Misplaced Pages

Talk:2023: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:27, 27 May 2023 editAlsoriano97 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,242 edits →Donald Trump Sexual Abuse Case← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:54, 14 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,763 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:2023/Archive 2) (bot 
(754 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=y}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Current events}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1=
{{WikiProject Lists |class=List|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject History|importance=Mid |Contemporary History=y |Contemporary history-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Years|class=List|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Lists|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Years|importance=Top}}
}} }}
{{Daily pageviews}} {{Pageviews}}
{{Faq|collapsed=y}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
== External links modified ==
| algo = old(120d)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
| archive = Talk:2023/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 250K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}


== ] ==
I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090714041927/http://www.nfi.no/english/norwegianfilms/show.html?id=1050 to http://www.nfi.no/english/norwegianfilms/show.html?id=1050
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207034441/http://www.anime-int.com:80/works/burn-up/scramble/story.html to http://www.anime-int.com/works/burn-up/scramble/story.html


Various languages becoming extinct following the death of their final speaker.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
* ] - death on ], ], following the death of ]<ref>. The Spokesman. Spokane, Washington.</ref>
] (]) 12:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)


{{reflisttalk}}
{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}


== Continuing the collage discussion ==
Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 04:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


Image E - the US banking crisis - had only one vote as far as I can see. This was a domestic event that does not lend itself to a visual summary and should be immediately removed from the collage. ] (]) 08:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
== ]s ==
See ] for a matter relevant to this page. ] (]) 23:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


:I’m neutral on the topic’s inclusion, but I don’t like the rationale that no domestic events may be included. I could call maybe half of the current images “domestic” (especially Hawaii, but also Brazil). I also think we could do a lot worse for visual representation—we have three photos of hard-to-discern general destruction—but I see your point. For me, it comes down to importance, and it just feels borderline. But there are a lot of borderline topics. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 03:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:Why are eclipses excluded from the events section of year articles?! ] (]) 13:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not saying ''no'' domestic events may be included, but normally they are omitted if they don't have a major worldwide effect. As usual, this collage is US-centric, and I agree that several of the other images are equally uninformative. I'm moved to comment it out unless a genuine attempt is made to achieve consensus. ] (]) 13:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:::{{tq|“Major worldwide effect”}}: I’m fine with this, but I would also add an OR for something like “significant domestic historical importance”. I agree about the collage being US centric, but US financial events {{em|do}} have more global importance than most countries. Again, I am neutral on this one, so if nobody else comments, you can just remove it (as a somewhat ] edit), but if we were acting on your criteria, wouldn’t the fires in Hawaii have even less “major worldwide effect”?
== In fiction removal ==
:::For the record, I would cast only a weak vote to remove the Hawaii wildfires, and I would replace either with the coronation of Charles III and the expansion of NATO, both being more international, and more historically significant. But perhaps it’s worth just carrying on with {{u|WeatherWriter}}'s planned polls? <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 22:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
At least put it in see also ] (]) 23:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
:we normally don't have it in main year articles, and I don't think there's an article for ]. ] (]) 02:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC) ::::My opinion: the largest banking crisis in the largest economy in the world is very featured. ] (]) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
{{multiple image

| perrow = 3
== Things going to the ] (Result: exclusion) ==
| total_width = 300
there has been repeated additions of "In the United States, books, films, and other works published in 1927 will enter the public domain, assuming there are no changes made to copyright law." should this be kept or removed cuz it seems to be normally removed off the year pages when the year has begun. ] (]) 17:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
| image_style=border:none
:I don't think we need it, it's basic maths. Not to mention that it's a domestic law in the US, and many countries have similar copyright laws with different lengths of time for different types of works, and many other laws have sunset clauses (classified documents, statute of limitations, etc.) ] 11:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
| image1 = Memorial to PMC Wagner leadership in Moscow (27-08-2023).jpg
:Per JeffUK. Copyright laws differ in every country, and even if the works are internationally popular it shouldn't be included. ] (]) 01:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
| alt1 =
:Keep it on ] per JeffUK. Not everybody lives in America <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 10:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
| image2 = U-2 Pilot over Central Continental United States (7644960) (cropped).jpg

| alt2 =
== ] in ] (Result: exclusion) ==
| image3 = Titan submersible on the ocean floor.jpg
I suggest removing the entry. According to ], such move was announced several times in the past, but never followed through, and the only sources are from the beginning of 2022 referring to plans. I can find no confirmation of any official change today, and the of the government website still defaults to cyrillic. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
| alt3 =
:It shouldn't be included under any circumstances - it's domestic. ] (]) 14:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
| image4 = Damage in Gaza Strip during the October 2023 - 01 (cropped).jpg
::I don't know, I think it it fits within the broader question of prevalence of either script, similar to driving direction, so I wouldn't oppose keeping it if it really happened. Its scope is thus broader than national elections, for example. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
| alt4 =
:::I see it has been removed, which I would agree with on the basis of the evidence presented by {{u|Yerpo}}: there is no sense in including something that does not appear to have happened. Now, if it did happen, I would support the change: script changes are pretty significant. ] (]) 08:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
| image5 = Waving from Buckingham Palace Balcony (52877352018) (cropped).jpg
:Domestic event. ] (]) 01:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
| alt5 =

| image6 = Ataque bolsonarista ao Congresso Nacional do Brasil.png
Ok, the only reason i included it is to be paired with the "detailed logarithmic timeline" article, but as i see is unconfirmed i'll stop editing it back ] (]) 14:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
| alt6 =

| image7 = Signature bank storefront (39th & Madison) reporters swarming.png
== 2023 ==
| alt7 =
I came here looking for the number. I think the year should be specified as 2023 (year). Consider the entry for ]. It differentiates, and the number is before the year. In any case the entry for the number 2023 is found at https://en.wikipedia.org/2000_(number)#2001_to_2099 It is unfortunately minimal. ] (]) 00:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
| image8 = Aleppo after the 7.8 magnitude earthquake centered in Türkiye 3.jpg
:The ] changes at some point from the number to the year. You can see the discussion from 2016 ]. ] (]) 06:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
| alt8 =
:I would recommend you propose this on ] and start an RFC. As for my opinion, I'm neutral. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 15:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
| footer =
: As we have very very few articles on numbers above 2000, I don't see why we need to do this. There's no reason to disambiguate when we only have one article. The articles that we do have in 2001-2099 seem to be mostly WP-SYNTH, trivia, and/or poorly sourced anyway. I would support this if there was an article about something other than a cardinal number called '2023' that was in common use, (e.g. ],] ) ] 16:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Does ] deserve to be in the deaths list? Just wondering :) ] (]) 12:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
:Not sure... ] (]) 12:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude'''. He's a racing legend, but is he ''internationally'' notable or well-known, outside racing or motorsports? Motorsports has been past it's popularity back in 2000s. ] (]) 03:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' Not international notable. ] (]) 03:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability. ] (]) 13:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''' Block was a household name in the international car world; it's easy to find outside the US (,, , ). <b>] ]</b> 16:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::What are his international achievements? ] (]) 16:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::: What are Cunningham and Khasbulatov's international achievements? <b>] ]</b> 16:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::::They don't appear to have any, so they shouldn't be here either. Substantial international notability is a requirement to be listed in main year articles. ] (]) 17:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::::: I understand that year articles should not be exhaustive in listing deaths, but looking at ], I find it difficult to argue that Block is less internationally notable than many listed there. <b>] ]</b> 17:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::If you'd say what exactly his international achievements are & which other sportspeople you're comparing him to, we could work out if that's true. ] (]) 17:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::: You can read the ] article for yourself. I fail to see how his wide range of motorsports achievements are less notable than a ] who won a single Olympic medal. Additionally, Block had wide recognition outside of motorsport due to his popular video series. Block has orders of magnititude greater Google new hits than many of the atheletes mentioned for the last few months of 2022. <b>] ]</b> 18:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have & I don't see anything that makes him important enough. The vast majority of people outside the US haven't heard of him. If there are any particular sportspeople who are included in other main year articles whom you think shouldn't be, you can discuss them on the relevant talk page(s). Winning an individual Olympic gold grants automatic inclusion. ] (]) 20:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Which Athletes ? Name them. ] (]) 01:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' There's a difference between "household name" and "known in the international car world" (what is an international car anyway?) Sorry but this is another US celebrity assumed to be internationally known. I agree that Cunningham should also be excluded; I've ''never'' believed that astronauts should be automatically included. Khasbulatov, if I'm understanding correctly, was the leader of a state for a time, so falls into a different category. ] (]) 18:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:: If we're going to apply that level of exclusivity, a large portion of the sporting figures in ] should be culled. <b>] ]</b> 18:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::: Not sure what you mean by "that level of exclusivity". Gold medal winners and world champions have a specific achievement that can be measured. Is there something similar you can point to for Block? ] (]) 07:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Borderline exclude'''. Most people outside of the US and Canada haven't heard of him, and the niche of racing doesn't seem to be as internationally important or culturally/counterculturally recognized as anime or cryptocurrency. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 23:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::Racing in general are more significant culturally in Indonesia so some of my friends knew about his death in my personal experience, but overall racing is nowhere that prominent as it was back in 2000s, nor it will ever be again. ] (]) 01:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:::It's a tough one personally to say exclude...I wish racing would become more popular but this is the world we live in. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 13:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' due to lack of international notability. ] (]) 01:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:This is a tough one but I'll say '''Borderline include'''. He was a notable racer based on Google Trends Top 5 countries are not even the United States but rather South Africa, Hungary, Paraguay, Argentina, and New Zealand. ] (]) 10:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
::We don't include based on ]; that measures popularity, not notability. ] (]) 11:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:::That's a fair enough point. However, it does dismantle the argument that he "wasn't known outside the United States" that is patently false. ] (]) 13:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
::::He wasn't known outside the US to people who aren't fans of his sport. In comparison, most people who aren't football fans know of ]. ] (]) 14:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::Block also wasn't known within the United States to people who aren't fans of his sport, just like most sportspeople. I agree that many people who aren't football fans know of ] but to say most would imply that you surveyed nearly 8 billion people, which would be very impressive. ] (]) 15:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::::If a survey were done, I feel sure that it would show that most people in the world have heard of him. ] (]) 15:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I do agree a significant amount of people would have heard of ]. But would it meet the bare minimum threshold of 50%+1 to constitute most of the world? Potentially but it's not a guarantee. ] (]) 16:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::You certainly won't find many people in Brazil who don't know who ] was, regardless of whether they are interested in football. ] (]) 15:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@] Yes, that I can agree with you on. ] (]) 15:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::::A substantial proportion of people who know of Pelé were born after he retired. ] (]) 15:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Highly likely, but I haven't seen any numbers. ] (]) 15:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Neutral''' Although he was a co-founder of DC Shoes and that company influenced other countries and parts of a foreign land, I saw those editors that oppose and exclude. Plus, DC Shows also became part of a global brand like ] and ]. I might not know if any other people from other countries have heard of him, at least the co-founder participated in racing sports and other Motorsport events. ] (]) 23:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''' since he is very notable for moto racing. And he was an co-founder of DC Shoes brand that had opened stores worldwide. -- ] (]) 04:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Neutral''' Can't think of anything, only of more editors voted for include. -- ] (]) 05:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

== Discussion on the main year inclusion criteria on WikiProject Years talk ==
Hi guys; I thought I would inform you of an ongoing discussion on ] concerning changing the criteria for inclusion on main year articles. You can view it at ]. Thanks! <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 04:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Should Fay Weldon’s demise be included in the deaths section? She seems reasonably international as far as the Anglosphere goes. ] (]) 23:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' because she has little international notability. Some of her novels selling in some other countries isn't sufficient; that's true of a large number of authors. ] (]) 23:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Borderline Exclude''' due to insufficient fame garnered by her work <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 23:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' Her works are not internationally important, nor she is well known outside Europe. ] (]) 01:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''' This is probably my personal bias, but she was mega-famous in the UK and the Antipodes from the 1970s onwards, although it may be true that her work is not widely read nowadays. ] (]) 08:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
::Does that make her international enough? Many writers are very popular in a few countries. ] (]) 11:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude'''. Her works are used today in schools across the UK. I'm not sure if she was popular in the US or any other country though. ] (]) 12:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

And it's not just Journalism and Literature, it's race car drivers, trading card makers, fashion designers. My worry is that the standards we use for atheletes, and actors/singers does not work for EVERY field. Hint : It might even be.... Americentric. ] (]) 02:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
:We're discussing this presently in ]. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 10:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Should ] (not a made up name, trust) be included in the January deaths section? He seems to be like one of those scientists that are included in previous articles (such as June 2020). ] (]) 12:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Borderline include'''. He wasn't known beyond Southeast Asia as much, but he was certainly a notable figure in science based on his achievements. I'm additionally wiki-linking his name in this discussion to lessen the chance of people doubting Udwadia exists. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 15:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' because I don't see any evidence of him having significant international notability. Working in more than one country is very common & is nowhere near enough. ] (]) 16:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' Doesn't seem to be doing anything of high importance outside India. ] (]) 12:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

== ]'s speakership election in the US Congress (Result: exclusion) ==
Do we really need that here? I think we've established that US domestic elections, even if strange, aren't notable enough. It's historic but not really that belonging here. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 19:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
:Definitely not; it's entirely domestic. Why did you reinstate it? ] (]) 19:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
:I disagree. Domestic events ''can'' be of great importance. Perhaps we should revisit the domestic policy. ] (]) 20:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
::They can be of great importance domestically, which is why they're on year by country articles. In any case, this isn't important & shouldn't have been added to this article. The only elections that are for main year articles are general/presidential ones. ] (]) 20:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Let's face it, year by country articles get fewer views than ]. ] (]) 21:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::That's no reason to add domestic events to main year articles. ] (]) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
::::If you want to change consensus, there are active discussions on ]. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 03:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:Domestic events can be important and be listed, but this doesn't even meet that threshold. I agree with Hopkins though on year-in articles getting less views, and for the sake of putting readers first, we do need domestic events. Not this one, though. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 03:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
::We don't add domestic events for the sake of page views. If we were aiming to maximise page views, we'd include the ] as well as some celebrity weddings on ]. ] (]) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:It's a no-brainer: no way. ] (]) 21:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
:While it was interesting and the most votes since before Civil War, the end result was the same as the expected result, so really was just political theatre. Had a surprise Speaker emerged perhaps it would be notable enough for this page. ] (]) 04:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' Obvious local political event. --] (]) 04:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:It was great for C-Span's ratings, indeed. But, it didn't stop the planet from rotating. So '''Exclude''', as it belongs at the ] page. ] (]) 04:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:Very easy '''Exclude'''; to argue otherwise would be pure Americentrism. Purely domestic political event that didn't lead to any change of government. It's rightly covered in ]. ] (]) 04:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' per @]. It was a domestic political theatre mainly just a drawn out process delaying the inevitable. Just as @] says it's rightly covered in ]. ] (]) 18:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

== Sports ==
We have far more sports events in this article than in previous main year articles. Which ones should be removed? ] (]) 19:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
:Removing for the sake of it doesn't help anyone. ] (]) 21:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
::It's not for the sake of it. Main year articles only include the most important international sports events. ] (]) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:Wait until they pass, then determine notability. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 03:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:::We don't wait for that. ] (]) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
::::Elaborate. ] (]) 14:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
::::According to who else? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 16:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::You're seriously claiming that we need to wait until sports events have concluded in order to determine their level of international notability?! ] (]) 16:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::For most world championships, except for obviously single-country sports like American or Australian football, yup. We represent the world better. Deal with it. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 17:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::::We didn't do that for previous main year articles. ] (]) 22:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
::Sir, welcome to Year in Topic. You will see how this works. For my part, I would remove all the ones that are tagged. ] (]) 21:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
:::The vast majority of them aren't tagged, but most should be removed. ] (]) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
::I do believe that we should get rid of sports event that's not worldwide, e.g. Asian Games, Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, European Games, CONCACAF Gold Cup, etc. We can't have one rule for one continent and another for the rest. ] (]) 13:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:::That’s a good idea…but I think I’d be willing to keep one or two of the most important mainly continental events, or those largest in scope, especially if there are quite a few different cultural regions at play. Examples of this phenomenon would be the pan American games (since there’s not only Latin America but also white America) and the Asian games due to the large population of Asia and how East Asia, Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East are all distinct cultural groupings which just happen to be on a single continent. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: no consensus for inclusion) ==
Should ] remain included? From what I can tell he seems to be a purely domestic Russian political figure with scant international notability; and who is mainly known for his role in the ], which was an unsuccessful coup attempt. ] (]) 04:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' because he's a domestic figure. ] (]) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
::You can be notable and have most of your contributions confined to a country. Years being exclusively international is a much worse view than years being mostly international, as you fail to take into account notable figures and trailblazers. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''' Not all domestic politicians have to be excluded and, in some cases, their political careers are sufficiently well known to be included. In my opinion, this is the case of Khasbulatov. ] (]) 12:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
::What achievements make him notable enough to include? ] (]) 14:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. My opinion is the same as Alsor. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 16:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' I'm kind of baffled at why we're even arguing this one. He's not a key international figure or a former head of state. ] (]) 21:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Austria Football 02}} I invite you to give your two cents here rather than continuously removing the importance tag when this discussion has yet to be concluded, and Khasbulatov’s international notability has not been sufficiently proven here. ] (]) 01:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::] This was not an unsuccessful coup attempt, this was a successful coup carried out by Boris Yeltsin and not by Khasbulatov! The constitutional crisis in Russia in 1993 led to the end of the young democracy (duality of power between president and parliament - Supreme Soviet) in Russia and ensured that there was a "super-presidential" system of government in the Russian Federation from that moment on. The constitutional crisis of 1993 (also known as Black October or Yeltsin's coup in Russia) led to today's dictatorship of Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin's hunger for power created Putin's current power system in the first place. The deputies of the Supreme Soviet under their parliament speaker Ruslan Khasbulatov were on the good side during the constitutional crisis - they had the law and the constitution behind them. The deputies of the Supreme Soviet deposed Boris Yeltsin as President of the Russian Federation for repeatedly violating the Constitution, and in return appointed Ruslan Khasbulatov as Interim President! Unfortunately, this only lasted until Boris Yeltsin and the army violently had the White House in Moscow shelled with tanks on October 4, 1993 and had all deputies of the Supreme Soviet arrested, including Ruslan Khasbulatov! You dear @TheScrubby don't seem to know much about this topic! Finally, Ruslan Khasbulatov is an important political figure in Russian history based on the facts I outlined above and is therefore definitely important enough to be listed among the dead in the main Misplaced Pages article for 2023! At least as important or even more important than a British writer or a Jordanian Prime Minister! Khasbulatov was in fact the declared interim president of Russia! ] (]) 05:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Whether or not Yeltsin or Khasbulatov was in the right or was the “good side” is irrelevant here. None of this demonstrates anything other than Khasbulatov being a domestic political figure within Russia that belongs in ]. And, for the record, Khasbulatov was never appointed interim President - it was ], previously the Vice President under Yeltsin. If anything he would have a stronger claim for inclusion here than Khasbulatov. ] (]) 11:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::::] No one can tell me that people like Jeff Beck and George Pell are more important in world history than Ruslan Khasbulatov, who was practically the antagonist of Russia's then President Boris Yeltsin during the 1993 constitutional crisis (also known as Yeltsin's coup, Black October in Russia) . Look how many international media have reported his death. Now if the former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi were to die (hopefully not, hopefully she will have many, many more wonderful years), you would note her 100% on the main article of 2023.I am definitely not saying that other Russian Parliamentary Speakers belong on the Misplaced Pages main article (definitely not!), but he is important enough! He led the Yeltsin opponents during the 1993 constitutional crisis, he was the face of the opposing faction (Supreme Soviet) during one of the most important domestic political events in Russia in recent decades! Especially because this event was the origin of what is currently happening in Russia in terms of domestic politics! By the way, on the 2015 main article was also noted Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtzov. No one can tell me that an opposition politician like Nemtzov was more important in Russian history than Ruslan Khasbulatov! In the end I want to say that I definitely don't want to remove Jeff Beck, George Pell or Boris Nemtzov from the 2015 and 2023 main article, I just say that a Ruslan Khasbulatov definitely belongs on the main article of the year as well! As an Austrian I have 100% nothing to do with Russia or Russian politics, I'm just saying that this person is important enough to be on the main article! ] (]) 07:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::We don’t use ] to argue for people, especially if they are from categories that are fundamentally impossible to compare, such as ] and ] as you brought up - both internationally notable in their own right in their own respective categories. We don’t use international media coverage as a criteria for inclusion here; that is something that we have long repudiated here. ] would not be included here in the event of her death because she was also a domestic figure who held domestic posts, and whose international counterparts would never even remotely be considered for inclusion here. ] should also be removed, although an argument could be made for him as a borderline inclusion, especially given the circumstances of his death - but nevertheless not everybody has the free time and inclination to comb through every yearly article of domestic figures. Once again all your arguments in favour of Khasbulatov point to him being a purely domestic political figure who is already rightly included in ]. I highly recommend you take a look at the political figures criteria we’ve had in place for some time now, which you can read in the FAQs at the top of the page. ] (]) 07:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Does ] deserve to be in the deaths list? im just wondering :) ] (]) 08:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:Not sure. I only really know him from the Terminator movies. He was great in them, but I don't know if his notability stretches beyond that. ] (]) 11:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:I don't know if he's doing anything notable outside acting. ] (]) 12:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' because he has no international notability. ] (]) 12:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' - I'm familiar with a lot of actors but I've never even heard of him. ] (]) 12:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' per all above. ] (]) 12:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' I know many of the characters he voiced but I never would have placed the name of the actor to them. He clearly didn't achieve that much notability from the characters. ] (]) 14:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:Lean Exclude. He’s a sort of famous actor, but only had a supporting role, and really only famous for one movie. You can’t make the same case for him as you could with someone like Zoe Saldaña. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' He's just not notable enough. ] (]) 21:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability, per all above. ] (]) 22:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

==Inline citations==
There's no exception for predicted and scheduled events. In fact, all the more reason for them to have to include citations to prove they are not invented by the contributor. ] (]) 16:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:I completely agree. ] (]) 18:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:I fully endorse the instantaneous removal of anything on year articles which do not have reliably sourced citations. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
I do not believe this individual is anywhere near notable enough to be included in the deaths section. ] (]) 19:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' I agree, not a notable figure outside of Brazil. ] (]) 21:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability. ] (]) 22:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

== First photo of ] suggestion (Result: all discussion on collage premature as of now; hold off until later in the year) ==
I think that the storming of the Brazilian congress should be in the collage when there are eventually enough photos to make one ] (]) 01:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
:Sure. And also the funeral of Pope Benedict XVI. ] (]) 08:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - neither the storming of the Brazilian Congress nor the storming of the US Congress in 2021 should be included in the photo collages; and their inclusions here overall are, at most, borderline. ] (]) 10:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
::Why do you consider that the assault on the most important institutions of a country are not sufficiently notorious when they are developed in apparent coup attempts? ] (]) 12:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Even if this is viewed as an attempted coup, we don't usually include those on main year articles. ] (]) 18:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
::::My stance for unsuccessful coup attempts is to include/exclude based on deaths, scale, and destruction, but I also factor in associated movements, associated figures, the rarity of coups or coup attempts in such country (exclude most coup attempts in places like Syria or other known battlegrounds), media coverage, and reactions. Those first few reasons are why I believe Brasilia and J6 are no-brainers for inclusion since they significantly damaged notable government buildings and involved thousands, while Germany should not be on main year articles since it was only a comparatively smaller group, even though Brasilia (at least to me) got about as much international coverage as Germany. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::It is for the reasons that you argue that I think the (ramshackle, quixotic) coup attempts in Brasilia and Washington can be added as borderline inclusions, but do not merit images on the photo collages for the main yearly pages. If the coup attempt was successful (such as with ]), or if mass protests led to a change of government (such as with ]), then those are far more internationally notable and ''do'' merit places on the photo collages. ] (]) 22:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::I would agree with likely getting rid of stuff like Brasilia and J6, but I would also consider collage additions of protests which went global to a significant degree, where everybody was watching them akin to a World Cup match. In recent memory, only Mahsa Amini (and if you squint at it, George Floyd) would fulfill that. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:Not yet. ] (]) 11:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
:Too early to say. We're less than 10 days into this year. ] (]) 15:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
:The ] is entirely domestic & shouldn't be in the article, let alone its collage. ] (]) 18:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Support''' both Benedict's funeral and the storming of the Brazilian congress, when the time comes, unless a more notable event happens before. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 22:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
::Why should the Brasilia riots be included in this article? They were a one-day, domestic attack in which no-one was killed. ] (]) 11:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
:::You can't be serious, Jim. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
::::I am. Even if you regard it as a coup attempt, it's not important enough. ] (]) 14:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' any collage images until at least halfway through the year. I wouldn't object to either of these events being included in the Events section though. ] (]) 08:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
:I agree with @]. It's way too early within the year to determine what images should go on the collage. Let other events play out and then determine. ] (]) 14:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

== Works from ] entering US Public Domain (Result: exclusion) ==
{{Edit semi-protected|2023|answered=yes}}
I found a statement from this article to be added:

* ] - Books, films, and other works published in ] enter the ].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Jenkins |first1=Jennifer |title=Public Domain Day 2023 |url=https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2023/ |website=Center for the Study of Public Domain |publisher=Duke University School of Law |access-date=4 January 2023}}</ref>

There is one where media works came to public domain this year. ] (]) 16:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> See discussion further up this talk page. ] (]) 16:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
:We don't include this in main year articles. ] (]) 18:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
{{ref-talk}}

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Does ]’s achievements as an astronaut merit inclusion here? I bring this up because an importance tag has been placed on his entry for some time now, and no discussion has taken place yet. ] (]) 23:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
:There has long been a consensus that being the last of ''something'' does not merit inclusion. I'd say '''exclude'''. ] (]) 00:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::Agree with Sir. '''Exclude''' him. ] (]) 08:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' due to a lack of international notability. ] (]) 14:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::'''Include''' because he was the last member of the Apolo 7 mission ] (]) 22:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:::See the comment by Sir Jack Hopkins. ] (]) 22:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::::i know that but apollo 7 was international you know ] (]) 23:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::walter deserves to be included in this article because apolo 7 was international ] (]) 22:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: included once date was announced) ==
{{edit semi-protected|2023|answered=yes}}
Can you add the 2023 New Zealand general election in the date unknown box. ] (]) 08:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
: That depends on the location. ] (]) 21:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Wait''' - I think we should wait until the election date is officially called, especially since the election isn’t actually due until, at latest, January 2024. ] (]) 22:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Re-open a new request when the date is announced ~ ] (]) 19:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
https://en.wikipedia.org/Charles_Simic#Personal_life_and_death

He seems to have awards from many international organizations for his poetry work. ] (]) 18:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''No''', very few people viewing this article will have ever heard of him. Just another desperately unknown figure who achieved decent things. Not enough to be included, I would say. ] (]) 20:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
{{edit semi-protected|2023|answered=y}}
Greetings, should we include this event in this article?

* ] – '''] scheduled at ] in ], ].'''<ref>{{Cite web |last=DeArdo |first=Bryan |date=December 8, 2022 |title=Where is the 2023 Super Bowl: Arizona Cardinals' State Farm Stadium in Glendale will host Super Bowl LVII |url=https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/where-is-the-2023-super-bowl-arizona-cardinals-state-farm-stadium-in-glendale-will-host-super-bowl-lvii/ |access-date=2023-01-02 |website=CBSSports.com |language=en}}</ref>

There is a Superbowl prediction that will happen in Glendale, Arizona in few months, plus a few sports. ] (]) 18:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:No, because it's a domestic event. ] (]) 19:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:It's one of the most watched sporting events in the world, so I say '''include'''. Domestic, sure, but ''bloody'' notable. ] (]) 20:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::To include the Super Bowl on an international year article would be ]. ] (]) 21:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::We never include domestic sports events. We don't include any of the ] because tennis isn't considered international enough. ] (]) 21:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Strong oppose''' - domestic sports event with little interest outside the United States, for a sport (gridiron football) that is not widely played outside the United States. We wouldn’t include the ], for example. The ] this is not, in terms of international sporting notability. ] (]) 21:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::@] Although, it is found only in the USA and no other country has that, why wasn't it notable enough to include it, when there are events like politics in the USA, included in international year articles? ] (]) 21:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:::We’ve had issues with ] in the past, and we’re not now going to add anything that would reinforce it. Not everybody has time to go through all the past year articles to trim it of domestic, internationally unnotable events. The Super Bowl has no international notability, as it is for a sport that is mainly localised to the US, and for which every team is American. We have pages like ] for a reason. ] (]) 21:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Which domestic US political events are in main year articles? ] (]) 22:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::::@] @], Look at ] and ]. That especially includes Capital Storming in the beginning of 2021 and national elections. Then, you will know what I mean by why some non-political events aren't included and added to this year's article and how to include some of them by discussing this page by each event. ] (]) 16:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::The ] should be removed from ]. Most general/presidential elections are included. ] (]) 18:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:To me, I might either say '''Include''' or '''Neutral'''. Super Bowl Events might be important to many of Americans. ] (]) 16:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::That’s not the way we do things here though. We’re not going to add domestic competitions for sports that are localised mainly in one country, nor will we apply a different set of standards for events from one country compared to the rest. We wouldn’t include the Super Bowl just as we wouldn’t include the ], the ], etc. ] (]) 19:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:::However, you do have a decent point, unlike other sporting events, we aren't sure that if players from different countries have recognized this event or partake in. ] (]) 22:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - This is an easy oppose. This is an American event for which people outside the US have very little interest. ] (]) 19:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. No one cares about the Super Bowl outside of America. If American Football was a more globally dominant sport, then I'd be open to inclusion, but the only people these days who care about American football are America, maybe Canada, maybe Mexico, maybe London, and maybe Munich. That's it. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''' People and users outside the USA, can watch the sporting event, although it is only hosted in United States of America. -- ] (]) 04:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
::You could say the same about literally any other sports competition. That doesn’t make it internationally notable at all. ] (]) 04:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:::I can understand about the point you got. ] (]) 16:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
{{ref-talk}}

== ] (Result: inclusion) ==
Does having been ] make him internationally notable enough? ] (]) 21:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:I’d lean towards '''inclusion''' - Pell was regularly described as among the most senior (specifically the third most senior) Catholics in the world (certainly the most senior an Australian has ever gotten), and among the most powerful and influential in the Vatican. Combine that with his notability over his role in dealing with the child sexual abuse scandals within the Church, and his own downfall and imprisonment (and acquittal) due to personal allegations of child sex abuse. Yeah, easily among the most internationally high profile senior Catholic figures of recent decades. ] (]) 21:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::"Very few recent figures in the Catholic church have left such a divisive legacy as Pell, who died at age 81 from cardiac arrest after minor hip surgery. '''He was once considered the third most powerful person in the church,''' and the rise, fall, and redemption of a powerful conservative has served to both energize and muddy the conversations within the church about sex abuse and justice."
::https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/01/cardinal-george-pell-complex-legacy.html ] (]) 22:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''' due to his significant role in the Catholic Church and subsequent scandal. Neutral on an image. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we put an image of George Pell in the deaths list? I mean, he has an image in the deaths list of the 1941 article, so why not put an image of him in the 2023 article's deaths list? ] (]) 23:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:oops, i mean births list ] (]) 23:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
::of 1941, sorry, i was pretty quicky ] (]) 23:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:While I agree with Pell’s inclusion in the article, there are other figures who ought to take priority for an image. Such as ] and ]. ] (]) 00:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed. ] (]) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: no consensus for inclusion) ==
he was a olympic shooting world champion, is that makes him notable enoguh in the world? ] (]) 23:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:oops autocorrect sorry, i was meaning "enough" ] (]) 23:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
:If we included Opympic gold medalists, these articles would be endless. ] (]) 11:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::We already have a consensus for some years now where Olympic individual gold medalists are included. Though we exclude those that won only team gold medals. As for Ballesteros, while he did win gold medals in various shooting tournaments, he never competed in the Olympics. Count me as '''Neutral''' overall, given that he was clearly very accomplished in his field, albeit a field that is admittedly extremely niche. ] (]) 12:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Well it's a bad consensus then given how many gold medalists there have been. We should include people based on fame more so than merely achievements, especially when said achievemts are redundant. ] (]) 16:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::::Fame isn't a good measure. There are dozens of reality show participants, TV presenters etc. who are much more famous than most highly-accomplished scientists. ] (]) 16:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

== Should we put 5 images for January just like last year? (Result: depends how much space there is at the end of the month) ==
Here are the possible contenders
1. Constantine of Greece
2. Jeff Beck
3. George Pell ] (]) 04:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:The number of images per month depends entirely on how much space there is at the end of each month, which is impossible to determine until after this month has concluded. It’s as simple as that. The number of images included in January 2022 is irrelevant. ] (]) 04:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:Only Constantine II should get a picture from those three. But it's too early to discuss. ] (]) 11:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::Constantine II should get priority yeah, though Beck is also fully deserving of an image as one of the most important and influential guitarists of all time. ] (]) 12:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

I think these are reasonable, but in my point of view I'd also remove any global games that aren't a globally popular sport ie the rugby world cup doesn't have nearly as much international notability as the olympics or the FIFA world cups but that is my own perspective and I don't think there'd be much agreement. ] (]) 13:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:] shouldn't be here. It's popular, but not an important or serious competition. It's a popularity contest in which countries award the most points to the countries they most like rather than those whose songs are best. ] (]) 15:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:I completely about eclipses. Hardly anyone notices. Absolutely irrelevant and occupies too much space. The Eurovision Song Contest is however global given how Australia and Israel, Azerbaijan and Armenia compete. Keep that one, even though Jim Michael 2 is '''completely right''' about how the winner is awarded. ] (]) 16:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::'''Keep Eurovision'''. While Jim makes a good point on deciding the winner, it's an international popularity contest. My opinion concurs with Hopkins on Eurovision, and further commenting would be redundancy. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' Eurovision and the celestial events. Wouldn’t be opposed to removing election entries that '''don’t''' result in a change of government/leader. '''Neutral''' on the rest. ] (]) 07:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' the celestial events in general, although there may be one or two exceptions for extremely rare events like transits of Venus.
:'''Alt proposal for elections''': What I would propose additionally is to '''add a new section to main year articles for elections'''. We've done something like that on ] for all the American elections that year, and if we have all general elections included in their own section (neutral though lean exclude on including less important elections like American midterms), people who want electoral data for the year can more easily sort through it rather than having to count everything out of the events space. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 22:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
::I wouldn’t be opposed to it - have it limited to national elections (exclude local elections and state/provincial level elections - basically exclude any election that doesn’t determine who forms government nationally), and perhaps bold the elections that result in a change of government/leader. ] (]) 01:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Should we add ] to the deaths list just like we did with ] in the 2020 article? I dont know who's more famous, but i guess jose f. bonaparte is more famous than him ] (]) 14:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:forget it, jose f. bonaparte is more famous than him, dont add him to the list ] (]) 14:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:Neither merit inclusion but one of the individuals you mentioned died close to three years ago... ] (]) 16:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::yeah i know that, duh ] (]) 22:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
{{atop
| status = Excluded
| result = No need to keep this open, we've established it doesn't belong here. ― ]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze&nbsp;Wolf#6545</sub> 16:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
}} }}
. Balanced? ] (]) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


:A doubt: Wagner Group or Putin? ] (]) 01:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Nagae Iku}} ? ] (]) 03:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::That's nice, but the image of the Chinese balloon and King Charles III's coronation are cropped a bit unattractively. Maybe I can make some slight modifications and help you upload it.
:::Then let me share my views on the Wagner coup and the arrest warrant for Putin: The Wagner coup was a significant event, as it is rare for such an occurrence to happen in one of the top three countries in the world. It captured global attention in the last days of June, but ultimately, the coup fizzled out. The arrest warrant for Putin is also a major event, with 123 countries obligated to arrest him, covering almost two-thirds of the world. This makes it a global issue. However, in September 2024, Putin visited one of the signatory countries—Mongolia—without being arrested, which undermines the feasibility and significance of the treaty. In summary, I believe both events are very important, and I find it difficult to choose between them. ] (]) 07:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::By the way, Putin did not attend the ] most likely due to his obvious arrest; Putin is visually a more recognizable figure. Could you fix the collage issues, please? ] (]) 09:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I'd disagree. The Wagner coup was highly newsworthy and widely reported; the Putin arrest warrant far less so. ] (]) 18:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Ok, right. Just waiting for the {{u|Nagae Iku|Iku}}'s update. ] (]) 00:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Can anyone help us? ] (]) 20:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Collages were kept per a previous discussion, so please put back the collage in some form (even if the former collage until someone decides what will be changed). Thanks. ] (]) 14:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


:The previous discussion was very clear that the images in a collage must be discussed and consensus should be achieved before they are added to the article. ] (]) 17:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|2023|answered=y}}
One more thing to say, do you all think that this event will be included in the article list?

* ] - ] is planned to open to the public in ] in ],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/14/23509025/super-nintendo-world-universal-studios-hollywood-opening-date-information|title=The first US Super Nintendo World opens its doors on February 17th|last=Lawler|first=Richard|website=]|date=December 14, 2022|access-date=December 14, 2022}}</ref> albeit reservations are required from park guests at grand opening.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://gonintendo.com/contents/11819-reservations-will-be-required-for-super-nintendo-world-s-opening-at-universal|title=Reservations will be required for Super Nintendo World's opening at Universal Studios Hollywood|website=GoNintendo|date=November 3, 2022|access-date=November 3, 2022}}</ref>

I have heard that the place is opening in ], plus this place previously opened in Japan. Also, that place is starting to open in places like Florida and Singapore. Since this is related to video games, I think that should be important enough to include it in this article. ] (]) 19:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:I don't think so. IT might be more relevant in a 2023 video game article but I Don't think it quite fits here. ― ]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze&nbsp;Wolf#6545</sub> 19:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:{{Not done}} Not convinced it should be on any WPYEARS article. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' due to zero international notability, as per InvadingInvader. ] (]) 20:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::@] @] @] But it is exclusive to SoCal, which is the most influential and leader of entertainment to cities in global. Are you going to think that theme park openings, especially roller coasters, are notable enough or they have significant and factual sources to be added to this article? ] (]) 21:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes. You just explained why it's not appropriate to include here. It's exclusive to SoCal so it doesn't have '''international''' notability. ― ]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze&nbsp;Wolf#6545</sub> 21:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::::Alright, but at least it opened in ], ], and ]. In all which are located in different countries and a state. ] (]) 21:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::No opening of theme parks or rides should be included on the main yearly pages, regardless of location. ] (]) 21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::@] Reasons on opening of theme parks or rides snot being included on the main yearly pages, regardless of location, although it is influenced worldwide. ] (]) 23:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::With little exception, it shouldn't be on ANY year article. Not even the "Year In" ones. Only exception is if we start a "Year In Theme Parks" series of pages. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 22:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
:] things such as amusement/theme parks, films, plays, TV/radio/web shows, singles, albums, concerts, novels, fashions etc. have no place in main year articles. ] (]) 12:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
::@] But what is the reason why ] things don't have any place in main year articles? How? ] (]) 16:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Because they aren't significant. ― ]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze&nbsp;Wolf#6545</sub> 16:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{ref-talk}}

== ] (Result: no consensus for inclusion; substantial international notability not proven) ==
Does ] have the substantial international notability to be included here, for his work as a cinematographer? Another figure who has had an importance tag places for some days now. ] (]) 20:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:well, the exorcist win an oscar, so yeah, he's notable enough to stay in the list ] (]) 22:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::wait, i see that the only crew members of the exorcist who win an oscar was William Peter Blatty and Robert Knudson, now i dont know if let him stay in the list or not :/ ] (]) 22:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:::We typically only include Oscar winners from the Best Director and Best Actor/Actress and Best Supporting Actor/Actress categories - otherwise there’d be too many inclusions from the entertainment field. Roizmann was neither the director of ] nor one of the actors, and in any case Roizmann did not win an Oscar for cinematography for that film, nor did he win any Oscars in general (with the exception of an Honorary award). Furthermore, people don’t automatically gain the notability of the films they worked on. ] (]) 22:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:owen roizman deserves to be in this list and heres the reason why: he received an Academy Honorary Award in 2017 ] (]) 23:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:There is already a section dedicated to this debate. But if I speak my mind, it wouldn't go down well. ] (]) 23:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''', sure why not. Don't see a problem with him in. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 22:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
::You reckon he has the substantial international notability for inclusion? So far there hasn’t been a strong argument in favour of inclusion in his case. ] (]) 23:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
:::While his achievements never one an Oscar, there's little doubt in my mind that he was very accomplished and brought together Oscar-winning films. Neutral, leaning toward inclusion for me. ] (]) 11:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

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

: Tier 1: ], ], ], and ] - as well as individual (not team) gold medalists of international sports competitions such as the ]. Include figures if at least globally known within the sport's culture.
: Tier 2: ], ], ], and ]. Include figures if globally known beyond the sport, and include the most notable of the sport's world ambassadors or most widely-successful promoters.
: Tier 3: National footballs (], ], ]), ], ], and everything else. Generally exclude with exceptions made only for the most outstanding, arguably “once in a generation” type figures, equivalent to ] and ] for soccer, or ] and ] for cricket - though in the event of inclusion they will not be prioritised for an image.

Feel free to discuss, and propose amendments where you feel is necessary. ] (]) 21:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:I agree, though we should be reasonably lax when it comes to enforcing this. ] (]) 22:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''' on tier 3. I'm sure that this tier will help the article to be improved. ] (]) 22:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
::I assume you mean you support the tier criteria as proposed? ] (]) 23:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Yes I am. This is how I choose. ] (]) 16:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:While we’re sorting out this criteria, where does everybody think ] and ] fit in the tier list? ] (]) 00:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
::Tier 2. Wrestling is not a sport, while boxing has its occasional unavoidable, universal superstars. ] (]) 01:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
::Do you mean ]? ] (]) 09:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Professional wrestling is what I’m referring to, yes. ] (]) 13:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
::Tier 2, but I'm also open to Tier 3. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 17:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
: I'd move cricket to Tier 2 and Rugby to Tier 3. Reviewing Google Trend data for web search/news coverage cricket is closer to basketball than association football. Rugby is far below baseball/basketball. As far as the Olympic are concerned gold winning medalists would have to be taken on a case by case basis. There are a lot of gold medalists and not every gold medalist is internationally notable. ] (]) 20:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Support''' TheScrubby's revisions, though I am also open to Nemov's suggestions. Presently there is an ongoing discussion on whether to axe the deaths section entirely on the WikiProject page; in the event such proposal succeeds, I would '''propose that this criteria be used for adding photos on ''Births'' and ''Deaths in Year X'' Articles'''. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 17:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Should ] death remain included? ] (]) 18:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:I think she should be included, but she was an entirely domestic figure and, knowing the people inhabiting this particular talk page, it’s impossible she will remain there. '''Exclude''' her, spare us a lengthy Misplaced Pages debate. ] (]) 19:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:She should definitely be included, the amount of media attention alone warrants it, regardless of the debate of her being a domestic figure. ] (]) 19:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
::What kind of grounds for inclusion is that? We never include people based on media attention. Otherwise entirely non-notable people such as ] would be included. We include people based on international notability, and being the daughter of a (very) internationally notable singer is not grounds for international notability. ] (]) 21:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Completley agree, I remember news coverage being rejected as a factor in including people's deaths since long ago. It's a long-established consensus. ] (]) 21:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:::]'s coverage was directly linked to her going missing and murder. ] had coverage about her career throughout the decades, I don't think those two are a fair comparison. That being said I lean '''exclude''' (for the time being) in regards to Presley. ] (]) 23:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
::::The point is, Presley was notable first and foremost as being the daughter of Elvis, and if she was known for anything else, it was for her high profile marriages to ] and to a lesser extent ], as well as her being the mother of ] (who as an actress has achieved greater notability than Lisa Marie, albeit still not sufficiently internationally notable for inclusion here). Her career can hardly be described as internationally notable, and she didn’t enjoy anywhere close to the success of her father in her forays into music. ] (]) 00:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I'm in full agreement with you on those points. ] (]) 11:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
::I don't think Presley should be included. Aside from being Elvis's daughter and an ex-wife to Michael Jackson and Nicholas Cage, I don't see any inclusion on LMP. ] (]) 20:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' She's a domestic figure. ] (]) 20:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. I think her fame is notable enough for inclusion. ] (]) 21:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:Easy '''Exclude''' - she had no international notability and her main claim to fame, which even most obituaries emphasise first and foremost, is the fact that she was the daughter of ]. We don’t include people because of the notability of their parents, and Lisa Marie does not automatically gain the notability of her father. This discussion would not be taking place in the first place, and nobody would be trying to include her had her father not been Elvis. ] (]) 21:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
::And her other claims to fame are her ex-husbands. Again, she's clearly domestic and I change my previous opinion, '''easy exclude'''. ] (]) 21:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' because she has very little international notability. Main year articles don't include domestic figures due to their fame or media coverage. If we did, we'd include dozens of reality show participants, TV presenters & socialities. ] (]) 22:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:I waffled on this one, but I'll say '''Exclude''' for the time being. ] (]) 23:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The name of Lisa Marie Presley should be added as having passed away on January 13, 2023 under the heading "Deaths". ] (]) 19:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:She's being discussed above. ] (]) 20:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Should ] death remain included? ] (]) 20:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''', very localised fame. ] (]) 21:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' - domestic politician that belongs in ]. ] (]) 22:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

== Request to semi-protect this page (Result: done for two weeks) ==
There is a user whose name I will not mention (due to good faith), but I highly suspect he is the sockpuppet of a previously banned user who vandalised this article yesterday. I suggest we make this page semi-protected, to clamp down on vandals and potential sockpuppets, as was done in previous year articles. ] (]) 23:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
:ShaggyAnimate has been indeffed for frequent vandalism. This article is semi-protected; are you suggesting semi-protecting this talk page as well? ] (]) 01:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:This talk page has now been semi-protected for two weeks, not just because of the vandalism but also because of the events of yesterday with the abusive unregistered IP. ] (]) 01:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: borderline inclusion) ==
This was a one-day, non-fatal, domestic event. Buildings & some of their contents were damaged/stolen, but the buildings remain in use & the gov in power. ] (]) 12:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:Neutral, but leaning towards exclude, for the reasons you've given. ] (]) 19:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:Include. In addition to damage, it's led to massive amounts of arrests, the possible extradition of Bolsonaro, and involved a very large amount of people. Such amount is why I support inclusion of the Brazilian drama and J6 while would prefer to exclude the Reichstag incident from a few months ago. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 07:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
::Damage, thefts, injuries & arrests are commonplace for riots. The severity of each wasn't unusual. ] (]) 11:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:::The targets, buildings that house a nation's federal legislature, supreme court, and presidential palace are not commonplace. This was a large and coordinated attack whose participants were directly influenced by the deliberate rhetoric of national leaders. It wasn't a city hall or police station that burnt down. This wasn't just ''any'' riot. ] (]) 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
::::The buildings weren't burnt down; they were damaged & repaired. The gov remains in power. The attack had no international involvement, it was stopped within a day & no-one died. We don't usually include coup attempts - even when people are killed - so including this makes no sense. ] (]) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:At most, this is a '''borderline inclusion''', as per the arguments proposed by InvadingInvader - ditto the events of January 6. In no way should the event merit a collage image though. ] (]) 03:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:Include per InvadingInvader ] (]) 03:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

== Question (Result: status quo on what is listed in deaths entries) ==
can i/we put in the deaths list the things that those notable people were famous for? ] (]) 19:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:If you mean stating which film, song, competition etc. each is best known for, no, because it's excessive info. Occupation is sufficient. ] (]) 21:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Should ]'s death remain included? ] (]) 23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
:I struggle to see how he qualifies as internationally notable, seems to me like he was a reasonably local Soviet celebrity. I move towards '''exclusion'''. ] (]) 01:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' There doesn't appear to be much notability outside the former Soviet states. ] (]) 14:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' Negligible notability outside Soviet states, and I just knew this recently without prior knowledge. ] (]) 11:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: no consensus for inclusion) ==
Should we add ] to the list? He was the president of the Volkswagen Group ] (]) 00:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oui''', in my redundant opinion. Have a nice day! ] (]) 01:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
:No, and I think heads of businesses - even if they're multinationals - are rarely important enough. He made VW more successful, but many people have done likewise for their companies & I fail see how that makes him an important international figure. ] (]) 16:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: inclusion) ==
I think, she's famous enough for an inclusion? ] (]) 12:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
:I'd '''support''' inclusion. She seems to be internationally recognized and historic to world culture. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 15:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
: '''Support''' For those unfamiliar, here's a good overview of her career. She's sufficiently notable for her career outside of Italy. ] (]) 15:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude'''. Doesn't strike me as being particularly notable, certainly a pretty domestic figure, with ''some'' (albeit limited) recognition in the rest of the world. ] (]) 18:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''' as per InvadingInvader and Nemov. ] (]) 00:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Support''' per above, I can agree on other reasons editors gave out. ] (]) 16:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''' per above. -- ] (]) 05:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

== Who should we add an image of? (Result: wait until space becomes available for January) ==
A: Constantine II
B: Jeff Beck
C: Gina Lollobrigida
D: George Pell ] (]) 15:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:Constantine II. I think all monarchs should get pictures. ] (]) 18:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:Constantine II. ] (]) 18:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
:Once there’s enough space, I have no objections to this ordering of image preferences in particular - so Constantine II, followed by Beck, and (if nobody else more notable passes) then Lollobrigida. ] (]) 18:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
::Yeah, I’d now prioritise ] for the potential third image, over Lollobrigida and Pell. ] (]) 03:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
:::And now ] as well. Will be hard to choose between Beck and Crosby to prioritise for an image, as both were '''highly''' internationally notable in music. ] (]) 23:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
::::I would argue neither deserve an image. ] (]) 18:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: borderline inclusion) ==
We shouldn't include people for being the oldest verified to be living at the end of their lives - a title which has been held by dozens of people - nor for reaching a particular age. The only exception should be ] because she was the oldest of all time. Likewise we shouldn't include people for being the richest, tallest or shortest, heaviest or lightest, only/last survivor, most prolific, having had the longest career etc. ] (]) 09:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Borderline inclusion''' - I make the same argument here that I made in favour of ] last year, which I’ll quote in verbatim:
:''out of billions of people on the planet who have lived over the last century or so, only about 1,000-1,500 end up living to 110 and over at any one time. And of that miniscule number, just '''four''' have been officially verified to have reached the age of 118 and over - Tanaka herself was the first of just two people to reach that milestone this century alone. Their longevity may be their only point of notability, but it doesn't make it any less significant, especially when we're talking about their significance in the field of gerontology (it's said on Tanaka's Wiki page as well that she "has contributed to the debate that the maximum lifespan for humans could be 115–125 years"). Just including any supercentenarian or current "world's oldest person" title is not what I'm advocating, but the ones who made it over 118 I think should be an exception. Having said that, I would '''oppose''' the inclusion of "last survivor" supercentenarians such as ] (last person born in the 1800s), ] (last subject of ]), ] (last person born in the 19th Century), and other such figures, for none of them reached the 118 milestone… they absolutely are important if we’re talking on a biological scale and the field of gerontology. And I don’t think the inclusion of the four 118+ year olds (plus the oldest ever man, ]) would be too much of an issue, particularly given that only one has died at such an age in the last 22 years, and there are only two prior to that. So long as we strictly limit ourselves to them so far as supercentenarians are concerned.'' ] (]) 10:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
::Rarity doesn't grant international notability. There's nothing special about 118. If you'd said 120, you'd have a good case. ] (]) 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
:::"There's nothing special about 118." -- erm, what? She was the ]. ] (]) 07:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
::::I didn't say it's not rare, I said it's nothing special. 120 is special. There's no reason to set an inclusion bar at 118. ] (]) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::So, being the 4th oldest verified person in 5,500 years of recorded history (and an estimated ]) is "nothing special". I don't think your argument makes sense. ] (]) 11:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::You could say likewise about extremely tall/short/heavy/light people or people who have very rare conditions. ] (]) 19:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Strong include'''. All people who have held the title of oldest living person should be guaranteed an inclusion because they are representing their respective years. ] (]) 12:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
::There are dozens who've held that title. How do they represent their years in anything other than ]? Who thinks of 2022 as the year that Tanaka died? ] (]) 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. It is ''exceptionally'' rare for a human being to reach 118. That makes her a notable individual. ] (]) 07:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
::Why set the bar at 118 rather than 116, 117, 119 or 120? ] (]) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Many supercentenarians died (RIP) at around the age of 116 and 117, and only four people managed to surpass the age of 117. Until we see more people die at the age of 118, it should be considered as the bar. I would support increasing the bar into 120, or the oldest living if there's a lot more people dying at that age, but not enough people died at the ages above 117. ] (]) 11:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''' Being nearly 119 years old is a far more significant feat. Until there's more people that could reach 118, 118 would be absolute minimum for inclusion. ] (]) 11:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:Exclude, I don’t think this is notable. We don’t include whenever the current tallest person or shortest person when they pass, don’t see why we’d include the current oldest person. We should only include the record holders in main year articles. ] (]) 04:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
::The majority of people voting in favour of inclusion (borderline or otherwise), are doing so because she made it to nearly 119 - and only ''four'' people in recorded human history has officially been verified to have lived from the age of 118 onwards. Not because she happened to be the world’s oldest living person at the time, which in the majority of cases we would exclude. ] (]) 05:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
:::No-one has said why we shouldn't likewise include the few people who are the world's tallest, shortest, heaviest, lightest, richest etc. people of all time. How about sole survivors of various disasters? People held hostage for the longest time? People who have the most kids? There's no reason to single out the oldest few. ] (]) 10:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
:::: I think it's OK to include them at this stage, 'The world's oldest person' tends to get page-space in multiple upstanding publications, 'The death of the worlds fattest/smallest/tallest' is more resigned to tabloid pages; Also, death and age are inextricably linked, so the 'age at death' is more relevant than any other statistic. If we get a year with more than a few 'oldest person in the world' deaths, then it becomes undue weight and we need to pick the one or two most prominent. ] 19:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

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

:::::Once again I agree with you, the recent articles are plagued with shocking exclusions of extremely important and well-known (albeit mostly domestic) figures to accommodate space for virtual unknowns, to the point where they are far too long to navigate through comfortably, especially if you're searching for a specific event/death. Nobel prizes being included is also very arbitrary. However, the way you are speaking to people is simply unacceptable. Change your mood, because you're not getting anywhere in here or in life with such appalling lack of manners. ] (]) 22:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

:Had you focused the topic solely on the arrest of ]’s son, everything would have been fine. Instead you have chosen to completely disrupt even your own topic that you started, and decided that it’s okay to make ] accusations of the regular users here, and to insult us and to dismiss consensus on various topics and fields here as “crap”. You have now been reported over all of this.
:We are not going to be intimidated, pushed around and insulted by one user, and we are not going to overturn consensus built up over the years by multiple regular users because one user thinks their opinion is worth more than everybody else’s. International notability is the bar for inclusion, and consensus is reached through discussion (be it for individual figures/events, or for overall fields such as politics and sports, as you can see with the criteria in place which you can read on the FAQs section), not through attacking other users. We have consensus to include events based on international notability and significance, not purely domestic importance and significance (for which we have Year in Country pages). We apply the same standards for every country, and do not discriminate or have a bias in favour of any one country. We have consensus to include national elections (elections that decide who governs an entire country) regardless of turnout, not local elections or internal party elections (with the exception of those that result in a change of head of government/state), no matter what the size of the country is (and the jibe about “Antiguacentrism” barely deserves to be dignified with a response; you don’t see the overwhelming majority of entries on the main yearly page as at all relating to Antigua). We are not going to overturn any consensus because an abusive unregistered user disagrees and thinks they knows better than everybody else. ] (]) 00:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

== The arrest of ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Should the arrest of ], son of ] and prominent drug lord, be considered to have the substantial international notability for inclusion here? ] (]) 01:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' this domestic event. López having international connections doesn't make his arrest, the related unrest or any future action taken against him by the Mexican gov internationally notable. ] (]) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Lean exclude''' Not sure if this is more significant event internationally, as in actually affecting other countries outside American continent, which in that case would be internationally notable. ] (]) 11:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''', because people visit these articles for events like this one, even if they are domestic. However, I'd also like to note that if we include it, the IP address from yesterday will have learned that violence and vulgarity does the trick, on Misplaced Pages at least. Hopefully not. ] (]) 11:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
::Whatever happened last time was ridiculous and should never happen again. By the way, and sorry for my choice of words, I have noticed that IP is in favor of coverage of events based on their political viewpoints and/or worldview, as well as how much it was covered within their country, rather than being actually inclusionary, as in inclusive with countries across the world like including events from Africa, Carribean, Latin America and Asia, which the IP seems to oppose. I personally had a problem with increasing lack of inclusion, but I recognize that international notability and how much it ''actually'' affects other countries outside of their origin are important factor towards inclusion with the article. ] (]) 12:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''', it is his son and I don't think he had the level of notability as his father. He wasn't the leader of the Sinaloa cartel either. In my point of view, we should treat leaders of major drug cartels in the way we treat leaders of major terrorist organizations ergo only events surrounding established leaders of the orgs are included. ] (]) 15:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Boarderline Include''' News about the cartel is more than a domestic event since these crime bosses have an impact in South/Central/North America. ] (]) 15:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
::Ovidio Guzman Lopez, while being a high ranking member, was not ''the'' leader of the Cartel. His significance is due to his relation, even though there are figures that outrank him and whose arrests we wouldn't include here as well. ] (]) 18:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' as per PaulRKil. ] (]) 21:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Borderline Exclude.''' The Sinaloa Cartel is old news, only substantially affects the Americas, lacks the importance of a domestic event to be included here (nowhere near as important as Bin Laden or El Chapo) and comparatively unnotable to Matteo Denaro. It's a notable arrest, but not enough for a main year. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
::As far as I’m aware 30 people died in the ensuing ordeal. A public skirmish like this is what we should be aiming to include in year articles. ] (]) 12:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Events with similar death tolls are common during many armed conflicts. There have been many attacks/]s/clashes/] during the ] which have similar or higher death tolls. We don't usually include them because they're domestic & not outstanding. There's no good reason for making an exception for this arrest & related unrest. López will already have been replaced & there's no indication that his arrest will be a turning point in defeating his cartel, let alone in ending the conflict. ] (]) 14:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

== The arrest of ] (Result: exclusion) ==
Does the arrest of ], Godfather of the ], have the substantial international notability for inclusion here? The event currently has an importance tag placed on it, so it’ll be good to reach a consensus on this. ] (]) 01:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
:<s>'''Lean towards inclusion, but some questions needed'''</s> '''Exclude''' – In comparison to above, being a top Mafia boss of all bosses are much likely to impact worldwide crime. However I have some questions. Do Mafia have a fraction of power they had prior to 21st century? Or do they actually impact other countries outside United States and Italy at this point in time? ] (]) 06:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
::The short answer is no, the power of the mafia has been in sharp decline since the 80s in both the USA and Italy. A majority of the mafia's white collar criminal enterprises have been stopped by RICO laws in the US (spearheaded by figures like Rudy Giuliani when he was the DA for SDNY) and similar laws in Italy. Meanwhile, any type of street level crimes and drug trafficking have long been taken over by other groups such as Mexican cartels. Simply put, the Italian mafia is nowhere near the prominence it once had. ] (]) 15:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:::As such, worldwide impact is near-negligible at best, which isn't enough for this event to be internationally notable. ] (]) 14:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' because it was an ordinary police arrest (no battle/unrest) which was domestic & he'll have already been replaced. We can't say that it'll be a major turning point in the downfall of the Mafia. ] (]) 10:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. People come to these articles for events like this one. We shouldn't fail readers. ] (]) 12:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
::They go to articles such as ] for them. ] (]) 13:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
:I lean toward '''Exclude''', the Cosa Nostra has been in decline for decades and nowhere near its former prominence in the mid 20th century. His arrest, therefore, isn't too notable in my point of view. ] (]) 18:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Borderline inclusion'''...among the most notable arrests. I also agree with Hopkins; we and the criteria should be reflecting what our readers want to see, and frankly we don't market our Year In articles enough. Unless you want to buy out Times Square and Piccadilly Circus advertising these Year In articles, we're only making it worse by excluding everything our readers want to see in the name of what seems to be an oligarchical criteria. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
::If we were aiming to maximise popularity & page views, ] would include the ], ], ]'s death & various other ] things. Huge numbers of readers want to know about them, but there are plenty of appropriate places for them. We rightly exclude them from main year articles. Some domestic arrests gain international media coverage, but they aren't international events. ] (]) 21:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:::So do you want a page filled with things readers do not care about? Read , please. ] (]) 22:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
::::That doesn't say anything about including insufficiently notable things. Do you want main year articles to be filled with domestic & pop culture events in order to increase page views? Include ] & the deaths of ] & ] in ]? ] (]) 22:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::No one reads 2021 to find either of the individuals you mentioned. We should add what people would like to find in our articles. ] (]) 23:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::Many people do. The deaths of Everard & Petito were among the world's most high-profile of 2021, and received far more media coverage than the deaths of most of the people in that article. ] (]) 14:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Which is why we shouldn't base our criterias for inclusion solely on one idea or another. As I've told you millions of times, Jim, we can't expect to do the best things for our readers if we exclude the events which gain substantial media coverage solely for not being notable by your standards. The ideal criteria is one where it's determined by a case by case basis because there are too many exceptions to come up with a otherwise-uniformly enforced criteria which makes everyone happy. I'm with you on excluding Petito, but this isn't an example of an event which deserves a Petito comparison. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 19:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' as per PaulRKil - would be a different story if we’re taking about the head of the ] in its mid-20th Century prime, but as it stands this lacks the sufficient international notability for inclusion. Also, the complaints of one abusive unregistered IP does not speak for or back up any claim that “People come to these articles for events like this one”, which is something that is honestly impossible to back up and would be a poor bar for inclusion for any field. ] (]) 01:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. Head of the Sicilian Mafia is notable. ] (]) 15:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Boarderline exclude''' - This might have been a bigger event 50 years ago, but it's not much of one today. Unless there's some kind of change, this doesn't' warrant inclusion. In light of the exclusions of the ] arrest it makes little sense to include this piece of news. ] (]) 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result:) ==
does Yukihiro Takahashi deserves to be included in here? idk i just dont know :/ ] (]) 19:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' due to insufficient international notability. ] (]) 20:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude'''. Interesting figure, well known in Japan but not international enough. ] (]) 20:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Borderline inclusion''' as the co-founder and lead vocalist of the internationally notable and influential band ]. ] (]) 01:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
::YMO has little international popularity. ] (]) 10:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
:::@] I thought you said that popularity doesn't equal notability? Remember in regard to my Google Trends comment in regards to ] you said '' "We don't include based on ]; that measures popularity, not notability.'''" Do you have a change of heart? ] (]) 23:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
::::I stand by what I said, but international chart hits are regarded as indicating international notability. It's why ] & ] are included. ] (]) 22:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
:::They may not have achieved great chart success internationally, but YMO have been frequently cited as a major influence internationally on genres such as electronica, synthpop, and to some extent hip hop as well. Not to mention when it comes to the development of video game music. For those reasons, on top of Takahashi being a central member of the band, I think he should get in as a borderline inclusion. ] (]) 02:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' Not a well known or notable figure outside Japan. ] (]) 00:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' The band would be on the fence for inclusion and a member of that band isn't important enough internationally to deserve inclusion. ] (]) 14:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

== ] ==
Why can't we include the plane crash in Nepal? It made international headlines, and there are many other crashes of similar magnitude listed in previous years. Someone keeps deleting my entry. ] (]) 13:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
:I’m not sure, seems a bit odd to me that air disasters are considered domestic. Certainly not a notion I agree with. ] (]) 15:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Thread derailed by the same severely uncivil IP who returned after his block expired}}
:Because there is a small band of editors relentlessly patrolling this article and ritualistically applying importance tags to perfectly legitimate entries and having them removed.
:So far they removed the arrest of El Chapo's son and the mass unrest/smallscale conflict that ensued after it. They have removed the arrest of Matteo Messina Denaro. They have removed several other entries that made international headlines and captured the world's attention.
:Their stated justifications were always vague and highly contradictory. Amounting to goalpostshifting and selective reasoning.
:I notice they didn't dare apply an importance tag to the Israeli unrest (which I myself added). It absolutely deserves to be on that list, however the other events they've had removed were of just as much notoriety or in some cases significantly more as the recent Israeli unrest.
:I can only assume their motives are to make this year article as boring and empty as possible. Why they wish for this is anyone's guess. ] (]) 21:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
::I've already given my reasons for excluding this crash. Some plane crashes are obviously much more important than others. No-one for example would claim that this one's notability is even on the same scale as the ] or the ].
::No-one wants to make things boring & empty, although making articles very long & exciting isn't a goal either. There are plenty of sites who offer those things, but we're an encyclopedia.
::We've had long discussions about why arrests are rarely important enough to include in main year articles. We rarely include convictions, so to include arrests is bizarre. ] (]) 09:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Yeah and as we've been over a dozen times, every single other main year article has countless examples of high profile arrests (many considerably less notable and of significantly less worldwide impact than El Chapo's son and Denaro). You completely ignored that and continued to lie (or espouse falsehoods at the very least) repeatedly about the scale of the Cartel he headed, and the scale of the unrest which followed.
:::Like I said, goalpostshifting and ad hoc, contradictory standards for what constitutes 'international notability'.
:::You are very clearly trying to make this article as empty and boring as possible.
:::You are a pervasive degradation to this article. And I strongly suggest you retired your account and stop editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Not all the other main year articles include such things and many insufficiently notable things are added to main year articles. None of what I said was untrue. I'm well aware of the ], which I've edited. No-one is trying to make the article empty or boring. ] (]) 19:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, they do ALL include such things. The 2019 article literally has the FIRST ARREST of El Chapo's son which resulted in somewhat less unrest and resulted in him being released a short time later in order to 'keep the peace'.
:::::Passenger planes were struck with goddamn gunfire during the 2023 unrest. Parts of Mexico were completely shut down and thousands of troops were drafted to bring back order.
:::::It was an extreme event that impacted what is arguably the most powerful criminal organization in the world with operations in dozens of different countries and multiple continents.
:::::You can keep claiming you're not trying to make the article empty and boring, but your every action is an attempt to make the article emptier and more boring. ] (]) 19:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::Many incidents with similar or higher death tolls have occurred during the ]. The discussion regarding that was closed with consensus to exclude it & would've happened even without my input. ] (]) 20:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Yes because you and several editors repeatedly made the same false claims about the Cartel itself (repeatedly downplaying its size and significance, as well as revenue and global reach), Guzman's standing within said organization (repeated false claims that he is not the leader of said organization, but his own article and many sources claimed he was elevated to the rank of leader after his father's arrest, albeit it seems to be as a co-leader with other sons of El Chapo and others, the exact hierarchy of these organizations is hazy at the best of times anyway for obvious reasons), the unrest itself (downplaying the deaths and scale, such as frequent aerial battles and use of Mexican Armed Forces helicopters and planes in order to combat the Cartel soldiers along with thousands of troops).
:::::::That is why the decision was made to exclude. You and several others repeatedly made false claims either out of igorance, or maliciousness.
:::::::Either way, you're not fit to be making these decisions and editing these articles. ] (]) 20:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You were blocked last month for incivility & personal attacks on this talk page. You're now repeating it in the same place in regard to the same topic which we already settled as exclude. It was a battle of similar intensity as some others of the Mexican drug war & many other conflicts. The large majority of battles aren't on main year articles. ] (]) 21:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes the majority of them are, actually. There you go making false claims again. You also claimed that serial killer arrests were not included on previous main year articles and you were completely wrong about that too and proven wrong.
:::::::::Why do you incessantly make false claims? Why don't you take a couple of minutes out of your day to actually briefly research the claims you're making?
:::::::::You are completely out of your depth here. Stop vandalizing this site. ] (]) 21:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Most battles aren't on main year articles. There'd be many on each article if they were. I said that serial killer arrests aren't usually included. However, insufficiently notable things are added to main year articles every day.
::::::::::Being civil is required for all WP editors. You're breaking that rule & derailling this discussion. ] (]) 21:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes most widespread unrest involving dozens of deaths and military action and aerial battles and countries being semi-shutdown are included on main year articles, Jim. You repeatedly falsely claiming that they're not doesn't change that fact, just like you repeatedly making false claims about excluded events in this main year article doesn't magically make them true.
:::::::::::What you say and what is are clearly 2 entirely different things, aren't they.
:::::::::::The vast majority of serial killer arrests and mass killings are actually included in main year articles going back decades. You'd know if you'd ever bothered to actually check them. ] (]) 21:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::I've gone back as far as 1900 & most of those types of things aren't there. Why are you continuing to derail this thread by going off-topic? ] (]) 22:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::There is absolutely no point continuing to do this with you if you're just going to repeatedly lie. ] (]) 22:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::None of it's lies. ] (]) 22:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
:By all means, add the flight disaster. ] (]) 01:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

== Why are there no images for January? The month is over ==
I think, we should put images for January. The month is over! ] (]) 11:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:There's no space apart from next to the refs, where we don't put images. I agree that this is a problem, but how could it be solved? ] (]) 11:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::I agree ] (]) 14:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:::So we shouldn't put any images for the month of January because we don't have enough space? Please explain to me? How this thing works on here? What if someone more famous like Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin die last month? We shouldn't put an images for them because we don't have enough space for them? 😒 What if Queen Elizabeth die last month? It's hard to see there's no images for the month of January. I think, we should put 1-3 images! Maybe 1-2 if we don't have enough space for 3 images. ] (]) 13:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
::::You're saying we should put them next to the refs? ] (]) 14:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::Don't tell me, we will not put images again for the month of February if we don't have enough space. I can't comprehend your point about space! ] (]) 15:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::When they were added, they appeared on the lower right, next to the refs, where we don't usually include images. ] (]) 15:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Yes, Jim Michael 2. We know you 'think it's domestic' and 'don't think it's relevance'. Just spare us all the tediousness of you responding, thanks. ] (]) 19:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:Everyone's entitled to reply. It'd be useful to discuss criteria for what science-related events are important enough for main year articles & which should be on subarticles such as ]. ] (]) 20:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

== Semi-protection ==
Please semi-protect this talk page. The 88 IP who was blocked for incivility & personal attacks on here last month is doing the same thing again & I think should be re-blocked. ] (]) 21:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:I'm not being uncivil at all, and pointing out flaws and mistakes you are repeatedly making (intentionally or unintentionally) is not a 'personal attack'. 88 is an incredibly common IP range for ISPs here. I have never been blocked from Misplaced Pages. It doesn't take a genius to briefly read back through the previous arguments on this page and repeatedly see your name pop up constantly making erroneous claims incessantly and slapping importance tags on valid entries and constantly and aggressively trying to persuade other users (through false claims about the subjects you clearly have no knowledge of and haven't bothered to even have a cursory readover of), over and over and over again) to exclude perfectly legitimate entries in the events list.
:You are the very definition of a problem editor. And if anyone needs to be blocked, it's you. ] (]) 21:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::You have the exact same IP & are talking about the same things in the same way, yet you're saying it wasn't you who commented here last month? ] (]) 22:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Do you understand that most IPs are recycled through ISPs? I frequently get the IPs of people who have made comments years ago or months ago on articles I've never visited. I don't even have the same IP as the IP you're referring to. It's not the 'exact same' at all.
:::There you go with more false claims. ] (]) 22:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::::You're not just using the same IP, you're talking about the same things in the same way on the same talk page as you did last month. ] (]) 22:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::IP, you are coming in ''way'' too strong. Your concerns are legitimate, and they are already being addressed in the proper forum for such issues. The way you are expressing them is not acceptable and will almost certainly get you blocked for a longer period of time. ] (]) 23:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:In my opinion 88 IP is not being uncivil this time, he is raising legitimate concerns, is cracking funny jokes and is clearly attempting to improve this article. Seasoned Misplaced Pages editors have become too sensitive and protective over these articles. ] (]) 23:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
::He's clearly being uncivil & isn't making any jokes. ] (]) 00:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Not uncivil, no editor is free from criticism, he hasn't insulted, just criticised. ] (]) 00:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Fair criticism is reasonable, but that's not what he's doing. He's falsely claiming I'm incompetent & am lying. He's making provably false claims, including that the vast majority of arrests of serial killers are on main year articles. He's pushing - in the wrong section - for inclusion of an event that was excluded last month by consensus after a long discussion. ] (]) 00:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::The IP-in-question has been blocked for ], fwiw. ] (]) 01:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

== ] (Result: inclusion) ==
Should his demise be included in the death section? He served as President of Pakistan from 2001 to 2008 ] (]) 06:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:All heads of state and government are automatically included, so yes. ] (]) 08:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:100% include. ] (]) 10:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:Yup. ] (]) 07:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Strong include''' Musharraf, who is also a firm contender for an image once there’s space. ] (]) 23:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''<u>Strong</u> include''' Musharraf should also be an image in February and his passing should be put in the lede when appropriate. ] (]) 16:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

== ]? ==
I think, he shouldn't get an image for the month of January. He's only a Domestic Figure.
Here is my candidates
Jeff Beck or David Crosby: We should choose only 1 from this because we don't had enough space to include both of them.
Constantine: Must be included
Gina Lollobrigida: Must be included
George Pell: He's notable but we don't had enough space to include him. Shouldn't not be prioritized
I think, we should put 2-3 images for the month of January. Please remove Gianluca Vialli. ] (]) 12:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:Except that he was internationally renowned. ] (]) 13:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
::Granted, you can say the same about Crosby or Beck - both highly internationally regarded and influential musicians, with the latter consistently cited as among the greatest and most influential guitarists in history. Both deserve an image; but of course due to limited space only one should get it to represent the field of music. ] (]) 23:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

== Chinese balloons ==
This has had an importance tag put on it & removed, neither by me. This is very international & has gained a lot of international media coverage, but I think it has insufficient importance due to there being no significant effects so far. If international sanctions are imposed in reaction to this, it'd make it important enough. ] (]) 14:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' has had international impact but has come to nothing. A lot of noise but little transcendental. ] (]) 14:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. I'm at a loss. A major escalation of an arguable Cold War II between two most powerful countries in the world. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 00:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
::Since when are the US and China the two most powerful countries in the world? ] (]) 18:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
:As a further comment, your standards are contrary to WP policy. There are too many RS's to list on the Chinese Spy Balloons. We don't adhere to your standards; we adhere to WP Policy. And consensus isn't on your side either; on ], the closer of the Coltrane RFC not only stated that consensus clearly states that Coltrane should have been included but also that your standards of international notability were REJECTED by the wider Misplaced Pages Community. Like it or not, media coverage can make something notable on Misplaced Pages. If you want to go propose something on the Village Pump to counteract the current order of policy, I invite you to do so. But currently, media coverage can fulfill Misplaced Pages's policy on notability.
:Arguments to exclude because of fans, GONE. The belief that we can trust you not to bludgeon discussions, GONE. Your local consensus, GONE. Evidence of firmly establishing such local consensus, GONE. Acceptance of your standards by the larger community, GONE. "International notability", GONE. And the merit behind a vast majority of your arguments, like "we don't do this", THEY'RE GONE AS WELL. They're ALL gone. So why are these arguments still here? . <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 01:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. This is a significant international event between two of the world's largest powers. Not sure why we're even discussing this and it should be withdrawn. ] (]) 05:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not the first to question its inclusion & it should be discussed. No armed conflict, sanctions, cancelled business deals, deaths or injuries. So far it's just been a shootdown, criticism & in China, one person being dismissed from their position. What's most strange is that S Korea & Japan didn't respond. They either didn't notice the balloon, or noticed it & didn't think it was a problem. Canada responded only with criticism. It flew several thousand miles before it was shot down. ] (]) 10:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
:::If the world cares about it to the degree as shown by the populace through media, politics, and scholarly articles, no matter what the substance is, it is a notable event. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 19:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

== Add ] to the deaths list? ==
he was the founder of the Buddha's Light International Association ] (]) 19:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' because he's not notable enough. ] (]) 12:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
:I would say '''Include''' because he was the founder of a branch of Buddhism. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 18:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
::Hundreds of people have taken part in starting branches, denominations, sects etc. of various religions/movements. It's nowhere near founding a major religion. ] (]) 10:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
:::No one founds major religions these days anyways, so that argument is pretty easily invalidated. We're not going to likely ever see another Jesus, Mohammad, or Siddhartha. Founding a religion followed by more than you and your close friends is a massive accomplishment already, and for being considered a major figure within the Buddhist religion's recent history, this should be an easy include if we are to keep including deaths in year articles. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 19:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''' He was the founder of a branch of Buddhism, and that branch has members in >50 countries, which is a big accomplishment on their own right. ] (]) 05:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

== Edit semi-protected ==
{{edit semi-protected|2023|answered=y}}
Under Events, for January 1 and January 11, please add the ] and the ]. ] (]) 13:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{not done}} because they're not important enough. ] (]) 13:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023 ==
{{edit semi-protected|2023|answered=y}}
Please add this event:

* 19 January – ] begin throughout France against the government's pension reform project, which plans to raise the ] to 64.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Point.fr |first=Le |date=2023-01-19 |title=EN DIRECT. Grève du 19 janvier : forte mobilisation contre la réforme des retraites |url=https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/en-direct-greve-du-19-janvier-une-journee-de-perturbations-et-de-manifestations-19-01-2023-2505389_23.php |access-date=2023-01-19 |website=Le Point |language=fr}}</ref>

I requested you to do so. ] (]) 07:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{not done}} because it's not important enough. It's on ]. ] (]) 13:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
{{ref-talk}}

== Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023 (3) ==
{{edit semi-protected|2023|answered=yes}}
There is something you can add to that, which is an event:

* 1 January: ''] made a statement that for 2023 it had made "a controversial resolution to temporarily shift away from ] as a primary tactic", after 2022's traffic blockages and throwing soup on the case of ]’s "]" painting.''<ref name=VoiceOfAmerica_20230101/>

It had a source in there. -- ] (]) 07:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> not important enough ] <small><code>]]</code></small> 08:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{not done}} because it's nowhere near important enough. Main year articles are for important events & people. ] (]) 13:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
{{ref-talk}}

== Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023 (4) ==
{{edit semi-protected|2023|answered=yes}}
I also found something for you to add:

] began soft-launching its new unified branding across television, radio and digital media products (except ] and ]) while also being teased on their social media accounts, with the inclusion of the "M" prefix to signify their recognition in the digital-first environment. The ''Mplifier'' branding is set to take effect full-time from 1 February of the same year<ref>{{cite press release|title=MEDIACORP STRENGTHENS BRAND PRESENCE WITH LAUNCH OF REFRESHED LOGOS AS PART OF VIBRANT NEW VISUAL IDENTITY|url=https://www.mediacorp.sg/media-releases/mediacorp-strengthens-brand-presence-launch-refreshed-logos-part-vibrant-new-visual-identity-184531|website=Mediacorp|date=16 January 2023|access-date=20 January 2023}}</ref>.

This date is from January 16. -- ] (]) 07:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:not important enough ] <small><code>]]</code></small> 08:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:{{not done}} because it's nowhere near important enough. ] (]) 13:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
{{ref-talk}}

== Should we add ] to the deaths list? ==
she was the little girl behind Wednesday from The Addams Family, like, The Addams Family was kinda international, right? ] (]) 17:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' due to her low notability. Her death would've gained very little media coverage if not for the recent release of '']''. ] (]) 19:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
:Sources? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 00:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' former child actress, not sure I ever knew her name. ] (]) 22:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' as per Jim Michael and Deb. ] (]) 22:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' - Internationally known? nope. ] (]) 22:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
::ok geez, then why dont you remove John Astin from the 1930 births list 😒 ] (]) 22:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' Not known internationally. ] (]) 05:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

== ] ==
Should he be included? I think, he's famous enough. ]
(]) 15:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' - No question. ] (]) 15:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' (obviously). Sigh. ] (]) 15:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Yes.''' Notable by all means. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 18:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include''' as one of the most important and influential pop composers of the last century. As an aside, what an awful year 2023 is turning out to be in terms of music deaths. First, ]. Then, ]. Now, Bacharach. And those three are just the tip of the iceberg (and the three most notable music deaths by far as of now). Feels like 2016 all over again, sadly. ] (]) 21:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. Obviously. ] (]) 05:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

== Bengali Calendar ==

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

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

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

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

:I don't know to be honest. Based on a ], it looks like we're actually going to be no longer listings deaths. However, if they are to stay, I don't know if she would be included. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 23:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
::I suppose that, even if they decide to move the deaths section to another article, it would be best to have a list ready to start with, to discourage new contributors from adding random figures they happen to favour. ] (]) 09:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
:If the list stays, I would lean towards '''exclusion''' due to lack of international notability, even for a royalty figure. ] (]) 05:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

== First Collage Suggestions ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2023 ==

{{Edit semi-protected|2023|answered=yes}}
Here is the event I requested for you to add:

* February 11 – ]: ] orders the takedown of an unidentified object over ], which is later shot down by a ] ] using a ]. The ] has been deployed to collect and analyze the object.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Britzky |first=Paula Newton,Haley |date=2023-02-11 |title=US jet shoots down 'unidentified object' over northern Canada {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/11/politics/norad-additional-object-northern-canada/index.html |access-date=2023-02-12 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>


I used it with one of these sources. — ] (]) 19:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> This is unlikely to be notable enough to merit inclusion. ] (]) 12:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
::Done, It has an article, how can it not be notable? ] 09:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
:::We should revisit this as the object shot down is not believed to be chinese in nature and seems to be an overreaction due to the paranoia related around the chinese balloon. ] (]) 13:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
{{ref-talk}}

== i think we should exclude AKA from the deaths list ==

AKA was only notable in south africa, and the proof is that he only win awards from his country (South Africa) and his continent (MTV Africa Music Award) ] (]) 18:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

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

*'''Oppose''' This isn't a page called "international 2023" ] (]) 06:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

*Yes, we should exclude him. Lack of general international notability. ] (]) 19:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

:If we are to keep listing deaths in year articles (which we might not), '''Exclude''' AKA due to lack of significant influence. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 23:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

== ] ==

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

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

:Obviously a very notable event that should absolutely be included, but knowing this talk page I'll just go for the easy '''exclude''' and avoid elongating an unwinnable consensus. ] (]) 23:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. Notable change in leadership. Scotland is notable enough, <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 03:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

:'''Exclude'''. Resignation of British PM Sunak would be notable, but Scotland is only a part of the UK. ] (]) 11:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:It's not 'technically' its own country at all, the exact opposite in fact. It's an administrative region of the UK termed a 'country' by the UK itself, which is not equivalent whatsoever with the much more standard definition of a country in English, which is a sovereign state. Scotland is most certainly nothing of the sort, and in fact has less autonomy than many regional subdivisions of countries such as federal states or autonomous regions.
:FYI, the West Country is also called a 'country' (in its very name), as country can mean any loosely defined region of land (including the woods behind my garden).
:The fact that the UK calls (some of) its administrative subdivisions 'countries' and rather arbitrarily and haphazardly divides itself into geographic regions it terms 'countries', has about as much bearing as North Korea calling itself a 'Democratic Peoples' Republic'.
:In the traditional sense of the word, it's not a country (sovereign state) at all.
:This is an entirely domestic affair that didn't generate any real buzz outside of the UK. It may have been mentioned by some conservative outlets in the US and other parts of the English-speaking world due to the transgender prisoner controversy Sturgeon became embroiled in before resigning, but that's about it. ] (]) 17:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude'''. Not that it's not important, but it's important mainly in the context of the UK and it's already present in the events for ]. Had she died I would absolutely support her death being included. ] (]) 20:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' I followed the topic of Nicola Sturgeon for years and her position as a First Minister of Scotland is not really that important in the grand scale of things. Pretty much a domestic figure. ] (]) 12:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
:Bit belated, but thoroughly concur with the '''exclude''' consensus here - if Scotland was an independent country, that would be a different matter entirely. ] (]) 00:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

== ] ==

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

:If we are to keep including deaths, then this is an absolute yes. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 03:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
:Also, he had received more than a couple of dozens of honours and decorations, and more than 20 of those were from outside of Japan, such as ], ], etc.. ] (]) 04:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

== Petar Zhekov ==

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

:I see that he won 44 caps for Bulgaria, which in my book would be enough to qualify him. ] (]) 16:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
::If we are to keep including deaths in year articles and preserve the status quo, then I would say a hard yes. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 02:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
::Of course. ] (]) 12:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Fair enough. I've removed the tag. --] (]) 20:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

== Advancements in ai (ChatGPT) ==

Is this a popular topic to be added in the heading or february section, including microsofts integration of chatgpt with bing. ] (]) 09:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' AFAIK, Crypto and NFT of late 2021, and AI Art of early 2022 are trends that aren't put on the year article, and I don't think this should be included either. ] (]) 12:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
::I think if we are to prosify year articles, the advancement of AI should get a paragraph or two. But we are working with a timeline; only maybe the initial release date should be added. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 21:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
:I've removed a paragraph added to the lead, pending the outcome of this discussion. Please find the paragraph for reference below, as it may be useful to the conversation.
:"2023 has seen the rise of generative AI models, with applications across various industries reaching new heights. These models, leveraging the advancements in machine learning and natural language processing, have become capable of creating realistic and coherent text, images and music." ] (]) 02:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

== Leiji Matsumoto ==

I'd like to ask other editors if he is notable enough for inclusion on Deaths, although he has been referred to as "". ] (]) 13:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
:I don't know. When I read the pages of directors or producers they often state "one of the most (verb) in (country/era/world) but that isn't present for Matsumoto. News articles often use embellishments in an attempt to gain readers. Could you give some more information as to what achievements make Matsumoto notable enough for the Deaths list? ] (]) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
:It appears to me that he contributed some works outside of Japan during the 1990s. But there's much work needs some explaining. ] (]) 05:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

== Ohio Chemical Spill ==

Certainly deserves a mention, it was a domestic affair but the severity of the spill and the release of chemicals into the atmosphere combined with the evacuation make it worthy of a mention in my view. Had/has potentially much larger range of effect and negative impact due to atmospheric release.
It certainly made headlines around the world, people are still talking about it although they really seem to be trying to stifle media circulation of the event and the aftermath. ] (]) 21:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
:Does this event even have a Misplaced Pages page? I haven't been able to find one. Can you please include a link? ] (]) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|The Voivodeship King}} ], I assume. ] (]) 11:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Hey, yeah you got it. Was just about to link it. ] (]) 11:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
:Like The Voivodeship King, I'm doubtful about this one. If something like this happened in another country, it would probably hardly get a mention in the US media. ] (]) 11:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
::Maybe not in mainstream US media, which tends to be very, very Americancentric, but I'm sure it would be mentioned in most other countries. There was a fairly bad Arctic oilspill in Russia in 2020 that made international news, and earned a spot in the 2020 Misplaced Pages article. I don't think it was widely covered in US media either.
::I think this chemical leak is potentially far more devastating as it involves stratospheric release and contamination, depending on how well the cleanup goes. But even the potential for causing widespread global damage through stratospheric chemical pollutants is worthy of a mention, see for example Chernobyl.
::Complete disaster was averted with Chernobyl, and actual deaths and damage were actually quite minimal and localized in the end, but due to what POTENTIALLY could have happened... it was one of the defining events of the 20th century.
::I don't mean to suggest the Ohio Chemical Spill has the same gravity as Chernobyl, but it needn't to still be worthy of a mention here. In my view. ] (]) 11:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
:::It looks like most of the concerns listed on the page are theoretical and minor so far (one dead fox and dead fish). Can we come back to this debate until more information about the effects has come to light? I think it has the potential to be notable but the effects that have happened so far aren't convincing enough just yet. ] (]) 11:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
:For now, no. There is a LOT of media spin on this episode with opportunistic news sources looking for political adversaries to blame and its hard to really measure the actual impact based solely on media reports. We did not include the ] in ] and that caused numerous fatalities. At the very least, it is an Americentric event. ] (]) 14:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
:I think that major environmental disasters should be an inclusion, no matter what. Some say this looks like it could be the next Chernobyl (especially the Chinese, who have deemed it "ChernobylOhio" per Business Insider article cited later in comment), and the media across Western Europe and a few other countries seems to be seeing this story as notable. WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply to speculation by reliable sources. If something like this happened in Russia outside of the war in a place close to a river, I think this would get a lot of attention, unless a company tried to cover it up (like maybe an oil spill in Nigeria covered up by Shell or Total Energies). I think that the derailment fulfills the criteria, and moreover, it's been covered outside of US media as well (see , , , , and . The Chinese internet has also notably reacted to the derailment with excitement (Source: ). <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
::It led to a mass evacuation of the town. It's definitely worthy of a mention in the article. It's domestic like almost any event could be classified as, but like I said it involves stratospheric leakage of toxic, extremely hazardous chemicals which aren't just going to stay contained over the skies of Ohio. They will blow with the winds and fall in other parts of the globe.
::Chernobyl was largely contained too. Actual deaths and damage from Chernobyl were limited to a very small localized zone in Ukraine. However it's the potential cataclysmic impact that it COULD have had which is what made Chernobyl so infamous and chilling to this day.
::It also doesn't even need to be anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl to warrant a mention. It's easily as serious, grave and significant as the dozens of oilspills and other environmental catastrophes listed in previous year articles.
::I firmly agree the Ohio Chemical Spill should be included in the Events List. ] (]) 00:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
:::The only one of those events that has actually occurred was the evacuation of a single town. Let's wait and see if this becomes more important. Right now, the effect on the environment has not been on a large scale, but could grow larger as time progresses. ] (]) 10:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
*'''Exclude''' Let's be honest. If it had happened in a lesser "relevant" country we would not be having this debate. No fatalities, no major containment measures beyond evacuation of a town. In ] is correctly posted. ] (]) 16:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:Did '''Oder river disaster''' got listed on ]? I'm certain it has not, and it's very hard to see this get included. ] (]) 05:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

== 2023 Yukon high-altitude object ==

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

:The singular Yukon incident on its own doesn't deserve a mention. The dozen or so high altitude object incidents (NOT including the Chinese spy balloon, which is to be treated separately) in February 2023 absolutely do deserve mention, however. They have captured global headlines like few other things this year, led to news conferences. Caused shutdowns of busy airports in China and caused domestic stocks there to plummet. Led to the Chinese government warning its citizens through text message to avoid the area the objects had been sighted in.
:On its own the Yukon incident is nothing spectacular. Combined all these high altitude objects of what remain unidentified objects have provoked wild speculation, interest and caused actual physical effects around the world.
:The article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_high-altitude_object_events_in_2023#List_of_events
:Definitely a bizarre, global phenomenon. ] (]) 00:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
::My perspective is that there's a phenomena akin to the ] and the subsequent balloons are private ones that are being shot down now that the skies are being scrutinized. I don't think these are notable, considering the fact that NORAD said they weren't Chinese or adversarial in any way. ] (]) 18:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
:::You're a buffoon. You know nothing. ] (]) 12:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Grow up. ] (]) 13:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:I agree. It's not significant in its own right and should be '''excluded'''. ] (]) 18:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
::Wrong. Simpleton. ] (]) 12:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Please read and abide by ]. ] (]) 12:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)]
:Probably not. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 19:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' From what I have seen, this is very much domestic event. It's likely that the object is private-owned. ] (]) 05:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

== Who should get an images for February? ==

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

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

== should we add Slim Borgudd to the deaths list? ==

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

:'''Exclude''' he seemed to only have two seasons and no championships. ] (]) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
:Although he entered Formula One, 10 races qualified & 6 races completed, out of only 15 races of entry in 2 seasons. It does not seem that he has sufficient enough notability, unfortunately. ] (]) 02:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' ] (]) 09:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' ] (]) 02:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

==]==
Motson was primarily known as a commentator for BBC. Although he gained a certain level of notoriety in the UK (particularly England), he surely didn't have the kind of international reputation entries in this article should have. ] (]) 09:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
:He was a legend in sports commentary here in the UK. Among the most recognisable voices on sports TV/radio, with a career of 50+ years. Not sure about internationally, though. So, whilst I greatly admired and respected the man, I wouldn't object if he was excluded from this page. ] (]) 14:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, but I suspect ''only'' in the UK. ] (]) 14:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
:Yeah, we should exclude him. ] (]) 17:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

:'''Include''', as he was the voice of the FIFA World Cup to millions of households. ] (]) 23:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
::Only in the UK. ] (]) 14:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' even if he was the voice of the FIFA World Cup during 1990s, not everyone would know about him at that time, as back in the day there's almost no Internet for much of the world. ] (]) 02:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
::'''Include'''. I can't think of any football commentator with his level of notability. The voice narrated the glory of football of the two previous generations. ] (]) 09:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
::Only in the UK. ] (]) 14:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
:::That's fair, but that's one of the most important domestic leagues, not to mention England internationally. I don't think I'd offend anyone by saying England is one of the three most important historic domestic footballing nations alongside Italy and Spain. ] (]) 11:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
::::I think Germany, Brazil and Argentina might have something to say about that... ] (]) 08:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

== Why is there still no images for january? ==

c'mon guys, the month is already over, what's making you guys take so long? ] (]) 16:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

:Not enough space, sorry. ] (]) 18:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
:To add on to what @] said, the length of deaths in January isn't the inherent issue. Take a look to the right, all the infoboxes for the year take up all the image space for the article. If we add images now, there will be formatting issues. Once the ''entire'' article gets longer, it'll free up space and allow us to add images without formatting conflicts. Expect for that to occur in either June or July unless this year becomes incredibly busy for events. ] (]) 15:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
::ok i guess.... ] (]) 23:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

== should we add Gérard Latortue to the deaths list? ==

he was a former interim prime minister of Haiti, does that make him notable enough? ] (]) 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

:Possibly. Let's have some other opinions. ] (]) 19:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
::Ok ] (]) 19:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
:I think he would be sufficient, if we are to keep including deaths, based primarily on his work for the UN as well as being a world leader. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 19:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
:That he was acting PM is irrelevant. ] (]) 12:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:I think so, we had a conversation about this in the 2022 talkpage. I think the resolution was the fact they're acting or interim isn't relevant because they still inherited the executive office of whichever country they're in. ] (]) 15:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

== Should we add Alberto Mario Gonzalez to the deaths list? ==

he was an Argentine footballer who played as a forward for Argentina in the 1962 and 1966 FIFA World Cups, does that make him notable enough? ] (]) 18:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

:He scored one goal in nineteen appearances with Argentina, didn't win any medals and doesn't appear to have had a very notable club career either. Simply participating in a World Cup does not merit inclusion. Besides, I think it's worth looking into the possibility that the person who asked this question is the connected to the person who previously vandalised this article and had an obsession with including irrelevant Argentinian figures in the deaths section. ] (]) 19:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
::i dont know what are you talking about ] (]) 01:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

:::Yes you do. ] (]) 16:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
:::I'm certain that this is ]. ] (]) 07:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

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

== ] ==

should we let him stay in the deaths list?, i'm not sure about his notability, just give me your opinions ] (]) 22:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

:i will kinda say "include" but i'm not sure about it... ] (]) 22:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
::As far as him not being a Pritzker laureate, I don't think he needs to be included. That should be our yardstick with architects. ] (]) 23:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

== ] ==

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

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

::A local consensus would streamline to process of inclusion and, if one can be achieved, would mean one less profession requiring an analysis of different achievements by different methods and measures. ] (]) 02:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
:I think two victories is way too low. I don't follow racing but I do know some names and I've never heard of any of the drivers you mention. I'd suggest that coming in the top three in the championship at least once would be a more realistic measure - unless they are well known for something else. ] (]) 08:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
::I think finishing in the '''top 3 overall in a season''' is fair and I'm happy to use this instead of the more lax two victory criterion. It's also worth noting that for the examples I used, both Leclerc and Perez still qualify and Gasly and Ocon are excluded. ] (]) 11:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

==] and ]==
Both of these have recently been added by ] and I would suggest that neither of them belongs here. I believe we've already established in discussion that one gold medal at the Olympics isn't really enough to get an entry here - see how short Sasahara's article is. As for Rossington, I know that Lynyrd Skynyrd was a notable band, but if we include every founder member of every band, we'll be back to square one. The number of articles Rossington has in other languages suggests he wasn't exactly a household name. ] (]) 09:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
:My experience on year pages has been the opposite of that - individual gold medallists are automatic inclusions. Rossington is definitely up for debate. I would also question the inclusion of ], if anyone else cares to weigh in. ] (]) 20:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
::yeah, i'm not sure about him tho, he was the referee of the final of the 1986 soccer world cup, which was a highly international event ] (]) 22:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
::I thought that it was recently decided that they aren't, or shouldn't be, automatic inclusions. ] (]) 08:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
::I wasn't aware of that. On which talk page was it decided? ] (]) 08:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Wrong word. It's not decided that they should ''not'' be included. Likewise, it's not decided that they ''should'' be included. However, the latest discussions on ] indicate that not many people are in favour of them being automatically included. ] (]) 08:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
::Romualdo Arppi Filho should definitely be removed. Any objections? ] (]) 08:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
:::agree. ] (]) 11:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
:Anybody want to keep Rossington? ] (]) 16:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::]. ] (]) 08:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

==] and ]==
Are these actors household names anywhere but in the US? And is Blake not better known for the murder charge than anything else? ] (]) 16:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
:]. ] (]) 08:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

== Births and Deaths have been removed ==

Why is everyone getting removed? I’m extremely confused. ] (]) 21:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
:Please see this ]. Births and deaths section had been a hotbed of tensions on years articles for two years, and frankly, people are done with it. Now they are being removed altogether from years articles, and instead people are directed to putting deaths instead on ]. ] (]) 08:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
::] hotbed of tension...but why?? ] (]) 20:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Take a look at ] and ], as well as their archives, for the context of what I said. ] (]) 22:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
::I did look and should I remove the births and deaths from the other years as well? I finished the 2004 article yesterday and wonder, do I do the same as the others??? ] (]) 20:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:::You may do it, but up to ], as there's no death pages for every month before 1980. ] (]) 22:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:They also topic banned two or three of the editors who were opposed to this radical change, even though they had made so many contributions to this article(s). To me it seems tyrannical and reminds me of ]. ] (]) 12:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
::I see. I guess if that '''is''' the case, I’ll have to hide (almost) every image of the deceased that are '''not''' in the year they died article. It seems silly but I guess that’s the future of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
::Only one editor was topic banned. Another retired temporarily. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 00:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

== Signature Bank ==

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

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

::'''Propose''' to add the entry to the existing entry on SVB, given that the global media has tended to portray them together as a single story, rather then separately. Consensus among RS's (and on WP) are to report the news as part of the aftermath of the collapse of SVB, combining the two into a single topic. The notability requirments of inclusion should be met, given the SVB story has been reported internationally in almost all available RS's. Both events also have their own WP articles and a summary article for the bank collapses in March. ] (]) 11:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:::international coverage ≠ international huge notability. This has been said a thousand times and you should know that. ] (]) 11:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
::::On WP, including these years pages, we follow core WP policies such as WP:WEIGHT & WP:DUE for inclusion of content. ] (]) 12:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::Who questioned it? ] (]) 12:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::You may review the below discussion to see the difference between the two criteria.
::::::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1138613935#Long_term_ownership_at_WikiProject_Years ] (]) 09:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
::::I dispute the statement that international coverage ≠ international notability. It's not always one or the other, and coverage should be considered but not ultimately the sole thing which determines notability. As stated by Carter, our due weight policies are much better for deciding. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 00:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
:::I second the proposal to have a single entry highlighting the bank failures and the losses sustained by intl banks like credit suisse. ] (]) 14:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
::::I agree too. ] (]) 15:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::I also agree. This suffices as opposed to multiple entries. ] (]) 21:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
::You're right. It's significantly worse than Lehman Brothers. This is tip of the iceberg stuff, and you do not need a crystal ball to see the dominoes already beginning to fall. You just need a basic understanding of economics, which you clearly lack. ] (]) 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Just don't be overdramatic. Many experts and financial authorities are calling for calm. And, for God's sake, to say this is worse than Lehman Borthers....] (]) 22:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
::::They're calling for calm, because panic never helps anything. They are also predicting more banks will fail and dark times are ahead. And yes, it is absolutely worse than Lehman Brothers. ] (]) 23:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:For banks, I would just include First Republic, SVB, and Credit Suisse. They're all bigger and more notable; plus more coverage on those three banks exist. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

== 2023 collage photos ==

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

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

== 2023 World Baseball Classic ==

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

:'''Include'''. ] (]) 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. ] (]) 08:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include'''. For the first substantially noticeable time, baseball has become a popular sport outside of the US and Japan <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 18:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

== Peshawar Suicide Bombing ==

I don't think we need this in the opening, do we? It was not some year defining attack, nor was it a particularly unusual event for the general region. Tragic as it was, less than 100 people died and it was completely forgotten the day after. ] (]) 14:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:I agree and I've removed it. People are often much too quick to assume that the most recent news story is going to be one of the most important of the year. ] (]) 15:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:I agree with the removal. At this point, these kinds of attacks are happening very frequently. While the 100+ death-events, in my opinion, should be mentioned in the Events section, they should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are significantly impactful that it can lead to worldwide repercussions, like 9/11 or Taliban capture of Aghanistan. ] (]) 22:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

== NATO and Trump indictment ==

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

:1.By WP:BPLCRIME, every accused is innocent and what is notorious is his conviction (the same process that has been followed with the rest of the international leaders).
:2.About Finland. The process of "accession negotiations", which follows the ratification of each of the members, has yet to begin. The process is not finished. It has only begun. I suppose that by the end of the year we will know something and, therefore, its accession will obviously be included in Year in Topic. That's why I said "not relevant news, '''yet'''". ] (]) 22:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

:I don't think either of the currents inclusions should stay. Both of these events can be represented much better in later events: when Finland actually joins and if Trump is arrested/trial. ] (]) 00:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
::@] it's been reported that Trump will surrender himself to authorities next week, most likely on Tuesday. Are you suggesting that the inclusion should be made when that happens? If so, I honestly wouldn't mind waiting. ] (]) 01:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
:::@] I feel like that would be much more appropriate and I would probably support its inclusion, although of course we'll have to wait and see as I think its teetering on international nobility as of now. ] (]) 01:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
::::I believe that we should include when there is a formal sentence that indicates that Trump is criminally responsible. As we have done with other former international leaders. ] (]) 09:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
::By this logic, shouldn’t elections also be excluded since they can be better represented by later events (the inauguration)? I might see your point with regards to Finland and NATO, but an indictment of a former U.S. president is a pretty big deal in its own (not to mention he won’t necessarily even go to trial). ] (]) 05:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
:::What is relevant in elections is Election Day, when the citizenry decides. The inauguration, however pompous it may be, is a simplistic act of formality. ] (]) 09:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
::I completely agree. ] (]) 09:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Removed. ] (]) 09:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

:@] I've reverted the removal as a courtesy to @], given that only around a day has passed since the discussion was opened, as noted in your edit summary , which is very short period, given the typical time-frame of the previous discussions on this page. I suggest you allow for some more time for discussion, as is customary for this page.
:I note the discussion was started by GevBen. It would seem to be a common courtesy to at least allow GevBen a further chance to respond, given there has only been two exchanges between yourself and GevBen, where you made the last comment. Each person has real-life obligations, which may prevent them from making immediate responses to discussions. Given their evident objection to the removal in their recent revert of the maintenance tag , and you subsequent direction to the talk page after this exchange, it seems unreasonable for you to conclude the discussion so quickly, after only such a limited amount of time has passed. I understand that other editors have also responded, but I really do feel that GevBen should be given a further chance to respond, given the previously mentioned exchange.
:I further note that the maintenance tags are still on the entries, indicating to readers the contentious nature of the entries, so there is really no urgent deadline to meet for their removals. ] (]) 12:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
::Consensus: 3-1. ] (]) 13:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
:::As I've said above, its a matter of common courtesy of allowing a person who has raised their objection, to have a fair chance to respond and make their concerns known, given the short timing. I've acknowledged above that other editors have also responded and I'm aware of the current state of the discussion. ] (]) 13:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
::::Clearly you have not been attentive to many discussions on this Talk Page. When a consensus is abundantly clear and strong, there is no rule requiring a reply. As you well know (or should know), Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Therefore, your last edit is disruptive. ] (]) 13:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::I have still yet to hear an actual reasoning behind removing the Trump indictment. The idea of a former US president being indicted of a crime, whether he’s found guilty or not, is a big enough deal to mention on its own. Every time a U.S. president was impeached is mentioned in the “events” section of that year (except, conspicuously, Trump’s second impeachment) despite the fact that all of them were acquitted later. I just don’t understand the logic behind your point. ] (]) 17:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::It is sufficient to understand that an indictment is one thing and a conviction is another. We cannot include all the judicial phases of each accused international leader. It is also sufficient to take a look at how we have dealt with the cases of other international leaders. We are not going to make an exception. That is what ] is for. ] (]) 18:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
:No one said we need to include "every step of the judicial process", obviously the beginning of an investigation or every instance of someone testifying at a hearing aren't worth mentioning, but you'll have to agree that a full blown indictment, the first of its kind in US history no less, is an important development that's worth mentioning. When it comes to a country as big and as important as the US is, and when it comes to someone as relevant to world politics as Trump is, this is a pretty massive deal on its own even before the trial or conviction. ] (]) 18:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
::It's still just another phase of a long judicial process. ] (]) 22:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
:'''Strong exclude''' as per Alsoriano, among others, and reject the ] arguments by GevBen. As for NATO, the inclusion of Finland, it should be included once Finland formally joins, as per Yeoutie. ] (]) 04:31, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
:'''Hard exclude''' & reject Americentric arguments per TheScrubby and in '''favor''' of including Finland accession once they formally join later this day. Honestly, events relating to crime should not be included '''unless''' it has a major impact on a worldwide scale. Trump's indictment is nowhere near that, since he is not a president of U.S. anymore. He may well be not the first time a president has been involved in a serious legal trouble, see ]. ] (]) 09:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
'''Comment''' I've removed the entry for for Turkey's ratification of Finland's entry to NATO, given the current consensus here, and the fact that it has been superseded by Finland's official entry in to NATO in the entry under April 4th. ] (]) 13:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

:As much as it doesn't seem right to you, the consensus is clear (again), so you can remove Trump's entry. This is how Misplaced Pages works. ] (]) 18:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
::] I've removed the Trump arrest entry, as per the current consensus on the talk page you have referenced, and taking into account the valid BLPvio concerns which you previously raised. ] (]) 18:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Thanks. ] (]) 18:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
::I thought Misplaced Pages was about making useful information accessible, not about making up justifications to further your agenda. Like it or not, American internal politics are very relevant to the rest of the world, especially since we're talking about a prominent political figure currently running to lead the world's largest military force. Even if you personally think rejecting "americentrism" is more important than relaying important information, it's still a top news story all over the world that's relevant to everyone. But I can see I'm in the minority on this, so I guess it's decided. ] (]) 10:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
:::GevBen makes a good point, but frankly, I'd say '''exclude''' the indictment. I think that this is important, but this was overly sensationalized to me. The US article for 2023 events is a good place for it, and maybe even on that page's collage, but not for here. Maybe if Trump is convicted, that could be listed here. Finland's NATO accession, though, should '''be included as a no brainer'''. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 00:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

== Collage ==

With the first quarter of 2023 done, I think we can begin making a collage which would obviously be altered throughout the rest of the year.

1. The Syria/ Turkish Earthquake
2. French Pensions protests (although this is domestic, some domestic events get global attention)
3. Israeli Judicial Reform protests (same situation as France)
4. The rise of AI (maybe Chat GPT could be used)
5. The Chinese Spy Balloon incident
6. Trump's indictment (same thing as France)
7. Signiture Bank Collapse (mostly a US thing but it had global impacts)
8. Finland joining NATO, which hasn't happened yet, but it will soon ] (]) 13:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

:Certainly the collage can be less American-centric than you propose: Benedict XVI's funeral, assault on Brazilian high institutions, High Seas Treaty... ] (]) 16:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
::Agree. ] (]) 09:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Also in agreement here, although I probably wouldn’t include the Brazil capital events on the collage, for much the same reasons as those of the US in January 2021. ] (]) 09:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
:I agree with most of these, though I don't think the Chinese spy balloon should qualify, it wasn't that big a deal at the end of the day. ] (]) 18:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
:I'd say five for now: Silicon Valley Bank, ChatGPT and AI, Brazil, the Earthquake, and Finland joining NATO./ <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 00:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Nominate the inclusion of the following events for consideration (''with some events repeated from previous nominations''). (1) Croatia adopts the euro and joins the Schengen Area, (2) ], (3) ], (4) ], (5) Iran and Saudi Arabia agree to resume diplomatic relations, (6) ], (7) ], (8) Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO. ] (]) 08:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

:Fair enough. Although I would not include the sixth IPCC report. The previous ones have not been included in the collage. Not that it's irrelevant, but it's not particularly noticeable either. ] (]) 21:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::I'd replace the IPCC report with either the Israeli or French protests. Every previous year for the last few years has had a major protest from around the world in the collage and I feel like these were the most high profile ones this year so far. ] (]) 23:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for so many pictures - in fact, there is no need for a collage at all. Let's wait until we know what this year's big news stories are. Any particularly significant individual events can have images placed alongside their entry. ] (]) 15:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

:I prefer to wait until this year is finished. I remember feeling that the collage of 2022 are being not up-to-date after October's events, with crowd crushes and collapses of that time. ] (]) 00:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
:: Best option is to not have the collage at all since it is entirely useless. Least bad solution is at the very least to wait for the year to be over before we even start talking about it since trying to compile the content before year's end would just be a complete waste of time. --] (]) 19:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the notion not to have a collage until the end of the year. And I also agree that we really don't need many pictures at the moment if there even was one right now. That being said if I had to say what I think should eligible for the collage:
*For certain - Turkey-Syria Earthquake, Finland joining NATO
*Should be considered but could be swapped out - French or Israeli protests (I don't think it's likely we'd choose both), American Bank Collapses, Brazil Congress Attack, AI, High Seas Treaty, Sudan Conflict
As I said though, I think we should wait until the end of the year just to post a definitive collage because by that point everything would be a lot clearer in retrospective on what to add and also it would avoid constant changes as notable events are always likely to spring throughout the rest of the year. ]] 12:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

==Voorschoten train crash==
Should the ] be added to the article? ] (]) 13:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
:Exclude. Death toll of only one. Minimal coverage internationally. Domestic incident. ] (]) 11:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
::Agree. ] (]) 13:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
:Sadly just another train crash. Keep it out. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude '''given the low death rate as mentioned above. ] (]) 15:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

== Kenyan Cult ==

With over 100 deaths and 400 people missing, given the unusual circumstances in which the cultmembers committed suicide as well... I think this is definitely worthy of inclusion within the events list. Thoughts? ] (]) 17:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
:A death toll over 100 is quite significant. Is there a Misplaced Pages page on this? ] (]) 15:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
::There's a ] on the cult, with a ] on the event. ] (]) 15:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
::It's almost certainly more than 100. 400+ people remain missing, and I think a good percentage of them are assumed dead. They're still recovering bodies, but had to pause to properly document them. There's a good chance many bodies succumbed to predation given they died in the rainforest.
::It's tragic, and I think fairly significant. Mass cult suicides like this have happened in Sub-Saharan Africa a few times in recent decades, but they're still fairly rare. I think the last one on this scale was the early 2000s. ] (]) 16:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
:Weak exclude on my part, pending further developments in this thread. I'm thinking that this would be better placed in the year where the starvation is estimated to have happened and the mass grave was first buried. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 19:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
::I don't think there's anything to suggest the starvation/gravedigging began in previous years. Where are you getting this from? Many people were found deep into the process of starvation, still alive, but barely. All of the bodies seem to be recent burials in shallow graves. ] (]) 03:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Should we wait until more accurate numbers and further details are published? ] (]) 06:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
::::I don’t see the harm in adding it for now and then either updating it as more information comes in or removing it if needs be. I think, as things stand, it’s absolutely relevant enough to be in the events list for April, just the discovery of starving people and over 100 dead bodies in addition to several hundred being missing.
::::That seems noteworthy enough to be right now. ] (]) 06:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::Okay, but it must be accompanied by a citation from a reliable source. ] (]) 08:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::Okay. How's that? I struggled to think of how to word it, I'm not going to lie. And I can provide more sources if needed. ] (]) 18:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Please do. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Alright here are a few more:
::::::::https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/children-account-majority-kenyan-cult-deaths-interior-minister-2023-04-28/
::::::::https://www.citizen.digital/news/malindi-cult-shock-as-12-more-graves-discovered-number-rises-to-27-n318390
::::::::https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/sso/?content=eyJpdiI6Ino2N3o1aWZVVEtBOUdweEtnNXFnYVE9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiWWZQOUM2cHNGTHlvUmh3S21WcFl0UlI3SXllU25ndHlnaUxzVjdRelVOSGNUemtpZ1QyQXhTRFRhL3lqdGlZZ1FUbks5ZENUa0Y0cXJaNDZ6QnM5ekxUNmNyVlFJR2tldW1VSVhLa1ZITW89IiwibWFjIjoiMTY0YjZjNTg4YzI1YjZmNzZmNGM0NTkwMjFjZDFlMzA3NjhkYTcxN2U4NzIwZjgzYjhjY2ZjOGJmYmM5MDdmMSIsInRhZyI6IiJ9
::::::::https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230426-kenyans-fear-for-relatives-linked-to-cult-as-search-for-bodies-resumes ] (]) 20:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, that sounds perfect. Thanks for adding. ] (]) 08:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

== Moscow Drone Attack ==

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

:Nobody was even injured, Putin wasn't even present, and I doubt it marks a "serious escalation". If the building was heavily damaged, with significant casualties, and/or Putin had been present, that would have been far more significant. ] (]) 12:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
::These were my own thoughts on the affair, however most sources I read seemed to think if marked a significant escalation since it was, presumably, a direct attack on Putin himself deep in Russia. ] (]) 15:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

== Zaporizhzhia Evacuation ==

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

:If the plant itself is destroyed, that would probably be notable enough for inclusion. But I doubt the evacuation of a nearby town warrants inclusion, especially given that millions have already been evacuated/displaced elsewhere in the country. ] (]) 12:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
::I think if it was definitively established that the town was evacuated due to the increasing instability of the plant and fear of some catastrophic imminent meltdown (as the article I read seemed to be heavily implying) it would potentially warrant an inclusion, however as far as I’m aware the reason for the evacuation of the town has not be attributed to the nearby plant and may just be due to the impending shelling of the region and assault by Ukrainian forces. ] (]) 15:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
::Here’s the article, for reference. BBC seems to have been implying for around a year now that things are getting steadily worse at the plant an international bodies have issues stark warnings about a potential impending nuclear catastrophe:
::https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65515443 ] (]) 15:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
:I would say this singular event isn't notable enough, although if a further meltdown or similar happens that would definitely warrant inclusion. This info should probably be included on the ] though. ] (]) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

== DR Congo Floods ==

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

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-65521521 ] (]) 16:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
:I would support adding it as it seems notable enough. On a related note I would also support adding Cyclone Freddy as a another event with its estimated 1,400 fatalities. ] (]) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed. I'm surprised Cyclone Freddy isn't already there. Not only for the high fatality count but also for being the longest lasting cyclone in history, by far. ] (]) 20:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

== Remove Xi Jingping's call with Zelensky? ==

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

:I don’t particularly feel it’s important enough to be there at all, especially given the other events from early 2023 that have been omitted due to a seeming lack of importance. ] (]) 17:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
: Agree. If something concrete immediately came from it then I would support its inclusion but that looks unlikely as of now. ] (]) 20:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

:'''Exclude''' this event, as per Yeoutie. ] (]) 01:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:Nah man; it's just a phone call. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 16:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

== Donald Trump Sexual Abuse Case ==

While it is a civil case, and doesn't have much immediate external impact in a material sense. It seems to be quite noteworthy to me that a former US President, as well as one currently running for the upcoming 2024 US Presidental Election, has been found guilty of sexual abuse and has been ordered to pay $5 million in damages to the victim.
It seems to me that in addition to being noteworthy it could have a significant impact on the current 2024 US Presidential Election campaigns.
Thoughts? ] (]) 06:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

:I removed the entry, but I acknowledge your point on the potential impact that it could have on the 2024 US Presidential Elections is a valid one and should be considered. ] (]) 06:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
::I understand the removal. I hesitated to add it without bringing it up on the talkpage first, but thought there might just be enough there, since it was actually a guilty verdict which resulted in a significant settlement, to warrant inclusion without discussion. But yeah I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus here is. ] (]) 06:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Noteworthy yes, worthy of being in ] yes, for the main year article, doubtful but we can revisit if there are significant repercussions. ] (]) 08:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
::::^ I agree with Deb. ] (]) 13:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::I think I agree with you all too, by this point, haha. I personally think the indictment on March 30th was far more worthy of being included in the events list, but I believe the consensus was that this should be removed because it was just an indictment and no trial had taken place and been concluded yet or something. ] (]) 18:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::I think that a conviction in any of Trump's other pending legal matters (ie: January 6th, Mar-a-Lago documents, Georgia election interference, hush money payments) would warrant a discussion of inclusion here (though I'm not sure all of them could be included here). Criminal matters, in general, carry a bit more weight than civil ones so that might be why it's not notable enough here. This is just my opinion though; just wanted to chime in. ] (]) 22:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude''' this event; belongs in ]. To include this event here would be ]. Also find it interesting that this topic has been almost immediately brought up for potential inclusion here and not, say, the (far more significant) arrest of ]. ] (]) 01:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
::It's not Americancentrism at all. And honestly, the fact that this accusation constantly flies here whenever someone suggests adding a noteworthy event which took place in America says more about the people accusing others of Americancentrism and trying to have noteworthy events which took place in America excluded from the events list than it does anything else.
::I've suggested events from Kenya, Russia, DR Congo and Equatorial Guinea/Tanzania just in the past few days. I've also added events from Israel, the Indian Ocean and several others which had nothing to do with America.
::So perhaps ask yourself whether you simply have an aversion to including events which took place in America and are perhaps a little overzealous in that regard.
::I was funnily enough going to suggest including the arrest of Imran Khan a couple of hours ago when I first read about it, but seeing as I've brought up/added several new topics in the past few days alone I thought it best to give it a rest for a while. ] (]) 06:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Having said all that, I still don't think this particular event is actually worthy of including on the list, despite having brought it up. I would have added the Trump indictment on March 30th, though. ] (]) 06:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:I think that some Americentrism is justified, as the world is heavily affected by American politics as well as those within other large, powerful, and influential countries such as China, Russia, the UK, Saudi Arabia, etc. However, these recent developments don't really do anything outside of the US. I would say the same of Imran Khan's release. The story of Trump's arrest itself is also much more of something to be gobbled up by the Daily Mail, and not too much critical analysis. Both don't merit inclusion, and I do think that bringing it up is a bit of ], something I usually don't like to see in discussions except in extraneous circumstances where such use can be justified. This isn't one of them. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 16:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
::Were these 2 events to have taken place on their own. I'd have probably agreed. However this is 2 fairly serious legal blows for Trump in about as many months, with many more likely to come in the coming months. Trump is a leading candidate for the 2024 US Presidential Election and a former US President. It's hard to gauge the domestic/global impact of events in a country which has such a massive influence and hold over other parts of the globe. I feel the complete lack of any mention of Trump's legal issues in 2023 so far is a disservice to the article and readers.
::However, I can understand the difficulties in somehow incorporating these singular events spaced out over months. Alone they aren't particularly concerning, but I think the more they mount up the more noteworthy and impactful they probably become. ] (]) 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:Exclude, this article is about internationally significant events. A court case is not noteworthy enough to meet that high bar, same as Trump's indictment earlier this year, neither have any international significance. ] (]) 20:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' the world is not really interested in this. It was not even a criminal process, but a civil one. ] is the only place where it should be included. ] (]) 17:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

== 2023 Marburg Virus Outbreak in Equatorial Guinea and Tanzania ==

There have been 2 Marburg virus outbreaks in African countries in the early months of 2023, combined there appears to have been a total of 41 deaths from 49 cases. This is, by far, the deadliest Marburg virus outbreak since 2004 in Angola.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Marburg_virus_disease#Epidemiology ] (]) 19:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
:It may be the deadliest, but the death toll is still very low. I think it would need to be 10 times higher and/or spreading to various other countries, to be considered for inclusion. ] (]) 10:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
::Reasonable. Let's hope it doesn't get to that point. ] (]) 19:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
:We certainly have to be very attentive to the development of the situation. For now it is not relevant to include it. ] (]) 14:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

== Move AI information to a different article? ==

Although I agree the rise of AI is notable, I think it could be better suited in a different article than here, such as ]. The companies behind it, after all, are US-based. This is just a minor suggestion; I just think there's a better article(s) to include it. ] (]) 21:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude.''' I think I would agree as the development AI is more of a gradual increase, large increases in the technology have been happening for the last few years. I mean not even the relevant articles (] or the ongoing ]) don't mention 2023 as a unique year in any way (although obviously that's not controlling evidence). A related question, what about the inclusion of the release date of ] ] on March 14? I'm not so sure if that should be included as a notable event but would like to see what others think. ] (]) 02:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::I added the Chat GPT event because it seemed to mark a major breakthrough in AI. Granted, I'm far from an expert in the field of AI and understanding what constitutes an AI breakthrough or milestone.
::The news certainly made international headlines and provoked a hearty debate on AI and its potential in the public sphere and whether it should be limited. At least that was my perception of things at the time. In addition this sort of kickstarted the entire 2023 AI conversation and craze that is currently ongoing.
::2023 definitely seems to be a noteworthy year for AI so far. It's dominating headlines and some major breakthroughs seem to have occurred in recent months. ] (]) 23:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:'''Very strong include.''' The technology is a global phenomenon. See for example what Baidu and other companies in Asia are doing. And we're talking about what is – arguably – the biggest technological leap since the Internet in the early 90s. The AI boom is revolutionary and should 100% be included. ] (]) 08:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::'''Very strong include.''' I agree with Will, this is the biggest technological leap since the Internet in the 1990s, it's like saying for example if Misplaced Pages was around then someone saying that the Internet will be a minor blimp in that century. Of course, it certainly wasn't. AI will continue to improve majorly in the years and decades to come, this certainly needs to be added. ] (]) 13:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::@] @] Your points make sense. And I wasn't going to remove the AI stuff without consensus anyways. Maybe keep it broad without mentioning every single AI development so the page doesn't get flooded with it? Other than that, I agree. Also, @], I think Chat GPT-4 should be excluded because it deals with one kind of AI and not on a broader level. But that's just my opinion. ] (]) 17:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::I'm just not sure why the information should be included in this article. I agree with @] and @] that it is a global phenomenon which will have huge effects on society, but what makes 2023 so special relative to every other year that AI has seen advances? Not much that I can see, but would like to hear your thoughts. I think this information makes much more sense in the ], ], or ] articles. ] (]) 22:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
:'''Extremely strong include'''. There is absolutely nothing 'Americancentric' about the rise of AI whatsoever. Most of these companies are international, regardless of where they're based, and technological advancement (especially such as this) impacts the entire human race and practically every other living species on Earth. The term 'Americancentric' is thrown around a lot on this talk page and this has to be the weakest use of it I have ever seen. I'm honestly lost for words that someone has the audacity to suggest including the rise of AI is 'Ameriancentric'. Ridiculous. You need to do some serious self-evaulation, Losipov. ] (]) 23:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::'Americancentric' is just becoming a pisspoor defence for "I don't like that more events are being added from America". That's the nature of being the dominant hegemonic power in a unipolar world. Whether people like it or not, noteworthy events are going to be dominated by events which take place in or in some way heavily involve the United States. Noteworthy events with global impact are noteworthy events with global impact, whether they take place in America or not.
::This crusade against all events American on this article needs to stop. ] (]) 23:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
::I never said exclude it from the article; I just suggested there might be a better place for it than here. I suggested something similar to the phone call between Zelensky and Xi Jinping, as that could be better off in a different article (which the consensus for that was to exclude it, but that's beside the point). I merely wanted to get consensus on whether or not this is the right place for it.
::And please don't accuse me of being "anti-Americentrism" or anything anti-America regarding the article. There is no need for personal attacks of this kind. I'm sure you're better than that. ] (]) 02:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::And just so we're clear when I'm referring to personal attacks: "You need to do some serious self-evaulation, Losipov". I don't appreciate this at all. ] (]) 02:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Oh come on. Don’t be so disingenuous. You know exactly what angle you were going at with your comments regarding it belonging in the 2023 in the US article and the false comment about all AI companies being based in the US (which would have been irrelevant anyway).
::::Most pioneering tech is centered in small geographic nodes of tech development. Again, every single event noteworthy or not generally takes place in a single location. That doesn’t make it a domestic event.
::::Don’t try and backtrack out of this one. ] (]) 06:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::Dude, I agree with you on your position, but please tone down the intensity of your comments and look to constrictively debate. You're starting to act a little bit snappy towards Losipov, and it is starting to become a little bit uncivil. It does seem like that you're going to "win" the debate anyways, and it's time to ]. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 06:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::Noted. For what it’s worth I apologize again for making you feel personally attacked, Losipov. I am merely attacking the words you posted here, that’s all. However I could stand to learn to do this less vociferously in future. I shall work on it. ] (]) 06:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:'''This is a no-brainer to include'''. I'm at a loss. These developments originated in the United States, sure, but they permanently have changed the world to an extent not seen since 9/11 (even COVID was mostly temporary when it came to its measures). The entire idea of "removing Americentrism" and removing it from year articles after the Barbara Walters RFC (which demonstrated that the Misplaced Pages community in general doesn't support "international notability" as previously interpreted) is perhaps the most blatant violation of ] I've seen throughout my time on the site. I think strongly that while the Americentrism arguments have died down at least since the old "international notability" phase of year articles, the POV still seems to be a bit too strong. Left uncontrolled, the idea of removing Americentrism becomes anti-Americanism, and that's gonna get this article shown up on the NPOV noticeboard. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 06:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::@] like I said to the IP, this was merely a suggestion. I completely understand that AI is extremely notable and definitely warrants inclusion, but I'm starting to feel like the ] article, as pointed out by @], is better (simply because this didn't start this specific year). But that's my opinion, and ''please'' understand that I was not trying to pick any fights with anyone. I don't understand why I'm being attacked for simply suggesting it (not you, don't get me wrong, but that IP for sure). ] (]) 06:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::With all due respect, I do feel like that the way in which you presented the idea seemed to haunt me a little bit too much in phrasing as it implied a return to the old "international notability" phase on year articles. I appreciate the suggestion, and I understand your point of view, but there are fears of a slippery slope I have if we remove it. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 06:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Look for what it’s worth I apologize for making you feel attacked. But I do think you need to self-evaluate your reasons for implying Americancentrism here.
:::If that came across as a personal attack to you, I assure you it wasn’t. I know nothing about you as a person. I am responding wholly to the comment you started this discussion thread with.
:::I was referring solely to you self-evaluating your suggestions of Americancentrism. ] (]) 06:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Fine, maybe I should have worded my suggestion differently. And yes, I realize that not all AI companies are based in the US or that it is simply American based. So it should be kept (for now, at the very least). But please try and be more respectful in the future (and I just saw your apology, which I greatly appreciate).
::::And for what its worth, thank you too @]. ] (]) 06:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::You're welcome <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 06:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:If we are including it, it has to be an ''event'', not just a gradual development, so only particularly significant moments should be included. Otherwise '''Exclude'''. As for ChatGPT, who is in a position to say that this will prove to be a significant event in the long term? We can afford to wait and see. ] (]) 07:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::I think that some core components to human culture and development are more drawn out to the point where we can't narrow it down to an event in the same year solely to do it justice. The 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression throughout the early 1930s are very good examples of this. The economy didn't crash itself in 1930, but a major event the year before continued to affect the world. Similar with ChatGPT; it launched in November of 2022, but there's already an AI arms race between Microsoft and Google, to the point where Google's own employees are teasing company leadership for saying "AI" too much (). <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 07:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::So may I ask why include the info here? If ChatGPT was launched in 2022, and AI has been being developed at Microsoft and Google for years before 2023, why is this year so special to include it in the lead of the article compared to those previous years? Again, important technological developments happening in this field, so important I think we shouldn't try and cram AI into some random year article and instead move this info to a more appropriate article for these types of long-lasting events like ]. In essence, examples thrown around are rocket tech in 1957 or stock market crash in 1929, but what thing happened uniquely in 2023 which warrants inclusion like those? ] (]) 11:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Some events in AI include the launch of Bard, GPT-4, OpenAI's partnerships with Microsoft, the licensing of ChatGPT's technology to various companies including but not limited to Duolingo, Quora, and Snapchat, as well as the licensing of Bard's technology to Wendy's for experimental drive-thrus in Columbus Ohio. We didn't see these derivative advancements last year, and many of them probably could be too small themselves to mention independently in here, but their collective impact on AI are symbolic of the increased role that AI plays. A blurb in the lead encompassing these advancements in general is most appropriate, since these encompass the general trend throughout the year. May I ask why it is even the best idea to only have year articles be lists of events, rather than more prose-based articles such as the new ]? Why appeal to tradition when there is a better way to have both? <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 17:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::To more directly answer your question on why 2023 is so much more special in AI than other years, the advancements in AI seen in 2023 rather than 2022 are more numerous, consistent, and year-spanning than in 2022. For 2022, we only saw ChatGPT. In 2023, we have all those events I mentioned in the previous comment. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 18:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::To me it seems that, the more numerous they are, the less significant each single event is. ] (]) 18:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Agreed, but what can we do to encompass the general trend that is AI? It's still important. Unless we start making year articles like the new 2001 (which ain't a bad idea), a blurb in the lead is the best we can do. <b><span style="color:#0080FB">Invading</span><span style="color:#0668E1">Invader</span></b> (], ]) 03:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
::I imagine the people strongly involved in tech analysis and future projections and so forth are in a position to do that, and they seemed to think the Chat GPT thing on March 14th was a big deal, as well as the past few months in general for AI.
::A breakthrough, or breakthroughs, a milestone or leap.
::Now granted, I am far from an expert on this. So if I’m wrong, and these tech articles and analysts and predictions are wrong (or I’m just reading them wrong), correct me by all means. ] (]) 09:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
::I think a somewhat rough comparison here is the Space Race. So say in 1957 (I know my timeline is way off but it’s a hypothetical so bear with me) there were several major advancements in rocket propulsion technology and some high profile launches that surpassed everything that had been achieved beforehand.
::That would be worthy of a mention in the 1957 article right? Both in the opening and in the events list? 1957 would in part be defined by those advancements in rocket propulsion technology and rocket launches. ] (]) 09:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
:Another example I'll give here is wars. The Ukraine War technically began in 2014. However the massive escalation in 2022 resulted in it dominating the year of 2022 in both events and the opening. World War 2 is another example. Again it began in 1939 but the major offensives and battles and atrocities of that war occurred towards the later years, in the early 1940s.
:When something 'begins' is not the be all and end all of an event or movement.
:So this argument that AI technically existed before 2023 isn't really a strong one, in my opinion. If 2023 is a year dominated by AI advancements and leaps and innovations then the fact that AI existed before this is totally irrelevant. ] (]) 07:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:* '''Exclude''' "An AI arms race between private companies has continued since the late-2010s, with Microsoft-backed OpenAI and Google-owner Alphabet today most dominant among firms." this is ''way'' too detailed. Concerning the earlier parts: I think it would be good if it was mentioned very briefly in the lead and/or elsewhere in the article.
::
::It's a major development but utterly overhyped and there are many more scientific and technological developments that aren't even mentioned with just a single word in this article despite possibly larger potentials for positive impacts, especially not the lead.
::
::It's also inaccurate: these are not "arms" but polypurpose software – in specific software that could be briefly describable as being: chatbot functionality similar to but more sophisticated than ] which has been around since over a decade, so-far minor coding helper tools, a possibly near-term substantial misinfo- & scamming-tool, already-substantial artistic image creation tools / helper tools, and an unrealiable/inaccurate general text-generation solution still in search of problems. Even when just considering AI developments but not other developments that may be more relevant to e.g. major global risks or reduction of deaths and suffering, it's inadequate to single out specific AI companies at a minimum – see other developments at ] where people interested (further) in the subject-matter could maybe be directed to. That it's a global phenomenon is even more reason to not name specific companies or products. Mostly agree with Deb.
:] (]) 10:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
::"there are many more scientific and technological developments that aren't even mentioned with just a single word in this article despite possibly larger potentials for positive impacts, especially not the lead."
::Can you give some examples? ] (]) 11:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:::When limiting this to only technological new developments (why?), not scientific ones (studies/study results, open letters, general developments and trends in science, new scientific fields, new scientific projects) and also excluding other AI developments (why?):
:::* life extension tools demonstration like reprogramming in mice, RSV vaccines, space debris mitigation tech like ESO ADEO, green hydrogen production methods, rise of TikTok, drone and combat drone defense technologies, wetware computing/organoid intelligence results, asteroidal planetary defense technology demonstration, more gradual developments in e.g. floating solar or agrivoltaics or cellular agriculture or mycoprotein food production or various in vivo microbots or heat pumps or perovskite solar cells or recycling methods, epigenome editing demonstrations, genetic engineering tools, etc.
:::It would be a good point if there was any good reason to limit things included here to novel technology developments while developments only related to technology or scientific-only or more gradual in nature are excluded. I said more ''scientific and'' technological developments.
:::Concerning the "Americancentric"-relating rationales for inclusion, I'd like to remind people here that apparently on this basis (not a global development in terms of producer but only in impact) a mention of the substantial global media attention receiving ] was removed in 2021 despite that it wasn't even in the lead. ] (]) 11:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
::::I firmly agree all those should be in the events list at the very least though. I think the events list is woefully misrepresentative of 2023 as things stand and the unyielding insistence on including completely mundane, quadrennial executive elections for every single sovereign state in the world over events like the ones you've just listed will never cease to confound and depress me.
::::I actually agree the stuff about AI should be trimmed in the opening, and a more general focus on the tech/science developments (some of which you've listed there) could be incorporated into the opening.
::::I feel like ultimately your argument is for more inclusion rather than exclusion of the AI craze though, whether you intend it to be or not. ] (]) 11:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::I only said that the latter part that I quoted should be removed. I'm neutral as to whether the part before that is kept in the lead but I'd prefer if it was made a bit shorter and less promotional in tone. It's '''very''' inadequate to name specific products or companies there, at the least in this case.
:::::It's already mentioned under Events despite of other major science-related events usually not even getting briefly mentioned. The releases of Cleverbot or Visual Studio or other equivalent software were not listed under Events, nor were other developments with larger media attention (or other developments of much higher non-media impact on overall deaths/DALY/global problems/global risks/etc). Moreover, it's probably inaccurate to call the two named companies "the most dominant among firms" when referring to the earlier mentioned AI art too.
:::::''This part should be removed asap'' given that it's also factually incorrect, this is not an ]. Please keep science fiction fueled hype out. Even if it was an arms race or primarily/substantially an arms race, the latter part is basically promotional, biased and absolutely not okay. Otherwise I'm all for ''keep'' when the question is whether or not to include info about and a wikilink to ] here.
:::::Another way that it's inaccurate is that it suggests that "have become capable of creating realistic and coherent text" is something new. It's not.
:::::Why is the IPCC report not mentioned in the lead and has only one very brief sentence under Events while one third of the lead covers generative AI despite that bio/medical applications of generative AI are not mentioned (the focus instead is put on near-useless to largely-problematic text-generation or largely-niche music generation)?
:::::If more input is needed ask for that on ]. ] (]) 22:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
:'''Include on case-by-case basis''' as per Deb. While there’s certainly significant issues with Americentrism on these pages (and it’s not helpful to deny that such an issue does exist in general, and to sweep it under the carpet/dismiss it), I don’t think that’s a criticism that can really be applied here. ] (]) 23:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
::There's just as much, if not significantly more, issues on this page with severely weak or plain false accusations of Americancentrism whenever someone tries to add noteworthy events (or just unnoteworthy events they genuinely thought were noteworthy) in some way tied to the United States. That is what was being criticized, so your strawman and muddying of the waters here is completely unhelpful and unnecessary. ] (]) 23:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't know what the correct term for it would be, but the opposition to perceived Americancentrism on this page has basically ventured into the shadowy depths of inverted snobbery by this point. It's becoming borderline neurotic the way people so carelessly and zealously throw around accusations of Americancentrism and use it as a shield to attack and have removed events they don't think should be in the article. It's becoming a nothing term void of any substance due to its exhaustive, often inaccurate, overuse. ] (]) 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
::::I said the insinuation that to include AI information is Americentrism is not something I agree with, and that the criticism is not something I think can be applied in this particular case - I cannot believe that you’re actually doubling down under the circumstances. I remain firmly opposed to actual ], which is where figures/events that would not be included had they been from any other country, are included when they are from America. That is systemic bias, and I absolutely stand by every assertion that I have made of Americentrism - which does not include this particular scenario. No, instead I believe that events from every country should be treated equally and that no country and their events should get special treatment. If an equivalent event/figure from anywhere other than America is deemed insufficiently notable for inclusion on the main yearly articles, then those from America should be treated no differently. The figures aspect is no longer an issue because the Deaths section - which had been a source of endless conflict and contention - has been removed. But no, I will absolutely continue to call out and vote against the inclusion of events which would be blatant examples of ]/]. ] (]) 00:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::That’s a ridiculous standard to rigidly adhere to though because all countries are not equal in development, scale, reach, power, influence and importance, whether we wish this to be the case or not. The election of a warmongering leader in America for example has far more dire potential impacts on the world than the election of a warlord in an impoverished thirdworld country with no force projection or weapons of mass destruction and so forth.
:::::In addition, certain countries have disproprotionate levels of certain events and things. AI for example being heavily concentrated in one small area of the US. Or Nobel Prize winners being massively disproportionately Jewish (do we stop including Nobel Prize winners in articles because of this? No, it’s preposterous).
:::::Just because this is the case doesn’t mean we cannot report on these meaningful events that happened to be concentrated in one region or dominated by a particular group of people.
:::::If a year happens to be dominated by American events and figures then it just is.
:::::I agree with not being anything -centric as much as is reasonably possible but certain events have different magnitude and scale and potential impact depending on where in the world they happen.
:::::A tsunami that striking a highly urbanized, developed coastal region does not have the same impact as a tsunami that strikes an unpopulated stretch of barren coastland.
:::::Right? ] (]) 03:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::Frankly I disagree entirely with the premise of your response (especially the tsunami analogy), and I have nothing further to add other than that I will not give or make excuses for preferential treatment/systemic bias towards events from one country, and that I am thoroughly opposed to having one standard for events from one country, and another standard for events from 200+ other countries. I have zero intention in commenting further on this thread and zero intention of doing anything resembling ], and I advise you to do the same. ] (]) 05:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::You don’t agree there is disparity between the various regions and sovereign states and even individuals of this Earth? And that events that happen in certain institutions or regions or sovereign states have different weight and impact and importance and influence than they would if they took place in others?
:::::::What color do you happen to think the Sky is, out of curiosity? ] (]) 07:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

== Ultramassive Black Hole ==

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

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

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

== Biology and Technology News ==

Should '''(1)''' "''A potent new antibiotic, abaucin, capable of killing Acinetobacter baumannii (one of three superbugs the World Health Organization has identified as a "critical threat" to humanity), is created using artificial intelligence"'' and '''(2)''' "''Elon Musks's Neuralink receives FDA approval to begin human trials''" be included on the page? ] (]) 17:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


== This might possibly be the most ineffective talk page on this site. ==
:'''Strong include''' ] (]) 18:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
::'''Comment'''. Noting that this is the IP who originally added the two entries. ] (]) 18:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:::I wasn't aware that excluded me from giving my opinion on inclusion/exclusion. ] (]) 19:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


Please stop removing the collage, no other year page has ever had such a lengthy process for consensus on such a simple part of the page, which eventually turned out to be an ineffective waste which was abandoned by March.
: No. And can this "92.5.100.233" person stop adding entries like this. I mean look, I absolutely love science and technology as much as they seem to. But stuff like this just isn't notable enough for inclusion on the main year page. A small number of such events are occasionally suitable, yes (such as NASA and ESA's flagship missions, or some major breakthrough in fundamental science). But in general, they belong on 2023 in Science, or elsewhere. Thanks. ] (]) 18:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
::How is an AI developed antibiotic that can treat one of the 3 major superbugs threatening humanity not notable? I can see how the Musk entry would be up for debate, but that abaucin removal is preposterous.
::The fact that these notable events are all happening within a short space of time of one another is irrelevant. All years are not equal, some barely have any entries in the events list while others (like 2020) have footlong events lists for fairly obvious reasons.
::How do you not see abaucin as a major breakthrough in science. How is the launch of JUICE anywhere near as noteworthy as that? ] (]) 19:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
::I also don't get the comment about 'loving science'. I've added/suggested all kinds of recent events from natural disasters to mass cult suicides to AI breakthroughs to viral outbreaks. I've added/suggested around 2 or 3 science/technology related events out of the past dozen edits/suggestions.
::And I tell you something else, not a single suggestion/edit I've made has been anywhere near as unnoteworthy as the routine quadrennial executive election of Trinidad and Tobago or Andorra.
::If you want to talk about a waste of article space and futile events additions let's talk about including the executive elections from every single sovereign state on the planet in the article. ] (]) 19:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
:'''Exclude both''' just because a drug is created doesn't mean it has been approved by any government agency for usage as is the case for neuralink. ] (]) 14:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


In July, a collage image was uploaded and remained there til last month, when an Autocratic mod decided to remove the image and 'continue the collage discussion' on here.
== AI News ==


2024 already has a collage image. Its almost 2025, and we're still arguing on 2023's (or maybe even not, given the talk page hasn't even been used in 4 days).
I've seen a lot of discussions here about what to do with the many AI developments which have been happening recently. I propose that we create a new article, '']'' (similar to '']'' or '']'') for the less important things, while keeping a handful of the most notable things on this page. ] (]) 19:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


:A dedicated article for AI seems like a good idea, given the sheer number of developments we're seeing now. However, the paragraph beginning "In the realm of technology" on the main year page should absolutely be kept, as I've said before. ] (]) 20:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Please add back the original collage image and simply move on with your lives, for lack of better ways of making this clear. ] (]) 03:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


:Seems like a good idea to me. ] (]) 20:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC) :The 2023 page also still seems to be behind maximum security protection for whatever reason. Please change this. ] (]) 03:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::Like seriously, this article is completely unprecedented in how disgustingly slow it is to adjust. There is not a SINGLE past year article which is still under such a high level of protection (not 2020, 2021, 2022, etc.), and rightfully so due to an article about a year not being of such high interest to potential vandalists and online propagandists.
:While we're at it can we create a 2023 in Politics thread so we don't need to add every single quadrennial election of the executive branch in every sovereign state on Earth to the events list? ] (]) 20:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
::I have almost 1 million views on articles I've edited, and I still cannot, for whatever fucking reason, even consider touching this article.
::PLEASE CHANGE THIS. ] (]) 03:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: please, save its article. ] (]) 13:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@]: ] (]) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::Could it possibly be because the people who like to create collages, just to show off, don't like it when someone points out that they have failed to achieve consensus? ] (]) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::We're already going to 2025... ] (]) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I can't upload anything until October 2025 because I'm banned from Commons. ] (]) 18:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:Collage images may have been accepted but that doesn't mean they are mandatory. ] (]) 09:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::@]: ] (]) 01:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Where are the captions? ] (]) 15:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::This is just a preview of the collage. ] (]) 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:54, 14 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2023 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 4 months 
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: What are the inclusion criteria for this article? A1: See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight.
This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconHistory: Contemporary Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Contemporary History Task Force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconLists High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconYears Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


Language extinction

Various languages becoming extinct following the death of their final speaker.

87.241.158.140 (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. "Last Fluent Speaker of Nxamxcin Language Dies at 96". The Spokesman. Spokane, Washington.

Continuing the collage discussion

Image E - the US banking crisis - had only one vote as far as I can see. This was a domestic event that does not lend itself to a visual summary and should be immediately removed from the collage. Deb (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m neutral on the topic’s inclusion, but I don’t like the rationale that no domestic events may be included. I could call maybe half of the current images “domestic” (especially Hawaii, but also Brazil). I also think we could do a lot worse for visual representation—we have three photos of hard-to-discern general destruction—but I see your point. For me, it comes down to importance, and it just feels borderline. But there are a lot of borderline topics. — HTGS (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying no domestic events may be included, but normally they are omitted if they don't have a major worldwide effect. As usual, this collage is US-centric, and I agree that several of the other images are equally uninformative. I'm moved to comment it out unless a genuine attempt is made to achieve consensus. Deb (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
“Major worldwide effect”: I’m fine with this, but I would also add an OR for something like “significant domestic historical importance”. I agree about the collage being US centric, but US financial events do have more global importance than most countries. Again, I am neutral on this one, so if nobody else comments, you can just remove it (as a somewhat WP:BOLD edit), but if we were acting on your criteria, wouldn’t the fires in Hawaii have even less “major worldwide effect”?
For the record, I would cast only a weak vote to remove the Hawaii wildfires, and I would replace either with the coronation of Charles III and the expansion of NATO, both being more international, and more historically significant. But perhaps it’s worth just carrying on with WeatherWriter's planned polls? — HTGS (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
My opinion: the largest banking crisis in the largest economy in the world is very featured. ArionStar (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a new collage suggestion. Balanced? ArionStar (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

A doubt: Wagner Group or Putin? ArionStar (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
@Nagae Iku: does it looks good enough? ArionStar (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
That's nice, but the image of the Chinese balloon and King Charles III's coronation are cropped a bit unattractively. Maybe I can make some slight modifications and help you upload it.
Then let me share my views on the Wagner coup and the arrest warrant for Putin: The Wagner coup was a significant event, as it is rare for such an occurrence to happen in one of the top three countries in the world. It captured global attention in the last days of June, but ultimately, the coup fizzled out. The arrest warrant for Putin is also a major event, with 123 countries obligated to arrest him, covering almost two-thirds of the world. This makes it a global issue. However, in September 2024, Putin visited one of the signatory countries—Mongolia—without being arrested, which undermines the feasibility and significance of the treaty. In summary, I believe both events are very important, and I find it difficult to choose between them. Nagae Iku (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
By the way, Putin did not attend the Brazil's G20 summit most likely due to his obvious arrest; Putin is visually a more recognizable figure. Could you fix the collage issues, please? ArionStar (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I'd disagree. The Wagner coup was highly newsworthy and widely reported; the Putin arrest warrant far less so. Deb (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Ok, right. Just waiting for the Iku's update. ArionStar (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Can anyone help us? ArionStar (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Collages were kept per a previous discussion, so please put back the collage in some form (even if the former collage until someone decides what will be changed). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The previous discussion was very clear that the images in a collage must be discussed and consensus should be achieved before they are added to the article. Deb (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This might possibly be the most ineffective talk page on this site.

Please stop removing the collage, no other year page has ever had such a lengthy process for consensus on such a simple part of the page, which eventually turned out to be an ineffective waste which was abandoned by March.

In July, a collage image was uploaded and remained there til last month, when an Autocratic mod decided to remove the image and 'continue the collage discussion' on here.

2024 already has a collage image. Its almost 2025, and we're still arguing on 2023's (or maybe even not, given the talk page hasn't even been used in 4 days).

Please add back the original collage image and simply move on with your lives, for lack of better ways of making this clear. Xavience1 (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The 2023 page also still seems to be behind maximum security protection for whatever reason. Please change this. Xavience1 (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Like seriously, this article is completely unprecedented in how disgustingly slow it is to adjust. There is not a SINGLE past year article which is still under such a high level of protection (not 2020, 2021, 2022, etc.), and rightfully so due to an article about a year not being of such high interest to potential vandalists and online propagandists.
I have almost 1 million views on articles I've edited, and I still cannot, for whatever fucking reason, even consider touching this article.
PLEASE CHANGE THIS. Xavience1 (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Nagae Iku: please, save its article. ArionStar (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Xavience1: good enough? ArionStar (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Could it possibly be because the people who like to create collages, just to show off, don't like it when someone points out that they have failed to achieve consensus? Deb (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
We're already going to 2025... ArionStar (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I can't upload anything until October 2025 because I'm banned from Commons. ArionStar (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Collage images may have been accepted but that doesn't mean they are mandatory. Deb (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
@Deb: good enough? ArionStar (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Where are the captions? Deb (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
This is just a preview of the collage. ArionStar (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: