Talk:2022/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Henry Plumb, Baron Plumb (Result: inclusion)

Should Henry Plumb, Baron Plumb be included? Plumb was the 4th President of the European Parliament. I think being EU Parliament president does merit inclusion because being part of the EU and having some high position in the EU (Commissioner, Parliament Pres, Council Pres) is notable enough for inclusion especially since they essentially represent a variety of European countries. Note: David Sassoli who was also EU Parliament president was included in January. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

we should include him cuz we included David Sassoli back in January and there's a section on this very talk page about him, in that very section there is a consensus to include him. if we include Sassoli we should also include Plumb as well. 4me689 (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hardy Krüger (Result: borderline inclusion)

What substantial international notability does he have? Jim Michael (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I would say being one of the most internationally high profile German actors whose notability and work extends well beyond his home country is sufficient grounds for inclusion, though would be interesting to hear what others have to say. TheScrubby (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

He was one of many thousands of actors who've worked in multiple countries. He didn't have any significant acting awards outside Germany. Jim Michael (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not unusual - most film awards are country-specific, so many American actors only have American awards, and so on. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Most film awards are country-centric rather than country-specific. For example, the Academy Awards have a pro-American bias, but many non-Americans have won them. Winning awards in only one country shows they're (primarily) domestic figures & therefore should be excluded from main year articles. Winning major awards in multiple countries proves substantial international notability & means that they should be included. We include Sidney Poitier because he won an Academy Award & a BAFTA Award. We include William Hurt because he won an Academy Award, BAFTA, Cannes Film Festival Award & a David di Donatello Award. Without those awards, they'd not be included. Jim Michael (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hardy Kruger does have honorary awards from other countries. Jojoju1998 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I think he should be here; he was the lead in Sundays_and_Cybèle, an Oscar winning movie (which had a very small cast) for best foreign language film. He didn't just 'work in other countries' incidentally; he had the leading role in The_One_That_Got_Away_(1957_film) shot in the UK (which grossed £3 million in 1957),and a significant part in The_Flight_of_the_Phoenix_(1965_film) for which he was nominated for a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor. Put together I think that makes him important enough to be included. JeffUK (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Michel Bouquet (Result: inclusion)

Bouquet has been added & removed. He won a European Film Award for Best Actor - does that make him notable enough to be included? Jim Michael (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections to his inclusion, particularly given that he was also a two-time César recipient. TheScrubby (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

He should be included. We ought not to include only big Oscar winners here. In fact, we need to discuss who in the acting scene merits inclusion and set a standard. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who wins a major film festival or national film award. Oscar, Bafta, Cesar, Cannes Film, European Film, 73.12.209.248 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Jack Higgins (Result: inclusion)

He was prolific, but what international notability does he have? Jim Michael (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The Eagle Has Landed (novel) and film! Maria Gemmi (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Also (from the article) "His 85 novels in total have sold more than 250 million copies and have been translated into 55 languages." Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed per Black Kite. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Jacques Perrin (Result: inclusion)

Is he internationally notable enough? Jim Michael (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ehh, i would say so. He won two acting awards in Italy, through the Venice Film Festival which shows notability outside his home country. 130.86.97.41 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, international award wins show some international nobility. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

International awards don't necessarily show notability. It really comes down to the process of how the awards are determined. Liam Davenport (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Mike Bossy (Result: borderline inclusion)

Is he internationally notable enough to be included? Jim Michael (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of Mike Bossy is that he was the star of the New York Islanders when they won four consecutive championships from 1980 to 1983. He holds the records for most consecutive seasons with 50 or more goals and the highest goals-per-game for players who scored at least 200 goals, and the tied records for most 50 goal seasons and 60 goal seasons. This places him in the highest echelons of NHL players. The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless there's any arguments against it, I'm going to add Bossy back onto the page. The Voivodeship King (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Mike Bossy has been removed for a second time. Please present some arguments in this section. The Voivodeship King (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Alsoriano, nobody has posted any arguments against the inclusion of Bossy. If nobody posts arguments against, I will assume a general agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Voivodeship King (talk • contribs) 13:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Guy Lafleur (Result: borderline inclusion)

