Jim Michael (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say playing the lead character of one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time, which took large amounts of money worldwide, is a good start even without the rest of his CV! Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Schindler's List. That's very internationally notable, but an actor doesn't gain the notability of his films. Jim Michael (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, but notable actors are successful and well-known because of the films they've acted in - that's why they're famous. If the films were very internationally notable, then it far more likely that they will be internationally well-known, and tus notable. You can easily see this when we have the deaths of actors who, whilst being very successful in their own countries, didn't have that international reach. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

China's new internet religious law (Result: exclusion)

On March 1 2022, China, the world largest country in terms of population, enforce a new online religious law. People and organization no longer allowed to spread religious ideas in the internet unless they get are authorized by the government. Besides Chinese citizen and company, the law also includes foreigner and foreign missionaries in China. That means, foreigner and foreign missionaries (except those explicitly authorized by the government) are no longer allowed to spread religious idea to China on the Internet. The law was passed on December 2021 and enforced on 1 March 2022. However, Some wikipedian think it is not a international notable news at all, despite it is the largest country and affect huge number of religious believers. What do other wikipedian think ? Joeccho (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Some Wikipedian" – yeah, me. It's a DOMESTIC policy, entirely confined within the territory of China. The fact that foreigners happen to be in China is irrelevant, since the policy doesn't affect other countries. So it clearly belongs in 2022 in China. I hadn't seen any mention of this story at all in the media, until you posted it. Yes, China is a big important country... we know. But this entry doesn't belong here. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - changes to domestic laws belong on year by country articles. Jim Michael (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree as per Wjfox2005 and Jim Michael. It's worth talking about, at least.The Voivodeship King (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Microsoft & Activision Blizzard (Result: no consensus/inconclusive)

We don't usually include business events, even if they involve major multinational companies. I can't see why this one should be an exception. The value of the deal doesn't mean that it causes any significant effect on the world economy or change anything for the vast majority of people. Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it was the most expensive tech company purchase ever in the tech industry. If the Microsoft buys Activision deal is not included, then would the America Online & Time Warner merger not be included in the wiki page for 2000. 4me689 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that should be included either. Jim Michael (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

then why is it their then 4me689 (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Because not everybody has the time and patience to dedicate themselves to cleaning up all the yearly pages. Though I wouldn't be opposed to like, a co-ordinated effort where each week or so we work on a particular year and help improve it & remove minor figures and events. TheScrubby (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a great idea, what year should we start on first. 4me689 (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Bruce Johnstone and Rod Marsh (Result: Johnstone exclusion and Marsh inclusion)

I'm going to take Johnstone out. He raced once in Formula 1, scoring no points. I can't find any other reason he is notable. On the other recent deaths, I agree that Shane Warne should definitely be included. Unsure on Rod Marsh. Marsh was definitely an excellent wicket-keeper and an is an all-time great in Australia (where I'm based). I don't know about his international notability though. Can I get someone from another cricket-playing country to comment? The Voivodeship King (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

As someone who doesn’t follow cricket (but lives in one of many countries where cricket is big - like you, from Australia), Marsh should not be a controversial inclusion. Highly notable as one of the all-time most successful players of a very international sport. I think @Black Kite: already put it best in his edit summaries r.e. Marsh. Agreed with the removal of Johnstone. TheScrubby (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Aye. Clearly, we need to be careful that these lists don't get bloated (hence removing Johnstone, for example), but on the other hand we run the risk of looking ridiculous if we excluded the most successful international wicket-keeper in history whilst keeping, to take one case, someone who won a Winter Olympics gold medal 50 years ago who is probably only familiar to their famiy and friends. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely exclude Johnstone. Include Marsh, who's in the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame. Jim Michael (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Cricket is not a "very international sport". It is popular in several countries, but it has nothing in common with sports like soccer, tennis, basketball. If we have to include very important players from less popular sports, we fall into the eternal debate of which sports we should take into account and which we should not. For my part I would exclude Marsh. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say cricket is more international than at least basketball, and is certainly up there with soccer and tennis - and Marsh was a highly significant player of the sport. TheScrubby (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Cricket is more international than basketball. It's up there with tennis, but not association football. Jim Michael (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, to be honest I think only soccer surpasses cricket in terms of the international popularity of a sport. It would be absurd to exclude the most significant players of the most international sports - far more questionable would be the most important players of sports that are more popular domestically but aren’t very widely played internationally, such as gridiron or Aussie Rules football. TheScrubby (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. FWIW, there are 138 national cricket teams, though not all play full international cricket. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Criteria for death section pictures

