Talk:2022

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Collage depreciation

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Change to DMY date format

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All articles about generic years should use the much more global DMY date format. It does not make sense to make a separate discussion about this on every single year page.--Marginataen (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC) For anyone else reading, Marginataen started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Change to the DMY date format about this issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC) The main discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date format for year article Marginataen (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Date format

Discussion started by blocked sock 33ABGirl (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest. On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2020 and all other nine articles about the 2020s Marginataen (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) It has now been more than a week since I posted my proposal about changing the date format for 2022 to DMY and no one has responded. If one more weeks passes without any response as well, I will consider it consensus and change it to the DMY format. By then, people would have had more than two weeks to respond. Should someone later on object, please discuss it here on the talk page before reverting. Marginataen (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC) I'm pasting the same reply at all the 2020s talk page sections on this topic, with the exception of 2023. As of about a month ago, we had a situation in which all generic year articles had a consistent date format. Since both date styles are considered appropriate per the Manual of Style, it's unusual to see such solid consistency. Since I value consistency, I appreciated that rare situation. As of last month, only 2023 was changed via local consensus to be different than the rest. If this proposal passes for this article, it would join a tiny minority of articles that do not match the overall consistent style. I oppose for that reason. I would be fine with all generic year articles changing to consistently use a different style, and that is the proposal on the table at WP:VPR#Date format for year articles. Currently, it seems we're at the tail end of a pre-RfC discussion with plans to move forward with an RfC in the next week or so. I would much prefer to keep discussing the overarching change rather than have individual discussions at each year article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Zero images?

Why are there ZERO images on this article? 2022 was a notable year, infamously so, and photos should be included here to illustrate certain events.

@33ABGirl since when is a consensus needed to insert images in an article? Did I miss a new rule? Why was my edit reverted [1]? Which of these removed images are "controversial", and for what reason?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Recently, a discussion and RFC on the WikiProject found near unanimous consensus to deprecate the use of image collages and the general inclusion of images. This centered on the arbitrary selection of images, which editors characterized as WP:OR & WP:NPOV. 33ABGirl (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@33ABGirl Yes, this refers to image collages, but not images itself. It is thus not applicable to my edit, which did not contain collages. Your claim of "arbitrary selection of images" could not be substantiated in the link you provided. Furthermore, years 2021 and 2023 contradict you entirely, since they also contain images. Therefore, unless proven otherwise, your revert was unnecessary.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

If you read the concerns raised by those commenting on the RFC, you will find they are not necessarily exclusively related to the collages, but images in general, despite the title of the RFC.

I opened a discussion at the Wikiproject on this, where the editor commenting agreed consensus should be obtained before adding a image. Following this, a second editor agreed to open discussions (1, 2) for the inclusion of photos. In past years, images have also usually been selected through discussions - 2021 (1, 2), 2020 (1, 2). The current images on 2023 & 2021 have either been added without consensus or edit-warred in recently by a few editors, I will be seeking administrative assistance for those cases soon.

I also remind you that the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You have added content which has been disputed and reverted, so you should be seeking the necessary consensus to restore the content. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide exact citation for your claim. I could only find that the theme relevant for this discussion were collages, not images per se. You are also confusing Wikimedia Commons images with external sources, since the former have nothing to do with Wikipedia:Verifiability. An image on Wikimedia is an image, not a source. Now, let's go through all these images I initially included and let's hear from you what is disputed in each and every one of them? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion for inclusion of images

I hereby nominate the following images for inclusion in the article;

• File:2022 Kazakhstan protests — Aqtobe, January 4 (01) (cropped).jpg
• File:Движение колонны бронетехники ВС РФ 007.png
• File:Antonov_Airport_after_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine_and_Mriya_(3to4).jpg|
• File:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - ua.svg
• File:Warsaw Central Station during Ukrainian refugee crisis 05.jpg
• File:Bucha. Faces of War. - Ukraine War Photo Exhibition 2023 (52702841629).jpg
• File:Russian bombing of Mariupol.jpg
• File:Webb's First Deep Field.jpg
• File:08.03 總統與美國聯邦眾議院議長裴洛西媒體互動會 (52259967861).jpg

Sincerely, --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of any images on the page. Adding images can create a bias towards certain events, essentially becoming a ranking of events, contrary to WP:OR & WP:NPOV. Considering the broad scope of the article, images should be omitted altogether. However, if there is a consensus does form to include images on the page, I would be happy to participate in the discussions regarding the selection of appropriate images. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@33ABGirl I don't understand your reasoning here. What is the argument here? An image could make one event more important than other events, so we should have zero images? It makes little to no sense. Even if that were the case, you could add many images and then you would have almost an equal amount of "importance" among them. But you do agree that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is arguably the most major even of 2022 and that it therefore merits inclusion of at least some images, correct?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not a valid reason to oppose, it could be used to justify the removal of any image in any article. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support the addition of images as a general editing principle that every editor may do, no opinion on the usage of these individual images. The RfC that is still open is specifically in regards to top-of-the-page collages, it is not a bar on image use in general. Reverting image additions for no reason other than "any addition is biased" is disruptive, and should be treated as standard disruptive editing. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
• Proposal - I've proposed a suggested course of action here. Please add your thoughts or comments on the proposal. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@33ABGirl I have to repeat it for the second time, we are not discussing collage images on this talk page. We are discussing what is preventing users from including ordinary, any images on this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Support there is nothing wrong with using regular images, they add to illustration and a summary of major events that happened a certain year/decade/century. Indiana6724 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I and many others are confused as to why images have been removed from all wikipedia pages on years. There used to be photo collages of notable events for every single year and they have all been removed. Why??? Lightningbolt1 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Considering that a whole month has passed, that other users gave their opinion confirming my thoughts, and that no user gave any support to @33ABGirl's arbitrary proposal of "no images policy" (for which no reasonable arguments were presented), I think we can conclude that images can freely be added to the articles about years, provided they are not collages.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the consensus is that images may be included on the page. However, I believe that there should still be a discussion on which images should be included. I suggest we use a similar system as used on the page 2023. While the discussion is related to collages, we are essentially still selecting images which are representative of the year.

