Talk:2023

Collage

2023 is now halfway done and I think we can start working on a collage. There will obviously be moments later in the year that would replace some of those I'm about to mention. Anyway here's my suggestions:

The Turkish Earthquake

The Titan Implosion

Charles' coronation

The rise of AI

The spy balloon incident

The Israeli Judicial reform protests

The Wagner rebellion

The Sudanese conflict TRJ2008 (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally I am of the opinion we shouldn't have a dedicated discussion on the collage until say late-November or December. A lot can happen in another 6 months so I'd rather we just let it play out before we focus on the collage. That being said, in my opinion some of the events suggested I don't think reflect this year or at least aren't as impactful as others. The events in question that you have listed are; The Titan Implosion - It doesn't have any impact on much, Charles' Coronation - Debatable but is likely not going to get past voting, Spy Balloon - It was impactful but feel wasn't as notable as other events, Wagner Rebellion - Could be really impactful but I suggest just waiting and seeing how it pans out. CaptainGalaxy 14:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

We have already come to a concensus on the collage

We have added the earthquakes, the Brazillian congress attack, the banking crsis, and the ICC's arrest warrant for Putin. You can find the links to the images on the edit page. Thanks for trying DementiaGaming (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

When the end of the year is near, and people vote on photos to include, I happily volunteer to make this collage! The ganymedian (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we should wait until the end of the year, I can't wait to see what the collage will look like. 4me689 (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

there is a collage discussion here, about a early version of the 2023 collage that was made, for anybody interested. 4me689 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

If there's to be a collage, definitely include the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes. X2023X (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

How the heck are you all trying to design a collage for 2023 and aren't talking about adding the genocide in Palestine? The ruins of Gaza MUST be included... 63.155.5.200 (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Should the 2023 Hanoi building fire be included?

Should the 2023 Hanoi building fire be included on the page? While the death toll seems to be relatively high for this type of accident, there does not seem to be any further impact, both locally and globally. I would exclude, and removed the entry, but it was later re-added by another editor. Carter00000 (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Not really of note to the wider timeline of events, and has smaller due weight than other events both in impact and coverage. I would advocate for its exclusion for now. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Exclude because it didn't have as much due weight locally, much less globally. It would merit an entry for 2023 in Vietnam or an article about fire safety disasters in 2023 due to its death toll, but not this page. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

exclude, this is not really that known by the General Public. 4me689 (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Include, 50+ deaths, and the victims received condolences from the leaders of several other countries. Also, according to the Vietnamese Wikipedia article, there was a three-day suspension of activities in the area as a moment of silence for the victims. This is definitely more important than some things we do have in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Kevin McCarthy removal?

I'm curious why the recent events in the US house haven't been mentioned on this page. I feel like it's important to include given its rarity and impact on US politics.

I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor, but I feel like American politics is rarely mentioned in these disambiguation pages? I understand not wanting Western politics to overrun the wiki, especially given the makeup of its editor base, but I think there's been a small over-correction. Or maybe I'm just biased myself lol :p Beccabecco (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Kevin McCarthy's removal was purely domestic politics and belongs in 2023 in the United States. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the article about 2023 for the whole world, not the United States or any other individual country. Only national events that have enough due weight internationally are featured on this page. General elections for individual countries are regularly featured on this page, but not domestic political events unless they are important enough to have a direct international impact. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I second the comments made by Wjfox2005 and JohnAdams1800 - to include this event on the main 2023 page would be Americentrism, particularly as if this exact event happened in any other country, nobody would raise a peep/bring this up for debate at all. We have 2023 in the United States for this. TheScrubby (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with the above comments and say VERY strong include the ouster of Kevin McCarthy. Just because 2023 in the United States exists doesn't mean that international notability should be reigned in yet again, see User:InvadingInvader/Against international notability. The exclusion of Kevin McCarthy's removal represents a failure to follow the Due Weight policies. Considering that this was the vote heard around the world, and reported by numerous sources including but not limited to NHK in Japan, DW in Germany, Al Jazeera and ArabNews from the Arab World, ABC in Australia, and The Wire in India, and further considering that all of these sources list the ouster as unprecedented, this domestic event has high importance in world history. To respond particularly to @TheScrubby in saying that the removal of Kevin McCarthy is Americentrism, what about Liz Truss in 2022? She was not too much more notable than McCarthy. One could say that her 45 days being included but not McCarthy's 270 days in the following year could actually be British-centrism. Moreover, if we include her but not McCarthy, that's not preventing Americentrism. It's fostering Anti-Americanism. May I remind you that Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view, not biasing in favor of, or against, any country. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I unequivocally reject any notion of “anti-Americanism” when I stand against Americentrism (and will continue to call out and stand against with such blatant examples, such as this). Kevin McCarthy was not a head of government or state, and his international equivalents would never be seriously considered for this page. This does not include Liz Truss; there is absolutely zero equivalence with Truss, who was Prime Minister and head of government of one of the world’s most powerful and influential countries. I’ve given my two cents, as has Wjfox2005 and JohnAdams1800, and I’m not about to get into any habit of WP:BLUDGEONING, so I’m not going to comment further on this thread. TheScrubby (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