Opening this section to discuss Lafleur's inclusion. I am supporting inclusion for several reasons - he won five Stanley Cups, three Art Ross Trophies (top points scorer), two Hart Memorial Trophies (MVPs), three Lester B. Pearson Awards (player's player) and one Conn Smythe Trophy (Playoff MVP). He is also the all-time top scorer for the Montreal Canadiens, the oldest NHL franchise and was ranked 11th in The Hockey News 100 Greatest Players in 1998. We included Ted Lindsay in 2019 who both has less awards and is ranked lower on the All-Time list. I cannot think of any arguments against his inclusion. Sincerely, The Voivodeship King (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Including: That being said those awards aren't international therefore I don't know if Jim Micheal, TheScrubby, or Black Kite would support. Their criteria is very lopsided and inconsistent. But, for me Yes, I'll include. CountingStars500 (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

My criteria are completely consistent, but thanks for the aspersion. In this case my knowledge of ice hockey isn't enough for me to give a definitive opinion - I know about the Stanley Cup but am unfamiliar with the other awards. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not you’re consistent is one thing but you do only look at partial aspects of someone’s career instead of the full contributions. Liam Davenport (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Was he internationally recognised, and competed in major international competitions within his field of sports? I’m undecided at this point, though it’s true that hockey is more of a regional sport rather than global like soccer, cricket, tennis, etc. TheScrubby (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

He was on the Canadian National team. Liam Davenport (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

In regards to leagues, the National Hockey League is the highest quality league in the world and attracts players from other nations as such. Leagues like the Kontinental Hockey League are still present, but only attract lower-quality or ageing nhl players at best. It would be similar to discarding a Spanish footballer because he only played in La Liga. We did include cricketers Shane Warne and Rod Marsh. Lafleur is similarly recognised to Marsh and ice hockey is played in a similar number of countries at a high level (Canada, U.S.A., Finland, Russia, Sweden, Germany, Czechia, Slovakia, etc.)The Voivodeship King (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

What should be the standard for entertainers?

Turns out that at least three of the people making the same argument were in reality just a single person.

Here is my view : 1. A Points System regarding awards. Yes, a points system. Why points ? Well some awards do carry heavier weight than others, if they have international notability in of itself. Cannes, Oscar, Cesar, Bafta, Golden Globes, International awards should have 5 points each. So for example if American Actor Bob Smith had an Oscar, Golden Globe, and a Bafta for his singular performance in a movie, he would get 15 points. Of if a French Actor won a European Film award, and then a Cesar, he or she would get 10 points. The Canadian film awards would also be given 5 points each. Emmys and the Tonys also count as international if and only if actors/actresses/comedians outside of the US win them, for example Angela Lansbury winning 5 tonys. Or if a US Actor wins a olivier award. It also depends however, for example, Jessica Chastain winning only a oscar and a golden globe then how doo we know that she is notable ? We have to look at smaller awards. Smaller awards such as the Dublim Film critic festival, or San Sebastian Film Festival count for 2.5 points each, so Jessica Chastain would count. But Not Robert Morse. It has to be a combonation of big and small awards, and/or if you get nominations from foreign awards as well. Robin Williams an example. Group awards do not neccarily count as a sign of notability. Are we going to include every producer ? Being nominated for one also doesn't count. However once again, it depends, The oscar best picture award due to it's high singular profile, can be 2.5 points. 2. Consistent international news coverage that that details what impact the dead person has in that country. Now we have to be careful, especially regarding people like Gilbert Gottfried. Many international news outlets just repost the associated press report with no additional information that says how he or she impacted that country. For example, Gilbert Gottfried in Austrlia, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-13/gilbert-gottfried-dies/100987006, if you go to the bottom, it says AP. There's nothing extra about how he impacted australian culture. 3. So... What doesn't count ? Being on another show produced in another country. Many US Actors for example appeared or star in international TV shows, but they don't win individiual awards in the country that the show/movie is made in. It's going to open up a can of worms if we do allow the restriction to be relaxed. Being honored at a film Festival doesn't count either. The Eberfest is just one film festival in the US, it doesn't mean anything. Gottfried was famous in the US for his comedic career. By the standard, we would have to exclude William Hurt because he wasn't honored at a festival. Being the subject of a international awarded documentary also doesn't count. Why ? It's not the subject that gained notability ! It's the film. Especially in Gilbert Gottfried's case, the award went to the documentary itself, not him. It would be weird if we applied this standard to say Louie Anderson, or Robert Morse. If there was an awarded documentary about Louie Anderson, we would still exlclude him. Being one of many dead people at the Emmys honored, also doesn't count, are we include all the in memorioum people ? No of course not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.209.248 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Gottfried was being honoured in Canada and the United Kingdom, and was well known in Japan. His longest role was Canadian. Now in regards to the people listed on the Emmy's in memoriam. Their inclusion on main year pages should come down to the extent of their career. For, example: Kathy Lamkin while honoured on the Emmy page had a limited career therefore shouldn't be included on the 2022 main page. However, Gottfried was ingrained in the comedy, documentary, acting, activism, and podcasting communities. Liam Davenport (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC) I too think it should come down to how ingrained they were in their particular field(s). How well known they were, and if they were honoured internationally in that particular field(s). Yes, there are hundred's of people included on the Emmy's in memorial section, but how impactful was their contributions to the field. Some people listed don't even have Wikipedia bios, they're automatically excluded, others are very ingrained in the entertainment field and should be included. CountingStars500 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC) The documentary doesn't make him notable, that's not the point. The documentary explains why he was already notable. Just like an award doesn't make someone notable, they were already notable and got an award. The insinuation that Gottfried didn't have international fame (ie Notability) is asinine. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Also, keep in mind that Gottfried is ranked high among lists of the most recognizable comedians internationally. CountingStars500 (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC) No, it's only his distinctive, unusual voice that's widely-recognised. Jim Michael (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Actually yes, lists of the top comedians internationally includes Gilbert Gottfried near the top. CountingStars500 (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Lists do put him high on international stand-up comedians. You may not have liked dirty jokes, but it is true that he was one of the highest sought out comedians. Many lists puts him above Stephen Colbert and Sarah Silverman but below Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock. Liam Davenport (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC) @Jim Michael Wait, you really never knew that Gilbert Gottfried was on the lists of top comedians internationally? Everything makes sense now. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Please link to lists that put GG in the top 10 in the world. Jim Michael (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC) He's neither in IMDB's top 25 nor Rolling Stone's top 50. And just makes Ranker.com top 100 at 97. A google search for '"Gilbert Gottfried""Top|Best|Funniest Comedians" returns no obvious inclusions in such lists. JeffUK (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC) Not to mention one of the most notable celebrity podcasters with guests like Dick Van Dyke. CountingStars500 (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC) that comes to the question, when Dick Van Dyke dies will he be notable enough for inclusion. 4me689 (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC) I'd say Dick Van Dyke is 100% notable, when that day comes. CountingStars500 (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Van Dyke's been brought up before, and I think there's an understanding that he'll be included in the event of his death. TheScrubby (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Neal Adams (Result: exclusion)

Turns out that at least two of the people making the same argument were in reality just a single person.

Is Neal Adams internationally notable enough for inclusion? what I can find, he created a lot of DC characters, like Ra's al Ghul, Man-Bat, and John Stewart, he help Superman get popular again, and got recognition from Superman's creators, and got a lot of recognition. like getting inducted into Will Eisner Comic Book Hall of Fame in 1998, getting inducted to Jack Kirby Hall of Fame in 1999, and getting inducted to Inkwell Awards Joe Sinnott Hall of Fame in 2019. I don't know what to say about inclusion, I'm just going to leave it up to the talk page. any thoughts? 4me689 (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC) I'd say it comes down to how significant those comics were globally. I knew him more for the "Expanding Earth" hypothesis as an alternative to plate tectonics. CountingStars500 (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC) He won awards for his illustrations. My main concern is how were the awards determined. Saw his drawings and he was talented. His expanding earth ideas were idiotic. Liam Davenport (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC) All of his awards are American. He has no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC) You can’t solely rely on awards. What about people who died and their fame isn’t tied to a field with awards? Awards International or Domestic don’t determine notableness. Also, I never said he was notable or not notable. His comic drawings have gone global. And he’s been trending globally years before his death. You are the King of omitting chunks of peoples careers then slapping the “not notable” sticker on them. Again, not a fan of Adams his whole pseudoscientific belief of the expanding earth is baloney. Liam Davenport (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC) I agree with Jim Michael. So far as comic book figures go, it would take Stan Lee levels of notability to be included, and I don’t think Adams had that. TheScrubby (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC) in my opinion, you would need to make a big superhero character to even get the chance to get included. Adams didn't create a big superhero character, all he created was side characters. so yes, in my opinion, Exclude Adams, as all his Awards are American like Jim Michael said. 4me689 (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC) True, Adams was no Stan Lee. How common was non-Americans receiving the awards that Adams received? I say that until that is known it's good too Exclude Neal Adams at least for the time being. CountingStars500 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC) Agreed - he was a domestic figure whose notability was nowhere near that of Stan Lee. Jim Michael (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Personally I don't find him notable enough. That being said this list is already filled with non-notables. While at the same time excluding people as not notable based on omitting chunks of peoples' careers. While I agree that Adams shouldn't be included this is a problem that needs to be solved. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC) People & events of insufficient notability are frequently added to main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Personally, I don't see how ANY event is internationally notable. All events should be deleted apart from World War I and II, and the War on Terror. CountingStars500 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Some other events clearly have substantial international notability, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine & the Olympics. Jim Michael (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Yes, I can agree with your examples; but, it still stands that most of the events are purely domestic. Also, I've reviewed the history of past years in which you deleted an event for lacking international notability. But the country doesn't have a year page (red linked), thereby deleting the entirety of the event. CountingStars500 (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Domestic events are frequently added to & removed from main year articles. In many cases, they should be on year by country &/or topic articles (if the relevant article exists). They shouldn't be on main year articles even if the relevant sub-articles don't (yet) exist. Some things wrongly added to main year articles are local &/or trivial events that aren't even important enough for the sub-articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC) I've read the events on many year's main pages and they all seem domestic to me. What's your line? National elections are by definition domestic. CountingStars500 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC) National elections are routinely included because national governments affect international relations. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Klaus Schulze (Result: inclusion)

What individual international notability does he have? Jim Michael (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to retain Schulze, given his significance (individually, not so much with other groups) as a pioneer of electronic music - his work in the development of said genre being central to his international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

More footballers (Result: inclusion)

Wim Jansen, Leonel Sánchez & Freddy Rincón have international notability, but do they have enough? Jim Michael (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

They don't have ANY international notability much less "enough" - CountingStars500 (talk)

The international notability of each of them includes playing in FIFA World Cups. However, we still lack specific inclusion bars for sportspeople, so there are going to be frequent disagreements in regard to them. Jim Michael (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

FIFA World Cups is a low-bar in regards to international notability. How has FIFA changed the trajectory of world events? Butterfly Effect? They kicked a ball and it led to some other event. - CountingStars500 (talk)

If the premier international tournament in football is not a guideline to international notability, what is? The rest of your comment makes little sense. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that it's the "premier international tournament in football" but that doesn't negate that they lack notability. I'm not anti-FIFA. When Cristiano Ronaldo or David Beckham dies they should be included 100% because they're notable internationally. - CountingStars500 (talk)

So only modern-day players can be internationally notable? At what date is the cut off? How well-known do former players have to be before they pass your bar? Do they have to be on the level of Pele or Beckenbauer, or are those like Roberto Carlos, Cantona or (Bobby) Charlton - or for that matter Rincon - good enough? Black Kite (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes to inclusion: Pele, Roberto Carlos, Beckenbauer (barely), and Bobby Charlton once they die should be included. But, the ones listed who actually died in 2022 no. Olympic gold-medal athletes aren’t considered notable enough for inclusion by people here but random FIFA players are? Why not include gold medal Olympians if you are so keen on including FIFA players? The standards are contradictory. Notable people are excluded for being “not notable” and not notable people are considered “notable”. It’s like the “decision makers” on here don’t know the background of the people they deem “not internationally notable”, people who meet the standard of being notable that they themselves use. - CountingStars500 (talk)

There are currently 14 Olympic gold medallists in the deaths section of this article, so I'm not sure what point you're making there. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