I've added a note on WP:YEARS to gather more input on this issue. 33ABGirl (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I can do this Indiana6724 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@33ABGirl The very first sentence of this discussion I started on 18 December 2023, (@Discussion_for_inclusion_of_images) includes a list of nine nominated images I want to include. You failed in this entire month to address even a single image that I nominated. As such, unless no objections were made against any of these nine images, it should be considered as accepted to be included in the article by default.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Because there are no objections, i think its fair we reinstate these images. Indiana6724 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Robb Elementary School shooting not mentioned in “Events”?

It was an event that garnered months of media attention, international condemnation, and led to the first gun law in the United States in 28 years. It was also featured on the front page. (Link:https://web.archive.org/web/20220525121908/https:/en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) MountainDew20 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Collage edit war — Proposal in progress

Hey guys. I noticed the ongoing (fairly long) edit-war ongoing on the article over the collage. A few days ago, I proposed a process to be the standardized process for collage creations. This process is being experimented on for the 2023 collage amid the proposal discussion. If consensus get’s behind the proposal, the edit war and debate can stop. Anyway, it needs to stop and be solved one way or another. Feel free to participate here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images.

Courtesy pings for people involved in edit war just in this article: 3E1I5S8B9RF7, DementiaGaming, Indiana6724, 33ABGirl, Setarip, Alalch E., 4BOTOX, Raksiyyyy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

WeatherWriter You obviously didn't even bother to read anything on this talk page since the discussion was not about collage images, but rather over zero images. After a month of discussion, the majority voted to include images in the article. If you want to contribute to the discussion, feel free after you have read the discussion and informed yourself about what you are talking about.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

3E1I5S8B9RF7, respectfully, there is two ongoing debates right now (at the same time): The collage and zero images. In this edit, you removed the collage and added images. Looking through the history of the article, the collage, respectfully, is being debated on. Albiet, not actually on the talk page. I am aware of the zero-image debate as I had a similar debate and discussion on 2023’s talk page. I will also let you know I have requested full-admin protection on the page. Your reply actually tells me it may be needed for up to a month potentially. You didn’t acknowledge the edit warring and honestly told me I didn’t know anything. The editing warring needs to stop and an admin needs to figure out the two debates. I know the collage debate (i.e. the collage you removed in that edit linked above) is actually against the consensus and, respectfully, should be reverted. Not once did I mention the zero-image debate as that is a separate debate. I came here since most of the edits are about the collage. Your edit summary even said, See the talk page. Nine images were nominated a month ago, and everyone except 33ABGirl voted to include images in the article. The collage was not agreed upon, though.

Two separate debates and you, as well as others, are debating on and straight up edit warring. In your own words, “The collage was not agreed upon, though”. If that is the case & it is being edit warred on, my proposal for a standardized process is very relevant. It may be helpful if you check out the RfC consensus I linked above as well as my proposal. And please, can y’all stop the edit warring. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

WeatherWriter Where exactly is the collage debate on this talk page?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The collage - why not restore?

Why hasn't the pre-existing collage, seen here, been restored to this article yet as it has been for other articles? Per the re-closure of this RfC, many collages were prematurely removed from year articles during the course of this RfC with at most limited discussion. Given the significantly wider scale of this discussion, any editor wishing to restore them may do so. There was some discussion and reverting here during and shortly after that RfC, but all movement on this has apparently stalled for a month and a half. Since a perfectly good collage was already created, I don't see a need for a new discussion like is being done for 2023 - and one isn't happening anyway. We should simply restore the previous collage and bring this article in line with other year articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Since the RfC has since been closed with overall consensus to keep them, I think it warrants restoring. jp×g🗯️ 09:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I see this collage as at least passably good, it makes the article better, I see no critical problems, and, therefore I have restored it. I stand by this collage. It is a good collage. When it comes to removing the entire collage, this is clearly incompatible with WP:PRESERVE. Incremental improvement is possible. If there is a certain someone who objects to something in the collage, well, edit it. Edit it out, edit something else in, I don't know. Find a solution that does not entail removing the entire collage. Ask for help and feedback on the talk page.—Alalch E. 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This is just your opinion. The fact that consensus is that collages can be included doesn't mean that they must be included. Each collage is created by different people and contains different images and events, thus it follows that they should all be subject to consensus. Deb (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not wrong we've reached consensus already (here), but it's outdated and it was still in November 2022.

Indeed, much happened since then ,like the release of ChatGPT and the death of Pope Benedict XVI however the latest doesn't seem very relevant and to represent AI in an image would be reductive.

However, to keep the current collage with some wrong notes underneath might not be the best solution and to remove it altogether definitely wouldn't improve the article. ~~~ Gioppolognomo (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

sorry forgot to sign Gioppolognomo (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Uvalde?

Why cant we add Uvalde and why does it say 'don't add Uvalde'? CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I am very confused. UVALDE is on the list now but it still says 'Dont add Uvalde'. Very confusing for editors. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

English Language in PNG

English Language in Papua New Guinea 14.137.35.5 (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to add Elizabeth Ⅱ's death in Events.

In 2022, "Eliz. 2" ended marking the death of Elizabeth II. Orange7Official (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)