VERY strong include. Hello, as someone we in living in Denmark, Europe, I can testify that McCarthy's removal was breaking news and I know – as @InvadingInvader has pointed out – that the same was the case in many other countries. Both Danish analysts (for instance here use Google Translate) as well as CNN here has pointed out that I might greatly impact U.S. aid to Ukraine. Here is also a mention in the mainstream Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun. I believe it should absolutely be reinserted into the article. Marginataen (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Include, per the reasons given by those supporting inclusion above. Carter00000 (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've now put an updated version back in Marginataen (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Also see the recent RFC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years which actually ruled that we should be basing inclusion off of due weight. Another discussion on that page presently is actually discussing whether or not we are firmly deprecating international notability, and as Carter suggested below, whether it already was deprecated. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. McCarthy's removal is not 'important in world history' and I have to agree with above that any comparison with Truss, the leader of a country, is ridiculous. Agree that this is a perfect entry on the 2023 in the United States for being a purely domestic political event. Yeoutie (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel compelled to again remind participants that inclusion is not based on any arbitrary criteria but on the Due Weight policies, per WP:DUE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

*Exclude because he hasn't been a head of state/gov & there's no chance that we'd include such an event in any other country. It's not even on 2023 in politics, so why should it be on here? X2023X (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Exclude on balance. Deb (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Include Speaker of the House is an important position, and this is a historic first that got a very large amount of international coverage. It's not like it's just the George Santos expulsion or something. Definitely not UNDUE. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Also, it was considered important enough to post at ITN, which counts for something. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Exclude Irrelevant in an international context. Yet another political drama. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Change to the DMY format

I 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 2023.

. Marginataen (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

On the one hand, I would support this, as it's more international as you say. But going through the entire history of humanity and changing each entry would surely be a mammoth task. Unless there's a quick fix? Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I would at the very least personally go through all articles until 1900. There is no policy saying all year articles – especially only for a period while the transition happens – has to use the same date format as long as it is consistent within the article itself. However, this discussion is only about the changing it on this specific article about the year 2023. I would personally do it should consensus arise. Are anyone against this change for this specific article? Or just in general for articles about "generic" years? Marginataen (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Strong support and apply to every Year article, though I personally doubt it’ll get up. It is frankly bizarre that we persist with the mdy date format on the main Year pages when so few countries use that format. TheScrubby (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I have now changed it. Marginataen (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers Please restore the DMY date format that you removed without consensus. Marginataen (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Sorry I missed this section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't particularly object to changing all the year articles to DMY, which is the topic of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Change to the DMY date format, but I do think changing just this one article to DMY isn't worth the loss of consistency. As far as I'm aware, every other year article uses MDY. For now, I oppose this change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should be agreed to change all generic year articles to DMY. Thanks for pointing that out. @TheScrubby @Wjfox2005 Marginataen (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date format for year article Marginataen (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The format was changed back to MDY without consensus. Currently, there are no standard about consistently in date format across year articles. That is what I am trying to do. The last discussion got messy and I'll probably start a new one about it one the village pump. In the mean time, 2023 should be changed back to DMY Marginataen (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It should be the same for all main year articles. X2023X (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• ‎RapMonstaXY, I wanted to make sure you're aware of this discussion. Presuming you support the use of MDY, we're now back into no-consensus territory, and we should preserve MDY until there's consensus for a change. I'll admit it's a bit of a relief to have shifted away from the "every year article except 2023 uses MDY" situation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers: Ah ok. I admit it. I'll just close this discussion immediately. RMXY (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've reverted your close, as you were clearly a involved party in the content dispute. 33ABGirl (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Good move. While we're here, 33, hope there are no hard feelings on the re-opening. That sockpuppet vs. sockpuppeteer distinction has tripped me up a few times. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ending of China's zero-COVID policy

How is this not notable? It was a milestone in the ongoing pandemic, and a big story at the time, reported by every major media outlet. China was the initial epicentre of the outbreak, its control measures were extremely harsh and restrictive, a country of 1.4 billion people in semi-permanent lockdown, with implications for international travel and trade. The country saw massive protests (for the first time in decades) over this policy. The January travel restrictions weren't isolated but were a global response to China, and therefore (a) reflected the world's adaptation to the evolving nature of the pandemic, and (b) highlighted the interconnectedness of global health and the economy. China's ending of lockdown also influenced the WHO ending its declaration of a global health emergency a few months later. This entry is also presented in an entirely neutral, unbiased, and factual manner. It should be restored:

• 3 January – Starting from this date, many countries impose travel restrictions on travel from China due to the relaxation of the country's zero-COVID policy.

Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd include it. I think that given the notoriety it's gained in media as well as the strong effects it has has on people, it merits an entry. I would advise everyone who votes "domestic" to read WP:DUE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who removed the content. My reasons for removal are not related to the event being "domestic" at all. As I stated in the edit summary, I believe that the event, in retrospect, is no longer notable enough for inclusion. That is to say, while the event may have been deemed significant enough to be included on the page at the time it occurred, with the advantage of hindsight, we can see that the restrictions imposed were of short duration and had no enduring impact. For example the EU restrictions lasted only around a month

I also notice that there are limitations on this page on inclusion of covid-19 events, which has its own stand-alone timeline, with not all the events included here. I think we must take that into account here, with inclusion of this event over other similarly or more impactful events being WP:UNDUE. I think the that the entry in December 2022 marking the actual relation of the restrictions is sufficient coverage on the event for these pages. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with the idea of zero-COVID having no enduring notability. See the AP on how China's approach on exiting zero-COVID costed lives, the mass-imprisonment beliefs regarded by the Guardian, the loss of faith in the Chinese government as explained by Al Jazeera, and many other examples which I do not have time to mention here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that zero-COVID has enduring notability. However, I am contending that due coverage has been fulfilled in the following content:

2022

• 7 December
  • After substantial protests against China's Zero-COVID policies, the Chinese government eases on its COVID restrictions.

Taking the above account into account, I think it is not necessary to include the lifting of the restrictions, as it is only a minor part of the overall event, for the reasons I have outlined in my previous reply. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I say we should include it. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Nigerian Bandit Attack

It seems insane to me that this has still not been added. It occurred on December 23, resulted in 200 deaths and 500 injuries, and seems to have been the deadliest bandit attack in Nigerian history. 31.94.21.109 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC) WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes people just forget to add them, LOL! Yes, I support their addition. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Still not been added. Perhaps the article shouldn't be protected if the current editors forget to add so many critical events. 2.99.89.222 (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC) WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 collage picture candidates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

OPTION A: Brazilian Congress Intrusion

OPTION B: East Ohio trail derailment

OPTION C: Turkey-Syria earthquakes

OPTION D: International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova

OPTION E: United States banking crisis

OPTION F: Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

OPTION G: SAG-AFTRA strike

OPTION H(1): Hawaii wildfires

Option H(2): Hawaii wildfires

OPTION I: Storm Daniel

OPTION J: Israel-Hamas war

OPTION K: Protests against the Israel-Hamas war DementiaGaming (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

OPTION L: 2023 Chinese balloon incident

Candidate notes

-Option A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H(1), I, J, and K were added by DementiaGaming 02:02, 11 January.
-Option H(2) and L were added by WeatherWriter 02:41, 11 January.

