This is an archive of past discussions about 2022. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Should Technoblade be included under Deaths? (Result: exclusion)
Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion
There has been a small ongoing edit war adding and removing the former Minecraft Youtuber Technoblade (real name Alexander) from the deaths section, after his recently announced passing on June 30. I personally support his inclusion on this page, as he has been considered to be notable enough to be put in the recent deaths section on the main page after review of the page. I do not want to add or remove him from the section without a consensus through. Cheers! --Johnson524 (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
exclude. it's too early to see what impact he may have right now, technoblade was a massive YouTuber indeed. with over 12 million subscribers. however he wasn't eligible for a Wikipedia page until the day he died. with is Wikipedia page being that young I don't think it's time to add him right now. also he wasn't as big as Dream and/ or mr beast, maybe this will change in a couple years if books and movies get made about him. it's to early to tell. so right now, just exclude him for now. 4me689 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
So Technoblade actually did have a page before his passing, but it was deleted (twice actually on two different dates far apart) because there was not enough major sources that cited what he had done. The page is now in the mainspace because after his passing; outlets like CNN, New York Times, Insider, etc. reported his passing, giving the article the push it needed to stay. The point I am trying to make is that it is not like he was not notable enough to warrant his own article before his passing, there just was no major news outlets reporting on him. -- Johnson524 (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh I did not know that, will I'll change my opinion to neutral, with YouTube only existing for 16 years, and most of the sites creators being young. there has not been much of a talk for YouTubers inclusion in death sections in main year articles cuz not many big YouTubers have died, with technoblade being one of the first big YouTubers to die. so I know this is probably going to be a pretty heated argument in the talk section as no boundaries for YouTuber deaths have been set on these type of articles. 4me689 (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
That's definitely true not many major youtubers have passed since the launching of the app. I'm not a really big Technoblade fan myself, but seeing as this kind of thing has not been discussed yet to my knowledge on the talk page, I wanted to at least bring it up. Thanks for understanding where I was coming from and for replying! I appreciate it 🙂 Johnson524 (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
That's unlikely, because if there were no sources commenting on him before his death, then his death - unless a notable event in itself - doesn't suddenly make him notable per WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk)09:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
That makes more sense, I agree with Jim Michael, Black Kite, and TheScrubby on exclusion. in terms of inclusion standards he has little notability. we're not excluding him because we hate him, we're excluding him cuz he does not fit the criteria for notability for inclusion, which Jim Michael summed up well. and like I said, YouTube is only 16 years old, and because YouTube is only existed for that shot period Of time, the criteria for including YouTubers is pretty vague. 4me689 (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Exclude - my condolences to his family, and it is of course always an incredible tragedy for somebody to be taken by cancer at an age when their life is only beginning, but in what universe is this person remotely internationally notable enough for inclusion here? TheScrubby (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Support - @TheScrubby: I would say he is pretty internationally notable as within one day of the pages re-launch, the page has been translated into 17 different languages. --Johnson524 (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
What's the difference between "has many fans in many countries" and 'international support'? That being said, I am not going to try to push this through to make sure he gets included, that is really not all that important to me, I just wanted to make a consensus to stop the edit war going on as I mentioned in my first message. I wish you all the best 🙂 Johnson524 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
International notability is required for inclusion on a main year article, which means major achievements in multiple countries. For example, an actor or filmmaker who has won an Academy Award and a BAFTA Award. Many thousands of people have fans in multiple countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Just to note the Main Page RD accepts any article subject to sufficient quality - notability is not taken into account (though if an article looks seriously non-notable it may be sent to AfD, which bars it from ITN while the discussion is ongoing). As I said there, I'm pretty sure someone who didn't even have an article until the day he sadly died doesn't pass international notability standards. Black Kite (talk)09:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion
This has no apparent international angle. Being a former head of state/gov means he's notable enough to be included in Deaths, but his assassination is a domestic event. If we included all deaths that are widely reported in the international media, we'd include the killing of Gabby Petito & the murder of Sarah Everard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
In this case, I fully support inclusion - given that this is the assassination of not just any political figure, but somebody who was the longest-serving PM of Japan and one of the most significant world leaders of the 21st century up to now. Not to mention that he was still an active, high-profile politician who was literally giving a speech in the middle of an election campaign when the assassination occurred. If say, Barack Obama or Bill Clinton were to be assassinated today, nobody would raise a peep about its inclusion either. TheScrubby (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm consistent & would oppose the inclusion of the domestic killing of any former head of state/gov. No election is required in response. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
But this is not just any politician or an assassination of someone anonymous, but the assassination of a former prime minister of a G7 country, one of the most important politicians in Japan's modern history and the longest-serving premier to leave office not even two years ago. For me the assassination must be included. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Include. You can't be serious, Jim. He was the former leader of one of the world's most powerful and influential countries, and its longest serving leader, he's suffered a violent death, and there's wall-to-wall coverage on practically every news outlet in every country around the world right now. Please stop this ridiculous crusade of yours to delete everything, it's becoming unbelievably tiresome. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a domestic event that has a lot of international coverage. I'd be in favour of including it if the suspect were an agent of another country's government or a member of an international terrorist group. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, include. If the violent assassination of the longest-serving leader of one of the G7 countries isn't internationally notable, nothing is. In the UK it even knocked the Boris Johnson omnishambles off the top of the news pages. Black Kite (talk)13:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The comparision to Gabby Petitio, and Sarah Everard is not a good comparision to make.