Just curious, what did all these scientists (who no one really knows outside the scientific community) do to get pictures in the death section over people who more people would know. Like who is Richard Leakey, and Luc Montagnier and what did they do to get a picture I can always understand Mr. poitier, who was the first black person to win an Academy Award. I can also understand Lata Mangeshkar, who was one of bollywood's most influential singers. and also all the world leaders are pretty understandable as of why they get pictures .

I just want to have to this page to talk about death pictures and the criteria to get one and what figures get priority over other figures when it comes to death section pictures. 4me689 (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no "competition" to see who "gets" a photograph in the section concerning deaths in this article, and there is no particular threshold of importance above which someone's photo will appear. If you would like to know why the accomplished scientists and others pictured were notable, and why another editor thought the inclusion of a photo of each of them was appropriate here, please read the articles about them, some of which you linked just above. For example, Luc Montagnier was a member of a Nobel-prize winning team of virologists who discovered HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, and while you may not have heard of him, he was rather well-known outside of the "scientific community". If there is a notable person about whom there is a Wikipedia article and who died in 2022 whose picture you think should be included but is not, please identify them, and identify a source of a public domain or free photo of them if known. General Ization ^Talk 04:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Few scientists are well-known to a wide demographic, but many are very notable. The photos should represent people from different fields, including sport, politics, science & entertainment. Their importance is far more relevant to their inclusion than their popularity is. Jim Michael (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

yeah, with that out of the way I Now understand why scientists have pictures in the death section. however there are multiple world leaders that died every month and there's two "decently notable" world leaders that died in February (Sir Manuel Esquivel of Belize and Christos Sartzetakis of Greece) both were the world leader of their Nation around the same time and both are listed in the death section. but only Esquivel got a picture. in terms of world leaders which ones get pictures and which ones do not. 4me689 (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sartzetakis was not a world leader though. He was President of Greece, but that position is a ceremonial head of state; a figurehead. The same applies to the recently deceased Muhammad Rafiq Tarar of Pakistan. In terms of political figures, we prioritise heads of government for images - and heads of state who hold executive powers. So we would include images of the Prime Minister of Greece, but not Presidents of Greece. TheScrubby (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

We usually try to have no more than one person from each field for the same month in the Deaths section. Hence a month may have a photo of a politician, one of a sportsperson & another of an entertainer. We might make an exception if 2 extremely notable people from the same field were to die within the same month. For example, Jimmy Carter & Joe Biden; or Mel Brooks & Clint Eastwood. Jim Michael (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Russo-Ukrainian War (Result: inclusion)

Hi, I see that all the entries relevant to this subject are preceded by the name "2021–22 Russo-Ukrainian crisis". That article, however, covers only the facts up to 23 February, while all teh facts happend from 24 February onwards are covered by the article "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". I was wondering therefore if it could be better to change the name preceding all the entries from 24 February onwards. What do you think? P1221 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

in my opinion after February 24th it should change to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine 4me689 (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Jim Michael (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you very much P1221 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, count me as supporting this change. TheScrubby (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Should any of the early entries be changed to Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? Jim Michael (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian invasion