--Indiana6724 (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion2

I support B, C, D, F, H(1), I, J and K DementiaGaming (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

DementiaGaming: I hope you do not mind, but I altered your comment from where you said just "H" to "H(1)", which is the option H you proposed. I added "H(2)". If you feel that alteration was a mistake, please revert it. I am making sure you are aware of that alteration, which occurred soley because I proposed a 2nd image for the Hawaii wildfires. Again, please revert it if you believe I am out-of-line. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

E Indiana6724 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my comment was slightly malformed, as I was in a hurry. DementiaGaming (talk) 13:10, 11

• I support B, C, F, H(2), I, J, and L. (As of 11 Jan in case further items are proposed). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• I support A, C, E, I, J, and L. I'm not sure about F. Koopinator (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• A set of very US-centric options, as we've come to expect. Deb (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I oppose B, D, E, G and K. Deb (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

    I agree. Indiana6724 (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I support A, C, E, I, J, L, and F. Indiana6724 (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Important (Close and re-start proposal): As some people mentioned, the list seems U.S. centric to a degree. Since only a few of us have commented, I have a proposal:

Let us agree to close this and re-start in a better manner, which we sort of need to do anyway to satisfy the results of the collage RfC which occurred on WP:Years. So, here is my proposal: A 2-step RfC.

1. We host a discussion that is well-advertised (i.e. all the appropriate talk pages and WikiProject pages) that goes for say a week long where users may submit and discuss candidates for the college. After that week, we do a discussion (RfC) to “ratify” the candidates. That way, users have the option to put their thoughts in to help clean up any individual country bias. This could be probably SNOW-closed if there is nearly no opposition to ratifying the candidates after a week with a solid support consensus.
2. After that “ratify” RfC, the candidates go through a “Survey-style RfC”, similar to Request for Adminship, which is more or less numbers based. Basically, each “candidate” would be a subsection to collect “votes”. Each user gets only 6, 7, or 8 votes (to be decided — number of images for the collage). So if there is 10 image candidates and the collage is to be 6 images, each user may only vote for 6 of the candidates.
3. The image/event candidates with the most “votes” become the collage.

This is a long-process (60-ish days without any SNOW-speedy closures), but after all the debates about collages in general in that 2+ month RfC (on WP:Years), this process would probably be best to solve any and all concerns. Thoughts? (Courtesy pings: DementiaGaming, Indiana6724, Deb, Koopinator). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm on board with this idea. Indiana6724 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

"(i.e. all the appropriate talk pages and WikiProject pages)"

Perhaps we should use Template:Ambox to notify readers on the 2023 article? I'm starting to realize there is no real guideline that says readers should only be notified about the things we have built-in bots for (AFDs, move requests and template deletions). Koopinator (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. No one should start a discussion beginning with a set of images they've selected themselves and ask others to choose between them. Deb (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, it would be fair to do this. DementiaGaming (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2023 Collage Full Discussion

This process will be a 3-step process:

1. Candidates by everyone
2. An RfC to discuss and “ratify” the candidates <—— Current Step in Process
3. An RfC to vote for the collage images and events

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Where was the decision that we needed a collage for 2023, and where is the discussion on how the process should be carried out? Deb (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Deb on this matter. I'm of the belief we should wait until 2025 to make decisions on what images to add for 2023. It gives more time for users to reflect on what events are most important for 2023 and we can get more objective consensus. PaulRKil (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The process I proposed & started is over two-months long (with two separate RfCs). Waiting until 2025 doesn't really do much since there would be over 2 months of community discussion and reflection (At least 2 RfCs). By the end of it (in March 2024), we should easily know what was the biggest events of 2023. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

bro no, that's boring, that's more like the opposite, and so in my opinion I don't think that waiting until 2025 would be a good idea MJGTMKME123 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Step 1 (Candidates)