I was comparing the international media coverage their killings received, not their notability. Obviously he had an important political career which makes him far more important than ordinary people whose publicity was due to them being designated by the media & public to have been of high value due to them having been young women of above average looks. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Neither the Petito nor Everard killings received sustained major news coverage outside their own countries. Practically every one of the 164 refs in the Everard article is British, and the (not very many) non-US ones in the Petito articles are generally talking about women's safety in general. Black Kite (talk)18:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Include. Assassinations of political figures are normally included in these sort of lists elsewhere. I think because he was killed while acting as a politician (albeit in support of another candidate) this makes it more notable. He wasn't just knocked down by a car while out jogging or caught up in a robbery in his capacity as a normal citizen. JeffUK (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it's subjective and where the line is drawn will always be a matter for discussion. It depends largely how much of a public figure they are on the international stage. But also how notable the products or companies they have founded are, and whether their role was as an inventor/creator or effectively as a venture capitalist. I think del Vecchio was 'just' a businessman, he founded the company but the well known brands (Ray Ban, Oakley, etc.) were all well known before they were acquired by Luxottica. JeffUK (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Jeff, do you think he should be on this article, or only on 2022 in Italy?
We don't include many people on main year articles whose main or sole notability is their business career. It's difficult to measure their individual importance rather than that of their companies, so where should we draw the line? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, he's just a run-of-the-mill CEO. I think remove the entry and see if anyone has any good arguments for retaining it. But as IP user has commented, I don't want to just ignore than, let's see if anyone else has a view. JeffUK (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if you don't think Twitter is "powerful, important or particularly influential", you are clearly not familiar with it. Yes, it covers pop culture, but of course it does, because so does every type of media. The fact that Twitter is used by megacorps and politicians alike to release news, announce policy and discuss the issues of the day should tell you how seriously it is taken. Politicos - up to and including heads of countries - don't phone up the NYT or Reuters to give their opinions - they simply post them on Twitter instead. There was a survey recently - which of course I now can't find - that showed that something like 70% of adult Americans used Facebook and/or Twitter as the main method of acquiring their news. Black Kite (talk)11:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I am familiar with it. The amount of genuine, useful, reliable news on it is greatly outweighed by various junk of the types I list above. Compare how long the Will Smith-Chris Rock slap trended on there to how long the Peshawar mosque attack did. The former gained so much more coverage that you couldn't compare them on the same scale. No-one could genuinely say that an actor slapping another actor is worse or more important than an Islamic Statesuicide attacker killing over 60 people as part of an arrogant attempt to form a caliphate. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
And tabloid newspapers regularly sell more than heavyweight ones, and EastEnders has higher viewership ratings than Panorama, but we don't exclude The Times or BBC TV as some of our most reliable sources. I'm not sure of your point here, to be honest. Black Kite (talk)14:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Er, yes, that's exactly my point. We don't define British newspapers by the fact that the Daily Mail is the best-selling one, we don't define the BBC by its most watched programme, and similarly we don't define Twitter as trivial because a lot of people post cat memes on it. Black Kite (talk)15:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
"It's not powerful, important or particularly influential." -- Genuinely, one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on a Talk Page. And I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
No-one's disputing that Twitter is popular, but even if it were one of the most important things in the world - rather than merely one of the most important & popular social media sites - that wouldn't mean that a change of ownership is an important event. Businesses, websites etc. undergoing changes of ownership aren't inherently important events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Come on jim Michael, it just seems that everyone disagrees with you at this point, Twitter is one of the biggest social media platforms out there, Elon Musk buying up Twitter could be a new era for social media, and for the online space as a Hole. So you should include it, cuz, it could end up being one of the biggest Story of the Year. 4me689 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct that changes of ownership are not necessarily important. However, since the new owner has promised to significantly change how the platform operates, that is what has driven the huge amount of coverage worldwide of his takeover - and that coverage is what makes the event notable. Black Kite (talk)17:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. I mean we're talking about a platform that literally influences global discourse, free speech and even democracy itself. It now has the richest person in history at its helm, who looks set to fundamentally alter its course. This isn't like the buying of Spotify or some dating app like Tinder. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Changes of ownership are common & we don't usually include them. There are many social networking sites which have a higher number of users. Musk being the world's richest person doesn't make his purchase inherently important. It's received a lot of international media coverage because he's a high-profile, fairly controversial person who seeks it. Him saying he's going to make major changes to Twitter doesn't necessarily mean that he will. We don't include things based on promises/claims/speculation. We also don't include things because they receive a lot of media coverage. If we did, we'd include the minor attacks on Chris Rock & Dave Chappelle, as well as many reactions to those overpublicised events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
You keep saying this ("We also don't include things because they receive a lot of media coverage.") and it's simply not true - if there is sustained international in-depth coverage that's exactly the metric we use to include things. And this story has that coverage (it's still going a week later), unlike your other examples. Black Kite (talk)10:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The Chris Rock-Will Smith slap received weeks of continuous, frequent media (including social media) coverage, including reactions from a ridiculous number of organisations & celebrities giving their opinions on the 'momentous' event. Some social media channels made & released their own series of videos during late March as well as April about it. Of all the events that have happened in the world this year, only the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine & the COVID-19 pandemic have received more media coverage. Using media coverage as a measure of importance, that slap was the third most important thing that happened in the world in 2022. However, no-one could genuinely say it was among the hundred most important events. We don't include the slap, nor should we. If Musk didn't have a high profile, there wouldn't be as much media coverage, nor support to include it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
You're continuing to conflate celebrity gossip and lightweight media (the Rock story was pretty much gone from heavyweight media in 48 hours) with heavy and sustained coverage in actual news sources (Musk's takeover was a week ago and there are new stories today in the Guardian, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Independent, Al Jazeera, Fortune, CNN, CNBC and that's just the English language sources on the first two pages of the news results. Just to re-iterate; that's a week-old story still getting new coverage in the highest quality of sources. Black Kite (talk)12:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Come on, guys. Jim Michael is the only one arguing against inclusion. me, Wjfox2005, and Black Kite want inclusion, because Twitter can influence World politics, and it's one of the biggest social media platforms. This section should have a consensus already, and the consensus is 3 - 1 for inclusion. This section is about the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, not jim Michael versus black kite, the acquisition of Twitter is different than the slapping of Chris Rock, the latter happens every few award shows, and doesn't influence politics what so ever, the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk will influence politics a lot in the future, TDKR Chicago 101, and TheScrubby have not responded yet, but I would really love to see their opinion on this. 4me689 (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Saying that Musk buying Twitter will influence politics a lot in the future is mere speculation. We don't know how he'll change it; saying he'll make major changes is mere assumption. Many businesspeople, politicians, writers, sportspeople, entertainers etc. say they're going to do things but don't. This story is merely rich businessman buys big company, which happens frequently. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
If the story was simply "rich businessesman buys big company" it would have died a death in the media by now. As I pointed out above, it hasn't (indeed the amount of coverage in serious heavyweight media has actually increased). This is obviously notable, regardless of what Musk does with the company. Black Kite (talk)17:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Jim Michael is correct though when he invokes WP:CRYSTAL - and on that basis I think it would be wise to hold off on including the event until in due time the takeover has proven to lead to changes of significant consequence. At the same time, it is also absolutely correct that Twitter in this day and age is a platform of great consequence and influence as argued by Black Kite, among others. Overall though, in light of both of these factors, count me as Neutral. TheScrubby (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Ironically, what happens in six months is actually irrelevant here, as the intense media coverage that makes this notable enough to post is happening now. Black Kite (talk)11:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