From February 21 until March 8 every single day has anywhere from one to four(!) events in reference to the ongoing Russian invasion. While I agree that coverage of this war and some of its events are notable enough, at this point much of the info should stay in Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and related articles. Any ideas on which events to cut and which to keep? Yeoutie (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

All of the events you mention are notable, international, and well-referenced. The Ukraine-Russia conflict is of major historical significance, and the 2022 page provides an excellent, concise summary/overview including the wider international impacts. If there were 5 or 10 events listed per day, then I'd agree with you, but four or less is perfectly acceptable, and in most cases we're talking only 1 to 3. If people want more detail, they can visit the page you linked to. Please, stop trying to create a problem when there isn't one. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for trying to start a problem, I'm just looking at previous years that also feature major international events and seeing that this year puts a lot of emphasis on this one. You'd expect an even larger volume of notable events for example in 2020 related to COVID but during Feb, Mar, Apr, May when new developments occurred internationally daily, it's not even close to the volume seen over the past two weeks. I am not arguing that events are not notable, international, or well-referenced, but this is supposed to be a general overview of the year, not to be hyper-focused on one event and give updates on its developments daily. Yeoutie (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Deaths of sportspeople in March

Of the 12 people currently in the March subsection of the Deaths section, 10 are sportspeople. We have consensus to include both the cricketers. That leaves 8: Alevtina Kolchina, Dean Woods, Maryan Wisniewski, Frank O'Farrell, Giuseppe Wilson, Tomás Boy, Justice Christopher & Jürgen Grabowski. They all have international notability, but which of them have enough to be included & which don't? Jim Michael (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Of the footballers, Grabowski definitely does as a World Cup winner. Boy is one of the best-known names in Mexican football so I'd include him. The others I'm fairly ambivalent about; O'Farrell managed Manchester United (and a national team) but in the days before such big clubs were effectively internional franchises. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This month's deaths of sportspeople shows why we need to define the criteria by which we include people. I agree that Grabowski is easily notable enough to be included due to him having been part of a FIFA World Cup-winning team. He's the most notable of the 8 I listed. Jim Michael (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 Peshawar mosque attack (Result: inclusion)

Is it fine to put this article? 2022 Peshawar mosque attack: On 4 March 2022, the Islamic State – Khorasan Province attacked a Shiite mosque in Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. An Afghan man who was a long-term resident of Pakistan committed the suicide attack, killing at least 63 people and injuring another 196. Vedang Vijaykumar Shetye (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, an Afghan member of an international, designated terrorist group killing 63 people at a mosque in Pakistan is internationally notable enough to include. Jim Michael (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I added this event, but someone else will put the reference on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21stCenturyrocks (talk • contribs) 12:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Jim Michael (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Scott Hall (Result: exclusion)

Since we already have a picture of a athlete ( Shane Warne ), should we replace Hall's picture with William Hurt ? Because we do need a photo of a entertainer, and a head of state/government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:B130:A34B:AFE2:691B (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Scott Hall doesn’t have the international notability to be included here, period - with or without image. William Hurt will be a firm contender for an image once there’s space for a third. TheScrubby (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

agreed, Hall has no International notability 4me689 (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

At the bottom of Hall's article, his awards are shown as including several which have World in them, and 1 which has Intercontinental in it. Are those awards correctly named, or are they similar to the World Series in being domestic competitions with names that misleadingly sound like they're major international competitions? Jim Michael (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's exactly like that - for some reason, many of these organisations use "World" in their title, and their "competitions" thus have the word in them as well. Obviously, with this being professional wrestling, the awards have no meaning in a sporting sense anyway. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, to claim that Hall's death is by far the biggest of the month (not just biggest in the field of sports, as if Shane Warne wasn't any factor), or that wrestling is among the most internationally popular and played sports without anything substantial to back these up as @Andrewnageh123: (of whom the majority of his edits here are WWE-related) has in his edit summary is ridiculous to the point where it's barely worth responding. Neither of the links he shared in said summary are any indicator of international notability, and as Jim Michael has always said in any case, we include people based on their notability, not popularity (especially popularity that is predominately one country or extremely regional). TheScrubby (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Hall. Include Hurt, who should be next to have an image. Warne is easily the most notable sportsperson to have died this year. Jim Michael (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if you are gonna argue with Shane Warne,Scott hall is more known internationally than the majority of the deaths in this 2022 list,there are people in this that nobody heard of them outside of their countries and their deaths news barely got any reactions with all due respect unlike scott hall There were previous pro wrestlers included in previous years on wikipedia,if they were in then scott hall should be definitely in it,he was a member of the NWO alongside hulk hogan and kevin nash which was so popular in the 90’s even until this day with all their shirts and merchandise,they were pop culture,huge influence on the professional wrestling business forever at its peak with 20M views on American cable TV channels not including internationally,believe it or not pro wrestling during that time was way more popular internationally than rugby which is only big in Australia and few other countries,WWE crushes them on international subscribers all over social media platforms,it isn’t even close and by the way my explanation is clear,scott hall’s death is trending more than 2M+ on google in different countries,his news had more impressions and reactions than the majority of people in this death list and previous years,he has been trending on twitter as 1# for 3 days now because he was on life support and people didn’t know if he was gonna make it,he should be on this list Also his death has been reported on all big website you can imagine like CNN that don’t cover wrestling Andrewnageh123 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as william hurt,believe it or not,scott hall death news got more interactions than william hurt on twitter and all social media platforms Andrewnageh123 (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Popularity or what trends on a particular social media platform are not metrics that we use here though. As has been made clear on these Talk pages time and again, popularity does not equate notability - William Hurt was a highly internationally notable actor and an Oscar recipient. Of the wrestling figures you mentioned, only Hogan would be seriously considered for inclusion here, in large part because his notability transcends the wrestling niche (the same could be said for Dwayne Johnson). Regarding pro wrestlers on previous year pages, you only have to look up to see comments that says not everybody has the time or patience to clean up every such page year by year. Nobody here mentioned rugby or any rugby player, but while it's certainly not in the league of soccer, cricket or tennis (among others) in terms of how global it is, it is ridiculous to assert without verifiable sources that pro wrestling is a more internationally significant sport than rugby. The rest is barely worth responding to - the comment to do with "all big websites" including CNN is quite clearly Americentrism. TheScrubby (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We won't include Nash & I don't think we should include Hogan or Johnson. Hurt's death didn't receive a great deal of coverage because he died naturally in his 70s. He won an Academy Award for Best Actor, BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role, Cannes Film Festival Award for Best Actor & a David di Donatello for Best Foreign Actor. That makes him very internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The same goes for Traci Braxton correct ? Since she was a ensemble tv actress ( Not even the main star ) on a minor reality tv show, and her albums did not chart globally, therefore just to make sure, she does not qualify correct ?

Braxton shouldn't even be a contender, yeah. I'm actually surprised that somebody tried to add her in the first place. TheScrubby (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

TheScrubby they may have got her confused with her sister Toni Braxton. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Toni is notable enough to include; Traci isn't. Jim Michael (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I should however warn against awards and charted albums being the ONLY measure for international notability for anyone working in performing arts/entertainment because that would exclude most classical musicians for example just simply because they weren't lucky enough to have an album that charted worldwide . And it would unfairly skew the main page towards pop culture musicians only because they were " popular " in other countries with their charted albums.

For example, the American Classical Composer, John Coolidge Adams has won mostly Grammys in his work, and none of his works have " charted " but in the Classical Music world, he is highly notable. He has won " honorary " awards from major international organizations however , so perhaps that would count ? Yo Yo Ma is another example. Should international honorary awards be a factor for classical musicians ?

The reason why I ask this because we removed George Crumb from the main page, due to his lack of presence on the charts, but Classical musicians do not have that big of a chart presence anyway. So... 2601:204:CF80:7440:85CC:E763:66DA:B751 (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Crumb is excluded because he lacks international notability. It's not because he didn't chart. Jim Michael (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. But I was the one who raised the point of Tony Bennett ( I do need an account yes), and his international notability was predicated on his albums and singles ( which I believe you said, that it is the reason why Bennett will be included upon his death).

Of course, Bennett is a pop music figure, not a classical musician.

The Grammy and the Grammophone awards are the only major awards that Classical Musicians have the chance to win, because that's how it is, and even then, are we going to exclude Zubin Mehta for example simply because, he did not win a grammy or grammophone award ? 2601:204:CF80:7440:85CC:E763:66DA:B751 (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There are various ways international notability can be measured, none of which Crumb fits. He's a domestic figure. Some of Bennett's work charting internationally shows his significant international notability. Mehta has won major awards in several countries, so he should be included. Jim Michael (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Scott Hall is internationally notable. He was one of the most poplar wrestlers during the late 90's boom period in professional wrestling. WWE is a global brand… WCW was as well. And Hall was a major draw in both promotions. Here’s some sources from outside of the United States [1] [2] [3] The Optimistic One (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Did he compete internationally? Jim Michael (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. He wrestled for promotions in Japan, Germany and Puerto Rico. The Optimistic One (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

But, WWE is not a legitamate sport. It doesn't even call itself a sport, only " sports entertainment ". This is why you see USA Wrestling at the Olympics, and not WWE. If someone who was part of USA Wrestling, who won a Olympic Gold Medal, died, then yes, he or she should be included.

Also, very rarely do you see a WWE Champion from another country, because it is a US based entertainment brand. 2601:204:CF80:7440:85CC:E763:66DA:B751 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that's like saying that an (individually non-internationally-notable) singer toured with his band in many continents. Professional wrestling isn't a sport, it's entertainment. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No. Actually, WWW is not even a legitimate wrestling competition at all. It is a brand. A entertainment show. Mostly based in the US. It is not comparable to USA Wrestling for example, which is represented at the Olympics. 2601:204:CF80:7440:85CC:E763:66DA:B751 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We briefly mentioned Dwayne Johnson here, and I found it interesting that he seemed a borderline exclusion. He is hopefully far, far away from being eligible for this list, but even still seems to be a person who should be included. I agree we cannot include everybody, but "The Rock" has become a part of the culture of the 2010s and 2020s, with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame to show for it. Anyone else? The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I would personally include him. Whilst pro wrestling is nowhere near as internationally notable as some people seem to think, she fact he's starred in films that have grossed >£10bn worldwide would get him over that particular bar, I suspect. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I would lean towards including Johnson (albeit as a borderline inclusion), hence why I originally namechecked him. Him and Hogan have attained notability that goes beyond the pro wrestling fan-base - there really wouldn’t be many others who would fall in this category. That is, of those currently living. TheScrubby (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Johnson & Hogan are popular, but they're domestic US figures who merely have many fans in other countries. Some of Johnson's films are popular, but he hasn't won any important acting awards, so his notability is well below that of Sidney Poitier & William Hurt. Jim Michael (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You have a good point about the acting awards, but I disagree with Johnson being a domestic U.S. figure. Whilst you could say that the majority of Johnson's notability is in America, he is is well known in Australia at least (I can't speak for other countries in the English-speaking world). I agree that popularity should in no way be a basis for inclusion, but for a figure like Dwayne Johnson, his image in society goes beyond that. He is known as a personality, and whilst my argument doesn't fit the unspoked criterion for actors (Receiving an Academy Award), The Rock seems to me to be a special case. Plus, he is 49, so this conversation is merely speculative. The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Johnson is a domestic figure who has many fans in many countries, just like thousands of entertainers & sportspeople. We shouldn't make exceptions based on popularity or media coverage. We rightly exclude Bob Saget, also a domestic US figure with many fans outside his country. If popularity &/or media coverage granted people places on main year articles, we'd have to include several members of the Kardashian/Jenner family. Of them, only Caitlyn Jenner should be included, due to having won an Olympic individual gold medal. The criteria apply to inclusion in the Births & Deaths sections of main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you simply cannot compare Johnson and Saget. Johnson is the star of a film franchise that has taken billions all over the globe, and has twice been listed by Time as one of the world's most influential people; whereas Saget was a popular figure but really very little known outside the USA. And yes, if Kim Kardashian got run over by a bus tomorrow we would be listing her here as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

