Talk:2023: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:34, 2 December 2024 editXavience1 (talk \| contribs)23 edits →This might possibly be the most ineffective talk page on this site.: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:54, 14 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:2023/Archive 2) (bot
(14 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\| minthreadsleft = 3		\| minthreadsleft = 3
	}}		}}

	== 2023 Collage Full Discussion ==

	This process will be a 3-step process:
	#Candidates by everyone
	#An RfC to discuss and “ratify” the candidates <—— '''Current Step in Process'''
	#An RfC to vote for the collage images and events
	'''The ]''' (] 14:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

	:Where was the decision that we needed a collage for 2023, and where is the discussion on how the process should be carried out? ] (]) 08:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	::I agree with @] on this matter. I'm of the belief we should wait until 2025 to make decisions on what images to add for 2023. It gives more time for users to reflect on what events are most important for 2023 and we can get more objective consensus. ] (]) 18:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::The process I proposed & started is over two-months long (with two separate RfCs). Waiting until 2025 doesn't really do much since there would be over 2 months of community discussion and reflection (At least 2 RfCs). By the end of it (in March 2024), we should easily know what was the biggest events of 2023. '''The ]''' (] 01:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::I agree. ] (]) 15:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
	:::bro no, that's boring, that's more like the opposite, and so in my opinion I don't think that waiting until 2025 would be a good idea ] (]) 15:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

	===Step 1 (Candidates)===
	In this discussion, add image and/or event candidates that you think should or could be in the yearly collage image. To add candidates, add the image as <nowiki>]</nowiki> followed by '''OPTION (Letter next in order)'''. To add a second image candidate for the same event, add it as '''OPTION X(Number next in order)'''.

	This discussion will not be voted on until at least: 14:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC).

	====Candidates====

	]

	'''OPTION A(1)''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION A(2)''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION B''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION C''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION D''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION E''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION F(1)''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION F(2)''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION G''': SAG-AFTRA strike

	]

	'''OPTION H(1)''': ]

	]

	'''Option H(2)''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION I''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION J''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION K''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION L(1)''': ]

	]

	'''OPTION L(2)''': ]

	]


	'''OPTION M''': ] — ]

	]

	'''OPTION O''' '']'' becomes the highest-grossing film of 2023

	]

	'''OPTION P''': refugees of the Sudan conflict in Chad ] (])

	]

	'''OPTION Q(1)''': Wildfires in Saskatchewan. ] (])

	]

	'''OPTION Q(2)''': aftermath of fires in NWT. ] (])

	]

	'''OPTION R''': Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. ] (])

	]

	'''OPTION S''': ] ]

	]

	'''OPTION T''': ] ]

	]

	'''OPTION U''': ] ]

	]

	'''OPTION V''': ] ]

	]

	'''OPTION W''': ] ]

	]

	'''OPTION X''': ] ]

	]

	'''OPTION Y''': ] ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	]

	'''OPTION Z''': Leaders of the "]" who won the ], which had a historically high turnout (~74%) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	]

	'''OPTION AA''': ] with Finland as new member. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 22:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

	]

	'''OPTION AB''': ]. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 22:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

	]

	'''Option AC''': ] '''The ]''' (] 02:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

	]

	'''Option AD''': ]/] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	====Candidates discussion====
	Add discussion for the images here. '''The ]''' (] 14:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