My point is that the decision makers (gatekeepers) here have contradictory standards deeming those not notable as notable and vice versa. Having 14-olympians on here proves that. Why are those specific ones notable but others are not? CountingStars500 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the point you're making. Olympic individual gold medal winners are generally held to be internationally notable. Are there any that died in 2022 that are missing from this page? Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Are there any that died in 2022 that are missing from this page?" Quite possibly. Keep in mind there's thousands of gold medal olympians. It would be possible for a whole month to be filled purely with Gold-medal olympians. That can't be the standard used. Unless, you insist that Nobel winning Scientists, Politicians, Comedians, Businesspeople ,Actors, Musicians, etc who die shouldn't be included. CountingStars500 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If individual gold medallists are added here they are retained. I suspect you are overestimating the number of gold medallists from the older Olympic years. In the 1950s and 1960s (years when we might expect deaths to be occurring now) there were only around 120 gold medals per tournament for individual entrants. As the Olympics is only every 4 years, that suggests 30-35 deaths per year, but you've got to remember that many entrants competed over multiple Olympics and won multiple medals, which would bring that figure down. As such, 14 so far this year seems reasonable. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Jansen played in two World Cup finals as well as managing foreign teams and is I think, notable. Rincon is one of the most famous Colombian players of all time, not that you'd know it from his terrible article, but he played in the World Cup as well as for Real Madrid and Napoli - there is quite a bit of international coverage of his death in heavyweight sources i.e. UK USA Italy Spain. Sanchez I'm unconvinced by. Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Rincón's Spanish article is much better. Jim Michael (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• They are all notable. Personally, if they've played/managed a national team and represented said team in the World Cup I think they do merit inclusion. I mean Leonel Sánchez is "recognized as one of the Best South American Footballers of the 20th Century" and a notable FIFA player, Jansen was a long time player for his national team and like, Sanchez and Rincon, represented his country in the World Cup. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  This disagreement shows why we need clear inclusion criteria, especially in regard to sportspeople. How much international notability is enough? Jim Michael (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  The way I see it, representing a national team during a FIFA World Cup event is already internationally notable. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  There are thousands of them, so I doubt think that's a high enough inclusion bar. Jim Michael (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, you'd need some sort of baseline - after all, someone could literally play one match, coming on a sub for the last 30 seconds of the game in a group stage game and reach that bar. In the end, I think you need to go back to the basics - is there sustained in-depth international coverage of that player (not only their death). Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

A proposition to settle our editorial disagreements

Hello all,

I’m a fairly new user (joining January of last year with just under 650 edits). Some might recognize me from my more active contributions to the 2021 page. That aside, I have observed in my time editing that there have been numerous disagreements amongst my fellow editors about who merits inclusion and based upon what criteria. I have also noticed that it is generally the same small group of daily or near-daily editors having these discussions. I would love to hear the opinions of other editors on this site (are there thousands of us?) on their views regarding what this criteria should entail. This site should run on collective consensus of more than just the select few. Therefore, I propose the convocation of some kind of “editors’ council”, if you will, that is open to all users of Wikipedia and in which they can add their voice at a time that is convenient to them (meaning have the chat open for say, a week or two as opposed to a scheduled time) and we can all offer an opinion in an attempt to establish firm criteria on who merits inclusion in this article and who does not, or likewise wha events do or do not. I welcome admin involvement. That’s my own thoughts on the matter; hopefully I’m not overstepping myself with this suggestion. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important to remember that whether or not a birth, death or event is significant enough for inclusion on this page is a subjective matter; there will therefore necessarily be disagreements over who or what should be included in the article, and 'defined criteria' goes against the Wikipedia policy of consensus building by editing, reverting and discussing. As long as those disagreements are dealt with in good humour and good faith, 'editorial disagreements' are not problem that need to be solved. I like this blurb from the 'In the News' page: "It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting." (remembering that editing is one way to achieve consensus)

The normal pattern on here is that someone adds something in good faith, either it remains, or one of the regulars removes it because it doesn't meet the established criteria, and the original editor doesn't feel strongly enough to discuss it and the matter ends there. Rarely someone challenges the removal and it's discussed, I do think people should avoid closing down those discussion citing merely 'established consensus' but that's something that can be dealt with if it happens. JeffUK (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Depending on the subject the consensus can either be inconclusive or conclusive. like, there's a lot of subjects of media and other stuff. I can list a couple, like politics, Sport, Film, Television, Music, gaming, Literature, and more. below is the consensus of each thing.

politics

for world leaders, the consensus is straightforward. there is a high consensus to have every world leader mentioned in death sections in Main year articles, but for pictures, the ratio of them getting a picture is depending on if the person is one of 2 types of world leaders, head of state or head of government. the one that gets pictures more is head of government cuz they run the country, while head-of-state are just symbolic symbols. (i.e. like the flag, or coat of arms). for that reason the head of government are prioritized over heads of state in terms of pictures while both are included in death sections in Main year articles. however some countries has one person that are both a head of government and state (i.e. the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, and the Philippines to name a few) in that case their leaders would definitely get pictures, (recent examples include U.S. president George H.W. Bush in 2018, and Indonesian president B. J. Habibie in 2019) both got pictures in their respective years of death. and some other countries have mix head of state and government meaning that the president has a lot of power and is separate from Parliament while the Prime Minister has some power but it's very miniscule compared to the president which has most of the power. (i.e. France, Russia, and Ukraine) in that context the president will get the picture over the prime minister (recent example would be French president Jacques Chirac in 2019), he got a picture when he died in 2019. for head-of-state it can boil down to two types of head of state, elected (i.e. president) or hereditary (i.e. King / queen), in that context, mainly the hereditary type of head of state will get pictures, and has equal chance of getting pictures with head of government, but if it's elective it has a lower chance of getting a picture, (some recent examples of monarchs getting a death picture are Sultan of Oman Qaboos bin Said and Emir of Kuwait Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah in 2020, and the UK's Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh in 2021), all three got a picture in the death section on their year of death. for local politicians it's not easy, depending on the politician in question it will either be and no or yes for inclusion, for governor-general's they usually are included, however they usually don't get pictures. for vice president that is still iffy ground for inclusion, a couple countries have a vice president including the U.S., for US vice presidents it depends on the person. so for example, Walter Mondale would be included due to his candidacy in the 1984 United States presidential election however he lost the election and he died in 2021, there was a dispute to include him. however majority said that he can be included, so he ended up being included. for other local politicians, like members of higher or lower legislators. the inclusion is depending on the person in question, so if they were very very important to their Nation, then yes they would be included. so for example John Lewis was included in the death section for the 2020 page because he was a civil rights icon for his country. for extremely local politicians (i.e. Mayors, members of city councils, members of state / Province legislators, and US governors), they're inclusions on main year articles are zero to none.

Sport

currently there's no profound consensus on what sports figures get to be included, however there are a consensus to include gold Olympic medalist, and there's also a consensus to include World Cup champions, however other sports people ain't so lucky and there's no consensus on them as of yet.

Film and Television

these are grouped together because they're one and the same. there has been a long consensus to include Academy award-winning actors, this year in particular has seen a couple like Sidney Poitier, and William Hurt, last year also had a lot of award-winning actors died like Olympia Dukakis, and Betty White. for all four of those actors there has been a high consensus to include them, though not all actors are included, not every actor has won an Academy Award. two examples include, Bob Saget, and Gilbert godfried. as for Saget there has already been a consensus on this very talk page to not include him in the death section of this years article, however talks are still going on for godfried on whether or not to include him and there hasn't been a deciding factor to include him or not, as of right now he's not included in the death section, though it may or may not change in the future. let's see.

Music

for music most artists would be included unless they're very very small artist. like for example, if they reached number one on Billboard and/or got at least one Grammy then they would be possibly be included in the death section, one example would be Ronnie Spector. though that criteria are only for makers of modern music, for makers of classical music, they would need to get a big recognition by some country (i.e. Knighthood or recognition metal), that's because the Grammys don't really qualify classical music that much. there are numerous classical musicians that died each year in even a couple of them get pictures. however for a classical musician to get a picture it varies and I don't know the criteria to get one.

gaming

as of right now the gaming industry is only been around for about 50 years so not much famous people have died. the only scenario I can think of is back in 2015 with Satoru Iwata, who is a CEO of Nintendo from 2002 to his death. he got a picture when he died in 2015

Literature

as for literature basically almost everyone from the literature field is included, so there's nothing to say here.

everything else

for activism depending on the importance of said person they would either be included or Not Included, note: there's always no talk about their inclusion so there's nothing real to state on them

for philanthropy and science, they would be included depending if they got the Nobel Peace Prize or not, and even a lot of them get pictures, the people who got the pictures from that field this year are Richard Leakey, Luc Montagnier, and Eugene Parker.

discussion

I love to hear your opinion about this. 4me689 (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Just on the point r.e. Mondale, he wasn’t included on those grounds - indeed, the entire debate regarding Mondale around a year ago was the basis for why we have become much stricter in who we include here. His inclusion was always a borderline, controversial one, but he wasn’t included because any majority were in favour or (especially) that he was a failed major party Presidential candidate - rather, it was because he had greatly expanded the role of his office so that it had far greater international significance in the duties that it undertakes. Extremely borderline case, and I was personally opposed to his inclusion right to the end, but he was included on those grounds nevertheless. TheScrubby (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Robert Morse (Result: exclusion)

Is Robert Morse notable enough for inclusion?

In my opinion yes, he has won a lot of awards. he had won 2 Tonys, a Primetime Emmy, a Screen Actors Guild Award, and a Drama Desk Award. that's more Awards than both Bob Saget, Gilbert Gottfried, and even Michel Bouquet, the ladder is included on this year's page. I can understand why Sagat and godfried didn't get included in this year's page, Saget didn't get any awards, and godfried only got a Emmy. however Bouquet got two European Awards and still ended up being included. 4me689 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm neutral on Morse. But, I lean inclusion.

In regards to Gottfried his only American award was an Emmy. But he also has two Canadian Awards, plus an International Film Festival (EbertFest) dedication. There seems to be confusion on that here. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Gottfried also has a awarded documentary. CountingStars500 (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I have strong reservations about Morse’s inclusion, and a lot of his awards are very much Americentric. I feel that we have excluded more notable actors than Morse - there should definitely be more of a discussion though, in large part because I don’t feel I’m knowledgable/familiar enough on him to comment. Would be keen to hear what @Jim Michael: and @Black Kite: has to say. One last thing I’ll add though, in relation to the comments immediately above me: this section is about Morse, not Gottfried, of whom there has already been an excessive discussion on in multiple different sections. TheScrubby (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Morse due to a lack of international notability; all his awards are American. Jim Michael (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Kane Tanaka and supercentenarians (Result: borderline inclusion for supercentenarians aged 118 and over, including Tanaka)

Figured this merits a discussion, given the recent edit conflicts regarding her. Personally while I would be opposed to the inclusion of most supercentenarians, I wouldn't entirely be opposed to Kane Tanaka's inclusion - given that she had not only been the world's oldest living person for several years, but was also the second-oldest person who had ever lived and one of only three people officially verified to have lived to 119 or over (and naturally any consensus r.e. Tanaka would also bring to question Jeanne Calment). Would be happy to go with whatever consensus is reached for cases like this, but I figured I'd get the ball rolling at least. TheScrubby (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Well Jim Michael is saying in their edit summaries that there's a previous consensus regarding supercentenarians, which would be very useful, but I can't find one in the archives. Jim? Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Several years ago, it was agreed that we don't include people for being the youngest, oldest, only/last/longest survivor etc. I can't remember where/when this was discussed. Consensus was reached after some were adding people such as last survivors of disasters such as the sinking of the Titanic as well as oldest people. With the possible exception of Calment, they aren't particularly notable. Also, it's a slippery slope to oldest/youngest people in hundreds of different fields/circumstances. Likewise, richest. Jim Michael (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, count me as firmly being opposed to including people purely on the basis of being a "last survivor" of a historical event - I'm talking people along the lines of Millvina Dean and Werner Doehner. The most exceptional supercentenarians (Calment, Jiroemon Kimura and possibly Tanaka and Sarah Knauss) are borderline, but I would agree against any of those mentioned in said "slippery slope". TheScrubby (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I actually agree with Jim Michael on this one. Worldwide life expectancy is going up and being a supercentenarian will become less and less notable. I'm not going to outright say no inclusion, but is their anything in Kane Tanaka's life that she contributed? CountingStars500 (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I think she should be included as the death of the oldest person in the world who is also the second oldest person ever, this is plenty significant. If we end up getting dozens of people under this category we can always review. JeffUK (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

for last survivors, I think we should exclude them. you being the last survivor doesn't make you notable in anyway, and the only thing that makes you remotely notable is that you are the last survivor or the last person to die who were related to said event.

however, I'm neutral about supercentenarians, but barely lean for inclusion.

on one hand, being one of the oldest people is a rare feet. and like what TDKR Chicago 101 said, that the last time this happened was back in 1999, also if the life expectancy goes up, then, the longest age record will go up as well.

on the other hand these people didn't do much more than to live very very long lives. 4me689 (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and it should be pointed out that as of now, there have only ever been four officially verified people who have reached the age of 118 and over, of whom two of them lived until the 1990s (Calment and Knauss), and one (Randon) is still alive (the second oldest, after Randon, is at least two years younger and it would be a surprise if she reached a similar age). That, if I may say so, is exceptionally rare, and alongside Jiroemon Kimura (the oldest man who ever lived) I think we can afford to make exceptions for these particular supercentenarians (albeit as borderline cases), and nobody else. So I would lean towards including just the supercentenarians who have reached 118 and over, plus Kimura. TheScrubby (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Tanaka was the second oldest living person verified ever, that was a feat last accomplished by Sarah Knauss in 1999 (over two decades ago). This is pretty significant and should merit inclusion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• Exclude - I can't see much of an argument for it. I removed her from her year of birth because, since her notability consisted entirely in her being alive. Now she's no longer living, that's no longer the case. If we include her, then what happens if Lucile Randon lives longer? Do we then keep Tanaka in for being the third longest-lived person ever? How long would this continue? Deb (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, this is the problem. I would be tempted to include someone who broke Calment's record, because they will always hold that record for that period of time even if someone else later breaks it, but I am unconvinced that second-longest is massively notable (though there's a large amount of international coverage, so ...). Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

    I can't believe that it's the leading story in any country other than Japan. Even if it were, we don't use that as a measure of importance. If we did, we'd have to say that the Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident & the allegation against Angela Rayner are among the most important things that happened in the world this year. If we're including second-oldest, that opens the floodgates wide for various second-oldest x people: by ethnicity, occupation, circumstance etc. She had an ordinary life - it was merely longer than usual. Jim Michael (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

    I really think it's because this really goes way beyond nationality - 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 Emma Morano (last person born in the 1800s), Violet Brown (last subject of Queen Victoria), Nabi Tajima (last person born in the 19th Century), and other such figures, for none of them reached the 118 milestone. TheScrubby (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    Being rare doesn't make them important. Jim Michael (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    They absolutely are, 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, Kimura) 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. TheScrubby (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    I do think there are cases to be made for e.g. 'last surviving veteran of World War 1' and 'last surviving veteran of World War 2' and 'last survivor of Nazi concentration camps' for instance. Where their death does mark the passing of an era of living witnesses to some exceptionally significant international period; only if their death is reported widely in that context. JeffUK (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    At the very least it does help that the oldest man who ever lived, Jiroemon Kimura, also happened to be the last surviving WWI veteran - albeit one who only briefly served in 1918 and did not see combat. But besides that, I’m extremely reticent about including last survivors just for the sake of it - unless they were notable for reasons beyond longevity and their “last survivor” status. TheScrubby (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    Last survivors aren't important. Including them opens the door to many such people, including people held hostage for the longest, along with only survivors of disasters, people married for the longest, oldest twins etc. That's a slippery slope we should avoid altogether. Avoiding/delaying death doesn't make a person important. Jim Michael (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    Last survivors of World Wars do tend to make international headlines, though. The problem with those however can be seen with WW1 - you have Kimura d.2013 (was in armed forces during the war, but not in a combat unit and didn't see action at all), Florence Green d.2012 (was in a combat unit, but not in the theatre of battle), and Claude Choules d.2011, actually saw combat. So it isn't even easy with those. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    Last/only survivors of various things gain a lot of media coverage; it doesn't make them important. Jim Michael (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    Sustained and in-depth international coverage == international notability. That's the definition, really. But it has to be properly in-depth and sustained - a slew of copy/pasted Reuters/AP death notices from random international news websites aren't going to cut it. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    A sole survivor of a plane crash could receive that sort of media attention. Jim Michael (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

    They receive a lot of attention, but it would be more related to their part in a major news story than it would be to their longevity. I think this would be rare, though, and the only example I can think of is Vesna Vulović, who had enough coverage both of the incident, her life afterwards, and her death, to easily pass the bar. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

    She also didn't do anything notable. She was merely lucky to survive. It's the sort of thing the media love, so they publicised it. Likewise, people who've survived being held by criminals for an unusually long time, such as Jaycee Dugard. Jim Michael (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Naomi Judd (Result: exclusion)

does Naomi Judd have enough notability to be included. I don't know what to say about her inclusion, just please, before you make the decision, please look at what she accomplished. 4me689 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude due to a lack of international notability. TheScrubby (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this verdict, she is not notable. 4me689 (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Exclude Country music is by its nature parochial and very few artists in that genre achieve international notability (and even some of those do so for other reasons, i.e. acting). Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, and Judd wasn't exactly Hank Williams/Johnny Cash/Dolly Parton levels of notable. Even the duo with whom she rose to fame with have very limited notability outside their home country. TheScrubby (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)