On what basis would we include Kardashian? She has no international notability; merely international media coverage & fans. Jim Michael (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

As I've said before, many times, international media coverage (especially sustained and in depth coverage) is the main tenet of international notability. You may not agree with that, but it is the case. And this is the reason why we aren't listing Hall, for example. He didn't have much international media coverage while he was alive, and his death may have been mentioned internationally, but it certainly wasn't covered in any depth. Black Kite (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Several people on here - including me - disagree on that point. Using media coverage as the main measure would mean many reality show participants, socialites & other people who are famous for being famous would be included, but few scientists would be. Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's why I said it was the main tenet, not the only one. I totally agree with you about reality show people etc (who tend to be famous in one country)., but people like the Kardiashians are way past that level, and it becomes almost impossible to argue they're not internationally notable when a significant number of people in literally every country in the world know who they are. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if it's every country, although it's probably most. Jim Michael (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I would be reluctant to include any of the Kardashians (though if we were to include any at all, it would be Kim. Caitlyn Jenner would obviously be included as well, as per Jim Michael) - or indeed figures who are known for being "famous for being famous". Such figures rarely end up being well-remembered years down the line, either during their lifetime (where if they live long enough, they tend to fade into obscurity) or after death. TheScrubby (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I despise these materialistic, rich families, but agree we would include Caitlin Jenner (per Jim Michael). I still maintain that Dwayne Johnson is notable, though, albeit borderline. I'm fine with dropping it for the time being though. Shall I see you in 30 years or so to debate it for real? :) The Voivodeship King (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Are You are arguing about if the rock should be included? That’s why i’m not surprised that you don’t want to put a legend like Scott Hall,the rock has 304M followers on instagram alone,had many careers from football to hollywood to business and you have absoulte nobodies on this list that their death news barely got any attention,do you live in a bubble? Who said pro wrestling is a legitimate sport? Who said that sports only should be included? Why should we even include athletes from different sports if nobody knew them? I follow amateur wrestling but those guys aren’t even famous compared to pro wrestling at all even though many of them have atheltic background from their youth including amateur wrestling,superstars like John Cena,The Rock,Hulk Hogan,Steve Austin,Brock Lesnar,Dave Bautista are household names,they are entertainers and very big internationally on any metrics that you want to use,they check all the boxes more than the people you have on this list or any previous years Andrewnageh123 (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't measure importance by media coverage, because that instead measures popularity. Everyone we list in the Births & Deaths sections of main year articles should have significant international notability. Many deaths of important people - including most scientists & many heads of state/gov - don't receive much media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

And since this section is about Scott Hall, I'd point out that Dwayne Johnson has over 2000 (yes, that's two thousand) times the number of Instagram followers than Hall did, which probably tells you something about popularity and notability. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s because he is an old man and didn’t really use social media also he has notability and influence on the sports entertainment/Wrestling business,he is the reason it went to the monday night wars and changed it forever Andrewnageh123 (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Well, it was you that brought the idea of social media followers up. In the end, Hall is someone who was moderately notable in the US and pretty much unknown outside of pro wrestling followers elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games gold medallists (Result: include only if they also won medals at other significant international sports competitions, such as the Olympics)

With the question posed by @Jim Michael: in his latest edit summary r.e. Dean Woods and the fact that he was a recipient of an individual (not team) gold medal from the Commonwealth Games, I think it's time we resolved this long-standing question. Should we consider individual gold medalists from the Commonwealth Games notable enough to be included here? Or if not on their own, should they be included if they are at the same time also Olympic medal recipients? Personally I lean towards the latter, though I also wouldn't be opposed with the former. TheScrubby (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say individual Commonwealth golds are enough (or we'd really have to think about the European Championships, because they're often a stronger event) but I would say that a combination of an Olympic team gold, and Olympic silver and a Commonwealth gold is enough to scrape someone over the notability line - just. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If Olympic medals only make a sportsperson important enough to include if they're individual golds, it seems inconsistent to say that they're enough if combined with certain medals from other international competitions. If we include Commonwealth Games' medals, do we do likewise for other international competitions, such as Asian & European? Jim Michael (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I've always pretty consistently argued in favour of including gold medalists from the latter games you mentioned, particularly the Asian Games - although like with the Commonwealth Games there's never been any real discussion on it, so there's no consensus one way or the other. TheScrubby (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that a silver Olympic medal is of higher value than a gold at the other competitions. The sport-dominated March subsection of Deaths shows why we need to define the inclusion criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion for sports, silver medal and up for Olympics, Gold Medal for other competitions, or any combonation of the two ( if the decesased recevied awards from multiple competitions ),

As for teams, I would be more hesitant to include someone who only got a team medal, because it shows that they're only notable as part of their group, and not notable on their own, so we have to go to their page, and see if they have silver and up INDIVIDUAL medals for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:85CC:E763:66DA:B751 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We have enough criticisms including individual gold medalists from the Olympics; I don't know if we can justify including those who won only silver at the Olympics and no other awards. Though I can agree with Black Kite that they should be included if they won silver at the Olympics and gold at other major international sports competitions (including the Commonwealth Games). TheScrubby (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for classical musicians (Result: case-by-case basis)

What should be the standards for classical musicians to be included on the main list of deaths ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:85CC:E763:66DA:B751 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is the same problem as artists, and indeed most musicians and authors outside the mainstream, and I think is one of those times where you've got to look at the depth of coverage of their death. If they're getting proper obituaries in heavyweight papers like the New York Times, The Times (London), Le Figaro, Bild, O Globo etc., or considerable quality worldwide coverage of their influence on art or music, then there's probably a good chance they're internationally notable. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  There are other situations too. What do you do about Dancers ? TV producers ? 130.86.97.41 (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Very few dancers qualify for inclusion, unless they're also internationally notable as actors, singers etc. TV producers would be eligible based on winning important awards. Jim Michael (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Death section pictures for March

right now there's no room for a third image in march, once there's room for a third image it will course go to William Hurt. I just made a cropped picture of him that will fit good and probably by the end the month it will leave room for a fourth image, it will probably be eugene parker unless someone else way more important dies before the end of the month, any thoughts????? 4me689 (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it'll go to Hurt unless somebody more notable dies in the interim. As for fourth image (if there even will be space for one), we'll have a better idea of who can fill the spot by the end of the month, so I suppose we should wait for the time being. TheScrubby (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hurt & Parker, unless someone more important dies this month. The photos will then be a sportsperson, a politician, an entertainer & a scientist. Jim Michael (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Christopher Alexander (Result: inclusion)

He has awards from different countries, but are they important enough for him to be included? If not, which year by country article should he be on: 2022 in Austria, 2022 in the United Kingdom or 2022 in the United States? Jim Michael (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, I mean, we don't have standards for every field. Can you measure the notability of a famous designer/archiect by the awards ? I don't know the answer to that.

It does seem as if international organizations do hold him in very high esteem for his work in archiecture and design theory hence his honors and awards.

I will say that for his field, the Congress of the New Urbanism is a pretty big deal so maybe ? 2601:204:CF80:7440:A5AA:AB7F:A3CA:CDD6 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexander was immensely influential in a number of fields, I'd say he's notable enough for the main page. Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Neutral, but lean towards inclusion as per Black Kite. TheScrubby (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'd support including him, he appeared to be an influential/renowned architect and design theorist. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Madeleine Albright (Result: inclusion)

Is Madeleine Albright notable enough like Colin Powell & George Schultz, to be included? I think we said last year, foreign ministers CAN be included IF they meet the standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:C539:F867:39CB:CF7F (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

She was United States Ambassador to the United Nations for 4 y, then United States Secretary of State for the next 4. How much international notability does she have? Jim Michael (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Like Powell and Shultz, she’s notable enough for inclusion - but I wouldn’t prioritise image over a head of government/state. TheScrubby (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, she is notable. 4me689 (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Clearly notable. She is/was internationally recognised and a household name. Why are we even debating this? Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Being a household name isn't part of our inclusion bar for main year articles. We're debating it because her international notability isn't very high. We include only about 1% of politicians who've never been head of state/gov. Jim Michael (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I think her actions during her tenure as US Secretary of State had sufficient international consequence so as to merit her inclusion. I don't see her inclusion being a particularly controversial one - she certainly has greater grounds for inclusion than Walter Mondale, who was a borderline inclusion, or Bob Dole or Harry Reid, both of whom were rightly excluded. TheScrubby (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

My issue is the unrelated link next to her as a source. Can someone change this? - CountingStars500 (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Steve Wilhite (Result: exclusion)

Does Steve Wilhite merit inclusion here? I feel that he's better of in 2022 in the United States because most coverage of his death are U.S.-based media articles and for those arguing that he was important in the creation of the modern day GIF format, he worked with the CompuServe engineering team, so he wasn't the sole inventor. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought he was the sole creator of the GIF (perhaps that is who it is attributed to). If not, I don't see why he should be included. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alsoriano97: Based on Wihite's article it says that he was part of the team that helped create the GIF. I feel that we can somewhat apply the Olympic rule where we include individual champions rather than Olympic champions who won group/team events. In Wihite's case while yes he did help create the GIF, based on his article it appears he was part of the team that helped create it. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

From personal knowledge (I worked at CompuServe 1986-1997), but also discussed at the Verge article cited in his article, Steve Wilhite produced 95% of the design of the GIF format and the code used at that time to compile GIF images, most of it at his dining room table. Yes, he was the lead of an engineering team, but teams at CompuServe in those days (1987) were quite small (I believe I recall there were 3 seats in the Graphics Lab). GIF was very much Steve's invention (and it was acknowledged and he was awarded as such at CompuServe), which is why he received the Webby. General Ization ^Talk 03:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Good point of view. I think if it would make sense to me for him to be included knowing a little more about him. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

One citation is enough?

So I added the 2022 Maltese general election and included multiple citations. Later the same day all citations expect one were removed. The user that removed them said 'One source is enough' and then I realized that in all year related articles in most cases each event has only one source. Is there some unwritten rule about how each event only has one source and I don't know it? Because if not shouldnt multiple sources be preferred. Also, I got to admit that in that in that specific edit I went a little overboard with sources but the point still stands.RookieInTheWiki (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

One is usually sufficient, two or three sources might be okay. But you posted eight. O_O Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Estelle Harris (Result: exclusion)

Should Estelle Harris be included? In my view her inclusion would be an aberration, given her lack of international notability. She appeared in Seinfeld and the Toy Story franchise, but it was as a supporting role rather than a headline cast member - and we also have not included figures such as Conchata Ferrell who have around the same level of notability. TheScrubby (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Harris & Ferrell, due to a lack of international notability. Their international media coverage is because they had fans outside the US. We don't include people on the basis of how many fans they have or how many people have heard of them. Actors don't gain the notability of the films, TV shows, plays etc. they appear in. Also, we don't usually include films, TV shows, plays etc. Jim Michael (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)