	:Strongly suggest swapping coronation for a tighter photo, eg the one at ]. Bear in mind that photos are viewed small in a collage, so large, distinct features are strongly preferred. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 22:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	::I just added the closer-zoomed image as a second option. In the discussion above this one, another user added the larger-zoom image, so I am not going to directly remove it. But you are absolutely right! A smaller image was needed. '''The ]''' (] 22:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - Once again, highly US-centric options have been offered. This proposed collage purports itself to be a pictorial summary of the year. Therefore, the initial list should be a list of ''Events'' that are agreed to be the most important of the year. Only after that's been agreed should we start looking for images of those events. ] (]) 08:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:{{ping\|Deb}} — I think you are missing the idea of this first week. '''Everyone''' can add images and events. It is U.S. centric as only a single image has been added in addition to the images from the previous list. Add anything you think needs to be there. Step 1 is a week for everyone to add images. Step 2 is a vote to agree these are the candidates for the vote. Step 3 is the vote. If it is U.S. centric, now is your chance to add images to counter it. In short, add images right now. There is at least 6 days where you can before any sort of votes take place. '''The ]''' (] 15:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::Yes, everyone can add images and events, and those images and events '''can be removed by anyone else'''. If you are putting a collage at the top of a year page, purporting to be a summary of the year, then it must ''be'' a summary of the year, not just a set of images that someone happened to be able to find that they thought looked nice. There is no agreement on the process for agreeing content of a proposed collage, and you should not be trying to impose one. ] (]) 16:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::I am not trying to be rude here at all, but I am completely confused why you say I am “trying to impose” the process for it. I legit proposed this idea in the now closed attempt above where you and three other editors all basically agreed to it. You basically just walked back on your previous statement, where you said no one should start a collage discussion with images they choose. The way to counter that was to allow everyone to add images. Then we vote to agree those are the candidates. Then we vote on the collage images. No one is imposing anything. I had practical consensus, including from you for this process. ] was the long discussion which involved 67 people and 220 comments about collages. In reality there '''was''' collage images on every yearly article. These got removed and then was agreed to be reinstated. The big topic of debate was that there was no process to begin with. I proposed a process and had, what I presumed was, at least a running consensus going forward, since you are three others supported the idea I proposed. I apologize if I mistook here as a support for what I proposed. What are your concerns with my proposed idea, since you questioned the idea that one person should decide the images & the idea that the community shouldn’t decide the images. '''The ]''' (] 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::I agreed that consensus should be sought for the images that are included. I have never agreed that this is a good way of finding consensus. I say that you are trying to impose a process because that's what you are doing. You are suggesting that somewhere there has been an agreement that the images people like best, rather than images of the most significant events, should be included in a pictorial summary of the year. This is not the case and the method you propose, by its very nature, cannot ensure that the selection of images is a fair and impartial summary as required by the NPOV policy. ] (]) 18:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::So what do you propose we do then to fix this? A single RfC will not cut it per NPOV, so it needs to be a multi-step RFC proposal to fix any issues. I am open to all suggestions. '''The ]''' (] 18:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::I've already stated above. You need to get consensus on what the most important events are, ''then'' look for images. ] (]) 09:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::::Well, that might sound “good” in theory, but without a plan to execute that, it won’t work. Also, a counter to that argument is the collage on ]. One would easily argue D-Day as being one of the most important events during the war. And yet, it is not in the collage. Collages are supposed to be images (not necessarily events) that help showcase the year. This way seems to work, and so far, your challenge is a minority view. I will note this down though so if others start to oppose this method, we can have a full-RfC to determine what method to use. Cheers! '''The ]''' (] 17:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::::So you mean that it's okay for you to make up your own plan for what you ''want'' to do, but you don't want to put any effort into making a plan that has a chance of making the result compliant with Misplaced Pages policy? "Collages are supposed to be images (not necessarily events) that help showcase the year" - where did you hear that? We don't need to "showcase" the year - the year happened and the article already exists. ] (]) 18:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:::::::::See ]. That idea that we don’t need to “showcase” the year is not the consensus. The consensus '''is''' to have collages. Collages existed on every yearly article until they were removed before the RfC concluded. The RfC actually concluded that they should be added back in. There was and is no formal plan for collages. Right now, I could make a collage and add it without a discussion. I am not doing that as comments brought up in the RfC commented that there was no procedures in place at all. Yes I made this procedure up because it is the first one. Again, you are the first (and so far only) person to question this procedure, which is the first of its kind. '''The ]''' (] 18:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::::::::::No, the consensus (allegedly) is to reject the idea of ''not'' having collages. It's still necessary to discuss the proposed content. ] (]) 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