If media coverage is the measure of notability, Depp v. Heard is one of the most important events in the world this year, and this decade. It's receiving intense, sustained, international media coverage - in quality as well as low-brow media outlets. However, no-one would seriously claim it's any more than a domestic event which is receiving disproportionately high media coverage because of the 2 main participants' fame. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
unlike the acquisition of Twitter, Depp v. Heard is a local event that has absolutely has no effect on world politics and belongs in 2022 in the United States. I said it earlier, the acquisition of Twitter will influence World politics in a big way in the future, as now these days Twitter has very big power in world politics. 4me689 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Only if Musk makes major changes to it. You're assuming he will, as though if he says he'll do something, he certainly will. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Correct. Depp v Heard has no effect on anything except Depp and Heard, and the coverage is merely "this is what happened in court today", as opposed to the seriously in-depth analysis in heavywieght press of the Twitter story. Black Kite (talk)16:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I’m in favor of keeping the Twitter acquisition here. Twitter isn’t some little know startup company, it’s extremely influential in our respective societies and Musk (being one of, if not the richest man in the world) purchased this influential company that made headlines globally I think is worth a mention. I think it’s kind of weird to compare the acquisition to “the slap” because sure it was more talked about in social life than the acquisition but it won’t really have much on an impact later on. I think the twitter acquisition is worth mentioning here (as I already believe we’re getting a little too picky about what’s warranted for inclusion in this article). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Would we be considering including this if the buyer were a billionaire who isn't controversial & doesn't have such a high profile, such as Bernard Arnault, Warren Buffett or Larry Page? Anything involving Musk - whether it be his business deals, his personal life or even what he says - is given a great deal of media attention. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
All of the discussion here assumes that it's a done deal, but it's in increasing doubt, and we don't include possible events. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I honestly think we should remove this, and the MS/Activision announcement. Both will be being removed at some point in the future anyway: If the buy-out happens, we'll remove the announcements as the actual event will be more relevant. If the buy-out doesn't happen, we'll remove the announcement because an announcement about something that never happened isn't important enough. JeffUK (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
We shouldn't include any proposed/possible/suggested events on main year articles. Everyone who argued for this to be included assumed it to be a done deal & that Musk would make major changes to Twitter. We shouldn't assume that something will happen just because a businessperson, a politician, an entertainer, a sportsperson, a media outlet etc. says it will. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
And this is precisely why we have WP:CRYSTAL, and why it would have been wise to have waited from the beginning. In light of the update provided by JeffUK, I fully support this removal. TheScrubby (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protection (Result: not done)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please re-instate semi-protection to this talk page. For months it's been frequently targeted by two separate, severely problematic blocked editors, both of whom concentrate on this article & its talk page. One is the Gilbert Gottfried fan who has used several accounts to try to create a fake consensus for his inclusion, and has since tried to push for various other categories of people to be included & excluded, apparently in an effort to discredit the inclusion criteria, distract us & waste our time. The other is the '2020 is a person' troll, who in addition to his 2020 obsession, often adds opinion to articles & repeatedly suggests that domestic, local & trivial things be added to main year articles. He has used many IPs, from very different ranges. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, I fully second and support Jim’s proposal. The trolling has definitely been an issue for a little while now, and it ought not to be tolerated to abuse multiple accounts in order to achieve a false consensus. TheScrubby (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Richard Taruskin should be on the Main List. (Result: borderline inclusion)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
He garnered many awards from international organizations in his field of work, Musicology.
Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2022 (Result: not done)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to 2022 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under Predicted and Scheduled Events, add the 2022 Japanese House of Councillors election. Expected to take place on July 10. John mogus (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Opposed - we only include national elections which have the potential to lead to a change of government. Not an election for half of the upper house of a legislature. TheScrubby (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion
Why should entertainers who have little or no international notability, including Ray Liotta & James Caan, be included? Those two have few awards & none which aren't American. We rarely include prolific, domestic entertainers from other countries. The deaths are reported by many other countries because they have fans there. We don't include events & deaths due to international media coverage, because the same argument could be made for including Depp v. Heard, a domestic case which was widely reported by the international media, including quality outlets. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
When nearly *every* heavyweight news source *in the world* is printing your obituary (the vast majority being a properly written one by a arts or culture journalist, not a copied and pasted AP one), as in the case of James Caan, I think we can safely say that your notability is international. Heavyweight/quality news sources aren't "fans" of people, they report what they believe to be important. And that's exactly what they've done - the death of an important actor. If we don't take "international media coverage" into account when looking at deaths or events, then we actually have no reliable metric of actually determining international notability. Black Kite (talk)11:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Many of those sources also extensively reported Depp v. Heard. We do have other metrics, which for actors is primarily awards. We rightly included Sidney Poitier & William Hurt on the basis of their awards. It's highly unlikely that we'd include a domestic entertainer from a Spanish-speaking country who has fans in other Spanish-speaking countries & whose death is therefore reported by many media outlets in those countries as well as his/her own. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Which is why I said global obituaries for Caan, not just ones from the Anglosphere. We would almost certainly include a domestic entertainer from a Spanish-speaking country if they had the same coverage as Caan has. Black Kite (talk)12:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't this just enforce Pro American Bias ( which is something alot of people here have warned about ? )
Because most of the major awards in acting are American, so one would exclude alot of non American actors simply because they didn't win a major award ( which is for the most part, mostly American or even European ). 73.12.209.248 (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
To clarify:
It would exclude for example, a notable actor from India, on the basis that he or she did not win any major awards (Hint : American or European awards ). 73.12.209.248 (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I think both Liotta and Caan just makes the cut, albeit as borderline inclusions due to some of the factors you pointed out, particularly how they didn't have the same pedigree of awards as say, Poitier. Precisely for that reason, I believe neither merit images on their respective months of death. As for awards, we don't just include those who won the Academy Awards, because while that is the predominant film awards in the Anglosphere, only including Oscar recipients would indeed reinforce perceptions of Americentrism. So we do also include figures who won equivalent film awards from other major internationally spoken languages, and recipients of awards from the other major prestigious international film festivals. TheScrubby (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
There are hundreds of domestic entertainers who are prolific & (will) have obituaries by media sources in many countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
If they were only "domestic" entertainers, why would they have obituaries in many countries? I realise you don't agree with this, but heavy and/or sustained international coverage (proper coverage in heavyweight news sources by actual journalists, not just reprinting of wire stories) is a perfect metric of international notability. In fact, short of the area where we invent our own rules (i.e. Olympians, politicians) there can be no other metric in Wikipedia terms. Black Kite (talk)11:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Because they have many fans in many countries. The media cover what their readers are interested in. Many media sources reported the death of James Michael Tyler, just because he played a recurring role on a popular sitcom. He has little notability & none of it was international; he wasn't prolific or well-known.
Awards are a better guide. Based on your measure, Liotta & Caan have a similar level of notability as Poitier & Hurt, which I disagree with. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Awards are subjective, mostly voted for by a small group of people. Media coverage is related to importance; they are not "fans". The more important the person in their field, the heavier and more prolonged the coverage is. Tyler is a good example of this; yes his death was reported on internationally, because he was well-known, but did it get "heavy and/or sustained international coverage in heavyweight sources"? No, it didn't. Black Kite (talk)13:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Major awards from different organisations in different countries - such as those won by Poitier & Hurt - prove substantial international notability. Bias by one org or country can't account for that. The people who like an actor's films, TV shows etc. are commonly referred to as fans. Liotta & Caan have thousands of fans outside the US. Sustained coverage in quality outlets of deaths of people of little or no notability can happen, sometimes due to its circumstances. For example, Sarah Everard. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
You're still talking about "fans" - an irrelevance with which I'm pretty sure no-one agrees - without addressing the actual issue of news coverage. And Sarah Everard is a terrible example, as I mentioned above. Her death was only reported in any sustained depth in the UK, as proved by the provenance of the 164 sources in her article. Black Kite (talk)18:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Fans aren't an irrelevance - they're the main reason that media sources in many countries reported the deaths of domestic entertainers such as Liotta & Caan and published obits of them. They were good actors, but they're not regarded as having been great. Had they not had many fans in many countries, media outlets outside the US wouldn't have been anywhere near as interested in them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
So, to be clear, media sources need somehow to gauge the number of people in their country who have an interest in anyone who dies, before deciding whether to write a story about them? Or is there a far more likely reason? Black Kite (talk)19:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Media orgs want to maximise sales/views, so they cover what they know/think will interest their viewers/readers. James Michael Tyler's death was reported in all countries in which Friends is popular. If not for his recurring role in that, the media outside the US would have no interest in him. Liotta & Caan's deaths were covered in countries in which their films are popular. An entertainer who's popular only in their home country is unlikely to receive much media coverage outside it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah .... you've completely ignored what I said. Tyler's death was not heavily or sustainedly covered. The others were. There were entire new articles in heavyweight sources written about Caan's (and to a lesser extent Liotta's) career in multiple countries, whereas Tyler's coverage was a single "guy who was in Friends dies" story. The type of entry you are trying to exclude with your "fans in countries" stuff is people like Tyler - and I completely agree with you in that case. But that's not the case with people like Caan, regardless of how many awards he won. Black Kite (talk)17:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I am neutral on his inclusion. if leaning, it will be include. cuz this person was on so many A-list movies. by the way please do not give a basic response like, no International nobility 2022 in the United States, give a good detailed response. 4me689 (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
He won no awards & is never considered to have been one of the best actors. There's nothing international or outstanding about his career. We don't include people on the basis of them having a long &/or prolific careers. Actors don't gain the notability of the films they've acted in. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
is Ivana Trump internationally notable enough for inclusion????
in my opinion, exclude. because she does not have enough international notability, the only reason she's known by the General Public is that she was the wife of a than future US president Donald Trump, Trump divorce her way before he even considered running for presidency. 4me689 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Lets get a consensus on the usage of honorifics and titles such as 'dame' or 'sir' for births/deaths. Neither should be included, it is not the reason why these individuals are listed in the deaths section. Even when it would be warranted such as for Presidents and other non-royal world leaders, we don't precede their name with their title. In 2018 under deaths, we have Bush 41 listed as George H. W. Bush, 41st President of the United States (b. 1924). Not as President George H.W. Bush (b. 1924). Exclude them entirely. PaulRKil (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
We’ve always included “Sir” and “Dame” when it comes to such figures (regardless of whether or not we want to change that now), and it’s a false equivalency to invoke Presidential figures, where such a title has never been included, especially in photo captions. So I don’t know why that point is consistently brought up by you. TheScrubby (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Exclude, he wasn't all that known outside of Brazil. Furthermore it wasn't the last uncontacted tribesman in South America or in Brazil for that matter. 4me689 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This should not be listed in the 2022 article, it is not yet scheduled, and it could be as late as 2024 before it happens. Suggest it is removed until such time as a date is announced. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Is Piero Angela notable enough for inclusion. this dude has already been added to the death section twice already, so I'm making the talk page just to see what everyone's thoughts is, any thoughts??? 4me689 (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Is John Landy notable enough for inclusion. He's been added over and over again.
In my opinion, exclude, because he's a very local figure. 4me689 (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, he wasn't even a politician - he was made Governor of Victoria (my home state), but that's a ceremonial role that he was appointed to in recognition of his athletic achievements. At most he ought to be maybe considered a borderline inclusion, but only on the basis of world records he achieved in his athletic career. Otherwise, I've got no issue with his exclusion. TheScrubby (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I've been trying to use the crop tool to get at least three pictures on the month of August, and MrMimikyu1998, thinks I shouldn't crop it and use the original, which I really want three because I don't really want 2 per month because it just be lame. I came here to stop a protential editing war and see what the consensus here on this subject. 4me689 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Tbh, I think two is better so that you can see their faces. I mean sure I have a 20/20 vision and I can see Miyake’s face in this image but if it were to be cropped more, you can hardly recognize it from someone who has a desktop computer.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Fbifriday (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Removed Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)