Talk:2022/Archive 12

New removed section on Global goals and reports (Result: not added)

Should section "Global goals and reports" (in any shape or form) about the state of developments regarding global goals in/as of a year be excluded from the article? 10:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thought it may be good to create a section about it anyway, now the new section was removed so let's talk:

Here I added a section on global goals in that year. For example, annual information reviewing the state of Paris Agreement progress during a year, a year's deforestation, or global health. Basically brief information about or from systematic progress reports on notable global intentional developments and goals.

This article is about the year 2022, what could be more significant and notable than these info on such issues?

---

I think that is what for example future generations would care (more) about when they read about a year, rather than about some random terror-attack which (usually) doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things (and happens often, each with far lower casualties than probably all of the items of the new section), disasters like "collapse of a suspension bridge", or even national elections which (in many cases) don't have a lasting major global impact. The article currently is heavily biased towards such (typically rather insignificant) events, not including info on global developments (concerning issues/goals/challenges) that matter a lot.

Moreover, I think that it does make more sense to keep this in a separate coherent section instead of intermingled in the #Events section. It also shouldn't be in the article about a past year (like 2019) if the newly released report pertains, as expected, to a past state of progress/an issue or the developments during an entire past year. In the future, some of it could get replaced/shortened drastically by charts.

It's not about "science" as the removing editor suggested, but progress on (or states of) global goals or issues, which have a lasting major global impact and are at the level of populations and whole of humanity rather than some small-scale event affecting a few individuals or even national electoral fate. There is no good reason to fully exclude it here and it's relevant to all of society and globally / the year in general.

I do see how it's a somewhat extensive change (it could get shortened a bit), but it shouldn't get rejected for the sake of it being a change. We shouldn't be ignoring these very WP:N notable, top important, WP:RS-covered, billions-affecting, partly civilization-affecting and partly (probably at least) centuries-impacting annual historic developments.

Should section "Global goals and reports" (in any shape or form) be excluded? Please comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Opposed, this is just some science trivia that belongs to 2022 in science, not 2022 the main year article, and please don't open an RFC here right now, this page already has an RFC below. 4me689 (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not about science, addressed that above, and it's not trivia, also addressed that above.

I made this thread before you created a RfC after removing the content I added.

Did you do so to hide my RfC or why did you do this right after removing my content, now also removing the RfC template from this talk page post and saying (why?) that it can't have an RfC too? Not okay. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Deb:, @PaulRKil:, @TheScrubby: pinging you for your thoughts, is the above a good idea. 4me689 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Prototyperspective brings up some good points, but ultimately, tradition has shown that we use year articles for events, and for that reason I oppose inclusion in the format which Proto promotes unless as part of an event. There are other places we could better adapt Proto's ideas; what Proto proposes in practice mostly would include science and philanthropy, and we can use either in-country articles (such as 2022 in the United States or 2022 in Brunei), or 2022 in science. I think that there is more we could do to promote these articles, but although I haven't quite formulated the best way to do it, the method presented isn't really the best way to go about it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Notified: WT:WikiProject Politics, WT:WikiProject Environment, WT:WikiProject Years. --Prototyperspective (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Deb: & @Jim Michael 2: for thoughts 4me689 (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose including this. It's trends, aims, plans etc. rather than actual events. It belongs on appropriate sub-articles, such as 2022 in politics and government & 2022 in science. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this article called "Events of 2022" or "2022"? The article is heavily biased and incomplete.

_

Moreover, the publications are events too and it's often things basically like "in year x, deforestation was at y"

• -> is that off-topic and irrelevant just because it pertains to an entire year instead of being a, typically overall insignificant, event of a single day?

The alternative would be to add it to the year article that it pertains to, instead of to the year when it was released but I'd oppose that for obvious reasons, and afaik there aren't yet good summary statistics charts to add instead. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

There are many publications each year. Well over 99% aren't important enough to include on main year articles. The Satanic Verses is a rare example of one that is, because of the extreme international reaction to it. How much deforestation happens during a year isn't important enough to include, nor is how many people died as a result of smoking, obesity, road accidents etc. This sort of info isn't in other main year articles. The total world population is important enough to include, as are the total number of births & deaths during the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that 99% are important enough to include. Moreover, it's not about "publications", it's about (progress/development/current-state-of) global goals and issues. I disagree with "How much deforestation happens during a year isn't important enough to include", especially as that is part of global goals. I don't know if there is a chart that shows a breakdown of the causes of death during a year. Most of this article's contents are not important to include here if most of the critical info contained in the new section is kept out. It would probably even be due to add these WP:N WP:RS items if the article featured only content at the scale of total world population, but it doesn't do so anyway and, for example, features lots of random disaster events (and I'm not saying such should get excluded). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Different orgs have different goals. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

This does not address any of my many (counter-)points there, is not a reason to exclude, is irrelevant and I'm aware of that. The section was about (notable, large-scale, significant) international/global goals. --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Prototyperspective - I am not in favour of including such a section in the main Year article. However, a separate Year in Topic article would be acceptable as long as it can be kept objective and well-referenced. The Year articles are much too long now (see Wikipedia:Article_size#Readable_prose), and this is largely because of recentism and the determination by some editors to add minor events, births of current celebrities, etc. So please look at this idea again in that light. Deb (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

So far, I see only two reasons to exclude this highly notable, top-significant, WP:RS, year-related/spanning, globally-relevant, content:

• it's a change: the prior year articles did not include this info (what in the opinion of some "tradition has shown") – I addressed this (so far unrefutedly) in the original post above
• the article is already (too) long – a point you made

To address the latter: that's not a good reason to exclude this info rather than keeping it as short as possible and/or removing other items that are far less significant and notable than it.

Moreover, there can be exceptions to the article size guidelines and prior months could get collapsed. It's a valid point in principle, but again I don't see how it's a reasonable rationale to exclude this content in specific.

I think the best option would be to replace as many items of the new section as possible with summarizing graphics containing charts, but these don't yet exist afaik so until they do, the brief items should not get irresponsibly and unwarrantedly excluded. The content belongs here, in this article called "2022", even in the case that it's also(!) relevant to some other existing or potential article like "2022 developments" (and/or 2020s and/or "Humanity in 2022" and/or "Global issues in 2022" and/or "Progress in 2022") (from which it could transclude the content if the article is not renamed to "2022 events"). --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Such a section would be very large, with different goals from different orgs being stated. They're not usually important. Actual major results, such as wars ending or diseases being eradicated, are. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• As said, only a) global / extensively-international b) highly significant ones would be added there (basically just like it's already being done for the Events section).
• The section as was added would already be its entire length, it's not short but some items could be shortened and maybe one or three removed, while another one or three (not far more than that) may be missing.
• Nonprogress on top-significant global goals such as Paris Agreement goals and pledges are major results too, just not good results.
• There are many intermediate steps to diseases getting eradicated and such may often be impossible or nearly impossible at least in the near future. The other items are no less significant. Moreover, wouldn't you say it would be significant if cancer deaths were reduced to a tenth? What I meant earlier is that the article is biased towards events (and also slightly towards overall relatively insignificant events) and does not include WP:N WP:RS content on developments (which often can't be added well in the form of events plus those report releases could be considered events too).
• Reports about health (and main causes of death) are somewhat more difficult than the other items in the context of the article, they'd be far more useful or due if it was (a) chart/s, showing the changes during the/a year for example (overall plus notable special changes like unique trend reversals or slowdowns). Furthermore, there could be too many at least at some point. Maybe the health-related text items should be excluded.

Prototyperspective (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

well I'm still opposed, you been rehashing the same arguments, and the article is already long enough we don't need this to make it longer. 4me689 (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Non-progress is a lack of change & is nowhere near important enough for main year articles. There's no chance that they'll be anything like a 90% reduction in cancer deaths in a year. If they reduce by 5% during a year, that's not important enough to include. No-one here has backed the inclusion of the content you want added to the article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Ales Bialiatski's Nobel flag (Result: done)

The flag for Bialiatski is that of Belgium, not Belarus, as it should be. I don't know how to change this, so could somebody rectify this? The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@The Voivodeship King:, thank you for noticing the mistake, I didn't notice until right before I went to bed but I didn't know the flag icon code for the belarusian flag.

(also you mind go and reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey) 4me689 (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The Nobel Prizes section (Result: retain)

Why do we have a Nobel Peace Prize section, I mean unless we have a section about the Academy Award winners, the noble peace prize section is useless cuz we have a List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates, I made this talk this section to see what everyone's thoughts are. 4me689 (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

We’ve always had sections for Nobel recipients of the year, and I don’t think that a film awards ceremony is really comparable. Don’t really have issue with retaining the format for each year. TheScrubby (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree with TheScrubby. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and I brought this up in November on Talk:2021/Archive 3. We don't include any other awards in main year articles. Nobels shouldn't have their own section; one entry in Events would be sufficient. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I Agree with Jim Michael 2, the Nobel Prizes aren't more important as than any other awards, that is why I think the section should be straight-up removed. 4me689 (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there is an argument to be made that Nobel prizes are highly prestigious and exclusive versus the dozens of Oscar categories or the hundreds of Olympic medals given out at each event, though I feel that in recent years they have been held to a lower regard. Perhaps it shouldn't have its own section but in events saying the "Nobel prizes in xxxxx,xxxx,xxx,xxx,xxx are awarded...." etc PaulRKil (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Vote

I am pinging every that have edited this article so far this month cuz it's going to be a big change, @PaulRKil:, @Jim Michael 2:, @Alsoriano97:, @TheScrubby:, @أحمد توفيق:, @Einbierbitte:, @Keller Scholl:, @Johnson524:, @Wjfox2005:, @Rodney Baggins:, @Unknown artist:, @Jtnav04:, @Blaze Wolf:, @Nikey05:, @Elijahandskip:, @Petrandreev13:, @Tumford14:, @Drewsky1211:, @MrMimikyu1998:, @Dunutubble:, @Deb:, @InvadingInvader:, and @The ganymedian:

Do we keep or remove the Nobel Peace Prize section 4me689 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't ping every editor that edited the article this month. Just ping ones who have made significant contributions. I myself don't really care about this subject. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Depends if the Nobel Prize section is in all previous years The ganymedian (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@The ganymedian:, It's pretty much in every main year article 4me689 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say if Nobel Prize winners are in every year it would be better to just keep it because then you'd have to delete it from every prior year for the last 100 years, and that would be a pain @4me689 The ganymedian (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"because then you'd have to delete it from every prior year for the last 100 years, and that would be a pain " Not sure I care too much about this, but think it is worth noting that there is no requirement for all year articles to be identical; Nobel prizes may be more significant in some years than others. JeffUK (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is about all year articles, not just this one. Obviously, whatever we decide in regard to these awards will apply to all main year articles. Moving them to a single entry in each article wouldn't be difficult. They're not the undisputed main event of each year, which is what giving them a dedicated section strongly implies. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Seconding Blaze Wolf on tagging: my contribution in this month was disambiguating a link in a January event. That said, I think that while the Nobel prizes should absolutely be mentioned in the relevant month, ideally with a sentence about what they were for, it's better to overload October than give this one event importance equivalent to an entire month. If we're going to keep them, they should get a little more description (at least comparing to 2021 and 2020, when there are only names).Keller Scholl (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep, please. No convincing argument has been given for removing it. Deb (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
2. The contribution to humanity made by Nobel Prize winners is incomparable to all other prizes. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
3. These represent the pinnacle of scientific, intellectual, and other achievements by humankind, and are highly notable. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
4. Nobel Prizes are very exclusive and measure major contributions to the world in incredibly crucial fields. PaulRKil (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
5. I agree with keeping a separate section. It avoids cluttering the events columns, and are far too notable to be sent into somewhere like 2022 in Science. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
6. Retain, as I’ve indicated in my previous comments. TheScrubby (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
7. The event is of international and unquestionable notability and requires a level of detail in naming the award winners than the events section couldn't provide. The Voivodeship King (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove and add to event section instead

1. Nobel Peace Prize ain't as more prestigious as any other award, that means it shouldn't get its own section though I don't mind getting it added to the event section 4me689 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

What award is more prestigious than a Nobel Prize? With all due respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

One entry, in the main body of the article, is sufficient for all main year articles. A separate section is unwarranted. It's portraying them as being by far the most important event of the year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove

1. We don't need that section in these Year pages. We've already got an article with a list of Nobel winners. PS - This discussion should be an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Aaron Carter (Result: exclusion)

Does Aaron Carter have sufficient international notability to be included? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Exclude, he didn't really have any famous songs 4me689 (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to insufficient international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to his lack of international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I would have to say Include because I have heard of him many, many times and always wondered why he seemed to be considered so important to younger people. Deb (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

how do you even say include for Aaron Carter if he never had a hit song, if we were to include Aaron Carter then we would have to include takeoff or Leslie Jordan 4me689 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Carter & Takeoff have a similarly small amount of international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

While I don't exactly disagree with this, many of your arguments are carbon copies of WP:All or nothing, which is an argument one should avoid in discussions. All or Nothing arguments also assume that case-by-case decisions are something that should rarely be used, which is inherently incorrect because nearly every situation has unique circumstances which are likely good for comparison in quality but not on inclusion/exclusion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Deb, I think we should include given his notability along with what InvadingInvader mentioned below as well. PaulRKil (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally I never heard of him until he died. No strong feelings towards inclusion or exclusion. I might know some of his songs if I heard it. Sometimes I know songs without knowing the singer by name. Open to any arguments one way or the other. FireInMe (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The one song he's done that most people have heard of is his 2000 cover of I Want Candy. He's also generally well known amongst people who were teenagers or tweens during the early to mid 2000s because of his generally high-profile relationships with Hilary Duff and Lindsay Lohan. Carter is a figure where it would not be a bad assumption to make that most people of the time would have known, and both a Google search for "Was Aaron Carter popular in Britain combined with this Google Trends data shows that not only he was extremely popular in the United States and Canada but also had substantial popularity in the rest of the main Anglosphere countries and Germany, as well as notable attention (especially his death) in all of the Western World (especially the European Union), many South American countries, India, the Philippines and Japan. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Carter merely had fans in many countries, which is the reason for the international media coverage. That's true of thousands of people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That's proof that he's had an impact across the world. By far and away he isn't the most notable, but given that he's had fans all over the world, that would suffice for international notability, albeit not to an extent as Lansbury or Meat Loaf. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

He isn't even known in all countries, let alone had an impact on all of them. He, like thousands of celebs, has fans in many countries. That's not substantial international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone re-added Carter in the 1987 article and removed him. Should he also be excluded from the 1987 article too? Kyu (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

If they're not important enough to be in Deaths, they're not important enough to be in Births. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022 (3) (Result: Not done)

I would like to request for an new timeline event to be added:

• 2022 – A study estimates the air pollution impacts on climate change and the ozone layer from rocket launches and re-entry of reusable components and debris in 2019 and from a theoretical future space industry extrapolated from the "billionaire space race". It concludes that substantial effects from routine space tourism should "motivate regulation".

I agree that it should be on year 2022 article. 204.129.232.195 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This would be better placed on 2022 in science, but I'd like to get other editors' opinions first InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with InvadingInvader on this 4me689 (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader Any reasons why? -- 204.129.232.195 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

What I'm primarily concerned about is undue weight given to space tourism. If the industry becomes mainstream in 10 years, I would not be opposed to inclusion, but space tourism here and now is too small. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• • Without mentioning who carried out the study, it's impossible to decide whether it was a reputable source and/or a particularly significant report. Deb (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. People seem to disagree with it being included here. Not done for now until consensus to either include or exclude it is presented. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

It's nowhere near important enough for this article. It includes theoretical future & extrapolated. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Moldova strike (Result: exclusion)

There's an importance tag on Russian strike of Moldova. Should this strike be included? MarioJump83 (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Include - Personally, I would include this since this is the very first time Russia struck a village outside of Ukraine, which is quite an escalation of the war. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Exclude because it doesn't have an article & appears to have been a one-off which was accidental. There was no response to it. It's far less notable than the 2022 missile explosion in Poland, which also shouldn't be included due to it being unintentional & there being a lack of a physical response. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Exclude as per Jim Michael. TheScrubby (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Exclude as per Jim Michael and TheScrubby. 4me689 (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait. If nothing changes, exclude. But if this is one of the inciting incidents for a future conflict or escalation between Russia and Moldova/Transnistria/whatever, keep it or add it back in. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I realize that this is may not hold much significance until Russia really escalates the conflict outside Ukraine. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we could make it a retroactive inclusion if an escalation happens. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Irene Cara (Result: borderline inclusion)

is Irene Cara notable enough for inclusion,

Cara sang and co-wrote the song "Flashdance... What a Feeling" (from the film Flashdance), for which she won an Academy Award for Best Original Song and a Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance.

I'll wait for other replies before I put my opinion down, also please put a good detailed response and not something like insufficient International nobility 2022 in the United States. 4me689 (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure. Probably exclude because I don’t think I have ever heard of her until now. Kyu (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

So far as the Oscars go, automatic inclusion has only ever gone to those who are recipients of the Best Director and Best Actor (or Supporting)/Actress awards. Winning an Oscar for Best Original Song has never been a prerequisite for inclusion for musicians, nor should it be. The Grammys too are overwhelmingly Americentric to be considered a major factor for international notability, as has been discussed here before. As for Cara, I would say exclude due to insufficient international notability, her primary source of notability being for her role in Fame and for the aforementioned Flashdance song. TheScrubby (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Include because although all her awards are American, two of her songs reached number 1 in the national charts in a few countries each. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Include as she had notable success in the eighties and a handful of international number one songs. PaulRKil (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Never heard of her, but it does seem like that she is notable enough for inclusion based on other people's comments so far. I'll say neutral for now as I would like to wait for more, but I would support inclusion later if no one has any further major objection. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

She was very well-known in the 80s, but international notability rather than number of fans is what we go by. Soloists who've had number one singles (or albums for that matter) in multiple countries' main charts should be automatically included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Not saying this applies to Cara at all, but surely this doesn’t include one-hit wonders who had one major hit that went number one in multiple countries internationally? TheScrubby (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that they wouldn't usually be notable enough. It's difficult to measure the notability of entertainers. Two major international solo hit singles or one album should be enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Jim Michael. 4me689 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Include, Cara has a couple of number 1 hits that went number 1 in not only the us, but also in a couple of other countries outside of the us as well, she is also generally well-known outside of the us as well. 4me689 (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Christine McVie in lead? (Result: not included)

According to Scrubby's recent edit summary, Jiang and McVie are easily November's two most notable deaths. McVie is absolutely accomplished, but does she deserve to be in the line of entertainers in lead? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

What requirements should get someone in the lead in the first place? I agree with @PaulRKil someone needs to be removed for McVie to be included, just to avoid clutter. FireInMe (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m willing to add her under the condition we elect to remove at least one of the entertainers already listed in the article lead. PaulRKil (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

agree, we should find someone to remove. 4me689 (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This is hard. I'm also leaning towards removing one person, and I'd like to describe my reasoning for who that person is below:

• Poitier, Godard, and Lewis should stay on. They achieved notable firsts for their race, genre of film, and genre of music respectively.
• Lansbury is not only a cultural icon but also was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. She's gotta be on there.

Olivia Newton-John is the only one left. The question then becomes: is McVie more notable than Newton-John?

Let's take a look at their kudos/achievements/points. For Newton-John:

• She starred in Grease, one of the most recognizable soundtracks to this date.
• She's an extremely successful recording artist.
• She did compose/write songs, and had tons of iconic songs. She didn't write some of her most famous ones, though (Physical is the one that comes to mind that she recorded but didn't write).
• Identified with more pop music.
• Knighted by Queen Elizabeth.
• Multiple lifetime achievement awards and Grammys

As for McVie

• Mostly famous for Fleetwood Mac, one of the most famous bands in the world
• Was part of Fleetwood Mac for Rumours, one of the best selling albums ever and the number 7 ever according to Rolling Stone
• On Rumours, she wrote Oh Daddy, but most notably You Make Loving Fun and Don't Stop.
• Wrote more songs in general than Newton-John
• Multiple lifetime achievement awards

If both could go on, they should both be on. But in the end, Newton-John is the more notable of the two. It mainly comes down to two factors for me: scope of recognition and musical diversity. In scope of recognition, Newton-John was knighted, and while she didn't write her own songs to the extent McVie did, she did write some at the very least. She's sold more records, though Newton-John's own singles and the 15-million copies sold Grease album (taken individually) are all dwarves by Rumor's nearly 30-million copies. This is where musical diversity comes in and gives Newton-John the cake: Newton-John is mostly a pop singer, while McVie is mostly in the rock genre. Through Jerry Lee Lewis, rock is already represented in the lead, and removing Newton-John for McVie would give undue weight towards rock. Newton-John is the sole pop singer in the lead, and unless Katy Perry or Taylor Swift suddenly (though sadly) did meet her end this year, Newton-John is the most memorable and notable pop singer who did pass away this year. Anyways, just my thoughts. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your take here, we should leave it as is. PaulRKil (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Support retaining status quo, which means excluding McVie from the lead section. She was undeniably notable, but not to the extent that Olivia Newton-John or Jerry Lee Lewis was. In any case I don’t think we should have any more representing musicians, lest we bloat the lead section (which I already have my reservations about to begin with). TheScrubby (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. A picture should suffice. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think McVie is important enough to be in the lead, and all the people currently in it are more notable than her. I agree to keep it as it is. She's easily the most notable entertainer to die in Nov, and Jiang the most notable person, so the photos should be of Jiang & her. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with TheScrubby. 4me689 (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Although I love Fleetwood Mac, I don't think McVie should be included. We have enough people in the lead already, and they're more famous/notable than her. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jiang Zemin Official.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Too many people with importance inline tags (Result: no consensus for Costa; exclusion for the others)

There has been too many people with important inline tags in November deaths section here are all of them

• Ela Bhatt, Indian social activist and chancellor
• Gal Costa, Brazilian singer
• Kevin Conroy, American voice actor
• Gallagher, American comedian

We need opinions on these people any thoughts??? 4me689 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Ela Bhatt: Borderline. I really don't know if which way it'll tilt.
• Gal Costa: Borderline Inclusion. Notable in the Latin music world, which spans multiple countries.
• Kevin Conroy: Inclusion, awarded voice actor and well known on every inhabitable continent.
• Gallagher: Unsure, the reason I say that is because of unsourced part on his article which states: "Gallagher's 13 TV comedy specials is second most all-time, behind only George Carlin", if confirmed by a reputable source then Gallagher will be a clear inclusion as George Carlin ranks highly on comedians and if Gallager's specials are second to Carlin then he is in the top also.

FireInMe (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Include Costa, Exclude Conroy, Neutral on the other two. TheScrubby (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@TheScrubby Yeah, I got to agree with you in regards to Costa. Looking into her a little more I'll shift my stance from Borderline Inclusion to clear Inclusion. I do however disagree with you on Conroy he should be included. I would like to see others thoughts. FireInMe (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Firm disagree with Conroy; he had scant international notability, won no major international acting awards, and his name would not be recognised outside of hardcore fans of his work. Nowhere near say, Mel Blanc levels of notability. Belongs in 2022 deaths in the United States. TheScrubby (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say scant as a Trend search stretching back nearly two decades (2004-present) lights up multiple countries in regards to Conroy. But, I could agree with that it's not sufficient enough and switch my stance from Inclusion to Borderline Exclusion. FireInMe (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Exclude all - Only Bhatt has significant international notability, and I don't think that's sufficient.

I agree that Conroy's notability is domestic & well below that of Blanc.

Costa's article doesn't indicate that she was successful in any country other than Brazil.

Doing the second-most of something doesn't indicate any international notability; Gallagher is nowhere near as notable as Carlin.

We shouldn't become led by pop culture & fans. Thousands of entertainers have fans in multiple countries & the media coverage they receive is because of that. If we were to include people & events on that basis, we'd include James Michael Tyler for being in most eps of one of the world's most popular & successful sitcoms of all time. People don't gain the notability of all the works they've been involved with. The pop culture & fan route would also lead to us including a large number of socialites & reality show participants (such as Jade Goody, for appearing in reality shows in two countries), actors who've appeared in notable works in multiple countries (such as Rachel Blanchard & Ed Westwick), celebrity weddings & high-profile murders such as those of Sarah Everard & Gabby Petito. Fans of entertainers - including Bob Saget, Louie Anderson, Gilbert Gottfried, Technoblade, Marsha Hunt, Robbie Coltrane & Leslie Jordan - have been very persistent in repeatedly adding them to this article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's focus on Gal Costa both TheScrubby and I see notability in her, but you say differently. There's too many opposing takes on the same person. FireInMe (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

We need to go by the WP articles of each person. Costa's doesn't indicate significant international notability. If she performed, won awards, charted etc. in other countries, that should be stated. Brazil is the only country in the Americas which has Portuguese as its main language. In order to be popular in other countries in the Americas, she'd have had to sing in Spanish, but her article doesn't even say if she spoke Spanish. If she sung at concerts, charted or won awards outside Brazil, that should be stated in her article. It's no good for someone on here to - for example - claim that 5% of people in Argentina & 2% in Chile thought she was great. The article would need something like: she frequently performed in concerts at large venues in Bogotá, Caracas & Lima, at which she sung in Spanish. Compare to Shakira's article, which makes clear her great international notability & the fact that she often performs in both Spanish & English. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"She recorded four more albums in the '70s. In the '80s, she gained international exposure, touring through Japan, France, Israel, Argentina, the U.S., Portugal, Italy, and others." Source: https://www.allmusic.com/artist/gal-costa-mn0000191699/biography FireInMe (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

And she was scheduled to play in London, England on April 22, 2023: https://www.songkick.com/concerts/40521133-gal-costa-at-union-chapel FireInMe (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Is AllMusic a RS? If so, that info should be added to her article. The Career section of it says she recorded songs in Portuguese, Spanish & English, but there's no ref to back that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

AllMusic is not a source for establishing notability, but it's good as a source for information with other sources. It's not the best source, though. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Exclude all. Internationally notable, but not enough to meet our threshold compared to our other entries. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

If she sang to large crowds at concerts in several countries, that'd make her internationally notable enough - but her article doesn't say she did. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Vote

sign your name and put yes, no, or neutral on all the people listed below, also know that the James foebertin responses are not my responses\and not my opinions they're only there for examples 4me689 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

pinging everyone from the other discussion @FireInMe: @Jim Michael 2: @TheScrubby: to come down to this discussion 4me689 (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

When all averaged out I'm Neutral on all four. In regards to Gal Costa I'll let Jim Michael and TheScrubby debate it out. But obviously someone else will need to intervene to reach some agreement. FireInMe (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Ela Bhatt

• Exclude - more international notability than the other 3, but not enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude - per lack of international notability. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Gal Costa

• Exclude - little evidence in her article that she has significant international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude - lack of international notability. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Kevin Conroy

• Exclude - notable only in the US. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude for reasons I already stated above. TheScrubby (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude - lack of international notability. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude - as per above 4me689 (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Gallagher

• Exclude - notable only in the US. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude - lack of international notability. GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude per above. I thought he had passed away some years ago... _-_Alsor (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude per the above. Deb (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)