	:We’re most halfway through this year, did we just quit? ] (]) 22:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Two-month step process, my foot. Figure the image out or never put it on the freaking page. ] (]) 02:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
	:Well, I added one in. You can lose your minds on it again and argue about it for months again, or you can just let it go and accept the fact that even though it might not suit all your wants, it features 8 notable-enough events to be on the photomontage. ] (]) 03:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
	::Fair enough. ]. ] 19:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
	{{od}} How? There is no process. This process which I started is the only currently-existing process for collage image decisions. You want us to decide for the events, which is not what the collage is for. The collage is some of the best pictures to represent the year. Again, this discussion '''was not required''' by any means as there was no process before. The sole reason I started this discussion was because people had concerns of OR in that large RfC. Since there is no standardized process, there is no reason to alter this proposal of a method. If you think this idea that I proposed does not work, I encourage you to start your own RfC to create a standardized method for collages. Until then, there is no better way to solve the debate on collages, since this method allows for everyone to add candidates, everyone to vote on the candidates & most importantly, a community consensus on what images are the most important or most worthy of the collage. '''The ]''' (] 17:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	::To solve your issue, the proposal is 100% spelled out here: ]. '''The ]''' (] 17:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	:Is there a better image of the effect ] had on the places it impacted? I think it would be more appropriate to showcase that instead of a meteorological image. ] (]) 18:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
	::{{u\|PaulRKil}}: One could be added as a candidate, but a quick glance at ] shows a satellite view of ] rather than a damage image. Also, the ] article doesn’t really have a “damage” style picture on it. The Commons may have one though that could be thrown into the mix. '''The ]''' (] 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	*Support '''A, C, H(2), I, K, M, & P''' as the most internationally and long-term significant. ] (]) 00:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Cremastra}}, just a head's up, the vote for the collage images isn't yet. This is just a week period for people to submit what images they think should or could be in the collage. Then, we will vote to ensure there is a consensus for a college vote (basically a vote to see if consensus allows us to move forward for a collage). Then we actually vote for the 8 collage images. '''The ]''' (] 01:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::Ah, thanks. My bad. ] (]) 13:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:'''Comment'''--I support inclusion of a photo for the ], as it relates to the conclusion of the ] which was a 35-year old ] conflict that ended on 1 January 2024 with the dissolution of the ]. ] (]) 00:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::Good plan. ] (]) 01:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*] would be a good idea. And maybe ]? The best image we have is ] in my opinion. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 03:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''A、C、E、F(2) 、I、J、P、R、X''' ] (]) 04:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Nagae Iku}}. We aren't voting for the candidates yet. This is just a period of time for everyone to add candidates in without a vote yet. '''The ]''' (] 04:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::I'm sorry about this, I read it wrong before adding a reply.😵 ] (]) 04:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*The Barbie image as shown here is not eligible for inclusion. The given caption does not correspond to an event. It's doubtful whether the release of the film should even be included under events. ] (]) 09:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:Can you explain why the image is not eligible? It appears to be licensed CC BY-SA 2.0, so should be fine in any article. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 22:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	*::Because the given caption does not correspond to an event. ] (]) 16:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

	:I've explained to you how a meaningful process that complies with NPOV could be introduced. Is there any reason for you to oppose that? ] (]) 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	::The process your proposed, if I understand correctly was: RfC on which events are most important. Then using that list, you find the images. That doesn’t work since an important event may not have a good image or even a visually appealing image. Here is a good example. Imagine if the ] was voted to be one of the 6 event candidates. The two actual “images” (excluding the map) for it are very dark due to it being night time. That said, another image from a slightly lesser-known or lesser-important event (random example: ]) would be a heck of a lot more ascetically appealing for readers. Decided what is the most important events doesn’t really work well since collages (i.e. images) aren’t events. That is the issue. '''The ]''' (] 18:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	::@] That approach sounds like a good way to waste time. The current process is already more drawn out than it needs to be IMO, but it does inherently include user selection of important events. If you have important events you think should be included here, suggest them and others can find images for them if you are having a hard time. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 22:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::The most significant events of 2023 are the events mentioned in the lead of the article. If that's not the case, then the lead needs fixing, separate from any image selection. But it shouldn't be difficult to identify the most significant events of the year, as they'd be the ones in the lead, and ergo the images for the collage should be images of what's mentioned in the lead. <p>However, the collage is going to depict a subset of the events in the lead (because there are too many events for one collage). Image search and selection would be narrowed if editors first decided which events in the lead are important enough to include in the collage. That should be Step 1. That would save time and reduce the number of images to find/look at/discuss. Step 2 would then be finding/agreeing on the "best" image for each lead event that will be depicted in the collage. <p>Lead events that don't make it into the collage should be pictured elsewhere in the article (they're "important" enough for a picture). So, another way to go about this is to just find the "best" images of everything that's mentioned in the lead, and then discuss which of those images should be in the lead collage, and which in the body of the article. ] (]) 00:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::Since this discussion/debate doesn't really apply to "2023", I would invite y'all ({{u\|Deb}}, {{u\|HTGS}}, {{u\|Levivich}}) to participate in the discussion about this method over on WP:YEARS: ]. '''The ]''' (] 01:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
	::::So far there has been a lot of discussion about how to discuss the images. How about @] or @] you give your takes on which events should be featured? Because that process is not incompatible to the current one. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 00:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::In my view, "year in review" sources should be used to determine the most significant events of the year (what should go in the lead). I'm not sure what sources the current lead is based on if any, and I'm not confident the current lead has all the most significant events of the year per RS. But choosing from what's in the lead right now, I'd say: Turkey/Syria earthquake, Gaza war, N-K war, banking crisis. Chandrayaan-3 isn't in the lead but I bet RS would suggest it should be, and if so, I'd say also in the collage as a 5th image. For a 6th, I don't know that you can find an image of AI (that's not an advertisement, e.g. not a logo), so maybe Cyclone Nargis. ] (]) 00:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I know - I've already suggested a process very similar to this. That's where the proposer got the idea. ] (]) 09:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
	*I am ''deeply'' flattered by the suggestion that ] has been suggested as a part of the collage. It really means a lot to me. ] (]) 06:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:This doesn't sound like a good thing. If you care about your personal kudos, you're in the wrong place. ] (]) 15:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''A(1), C, F(1), H(2), J, L(2), X, AB'''. ] (]) 19:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	*: Almost half of the year 2024 and… ] (]) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	*::Perhaps we could ask an admin what to do on this. We're still stuck on step 2, and every side of a "dispute" has been answered. ]. ] 23:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:::Yeah, because this is just starting to get ridiculous. ] (]) 23:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