In this discussion, add image and/or event candidates that you think should or could be in the yearly collage image. To add candidates, add the image as [[File:Example.jpg|250x250px]] followed by OPTION (Letter next in order). To add a second image candidate for the same event, add it as OPTION X(Number next in order).

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

Candidates

OPTION A(1): Brazilian Congress attack

OPTION A(2): Brazilian Congress attack

OPTION B: East Ohio trail derailment

OPTION C: Turkey-Syria earthquakes

OPTION D: International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova

OPTION E: United States banking crisis

OPTION F(1): Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

OPTION F(2): Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

OPTION G: SAG-AFTRA strike

OPTION H(1): Hawaii wildfires

Option H(2): Hawaii wildfires

OPTION I: Storm Daniel

OPTION J: Israel-Hamas war

OPTION K: Protests against the Israel-Hamas war

OPTION L(1): Chinese balloon incident

OPTION L(2): Chinese balloon incident

OPTION M: 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine — Russian invasion of Ukraine

OPTION O Barbie becomes the highest-grossing film of 2023

OPTION P: refugees of the Sudan conflict in Chad 🌺 Cremastra (talk)

OPTION Q(1): Wildfires in Saskatchewan. 🌺 Cremastra (talk)

OPTION Q(2): aftermath of fires in NWT. 🌺 Cremastra (talk)

OPTION R: Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. User:JohnAdams1800 (talk)

OPTION S: 2023 Odisha train collision User:Nagae Iku

OPTION T: Chandrayaan-3 User:Nagae Iku

OPTION U: 2023 Marrakesh–Safi earthquake User:Nagae Iku

OPTION V: 2023 Herat earthquakes User:Nagae Iku

OPTION W: Guyana–Venezuela crisis (2023–present) User:Nagae Iku

OPTION X: Wagner Group rebellion User:Nagae Iku

OPTION Y: Cyclone Freddy User:Nagae Iku — Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

OPTION Z: Leaders of the "October 15 Coalition" who won the parliamentary elections in Poland, which had a historically high turnout (~74%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szturnek (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

OPTION AA: NATO expands with Finland as new member. — HTGS (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

OPTION AB: Titan submersible implosion. — HTGS (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Option AC: SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 1 The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Candidates discussion

Add discussion for the images here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Strongly suggest swapping coronation for a tighter photo, eg the one at Coronation of Charles III and Camilla. Bear in mind that photos are viewed small in a collage, so large, distinct features are strongly preferred. — HTGS (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I just added the closer-zoomed image as a second option. In the discussion above this one, another user added the larger-zoom image, so I am not going to directly remove it. But you are absolutely right! A smaller image was needed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Once again, highly US-centric options have been offered. This proposed collage purports itself to be a pictorial summary of the year. Therefore, the initial list should be a list of Events that are agreed to be the most important of the year. Only after that's been agreed should we start looking for images of those events. Deb (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Deb: — I think you are missing the idea of this first week. Everyone can add images and events. It is U.S. centric as only a single image has been added in addition to the images from the previous list. Add anything you think needs to be there. Step 1 is a week for everyone to add images. Step 2 is a vote to agree these are the candidates for the vote. Step 3 is the vote. If it is U.S. centric, now is your chance to add images to counter it. In short, add images right now. There is at least 6 days where you can before any sort of votes take place. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, everyone can add images and events, and those images and events can be removed by anyone else. If you are putting a collage at the top of a year page, purporting to be a summary of the year, then it must be a summary of the year, not just a set of images that someone happened to be able to find that they thought looked nice. There is no agreement on the process for agreeing content of a proposed collage, and you should not be trying to impose one. Deb (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am not trying to be rude here at all, but I am completely confused why you say I am “trying to impose” the process for it. I legit proposed this idea in the now closed attempt above where you and three other editors all basically agreed to it. You basically just walked back on your previous statement, where you said no one should start a collage discussion with images they choose. The way to counter that was to allow everyone to add images. Then we vote to agree those are the candidates. Then we vote on the collage images. No one is imposing anything. I had practical consensus, including from you for this process. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#RfC: Removal of image collages was the long discussion which involved 67 people and 220 comments about collages. In reality there was collage images on every yearly article. These got removed and then was agreed to be reinstated. The big topic of debate was that there was no process to begin with. I proposed a process and had, what I presumed was, at least a running consensus going forward, since you are three others supported the idea I proposed. I apologize if I mistook your “Absolutely” here as a support for what I proposed. What are your concerns with my proposed idea, since you questioned the idea that one person should decide the images & the idea that the community shouldn’t decide the images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agreed that consensus should be sought for the images that are included. I have never agreed that this is a good way of finding consensus. I say that you are trying to impose a process because that's what you are doing. You are suggesting that somewhere there has been an agreement that the images people like best, rather than images of the most significant events, should be included in a pictorial summary of the year. This is not the case and the method you propose, by its very nature, cannot ensure that the selection of images is a fair and impartial summary as required by the NPOV policy. Deb (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  So what do you propose we do then to fix this? A single RfC will not cut it per NPOV, so it needs to be a multi-step RFC proposal to fix any issues. I am open to all suggestions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've already stated above. You need to get consensus on what the most important events are, then look for images. Deb (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that might sound “good” in theory, but without a plan to execute that, it won’t work. Also, a counter to that argument is the collage on World War II. One would easily argue D-Day as being one of the most important events during the war. And yet, it is not in the collage. Collages are supposed to be images (not necessarily events) that help showcase the year. This way seems to work, and so far, your challenge is a minority view. I will note this down though so if others start to oppose this method, we can have a full-RfC to determine what method to use. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  So you mean that it's okay for you to make up your own plan for what you want to do, but you don't want to put any effort into making a plan that has a chance of making the result compliant with Wikipedia policy? "Collages are supposed to be images (not necessarily events) that help showcase the year" - where did you hear that? We don't need to "showcase" the year - the year happened and the article already exists. Deb (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#RfC: Removal of image collages. That idea that we don’t need to “showcase” the year is not the consensus. The consensus is to have collages. Collages existed on every yearly article until they were removed before the RfC concluded. The RfC actually concluded that they should be added back in. There was and is no formal plan for collages. Right now, I could make a collage and add it without a discussion. I am not doing that as comments brought up in the RfC commented that there was no procedures in place at all. Yes I made this procedure up because it is the first one. Again, you are the first (and so far only) person to question this procedure, which is the first of its kind. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, the consensus (allegedly) is to reject the idea of not having collages. It's still necessary to discuss the proposed content. Deb (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

How? There is no process. This process which I started is the only currently-existing process for collage image decisions. You want us to decide for the events, which is not what the collage is for. The collage is some of the best pictures to represent the year. Again, this discussion was not required by any means as there was no process before. The sole reason I started this discussion was because people had concerns of OR in that large RfC. Since there is no standardized process, there is no reason to alter this proposal of a method. If you think this idea that I proposed does not work, I encourage you to start your own RfC to create a standardized method for collages. Until then, there is no better way to solve the debate on collages, since this method allows for everyone to add candidates, everyone to vote on the candidates & most importantly, a community consensus on what images are the most important or most worthy of the collage. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

To solve your issue, the proposal is 100% spelled out here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a better image of the effect Storm Daniel had on the places it impacted? I think it would be more appropriate to showcase that instead of a meteorological image. PaulRKil (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

PaulRKil: One could be added as a candidate, but a quick glance at 2005 shows a satellite view of Hurricane Katrina rather than a damage image. Also, the Storm Daniel article doesn’t really have a “damage” style picture on it. The Commons may have one though that could be thrown into the mix. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support A, C, H(2), I, K, M, & P as the most internationally and long-term significant. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Cremastra, just a head's up, the vote for the collage images isn't yet. This is just a week period for people to submit what images they think should or could be in the collage. Then, we will vote to ensure there is a consensus for a college vote (basically a vote to see if consensus allows us to move forward for a collage). Then we actually vote for the 8 collage images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. My bad. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment--I support inclusion of a photo for the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, as it relates to the conclusion of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which was a 35-year old post-Soviet conflict that ended on 1 January 2024 with the dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Good plan. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• NATO expansion would be a good idea. And maybe Titan submersible implosion? The best image we have is File:231001-G-G0000-1001.jpg in my opinion. — HTGS (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
• A、C、E、F(2) 、I、J、P、R、X User:Nagae Iku (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Nagae Iku. We aren't voting for the candidates yet. This is just a period of time for everyone to add candidates in without a vote yet. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry about this, I read it wrong before adding a reply.😵 Nagae Iku (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• The Barbie image as shown here is not eligible for inclusion. The given caption does not correspond to an event. It's doubtful whether the release of the film should even be included under events. Deb (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Can you explain why the image is not eligible? It appears to be licensed CC BY-SA 2.0, so should be fine in any article. — HTGS (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Because the given caption does not correspond to an event. Deb (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I've explained to you how a meaningful process that complies with NPOV could be introduced. Is there any reason for you to oppose that? Deb (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The process your proposed, if I understand correctly was: RfC on which events are most important. Then using that list, you find the images. That doesn’t work since an important event may not have a good image or even a visually appealing image. Here is a good example. Imagine if the 2024 missile strikes in Yemen was voted to be one of the 6 event candidates. The two actual “images” (excluding the map) for it are very dark due to it being night time. That said, another image from a slightly lesser-known or lesser-important event (random example: Attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria (2023–present)) would be a heck of a lot more ascetically appealing for readers. Decided what is the most important events doesn’t really work well since collages (i.e. images) aren’t events. That is the issue. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Deb That approach sounds like a good way to waste time. The current process is already more drawn out than it needs to be IMO, but it does inherently include user selection of important events. If you have important events you think should be included here, suggest them and others can find images for them if you are having a hard time. — HTGS (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The most significant events of 2023 are the events mentioned in the lead of the article. If that's not the case, then the lead needs fixing, separate from any image selection. But it shouldn't be difficult to identify the most significant events of the year, as they'd be the ones in the lead, and ergo the images for the collage should be images of what's mentioned in the lead.

However, the collage is going to depict a subset of the events in the lead (because there are too many events for one collage). Image search and selection would be narrowed if editors first decided which events in the lead are important enough to include in the collage. That should be Step 1. That would save time and reduce the number of images to find/look at/discuss. Step 2 would then be finding/agreeing on the "best" image for each lead event that will be depicted in the collage.

Lead events that don't make it into the collage should be pictured elsewhere in the article (they're "important" enough for a picture). So, another way to go about this is to just find the "best" images of everything that's mentioned in the lead, and then discuss which of those images should be in the lead collage, and which in the body of the article. Levivich (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Since this discussion/debate doesn't really apply to "2023", I would invite y'all (Deb, HTGS, Levivich) to participate in the discussion about this method over on WP:YEARS: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

So far there has been a lot of discussion about how to discuss the images. How about @Deb or @Levivich you give your takes on which events should be featured? Because that process is not incompatible to the current one. — HTGS (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

In my view, "year in review" sources should be used to determine the most significant events of the year (what should go in the lead). I'm not sure what sources the current lead is based on if any, and I'm not confident the current lead has all the most significant events of the year per RS. But choosing from what's in the lead right now, I'd say: Turkey/Syria earthquake, Gaza war, N-K war, banking crisis. Chandrayaan-3 isn't in the lead but I bet RS would suggest it should be, and if so, I'd say also in the collage as a 5th image. For a 6th, I don't know that you can find an image of AI (that's not an advertisement, e.g. not a logo), so maybe Cyclone Nargis. Levivich (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I know - I've already suggested a process very similar to this. That's where the proposer got the idea. Deb (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• I am deeply flattered by the suggestion that one of my photos has been suggested as a part of the collage. It really means a lot to me. SWinxy (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

  This doesn't sound like a good thing. If you care about your personal kudos, you're in the wrong place. Deb (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• A(1), C, F(1), H(2), J, L(2), X, AB. ArionStar (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Step 2 (Ratify the Candidates)

1. Discussion on the three event candidates which had multiple images proposed. <—— Current Step in Process
2. Ratification RfC to determine if we can move on to the collage vote.

Multiple choice discussion

2023 Brazilian Congress attack

Option A(1) or A(2)?

• A(1) - I think it is a better image of "Brazilian Congress attack" than the second one. The first one clearly shows multiple people and a Brazilian flag. The second one, on the other hand, looks like ruins. Without context, it would be hard to tell that this was an attack on the Brazilian Capitol. 27 is my favorite number. You can ask me why here. 19:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

Option F(1) or F(2)?

• Option F(2) – The more zoomed-in image is needed as the candidate of choice. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• F2 — brighter and more recognizable. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• F2 - Clearer and more focused on the item in question, and aligns more with MOS:IMAGEQUALITY. F1 is somewhat less clear and has less lighting in its depiction. Leventio (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• F2 or another one - This picture is nice, but it's a bit too wide in the crop. Here are two other options that I personally think are cropped better:

Nagae Iku (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• F(2). ArionStar (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

2023 Hawaii wildfires

Option H(1) or H(2)?

• Option H(2) – This was featured on the mainpage ITN for 8 days, so it is the more valuable image from the wildfires. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• H(2). ArionStar (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

2023 Chinese balloon incident

Option L(1) or L(2)?

• L(1) - Clearly depicts a balloon. The second one, at a glance, could easily be misinterpreted as generic fishing. 27 is my favorite number. You can ask me why here. 19:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

2023 Canadian wildfires

Option Q(1) or Q(2)?

• Option Q(1) – Seeing the satellie-style view of the wildfires and smoke is a better image to me than the damage image of Q(2). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Q1 per WeatherWriter. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Q1 per WeatherWriter. Better depicts the topic in question. Leventio (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Doomsday Clock Setting

In 2023 the Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists moved the hands of The Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight for the first time ever bringing the world closer to midnight than it has ever been. Surely that deserves a mention ? 2.99.81.33 (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Where's the reference from a reliable source? Deb (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The doomsday clock is arbitrary. Setarip (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

...but it is notable! 86.126.88.176 (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

2022 Asian Games

Can I ask for your question, everyone, should be included the pictures events for 2022 Asian Games? I think that will be the final represent for 2023. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024

Can someone please add photos of events in 2023 to this page? There is one for 2022, but not 2023. Can someone add photos of events for 2023? Please. 2601:40A:8400:1820:64A9:2954:1D64:EA3B (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

2023 was the warmest year on record

Should this be mentioned on this page? Jarble (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sports

I think that this article should have more notable sports events. For example, championships like the Texas Rangers winning the World Series 4 games to 1 against the Arizona Diamondbacks on Nov. 1, The Kansas City Chiefs defeating the Philadelphia Eagles 38-35 for another Super Bowl win on Feb 12, The Vegas Golden Knights winning their first championship on June 13, beating the Florida Panthers for the Stanly Cup in 5 games, etc. Also good to mention is Buffalo Bills Safety Damar Hamlin suffering a Cardiac Arrest during a game on Jan 2nd, miraculously surviving and went back to football. These are some edits I would like to see on this page. Sethy3 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Spelt Stanley wrong. oopsies. Sethy3 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

That's why we have 2023_in_sports, as well as 2023 in American football and others. You can see the full list in the infobox on the right side of the article. Btw, if you make a typo, you can always go back and edit your comment, no need to create a new one. --McSly (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)