	===Step 2 (Ratify the Candidates)===
	]
	#Discussion on the three event candidates which had multiple images proposed.
	#Ratification RfC to determine if we can move on to the collage vote.

	* A new collage is out. What about this one? ] (]) 02:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

	:@], @], @], @], @], @], @]. ] (]) 19:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
	::Yeah, sure. The one currently in the article looks good. ] (]) 21:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::@]: could you realign the collage? I just tried to replace a image, but I don't think I did it the right way. ] (]) 00:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
	::@] I like it. It's good to me. ]. ] 01:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::@]: Could you please help me to replace the image of the Brazilian Congress correctly? ] (]) 20:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

	====Multiple choice discussion====
	=====]=====
	'''Option A(1) or A(2)?'''
	* '''A(1)''' - I think it is a better image of "Brazilian Congress attack" than the second one. The first one clearly shows multiple people and a Brazilian flag. The second one, on the other hand, looks like ruins. Without context, it would be hard to tell that this was an attack on the Brazilian Capitol. ]. ] 19:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

	=====]=====
	'''Option F(1) or F(2)?'''
	*'''Option F(2)''' – The more zoomed-in image is needed as the candidate of choice. '''The ]''' (] 21:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

	*'''F2''' — brighter and more recognizable. ] (]) 22:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''F2''' - Clearer and more focused on the item in question, and aligns more with ]. F1 is somewhat less clear and has less lighting in its depiction. ] (]) 22:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

	*'''F2 or another one''' - This picture is nice, but it's a bit too wide in the crop. Here are two other options that I personally think are cropped better: ] ]
	:] (]) 02:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

	*'''F(2)'''. ] (]) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

	=====]=====
	'''Option H(1) or H(2)?'''
	*'''Option H(2)''' – This was featured on the mainpage ITN for 8 days, so it is the more valuable image from the wildfires. '''The ]''' (] 21:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''H(2)'''. ] (]) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

	=====]=====
	'''Option L(1) or L(2)?'''
	* '''L(1)''' - Clearly depicts a balloon. The second one, at a glance, could easily be misinterpreted as generic fishing. ]. ] 19:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

	=====]=====
	'''Option Q(1) or Q(2)?'''
	*'''Option Q(1)''' – Seeing the satellie-style view of the wildfires and smoke is a better image to me than the damage image of Q(2). '''The ]''' (] 21:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

	*'''Q1''' per WeatherWriter. ] (]) 22:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Q1''' per WeatherWriter. Better depicts the topic in question. ] (]) 22:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
	*:nibga just choose it ] (]) 07:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
	*::Please do not use that language on Misplaced Pages, okay? 👍 ] (]) 07:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
	*:::He has a point. Decide it or just don't add a collage. ] (]) 16:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

	== ] ==		== ] ==
Line 327:		Line 67:
	:::::Ok, right. Just waiting for the {{u\|Nagae Iku\|Iku}}'s update. ] (]) 00:09, 27 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)		::::::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)

	== This might possibly be the most ineffective talk page on this site. ==		== This might possibly be the most ineffective talk page on this site. ==
Line 342:		Line 85:
	::I have almost 1 million views on articles I've edited, and I still cannot, for whatever fucking reason, even consider touching this article.		::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 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

History: Contemporary Mid‑importance

	History portal This 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
Mid	This 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).

Lists High‑importance

	This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Top‑importance

	This 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
Top	This 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.

Columbia-Moses - death on May 2nd, 2023, following the death of Pauline Stensgar

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

References

"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: