Talk:2021/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Railway completions

See WT:RY#Railway completions. At the present time, I'm not going to tag other articles, but, if someone wants to, be my guest. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Between 1989 and 2021

2021 will be the first year to use digital different since 1989, which was the 10th and last year of the 1980s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.154.28 (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean?  Nixinova  T  C  08:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Old Animated Films in the 2020s Decade

All the theatrical re-issues of old animated films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios will be re-released in theatres in the 2020s decade:

• Mulan (Summer 2021)
• Chicken Little (March 2022)
• Tarzan (Summer 2022)
• The Emperor's New Groove (Summer 2023)
• Meet the Robinsons (March 2024)
• Atlantis: The Lost Empire (Summer 2024)
• Bolt (March 2025)
• Lilo & Stitch (Summer 2025)
• The Princess and the Frog (March 2026)
• Brother Bear (Summer 2026)
• Wreck-it Ralph (March 2027) 15th anniversary
• Hercules (Summer 2027) 30th anniversary
• Frozen (March 2028) 15th anniversary

Note: All the theatrical re-issues of the 1997-2013 animated films produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios (except for Fantasia 2000 (1999), Dinosaur, Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, Tangled and Winnie the Pooh) will be re-released in theatres in the 2020s decade, once in March for 17 years and once in the Summer for 23 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.66.184.50 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Eclipses

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Castro

@ExperiencedArticleFixer: Why is Castro's expected step down from Cuba's leadership internationally notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Because the rule of the Castro brothers was one of the most distinctive features of the Cold War in the 20th century (which was one of the most important things that happened in that century) and lasted for 62 years. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Artemis 1

Why is the proposed launch of Artemis 1 notable, without a year being set? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Red Links

As I was reviewing over the 2021 article, something that caught my eyes was the red text in the side-column. Is that suppose to happen or...? Should some Users be editing the articles that are in red? I'm confused. — Jack Reynolds(talk to me!)_{Happy New Year! and Goodbye 2020!} 02:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@JackReynoldsADogOwner: Yes, someone should be editing those articles once the world provides some content worth documenting. For example, I'm sure 2021 in poetry will appear as soon as the bards have had time to write some notable poems. Certes (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It just means that the article is not created yet. Alexysun (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both—@Alexysun and Certes:—for clarifying my concern! I will try to help you guys able to complete this article! Thanks, again! — Jack Reynolds(talk to me!)_{Happy New Year! and Goodbye 2020!} 19:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 Catalan regional election

The elections to the catalan parliament Will be celebrarem in the 14th of February Poleto75 (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

They're a domestic event for 2021 in Spain. Jim Michael (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed removals

I don't see either Michael McKevitt or Paul Westphal as internationally notable enough to merit inclusion in the list of Deaths. This needs to be kept to a manageable size to enable readers to view it properly. Deb (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how notable a terrorist group needs to be for its founder to be in the Deaths section.

Remove Westphal because he doesn't appear to have any international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The number of people killed by the Real IRA is, I think, disproportionate to its significance as an organisation. Deb (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Also Tommy Lasorda seems to have very limited international notability, although one or two contributors have been persistently adding him to all list articles. Deb (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

He won an Olympic gold medal, in addition to all he accomplished in MLB. That's international notability.

Yes, Olympic gold medal winners should always be included. Jim Michael (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Didn't even know baseball had ever been in the Olympics! :-) Deb (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have strong reservations about including Lasorda, who firstly *is* somebody who had limited international notability as Deb said. But as for the gold medal, Lasorda himself didn't personally win it; it was awarded to the American baseball team which he managed. From what I can gather, it was awarded to the team collectively rather than any one individual. I would still be in favour of Lasorda's removal. I also have slight reservations about Hank Aaron's inclusion, albeit to a much lesser extent. Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Aaron doesn't appear to have any international notability. He has articles in a large number of languages, but that can be attributed to interest by baseball fans in various countries. Jim Michael (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think he should stay. Matt Campbell (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

And he has 39-40 languages. Matt Campbell (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Does he have international notability, rather than merely having had fans in many countries? Jim Michael (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking me?Matt Campbell (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, or anyone else who knows. Like most readers of WP, I hadn't heard of him until I found out that he'd died. I can see that his career made him important in his sport & he's rightfully listed on 2021 in the United States, but does he have any international notability? I find it bizarre that an octogenarian who died naturally over 44 y after retiring has a blurb on ITN, but to be listed on here requires international notability, such as winning an important international event. Jim Michael (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

International notability doesn't mean that at all, it means that they were known internationally. If someone passes away and we only find obituaries in their home country, that suggests they don't have it. If we find prominent obituaries in a dozen countries around the world, that suggests that they do, regardless of whether their actual achievements were limited to their home country. And really - very, very few people get a full story in ITN when they pass away. Indeed, his was the lead image on our Main Page until a few hours ago [1]. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

By that definition, many people who have no international notability could be added because they have fans in other countries. For sportspeople & entertainers, the list would be huge. A sport, film or TV series being shown on TV internationally will often gain fans outside their countries for their participants. Jim Michael (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Surely though, if someone is "popular" in a particular country (or even just well-known - there are internationally famous criminals, for example), they are by definition notable (not in the Wiki sense) to the people in that country? A musician that sells lots of records, or a novelist that sells lots of books, for example. I find that a good metric is obituaries in good-quality sources from multiple countries, that aren't just reprints of an AP or Reuters newsfeed, for example. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Just seen this discussion after looking through the page history, seeing who added that outright ridiculous tag. Aaron has a Britannica - the high standard of encyclopedias and this list having a stricter criteria than the Britannica is a joke, Aaron as per the Britannica is PERMANENTLY in the history of the gold standard of English language encyclopedias that historians will always use as a reference point - is being listed in the 2021 wiki page really such a leap after that? There should be a established rule - Britannica listings mean automatic entry - to stop this ridiculousness. To be one of the few blurbs and (only one out of these listed figures) and not qualify is laughable. To add to, Colin Bell [2] - automatically presumed notable gets less international attention than Aaron [3], despite the obvious advantage to Bell - Aaron's article got more attention in European languages too (and dominated in Asia). Added with historical notability as a civil rights figure - one begs to wonder why the white guy is automatically presumed more notable (even better, Colin Bell despite being British does not have a Britannica). Not every American sports figure is unimportant - i say this as a Australian. There's many in the Britannica and we should never be more restrictive than them for a lesser page like this one. GuzzyG (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Race & nationality shouldn't come into it. No-one appears to be assumed to be internationally notable.

If Aaron's civil rights activism were international, that would justify his inclusion on this article.

Bell scored goals playing for England. Jim Michael (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yet, scoring goals for England never seems to help people care to look up Bell, more people internationally look up the "regional" baseball player. One begs to wonder why a player whose "international" goals against Wales, Scotland, West Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia and Brazil matter any less than baseballs popularity as the most popular sport in Japan and Venezuela, or it's popularity in Cuba, Mexico and the Dominican Republic or are countries like Wales and Scotland more important in a international sense? (and other Euro countries mainly) the bigger deciding factor of a "international" nobility compared to Japan or Mexico or Venezuela per se because that's three continents? Because the pageviews for Colin Bell are pathetic internationally if so. Your method puts Shane Heams ahead of Aaron because he won a Olympic gold (of which noone actually cares about). This ridiculous method results in complete historical nobodies like Eusébio Scheid, Kathleen Heddle and Jean-Pierre Bacri who will never amount to anything in a historical sense, be seen as a better global representative than people who are legitmately top rank in their field (and Americas primary cultural contributions are nearly always mentioned to be Baseball/Jazz), to think people like Tanya Roberts are more automatically notable because they participated in acting, a international thing - when she holds no claim to any importance in it as a field rather than the legitimate pioneer of a more local thing is ridiculous - as long as baseball is prominent in America (arguably its most mythologized sport along with stuff like Sabermetrics being a practical re-occuring analysis of stats) Aaron will always be of top rank importance. Tanya Roberts being a character actor means nothing and holds no strict importance to global/American culture. This list is just a hodgepodge of people who are largely nobodies with no strict historical importance - them just participating in a field with lots of participants in a global sense (but noone cares about the figures). A better representative of global culture is to show off people who are actually popular in their countries primary culture influences. It shows the pointless endeavor of trying to appeal to a so-called global culture. Fado is a highly regional music genre and yet it's good we list Carlos do Carmo as it's a better example of Portugal's culture rather than a character actor who appeared in a couple of roles - the same goes that Carmo isn't more important than Amália Rodrigues just because he participated in a international competition (Eurovision) either. It's a rather tabloid and ridiculous view of history to think that brief appearances in international competitions, average titleholders, international goals against wales or in friendlies mean anything in history or retain long term interest in comparison to heavy regional importance. GuzzyG (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Our standard for inclusion on the main year articles such as this one isn't popularity, it's international notability. Had Aaron played professionally in &/or against other countries he'd be internationally notable. Some sports have far more fans than others & we have far more readers in some countries than others. An Olympic gold medal proves significant international notability, but if they were won in a sport that isn't popular, their articles are unlikely to have a high number of readers. A successful/popular sportsperson who never played in or against countries other than his/her own is likely to have a high number of readers if they're from a country that has many WP readers & their sport has millions of fans.

Merely competing in Eurovision doesn't gain significant international notability, but winning it does. Jim Michael (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• My problem with having a absolute rule that Britannica automatically = inclusion is that, inevitably, people will use the corollary to say that non-inclusion on Britannica is a reason for removing someone. As you can see from Talk:2020/Archive_2#Firm_proposal, there are some quite bizarre gaps from Britannica. However, in this case, Aarons is very obviously notable for this list. Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It's bizarre that many important figures are absent from Britannica; I agree we can't use them as a guide of importance. Jim Michael (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but in cases that are so slam dunk being questioned, one begs to wonder if something is needed, unless this list aims to be one of character actors and cardinals of no actual importance, compared to someone who will be around as long as their field is. GuzzyG (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I must admit that I had actually heard of Hank Aaron, and bearing in mind that I have no interest whatsoever in baseball, that's saying something. I could probably list the baseball players I've heard of on the fingers of one hand. As for Colin Bell, yes, he was well-known in the UK at the time he was playing, but he'd have been lucky to be named in the UK's top ten footballers even at the time. The fact is, the UK has thousands of professional footballers, dozens of whom have played for England or one of the other home countries. I believe they should be household names in order to be included here. Colin Bell is borderline. Deb (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we all reach a consensus around Michael McKevitt please? I'm sick of reverting his edits on here. I want to get to the bottom of this. The Optimistic One (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• McKevitt is borderline IMO, the RIRA are clearly a notable terrorist organisation and he was one of only two founders (the other being his wife). I would lean towards inclusion but I'm not going to be too bothered if he isn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Was his wife also founding member as well? Didn't know that. Also, he was quite high up in the Provisional IRA. Clearly notable to me. The Optimistic One (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

People who are "high up in the Provisional IRA" very rarely admit to it. How do you identify who is "high up" and who isn't? His name is not well known outside Ireland, or perhaps even inside it. Deb (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That was obviously the case whilst the PIRA were a proscribed terrorist organisation, but since the GFA a lot of books and other sources have been written about the group. McKevitt was IRA Quartermaster General for over 10 years. (Incidentally, I can assure you that his name is very well known - notoriously so - in both Northern Ireland [4] and Ireland [5]). Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Tommy Lasorda is internationally important

Moving this to a new section for the benefit of the disruptive editing of @Thescrubbythug:.

Lasorda is internationally known. ESPN's Australian website announced his passing as an example. See here. The UK also reported it. See here. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:7D39:997E:B26D:A1E0 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional international note - he received the Order of the Rising Sun in Japan in 2008. Add another country to the list who knew of him. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

And the Japanese source I added here 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't initially intend to respond, but because this unregistered user has not stopped reverting the importance tag on Lasoda and as of late has been sending me messages on *my* talk page harassing me to "leave it", I feel compelled to speak up. I actually had already fully written this up but lost it when I tried to submit it because this user edited before I sent it through, deleting his contribution which I had been responding to, and starting this section. I don't think Lasoda is notable enough for inclusion for this page, and I don't think he is for the reasons initially outlined by Deb and Jim Michael. The Australian source you use for example is from a website dedicated to international sports, and is not a mainstream source - it would be like for example me using an [Ultimate Classic Rock] source to justify the inclusion of an obscure (by mainstream standards) backing musician. While it is true that Lasoda did receive the Japanese order, it is also well-established that baseball is a major sport in Japan, as it is in the United States (and few other countries). The fact of the matter is, in the grand scheme of things Lasoda was not a historically significant figure in his field of sport (which itself is not very widely played internationally) like Hank Aaron was, nor was he a household name even in the United States or Japan. The inclusion of figures like Lasoda would in my view set a precedent where sports figures with little international significance for fields of sports which aren't widely played internationally would automatically be included. That's my view on the inclusion of Lasoda, and as of now there has been no consensus in favour of Lasoda's inclusion - hence the importance tag. You (and you alone) have constantly been reverting edits and removing the importance tag despite the fact that there is no consensus in favour of Lasoda's unequivocal inclusion. I should also note that this is an unregistered, first time user who has not edited before. Your edits so far have been disruptive, aggressive, and characterised by a refusal to accept the basic protocol of waiting for a consensus before making such edits. You've already given your two cents, now leave it and Stop sending me personal messages on my Talk page confronting me over this, and stop editing the Lasoda entry until other users have contributed and a consensus has been reached. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Highly disruptive reply totally ignoring ESPN's worldwide presence and therefore absolutely a mainstream source well beyond the irrelevant example you gave. Clear bias against Lasorda here for unknown reasons totally ignoring the Daily Mail and Nikkei sources that demonstrate knowledge of Lasorda from outside the United States. The claim that he was not well known even within the US is insulting. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

ESPN may be international, but it *is* America-based, and is specifically a niche news source. Two international news sources (one of which is from a country where as stated, baseball is a major sport) does not equate widespread notability - nor does it suggest that Lasoda was at all a household name outside of baseball fan circles. The only disruptive edits over this issue has been from yourself, and I have accordingly reported you over your behaviour. My advice to you is the same as what I said from the beginning: Back off and wait for other users to give their two cents so that a consensus (that isn't one-man) is reached without the Talk page being spammed by you. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

ESPN has an office in Sydney so no your argument doesn't wash. And it is NOT a niche news source unless you are calling all sport a "niche". That's insulting to sport and to all sports sources. All this requires is international coverage in any country (multiple and I have given three) and it qualifies as worthy of inclusion. Oh and you removing this section entirely wasn't disruptive as well as removing sources from an article page? What goes around comes around, especially here!. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The removal of this section was an accident on my part which was a result of me attempting to post my original comment in response to your Lasoda comments on the original thread, but was unable to be posted because in the intervening period you deleted said contribution and started this new section. ESPN has a Sydney office but they still originate from, and are based in America - and it *is* niche because it deals with just sports and is only used by people interested in sports. I'm not going to dignify the rest (or any subsequent response of yours that you will almost certainly post) with any further responses. I've given my two cents, and you have yours - but it doesn't matter what I say at the end because you're still going to continue with your disruptive behaviour and you're not going to wait a reasonable time for other users to respond before once again moving to remove the importance tag. Do your own thread a favour and back off so that others are given a chance to respond. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Your clear bad faith here has me not believing your claim about the deletion. ESPN have had original Australian content by the way so again your argument fails. ESPN Australia backs that up. And again you insult sport calling it "niche". All you are doing is showing in blazing lights that you have a personal issue with Lasorda's inclusion. Do yourself a favour and leave it be because it is you who is being disruptive. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment:' Whilst I don't agree that Lasorda is internationally notable - most baseball players are little known outside the US - he did win a gold medal (albeit a team medal) at the Olympics. Since only eight countries participated in that competition, I don't consider this such a remarkable achievement, but one might argue that the number of baseball players in the US is so huge that he was notable merely for making the team. The consensus in the previous discussion seemed to be to include him, and I have no choice but to go along with that. God knows what will happen if we start including everyone who ever won a team gold medal in the Year articles, but that's another discussion. Deb (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Just in case anyone else is wondering I have found more sources from outside the United States showing coverage and backing his international standing. Two from Canada here and here, another from Japan here and would you believe one from Turkey here. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:D064:CEB7:621C:116A (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

• January 6–7
  • 2020–2021 United States election protests – Four people die and at least 14 police officers are injured after supporters of President Donald Trump overrun the U.S. Capitol Building, forcing Congress to evacuate. At least 52 people are arrested. Congress later reconvenes and formally certifies Joe Biden as the next President of the United States in the early morning hours of January 7. Trump's social media accounts are blocked by Twitter and Facebook after tweeting to supporters who attacked the Capitol. Facebook later banned Trump from all platforms indefinitely (including Instagram), at least until Trump's presidential term ends.
  • During the Electoral College count, Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Paul Gosar object to the state of Arizona's results, the first time a vote is forced to accept or reject the objection since 2004, when Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Barbara Boxer objected to George W. Bush's victory in Ohio against John Kerry. President Trump has promised an "orderly transition" of power to Joe Biden.
• January 7 – Elon Musk becomes the world's richest person, with a net worth exceeding $185bn, ahead of Jeff Bezos. 2A02:C7F:D2B8:9D00:1821:B3DF:C53D:563B (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The first is a domestic event for 2021 in the United States. International media coverage & criticism doesn't make it an international event. It has no effect on the rest of the world.

I don't see why we should include a change of world's richest person. Jim Michael (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Seagull123 Φ 22:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

• January 11 – The United States re-lists Cuba as State Sponsors of Terrorism. President Obama removed Cuba from the list in 2015. 2A02:C7F:D2B8:9D00:6017:BDAD:57B7:ACD2 (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Seagull123 Φ 22:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice

I’m removing the ‘additional citations template’ since this article has good citations now. If you think this is wrong, please re-add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsi20 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Date format

Not to nitpick or anything, but one thing I've noticed about these yearly pages is the date format - specifically using "month, day, year" (January 1) for dates of events and deaths. Given that the overwhelming majority of countries, including in the English-speaking world, uses "day, month, year" (1 January), shouldn't the yearly pages such as this one reflect that and the "month, day, year" format be confined to those countries that use it in their respective year in topics? Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikihelp7586: before you go ahead and start an edit war by reverting again, feel free to have your say here. The changes have been in place for a little while now on this page, and so far there had been no objections and if you check the edit history, you have regular editors on this page like MrMimikyu1998 who have voiced their agreement in retaining the dmy format over a date format used by only a handful of countries. Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thescrubbythug: ok I'll won't start a edit war I was just trying to keep things consistent since all the yearly articles before 2021 used the MM/DD format but now when I think of it most English speaking countries use the DD/MM format instead of the MM/DD so I get it now. Wikihelp7586 (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

All the main year articles should have the same format. Jim Michael (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thescrubbythug: These changes are not acceptable. There is a whole Wikiproject, whose members should be informed and consulted, and also a Manual of Style which might have to be changed. Getting consensus for such wholesale changes may be possible, but you're not going to find it easy. Deb (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The naming we use for articles is January 1, not 1 January, so I think it makes sense to reflect that here. There is no year in most of the dates listed, only month and day, and I think putting the month first makes more sense. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Should that be the case for all the subarticles of articles such as this one, such as 2021 in China & 2021 in science? Jim Michael (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

‎Clarification request for VP and President inauguration

Given that the VP sworn in is the first Asian, Black and the first woman in US history, won't it be fitting to place Harris in addition to Biden in the inauguration? Awaiting for opinions. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No, because international notability is the bar for inclusion here. 2021 in the United States is the place for including that. Jim Michael (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, have followed up. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year

This year Chinese New Year will be widely celebrated on 12th February.

"The Chinese year will start on Feb 12 2021 and end on Feb 1 2022, when the Year of the Tiger begins."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/chinese-new-year-2021-ox-luck-should-avoid-medicine-laundry

In Vietnam and Mongolia the festival is celebrated on different days (the day before and the day after, respectively).

"When Is Chinese New Year 2021?"

https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/common/chinese-new-year

YEAR OF THE METAL OX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ox_in_Chinese_mythology

There are already pages on Wikipedia for the Five Phases and the Twelve Earthly Branches.

FIVE PHASES

Wood | Fire | Earth | Metal | Water

TWELVE EARTHLY BRANCHES

Rat | Ox | Tiger | Rabbit | Dragon | Snake | Horse | Goat | Monkey | Rooster | Dog | Pig

Bearing in mind the significance of the Chinese POV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users) would my fellow Wikipedians agree with me that there is good enough reason to have a separate page for each year in the sexagenary cycle? Dbug002 (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Not on this world article, although some of that could be important enough for articles such as 2021 in China. Jim Michael (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: Thank you ! I have copied my query here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_in_China#Happy_New_Year Dbug002 (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"Allegedly"

I am doing this as part 3 of WP:BRD. I believe the word "allegedly" is fine in the item re:second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, given WP:NPOV and the fact whether or not what he said was inciteful is part of the trial, until if and when the case is proven by the managers of the impeachment. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2021

February 14 - Daytona 500. It is a race at Daytona International Speedway and is one of the most famous sporting events in the world so it deserves to be mentioned. Oraro21 (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Gaioa (T C L) 10:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That's for 2021 in sports & 2021 in the United States, not here. Jim Michael (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Tony Collins

Is there any chance of a discussion starting about this one, rather than him bouncing in and out of the article like a spacehopper? Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Exclude due to him having no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree - just an ordinary club footballer. Deb (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

@Thescrubbythug and Wjfox2005: Could we discuss this one here, please? My 2p - like George Shultz, much as I am aware of the creeping American bias that often appears on this page, I think Limbaugh passes this bar - he has articles in over 20 other languages "Rush+Limbaugh"+site:wikipedia.org+-site:en.wikipedia.org and a number of obits from around the world in quality RS (although, admittedly, not as many as I would have expected). Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is taken to the absurd, this page needs a better criteria; Limbaugh has a Britannica, and once again - despite what some editors think - we are not above them. Captain Tom Moore is no more a domestic British figure, the only difference is that he's a hero and Limbaugh is the opposite. The way this list isn't consistent with what other, more professional encyclopedias do stands out as strikingly odd and more akin to The scrubby thug's personal opinion than any hard/set criteria. This dumb "country" criteria flat out contributes to a bias in this list in favour of Europe, in which many figures happen to become popular across all of Europe, yet figures like Tochinoumi Teruyoshi, of supreme cultural importance to a major country get left out because of this dumb rule. A Japanese, Chinese and Nigerian cultural figure would have to jump through more loops to qualify because their culture isn't structured like Europe, where it's semi shared and leads to completely historically unrelevant people like Giuseppe Rotunno being listed. I am strongly against this rule for this matter and against this list being a little fiefdom of personal opinion, we should go by professional encyclopedias at the very least. Most of the core figures to history are rooted by the importance to their society. Using Australia, Thescrubbythug's methodology would place Alex Dimitriades as having more importance than Ned Kelly (a one country figure) due to their field's supposed international value. It creates a lesser list of people with no actual importance and creates a difference to what professional encyclopedias cover and what this list represents. GuzzyG (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"My point was that his main point of influence was domestic and that any international recognition he had was due to US media influence. The fact of the matter is, had he come from any other country or if we were dealing with somebody who was his equivalent elsewhere, he would never be considered for inclusion here. Enough with the Americanism here." I also thought i might address this bad take of our coverage of radio figures on these lists. (he was primarily a radio host which is where he was a political commentator); for top tier radio broadcasters in other countries (doing English language speaking ones, because Scrubbythug's own philosophy would discredit any other language, because radio is by definition a regional thing and other languages have lesser chance). Terry Wogan is listed in 2016 deaths. John Peel is listed in 2004, ironically Scrubbythug's own philosophy would keep out nationally prominent figures of radio in his own country like Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) and Kyle Sandilands because Australia is more of a remote country - his own rule fulfilling his argument). Radio figures of a bygone age like Jack Benny is covered in 1974, Alan Freed is listed in 1975 and Arthur Godfrey is covered in 1983. Even less major (but still important, but not the most listened like Limbaugh) radio figures like Art Bell is listed on 2018 and Wolfman Jack is listed on 1995 - so not only was this an inaccurate take on radio history and a faulty edit reasoning, not including Rush is the break in what's normal. These could be removed, but that would be to prove a point and would be a shame because radio is a valid field and it's regional nature should not discredit it totally. Howard Stern would be listed and concurrent radio figures like Charlamagne tha God should be listed too. It seems like radio figures are traditionally listed and despite being a bad person (i would have the same infoboxes as Scrubbythug if i cared for infoboxes), that doesn't mean we should treat a radio figure different than any other. We should go by precedent, not pick and choose. GuzzyG (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

He was famous around the world. This is sufficient enough for inclusion here. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is dominated by "jobsworths" like Thescrubbythug, who get some sort of kick out of enforcing their ultra-strict, inflexible, and excessive interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines, and seem to delete everything that doesn't meet their impossibly high criteria. I wasn't even a fan of Limbaugh btw – I think the guy was a vile and degenerate POS, but he surely deserves a mention here for being such a well-known and recognised figure globally. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the personal “jobsworth” dig. Firstly I would like to make perfectly clear that while I list my personal views and values with infoboxes on my main page, I make it a priority to keep partisan political biases completely out of my editing here (which you can observe if you look through my edit history, specifically to do with Australian politics where I help improve articles to do with political figures and governments on both sides of the political spectrum). My objection with Limbaugh’s inclusion (with an image, no less) had absolutely nothing to do with political differences. I didn’t think Limbaugh should have been included because he was largely a domestic American figure with limited influence beyond his own country and any mainstream international notability being on the basis of the prominence of US media internationally (e.g. with his guest appearances on Family Guy, which of course is internationally popular), or among people with an interest in the American political scene. Like, GuzzyG mentioned Alan Jones who is arguably the Australian equivalent of Limbaugh in practically every way possible. Nobody would have made any attempt to include a figure like Jones (with an image, too) on the main yearly page in the event of his death because he’s not American. As Black Kite hinted at, Wikipedia has enough issues as is with being America-centric - hell, a lot of these main yearly pages use the “mdy” date format when said format is not widely used outside the US (but I digress). I believe it’s also an issue with Britannica, where for example they have pages for American domestic political figures that have little international notability and significance (such as Howard Dean and Bill Bradley, neither of whom would have been included if they held the exact equivalent positions in almost any other country). As for the rest of the radio figures mentioned, I honestly haven’t looked strongly into it (and in general haven’t looked through much of the previous yearly pages), but I certainly wouldn’t have objected to Jack Benny, John Peel, and (in the event of his passing) Howard Stern given their cultural significance and international recognition and notability. I am in agreement with GuzzyG that there should be more international cultural variety on these lists, and in no way should it become Europe-centric (let alone continue in any way with being America-centric). It would be fantastic to work out some sort of guidelines to help make it work, instead of mainly playing it by ear. But getting back to Limbaugh, if there’s a consensus in favour of inclusion (which is looking as of now very firmly in favour), I’ll respect said consensus (though I still firmly disagree with him warranting an image). Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

He was a domestic figure, so he should be on 2021 in the United States but not here. Although he was known of in many other countries, he had no significant influence in any of them. Jim Michael (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If we're gonna place our personal opinion over established literature like the Britannica, how would you explain Captain Tom Moore then? If you cite his war career, would everyone who serves have "significant influence" in the country they serve in? Would Burmese history books have him? I'd say Rush's 17,000 hits on google scholar [6]; examining his negative effects on conservatism in the US, leading to Trump leading to international far right populists like Jair Bolsonaro etc; which one would say is a pretty strong, although negative influence. Since i track google scholar results for various figures (among other results tracking importance) as a full time hobby; i can tell you no other radio host has entered academia like that; Howard Stern only has 5k hits and that's because there's a scientist with the name [7]. If Limbaugh is removed, i'm going to remove every other American radio host; because there's never been one so widely analyzed who has had a real effect in something like politics. (which is bigger than popularity). Any worldwide study of far rights politics will include Trump and the foremost figure that lead to Trump in the US is Limbaugh, that influence is wide reaching (and will most certainly be written about internationally, especially since the study of American politics will be more widespread than whatever academic study that brings up a name like Tanya Roberts and i would doubt a character actor would be written about and analyzed in academia). I'm strongly against the common opinion on here that seems to favour pop culture subjects like Roberts against figures who are mentioned in traditional encyclopedias and subjects of academic study - that matters more to me than personal opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm struggling to think of any radio hosts (of any nationality) who are important enough to list on any of the main Year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This list should have a higher standard than what one person struggles to think of. GuzzyG (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

My point is that it's rare for a radio host to be important enough to include. Jim Michael (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"I believe it’s also an issue with Britannica, where for example they have pages for American domestic political figures that have little international notability and significance" No surprise there. Despite its name, Encyclopædia Britannica has been under American ownership since 1901. As the main article says, it is aimed primarily to a North American audience. Concerning its coverage, only 14% of its articles are biographical ones.09:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

Yes, which is one of the reasons that we can't use it as a guide to international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Precisely my point, yes - regardless of whatever agreement or disagreement we may have on Limbaugh or radio hosts in general. Particularly for that key reason, Britannica should be treated as important, but not the be-all and end-all as far as inclusion here goes. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection request

I suggest that the next time you will protect the 2021 page from editing, it should be indefinite to prevent excessive disruptive editing. TheRafaMarc15 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not necessary - there are quite frequent outbreaks of edit-warring & vandalism, but most of them are brief. It's not a continuous problem. Jim Michael (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in lead section

A user is repeatedly renaming the reference to the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section to "SARS-CoV-2 pandemic". However, I'm fairly sure that this isn't the correct name, and everywhere else on Wikipedia, including the COVID-19 pandemic article and the 2020 article, when mentioning the pandemic, have "COVID-19 pandemic". The user has been accused of disruptive editing on other articles and they don't seem to learn from their warnings. Can we reach a consensus on the name and make sure that it doesn't change? Steinmetz2001 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

We dont really need a consensus we just need to follow the naming of the related article COVID-19 pandemic, if that changes name then we can follow. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

300 million vaccinations worldwide

The 300 million doses administrated worldwide didn't happened in 8th March but 6th March. As by 6 March the number of vaccinations was at least 300.19 Million.(User:Apvbulg) — Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Entries proposed for removal

• Phil Chisnall, footballer - his only international appearances were at junior level. Deb (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove - he only had 1 international appearance, which was in an U23 team. Jim Michael (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree in removal. Minor international coverage. Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep: Played in the First Division, first for Manchester United as one of the Busby Babes and then for Liverpool. The two most decorated clubs in England and two of the most followed clubs globally. Also in the history books for being the last player to transfer directly between the two North-West clubs. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That's all domestic. A club having many gloryhunting fans in other countries doesn't denote real international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I hadn't actually noticed he was there, or I'd have removed him myself. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the definition of international events?

I've noticed that some events, no matter how high the death toll or how horrific the damage was, it can not be included in the event section as it was not an "international event", according to some observers. I would like more explanation on the definition of this so-called "international event" and what makes it as "international" so that we can have the same perception and avoid future conflicts. Anyone care to explain?PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

An event that has a real, substantial effects on at least 2 countries. For example, a flood which kills 2,000 people in one country & 1,000 in another. Or major military action taken by one country against another. Or an important conference of world leaders in which important international trade is discussed. The 2020 Beirut explosion is considered to have been international because it greatly affected international trade & was responded to by help given on the ground by other countries & international orgs. The Suez Canal obstruction was a major international event because it delayed by days the movement of thousands of ships which were on international journeys.

A domestic event such as a mass shooting, transport accident, flood etc. isn't international simply because some other countries' media report it in their news coverage or other countries' government ministers give their condemnation / solidarity / condolences / money in response. Those reactions are standard & don't significantly affect countries other than the one that the event took place in. The domestic events that are most often wrongly being added to this article are 2 that took place in Indonesia in Jan - an earthquake that didn't affect any other country & a plane crash of a domestic flight. The place for such events to be listed is the subarticles, such as 2021 in Indonesia. Jim Michael (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, this makes things more clearer. Thank you for your answer. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Consistency

I am genuinely puzzled by what consistent yardstick N'Singa Udjuu is supposed to merit inclusion on the list of deaths but Shirley Williams does not. I thought we had a yardstick that someone merited inclusion if they had articles on nine other Wikipedias, if so Williams passes but Udjuu does not. Some people seem to be suggesting that she is purely a domestic political figure, but if so then there are a lot of people on this list who are purely domestic figures. PatGallacher (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This "yardstick" it's not everytime useful as there's a lot of Prime Ministers that have less than 9 non-English Wiki articles. N'Singa Udjuu was one of them. Shirley Williams notability it's pretty unknown outside the United Kingdom. What did she did for the country to make here an important figure? Founding a party it's not, at least for me, enough. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Heads of state/government are always important enough for inclusion due to their inherent international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the formation of the SDP by the "Gang of Four", of which she was part, was an important event in recent British political history. She was also a cabinet minister for a few years. PatGallacher (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

She was undoubtedly important in the UK, but has no international notability - hence she should be on 2021 in the United Kingdom, but not on here. Jim Michael (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The other thing I didn’t understand was how a purely domestic figure like Ramsey Clark, who was an American Cabinet minister, was included for several days without question while someone like Williams - who was a far more significant figure within her own country - was virtually almost immediately removed. Hell, if I were to include Andrew Peacock, who was an extremely significant political figure in Australia who served two times as Opposition leader (but lost two elections); who served as a high profile Foreign Minister; and who played an important role in the lead up to the independence of Papua New Guinea.... he would be removed almost out of hand. Meanwhile if it was a domestic American figure who lost a Presidential election, there would be no debate for inclusion here. It’s like one set of standards for one country, and another set for others. Thescrubbythug (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You spelled his name wrong. Matt Campbell (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Summit

nobelprize.org Is it eligible as an "international" event? _TheKuygerian^contribs
_userpage 00:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Walter Mondale & other Vice Presidents/Deputy leaders (Result: Mondale borderline inclusion; inclusion criteria for politicians that came in the wake of the Mondale discussions implemented)

With Walter Mondale's passing, who was of course the Vice President of the United States to Jimmy Carter, it will be inevitable that people will try to add him here (for the record he hasn't been added to the 2021 in the United States page yet at the time of writing). However, there's been significant precedent in the past on talk sections here of not including figures who were Vice Presidents or Deputy Prime Ministers of various nations (or people who served as Opposition leaders but never won an election), generally sticking to just those who served as head of state/government, which is how figures such as Doug Anthony were originally omitted. Curious to hear what people say, and why Mondale in particular should be an exception? More specifically, it'd be good to work out some sort of standard for who should be included as far as these figures go, rather than having one rule for figures of a particular country, and another for everywhere else. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support John McCain was added in 2018 death section and he was both a party presidential nominee and U.S. Senator. Mondale was the US VICE PRESIDENT (second in command) and also a party presidential nominee. It's a no brainer. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • But therein lies the issue. With virtually any other country, Vice Presidents or deputy heads of government/state are almost never included. Nor are failed major party candidates/nominees. That's basically the nub of the issue here, as I explained in the original comment above. So not quite a no-brainer as you suggest. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Thescrubbythug: So remove McCain from 2018 then. It think its odd to have a US Senator and party nominee in one death section but not a former Vice President (which ranks higher) and party nominee in another death section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • If there is a consensus along those lines for removing him, then yes I would support that too. But having this sort of discussion first would be important as well before making such a move. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I would argue the other way around, a U.S. senator is on a death section but not a Vice President of that same country? I think all Vice Presidents from any country should be included as they are: second in line, high ranking in their country, and would be influential. It would also avoid the the argument of why an actress is listed but not a former US Vice President. In the 2018 page there were no discussion of having a US Senator placed on the death section so I would assume Mondale should be at least added and then the discussion continue as to remove him or not. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I have in past argued in favour of including second in line political figures of different countries, though other users have consistently argued against it in various cases, with the argument being that they're *only* the Deputy rather than being the actual head of government/state. Most of all, I'd like to see some form of consistency when it comes to these sorts of inclusions. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I would argue in some cases the Vice President is directly elected alongside the President if not separate but still elected by the public such as in India where the VP is also another influential figure. I would argue for their inclusion still. However, then the argument still comes: why an actress is listed but not a former US Vice President? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
        • The actress matter seems to be a separate issue entirely, as they seem to get added on here under different criteria, particularly if said actors/actresses are significant within non-English speaking countries. But yeah.... hell, an Australian Deputy Prime Minister, who is similarly elected alongside the Prime Minister (albeit in a legislative election) was deemed not suitable for inclusion here at the end of last year.... and he, who was also a direct contemporary of Mondale's was the longest-serving figure in the post. As for the Ambassador point, they're rarely included in any case - particularly if that is their most notable position (which obviously isn't the case for Mondale). Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I just want to add that if we want to talk about how " famous " a person is outside of his or her home country, Mondale served as Ambassador to Japan in the 1990s, and Asian newspapers have spoken about his death; https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/04/20/world/walter-mondale-dies/

• • That can be another measure, similar to how In the News measure what's blurb worthy, if a Vice President's death garners global coverage they should be listed here. Mondale's death is being reported globally as did McCain when he died in 2018: Mondale's obits so far include: BBC, Japan Times, Sydney News Today, South China Morning Post, The Times of Israel, Toronto Sun, etc. I believe if there is a global coverage on a person's death they should be included. For lack of a better example let's say when former Indian VP Mohammad Hamid Ansari dies and he attains a global obit coverage that would signify the impact he had on Indian politics so would merit inclusion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The one issue with that is that in Mondale's (and McCain's) case, the fact that he happened to be from the United States automatically meant that he would get wide international coverage due to the position he held, whereas this is rarely the case for those with equivalent positions from most other countries. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support I don't even know why we are even having a talk page discussion on this matter questioning his eligibility to be included. Mondale had many internationally notable held political offices and events during his career as he is one of the most notable recent vice presidents in American history and was also widely notable for his 1984 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan. Mondale also was a U.S. senator and a Ambassador to Japan under Bill Clinton. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The reasons why a discussion is being held has already been outlined - which is that Vice Presidents/Deputy Leaders or Opposition Leaders/Presidential candidates who did not win of most countries are typically not included. The fact that he happened to be a Senator and/or an Ambassador is irrelevant. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

    Thescrubbythug, It is not irrelevant as it establishes multiple verified points of notability for the deceased subject and his reason for entry. People that are put in the death section here are usually notable on an international level outside of their native country or had a large notable impact in their own country, as with Mondale, serving as the 42nd Vice President, U.S. Senator and Ambassador to Japan. I don't get these cutthroat attempts of a standard when it comes to death entries when any person with sem-notability can be entered into the birth sections on the year articles without pushback. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

    • • It is irrelevant in that the fact he was a Senator or an Ambassador has zero relevance when it comes to eligibility here, as holding such positions alone - be it American or otherwise - doesn't make someone automatically eligible for inclusion. For example Andrew Peacock, who also died a few days ago and was a contemporary of Mondale's, meets most of the criteria that Mondale fits - he was a prominent leading politician of his nation who served as a senior minister, an Opposition leader who ran (unsuccessfully) as leader of his party in *two* elections, and served as an Ambassador to the United States, and he hasn't been included - and would more than likely be removed if somebody did include him. How is it that there is one set of standards for American politicians here, and a different one for everyone else? Hell, even with the VP title, you could look at what users such as Alsoriano97 have said in the past about other deputy heads of government that were ultimately excluded, which is that he's "just a deputy". Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

        Thescrubbythug,You still seem to not acknowledge and counter the fact that he is notable outside of the United States for his political offices which is the key basis for inclusion in the year articles. And you don't understand the notability can be inherited from A person's secondary accolades and events, as with Mondale. That seems to be the issue with you, as you're not comprehending that people can be notable for more than one event or accolade as with for example, Shaquille O'Neal or Kanye West. Sure Shaq is mostly known for his basketball career, but he also has notability from his acting and rap career. And quoting other users to attempt to establish validation in your claims is not persuading, The Vice President is the second highest office in The United States and that is nothing to scoff at or discredit for Mondale's notability internationally. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

        • My whole issue is that had Mondale been a figure from virtually any other country, and held the same equivalent sorts of positions, he wouldn't have had much chance of getting included. The fact of the matter is that American political figures are included far easier and far more automatically in the main pages than non-American figures, and that it is often the case that those who hold equivalent positions internationally rarely get added. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• SUPPORT Vice President al-Douri of Iraq died last October and is included in the October 2020 death section on the 2020 page. If al-Douri can be included, why can’t Mondale? - PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• • As far as I know, al-Douri was included for different reasons - in other words, his notability did not come from that position. But this does also goes to show the inconsistency when it comes to Vice Presidents/Deputy heads of government or state being included here. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • That is not the point. We are giving you examples of VPs being included in the death sections. You cannot brush them off as "besides the point". --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

John B. Anderson who ran for the United States Presidency in the 1980 Election as a independent was included on the December 2017 Death Section on the 2017 page..... yeah.

• • Your responses with "different reasons" seem to be ignoring the bottom line that these former VPs were included. You appear to be ignoring how notable and how much coverage Mondale is currently gaining on the global scale per @SomeBodyAnyBody05:. The bottom line is that Mondale is notable, some VPs were included in death sections, other politicians (including American politicians) have also been included and Mondale should follow. I think Mondale should be included and the discussion should be if he should be removed --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

BUT THAT'S MY POINT; if John B. Anderson can be included without any controversy, than why can't Mondale be included ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:991C:5F7C:66F9:DD7D (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• • I wasn't aware that Anderson was included to begin with, but I would have fully opposed it for the reasons outlined above had I been an active editor at the time. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• It does not matter if you were aware or not, Anderson was included with no trouble. Mondale should have followed the precedent and which is why he should be included in the 2021 section. McCain and Anderson, both candidates in the November presidential elections were added in death sections. Mondale, who not only was a VP but also the party nominee, follow their example. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Actually this goes straight to my point with the fact that McCain (who admittedly was a significant figure in American politics) and Anderson (who was not - at least nowhere near to the same extent) were included without trouble. Had we been dealing with equivalent figures elsewhere from other countries, they would have either not been included, or almost immediately removed. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• But this argument is about Mondale and his inclusion. If they were added with little to no opposition Mondale (a former VP and presidential nominee) should have followed that. Other VPs were included, not just Americans (Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri in 2020, Nickey Iyambo in 2019, Mohammed Fahim in 2014, Hassan Habibi in 2013, José Alencar in 2011 are some examples).--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree with your point which is why Mondale should be included. There appears to be a growing consensus to include him anyone with one vocal opposition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

TDKR Chicago 101, Yeah I'm pretty sure this will become a WP:SNOW discussion if this persists as Mondale passes the Notability mark with flying colors with his multiple notable political offices and events and the opposing editor has no stable argument against his inclusion here. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

SomeBodyAnyBody05 Exactly. I have included Mondale in the death section since there is a growing consensus for inclusion and one single opposition. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You claim that I have "no stable argument", when so far with the exception of TDKR Chicago 101 none of you have really responded to my point about how the vast majority of Vice Presidents/Deputy heads of government/state and/or candidates for the highest office who failed to win are excluded (who aren't from America), and how in the past users here have specifically vetoed figures who were the equivalent to Mondale from different countries because they were "just a Deputy leader". Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, You haven't came back with a rebuttal of how he is not notable internationally when spoiler alert, he is and he was one of the most influential vice presidents of the 20th century when combined with his full career. And you continue to use the other user's broken point that he is "just a deputy leader" when that is just plainly false. Here's a news article glossing over Mondale's impact in American politics and his notable presence outside of the United States [8]. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

To add to SomeBodyAnyBody05's point, in 2015 Joe Biden said that Mondale inspired him to be a good VP and as we all know Mr. Biden is another significant political figure in US history, aside from being incumbent President. Mondale is influential to American politics, was a prominent presidential nominee as he nominated the first female running mate, his death is gaining global coverage and served as a diplomat to a major country. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

TDKR Chicago 101, Your absolutely right on that and with the amount of factual information we are presenting to this editor to support his inclusion, This starting to become a situation of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT because he is discarding the fact of how many notable political offices Mondale held and his notable impact he had while he was alive and after his death. And notably that he was the first major party presidential nominee to nominate a woman as his running mate. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

SomeBodyAnyBody05 Which is why I added him to the death section seeing how many support his inclusion v one opposition. I'm calling for a WP:SNOW close. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Exclude Mondale - and others who held similar positions in governments anywhere in the world - due to a lack of international notability. Ambassadors aren't usually included, so that doesn't grant inclusion. Jim Michael (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with Jim Michael and User:Thescrubbythug. Are we willing to include every DPM of Spain, Italy, Greece, Lebanon, Portugal, Luxembourg...? I remark every because we would had to avoid any kind of discrimination. Year topic would became a "nightmare" of politicians. There's some exceptions that deserves particular debate like above-cited Al-Douri, who was the Saddam Hussein's right hand and was something more than just VP, or maybe Kamala Harris. But not Mondale. Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed - each year would be overwhelmed with such politicians. Articles such as 2021 in the United States are the place for such figures. All of the discussion in this section took place today. It'd be unlikely that anything like as many comments would be made in a discussion about whether or not to include the deputy of any other country's government. Jim Michael (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks BTW to both of you for understanding the basis of my original objection; that it was a matter of why Mondale and US Vice Presidents (or failed Presidential candidates) in general get to be automatically included on the main pages rather than just Year In Topic when the same standard rarely applies to international counterparts - even from English speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, etc. I also ping @TDKR Chicago 101: to inform him of the updates to this discussion thread, and whose earlier justification of WP:SNOW and "one opposition" comment can now be described as very premature.--Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

We would have to exclude John B. Anderson, John Mccain, and many US Politicians then. Unlike deputy leaders of most countries; the US Vice Presidency tends to have more international prominence and significance because of historical, political, and cultural reasons (The US being the World superpower is just a minor reason to be honest ). If Dick Cheney were to die right now, would we include him on the death list ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.12.209.248 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

John B. Anderson, John McCain & Dick Cheney should all be excluded from main year articles due to their insufficient international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure about Mccain though ? When he died, there were tributes coming from Vietnam, the UK, France, and multiple other countries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4_rbCCKPzU, https://www.dw.com/en/world-leaders-pay-tribute-to-us-senator-john-mccain/a-45232718.

His notability is higher than that of Mondale & Anderson. His military career & high profile made him well-known in many countries, so his death received a lot of international media coverage, but that doesn't mean he had significant international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Anderson shouldn't be included, full stop. He was a third party candidate with no international significance and who fell into obscurity (at least for those who don't avidly follow U.S. politics) in the decades after the 1980 election. How he was added without question at the time baffles me; particularly when you consider that more notable figures like Paddy Ashdown are excluded. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Most of our readers don't know the inclusion criteria. In many cases, a person is added to the deaths section but no-one removes them despite them having no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

How do we measure significant international notability though ? By the way, by your standard of reasoning, we would exclude most Catholic Cardinals from death lists, when they die, because other then their status as a Catholic Cardinal, they didnt do that much to significantly impact international news.

I removed Sebastian Koto Khoarai due to his lack of international notability. Being a cardinal doesn't denote international notability - the closest they're likely to come to that is voting for a new pope. If we were to include all of them, we'd have to include clergy of other denominations & religions. Jim Michael (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

But it also makes me question including Captain Sir Tom Moore on the death lists; is he internationally notable ?

Captain Tom Moore shouldn't be on this article either. Millions of people fought in international wars, so that is nowhere near sufficient to warrant inclusion. Jim Michael (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That is not where his fame mainly stems from. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

His charity work - which was domestic - wouldn't have happened had he not previously served in the armed forces. Jim Michael (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as Tom Moore is concerned, I don't think he warrants an image here, but his charity work over the last year did garner global attention (even if it was largely UK-centric), and that at least here in Australia, his work was widely covered. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The Australian media covers many British stories. Jim Michael (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

As a non-American, I think Wikipedia needs to stop treating all countries equally, the Vice President of the United States or any other such high American offices are much more significant than the deputy prime ministers of Spain, Italy, and so on, and even those I think should be included generally. The United States is an superpower and its politics have a clear effect on the happenings of the world. If Mondale is not significant enough for this article then I do not know who would be, that would also apply to Dick Cheney, a internationally and historically notable figure Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Heads of state/government are, deputies usually aren't. Jim Michael (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Lochglasgowstrathyre, I totally agree with pretty much your entire statement as deputy officials are not even hardly comparable in different countries in terms of international impact and notability. And with certain people like Mondale for example, He also has international notability and mass domestic notability for secondary held political offices and accolades such being the first major presidential candidate to nominate a woman as his running mate in his 1984 presidential election bid against Ronald Reagan and for his career as Minnesota's senator and ambassador to Japan. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The only part of that which has any international notability is his ambassador position, but being an ambassador is of insufficient importance to warrant inclusion. Jim Michael (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a place where there should be some attitude of American exceptionalism, where there's a different set of standards for American figures than for equivalent figures elsewhere. Hell, historically the Vice Presidential position was one considered to be of very little significance - John Nance Garner went on record to say that it was "not worth a bucket of warm piss" (although that's obviously changed since then, I don't agree with the argument that the U.S. Vice President is more significant than other deputy head of government/state positions purely because it's America). Furthermore @SomeBodyAnyBody05:, what's the international significance of Mondale being the first American nominee to put up a female VP candidate? Particularly since Margaret Thatcher had been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for five years up to that point, and there are various other examples of female heads of government internationally prior to 1984. I want to go on record by the way to say that none of what I have said on this page is reflective of my attitude towards Mondale himself - I personally had a lot of respect for the man and think that he in no way deserved to lose in the landslide that he did in 1984. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, I think quoting a obvious dated statement from FDR's first VP is not worth the note of the argument as you even state that the VP's role in government has evolved. And that is mostly due to Mondale, Just looks at these articles from reliable sources that go over how Mondale primarily innovated the Vice Presidency to what it is today

[9], [10]. And I've come to the solution that we need to personally asses each Vice President/ Deputy leader to see if they could be featured in the death section for the year articles, because some Vice Presidents are more notable than others, Like Al Gore would be way more internationally notable than say Nelson Rockefeller, who served as VP under Gerald Ford. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Gore has won very important awards, so he's notable enough to be included in the year he dies. Jim Michael (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, in the case of Al Gore I wouldn’t object, given that he is a Nobel Prize winner and has been well-known internationally for his work raising awareness on climate change (prominent work such as An Inconvenient Truth). Someone like Dan Quayle, on the other hand, shouldn’t be included. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exclude politicians who haven't been head of state or government, unless they're internationally notable for something else. Jim Michael (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Which then brings us to the question.... what is Walter Mondale internationally notable for under this criteria? (Speaking of which, when the time comes I also wouldn’t object to Henry Kissinger’s inclusion given his international notability and globally consequential actions while in government. In other words, for the same reasons as Cheney. He was also a Nobel Prize winner, however controversial his award was) Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Kissinger is easily internationally notable enough. Jim Michael (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

For posterity, Dick Cheney was on two separate one-day occasions Acting President of the US; upon his death I believe that should warrant his inclusion on whatever year’s main list that is, even though he was almost exclusively a Vice President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If Cheney were to be included, it would certainly not be for that; rather, it would be for his prominent role in organising the Iraq War (which has led to many globally to call for his prosecution as a war criminal, but that's another topic for another time). Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

He's arguably a borderline case & is more notable than most VPs. Jim Michael (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@PintoBean04: There is not enough space yet for an image of Mondale, and as explained in the edit history, Mondale (of whom as you can see here there has been a long discussion about whether or not he or any US Vice Presidents should even be included to begin with rather than automatically being included because they happen to be American) should not take priority over Prince Philip or a just-assassinated incumbent head of government. For the sake of variety in the image section so that it is not all political/royal figures, Robert Mundell - who literally won a Nobel Prize for his work and was a key figure in creating the Euro currency (in other words, a significant and consequential figure internationally) - should take priority as well. American Vice Presidents shouldn't automatically get an image straight away just because they were from America, especially since the vast majority of deputy heads of government/state aren't even included to begin with. Hell, sometimes even heads of government such as Mike Moore, who was a Prime Minister of New Zealand who passed away in February 2020, don't get an image. Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Mundell has far more international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Well said. Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, And once again I will flip that question back to you, When the evidence his international presence is there, When will you actually take notice of that? His death has received mass coverage from notable international news organizations such as Reuters, BBC, Sky News Australia, Al Jazeera, France 24, CTV, The Japan Times and many more. [11], [12][13] [14][15][16] [17] [18] [19]. He's way more internationally notable than Andrew Peacock, who you attempted to add in the death section 2021. You tell me, if he wasn't that internationally notable, how are a sleuth of international publications covering his death and life? Even the Japanese source acknowledges his time as Ambassador there. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

My question was specifically Mondale's notability outside of holding domestic American political office titles, and how he was consequential internationally. Just on the point of Andrew Peacock, as you would see if you scrolled well above in the original thread I used him as an example of a contemporary of Mondale's who very recently died and who fits much of the same criteria as Mondale - i.e. that he served as leader of the Opposition who took his party to *two* elections (and actually won the popular vote in one), and who like Mondale also served as an Ambassador. He was in a great many number of respects the Australian equivalent of Mondale (he didn't serve as Deputy Prime Minister, but Doug Anthony did, and at the same time as Mondale was VP and who went on to become Australia's longest serving Deputy PM.... and he was for a long time also excluded from the 2020 page when he died). But because Peacock was Australian and not American, there was no automatic rush of any kind to include him, image and all. It served to highlight the difference in standards that American politicians get here compared to non-Americans. I should also add that Peacock was also one of Australia's most notable and distinguished Foreign Affairs Ministers, and that he was internationally consequential in that (albeit as External Territories minister) he is widely regarded as one of the most important Australian figures (certainly the most important on his side of politics, which was centre-right) involved in the lead-up to the independence of Papua New Guinea, something that was a key highlight of most of the coverage of his death, if you had a look. Nevertheless, I never attempted to add him until after Mondale was added by TDKR Chicago 101. Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, I know Peacock had a big role in Australian politics and government, but the difference between him and Mondale is that with Mondale, he actually served as vice president of the United States, (a key country in world politics ) which gave him way more international coverage and notability. He also by many reliable sources accounts, changed the vice presidency. A Way less amount reliable international sources covered Peacock's death than Mondale. Personally, I wanted Peacock's entry to stay due to him being the leader of a major political party, ambassador to United States, but another editor hit the entry with an importance tag and it was removed. You could try to maybe add him again and make the case for his inclusion. P.S. that's why I used him as a example in my statement, because he was previously discussed in the other thread. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Mondale & Peacock had a similarly small amount of international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is overdue & since several politicians who have little or no international notability have been added to various main year articles, we need a guideline in regard to them. The rule that heads of state/gov are always included (except perhaps for interim leaders) has existed for years, but we need to clarify that automatic inclusion for politicians is limited to that. Some politicians who aren't heads of state/gov have major effects on international events & some have international notability in other fields, but they're a very small minority. Jim Michael (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jim Michael, I definitely get your point, minor american politicians such as John B. Anderson need to be removed from the year articles especially in the most recent year articles. I barely knew that Anderson actually died in 2017 when it happened. But when certain guidelines get created, they can be misused and held up as a policy to the point where it loses its true purpose and meaning. And international notability in terms of any person shouldn't just come from say them winning the Nobel Peace Prize, it should also come from the amount International coverage and news they recieve. Just look at Mondale, he has had widespread international coverage of his death from multiple major international publications. This reliable israel news source stating that he was a "liberal icon" in politics.

[20] ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

But that isn't real international notability. Many politicians who have little or no international notability have admirers in other countries & receive substantial international media coverage in life & death. Jim Michael (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jim Michael, Don't pull that card. When you ask for examples of international notability, there it is. That specifies his notability, that is hypocritical to say they have little international notability, when the widespread evidence of international notability is present and contradicts your statement. That would be impossible to not be "internationally notable", but to have mass attention and recognition from an international scene. And to add to my point, here's another source from the chinese news source, "Channelnewsasia", that talks about him being a liberal icon as well.[21] ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

That article only briefly mentions international affairs. If international media coverage proved international notability, we'd have to include dozens - perhaps hundreds - of such people in the Deaths section of each year. That would include many sportspeople & entertainers who have a large number of fans in other countries. Jim Michael (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jim Michael, But with cases with recent U.S. vice presidents vs other deputy leaders from other countries, you cannot compare them as much because the United States and its high-level politicians have a large presence in world politics and culture. Many news sources state that when Carter was president, him and Mondale had a "partnership" in authority, which many say that the role of VP has significantly changed because of Mondale which lead to the U.S. vice president having a larger role in international affairs and image. [22] [23] [24] And to respond further to your comment, This is why us as a Wikipedia community, should personally asses controversial and remove obvious non-notable people. Most people adding non-notable additions are usually IPs or low edit count users, so what I think should happen is that we should have pending changes on all year articles, in order to filter out non-notable additions and have all editors strictly follow WP:DOYCITE and remove any new entries that do not adhere to that guideline. And with other genres of biographies such as sportspeople or criminals, we should have a discussion on them when that bridge comes like this one. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

We reached that bridge years ago - many sportspeople, entertainers etc. who have little or no international notability have been added to main year articles - in some cases multiple times. Jim Michael (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jim Michael, Then I do not mind you or others removing them as long as you do the research before removing it. Give me some examples some current invalid entries and I will quickly remove them if I can find no evidence of international presence for their inclusion in the death section. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

They include Nelson Rockefeller, Spiro Agnew, Michael Foot & John Smith. Jim Michael (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jim Michael,Thank you, I will try to do some research on them before they get removed. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

George Floyd/Derek Chauvin

The only reason for inclusion last year was the large international protests (& in some cases riots). The trial, verdict & sentencing are domestic. Receiving a lot of international media coverage isn't a reason to include a domestic event - if it were, we'd have to include hundreds of domestic events on each main year article. Jim Michael (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed new guidelines for inclusion of politicians in Deaths (Result: implemented; see Mondale discussions above)

Perhaps this should also be brought up on the main Wikiproject, but going off everything discussed in the Mondale-Deputy heads of government/state thread, perhaps this should be the best criteria when it comes to including politicians here going forward. Which would be incredibly useful not only to prevent year topics becoming "a nightmare of politicians" as described by @Alsoriano97:, but also to ensure that figures from a particular country don't receive automatic preferential treatment over those who held equivalent positions elsewhere.

1. Heads of government/state (Prime Ministers, Presidents, Chancellors, Governor-Generals, etc.) are automatically included. This is something that has quite rightly been in place for some time, and should remain that way.

2. Heads of major intergovernmental organisations (such as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, President of the European Commission, etc.) should also be automatically included.

3. Politicians who served as Foreign Affairs Minister, Secretary of State, Foreign Secretary, etc. whose actions were internationally notable and/or consequential should be considered for inclusion.

4. Any other politicians (including deputy heads of government/state and Opposition leaders/Presidential candidates who failed to win an election) should only be included if they are internationally notable and/or consequential for reasons other than just holding the title of their office - such as those who won major international prizes such as the Nobel Prize.

Political figures for the last two points should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Would be glad to hear what people think about these proposed guidelines going forward. Thescrubbythug (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. It makes Gore & Kissinger eligible for inclusion & perhaps Cheney - but not McCain, Rockefeller, Quayle, Pence or Harris. Jim Michael (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think all things considering, so far as American VPs (who didn't become President) over the last 60 years are concerned, this also excludes Mondale and possibly Spiro Agnew - though I'm not as certain with Hubert Humphrey.... would be happy to hear what people think about his inclusion. And as far as American Secretaries of State goes, this arguably leaves the likes of George Shultz, Dean Rusk and Colin Powell eligible, but not Alexander Haig or Rex Tillerson. Thescrubbythug (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It would exclude Mondale, Agnew & Humphrey. Jim Michael (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jojoju1998 You can see here we had a brief discussion on examples of which American Secretaries of State should be considered for inclusion. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, Well I would make the case for Mondale staying due to multiple sources saying he changed the vice presidency to what it is today combined with his news coverage of his death from around the world and the accolades under his belt. But I agree that vice presidents such as Dan Quayle and Mike Pence should not be included in the death section whenever they die. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, And I don't think it is a great idea to establish any firm guidelines for these vice presidents and deputy leaders, instead what we should do is when their notability is questionable, we should individually asses each case unless they are clearly not notable enough. And I think there should be more factors determining their inclusion than just what you "think" the amount of international notability each person has. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Mondale changing the role of the Vice Presidency is significant for Americans but once again, this is of insufficient importance for an international article such as this one, particularly since deputy leaders are not often included even if they were of great significance within their own country. It goes back to the last question I (and Jim Michael) essentially asked - what is Mondale internationally notable for outside of holding domestic American political offices, and how was he consequential on an international level? As for the guidelines, yes it is essential that for the third and fourth categories, figures put up for inclusion on the main yearly pages rather than just Year In Topic should absolutely be judged on a case-by-case basis, with the point about figures holding internationally distinguished awards such as the Nobel Prize being just one example of a factor. Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, Again I already answered that it you actually read my previous reply. The mass amount of coverage from International sources proves his international notability. I don't know why you keep trying to shove his vice president role out of the picture when that is the reason he is significant and notable on a international level. What should be discussed is not them being included for winning the nobel peace prize or some event outside his political career. And you seem to have a problem understanding that because he held a major American office, he had a big international presence in world affairs as he was pioneer in changing that, that's why I keep mentioning he innovated the vice presidency, because he innovated it to involve a more international presence. Look at this article from BBC that explains the U.S.'s impact politically. [25] Now that you understand how big of a role the U.S. has, him changing the role of vice presidency to have more of a role is important as giving the vice president a bigger role led to the vice president having a more international notability. like for example, after the 2020 United States presidential election, many international places celebrated vice president Kamala Harris' victory, including India and Caribbean countries. [26], [27] And here are some articles on the U.S. vice president that explains how the vice president became a influential role in not just american politics, but international politics and presence and what they do internationally. [28] [29] The article also credits Mondale for the modern vice president's role in foreign affairs and diplomacy. The point is that U.S. vice presidents, specifically more recent notable ones, should have a larger consideration in your proposed guidelines than other countries deputy leaders, due to the United States being a superpower. I think you should remove the importance tag on Mondale because it is evident he is internationally notable. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous to think that any respectable biographical dictionary or any other biographical tracker for atleast the next 200 years will not track upper echelon American politicians, yet alone American vice presidents. People who may not know Aus politics may think a figure like Doug Anthony sounds comparable, but in Aus politics it would be monarch, governor general and then pm/deputy PM. That's four levels compared to two. (not noting the significant power difference in the American structure compared to a parliamentary system with a monarch, there would never be a John Kerr (governor-general) in the United States). It would make our encyclopedia look ridiculous to not cover them. It's not worth any more comment because the argument rests on "no other country passing this standard" - so in other words their own dumb standard is the one making this list be non representative and terrible. A list filled with actors, cardinals and soccer players because they generally only really get the international notability is a joke. To say Walter Mondale is less important to cover than Paul Ritter in any other encyclopedic sense would be laughed at as a sad pop culture joke. Can we atleast appreciate the irony in such a rule making this list based on even more pop culture fame than any stringent requirement of enforced notability? (ignoring the fact that acting on a British sitcom and having a couple roles isn't on the level of the international diplomacy connected to being vice pres of one of the major superpowers) GuzzyG (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

GuzzyG, Thank you! You said pretty much everything I wanted to say and more. They keep trying to compare other deputy leaders to vice presidents of United States, a superpower country that has a big influence on the entire world. I put multiple sourced examples of mondale's international impact and recognition and it was repeatedly shelled off, in WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT fashion. Thescrubbythug had the audacity to place an importance tag on Mondale's entry and suggest a removal of his entry based on his proposed guideline. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries, it's not you, it's how it is on these lists normally, like a little fiefdom. It's three editors with a misguided notion on how figures are actually important. Fields like politics, business, activism, military etc are by their very nature tied to one country and one region only. John Jacob Astor is the first American multi-millionaire - in a technical sense Asian history would not include him as he's irrelevant. But he's supremely important to American historiography and encyclopedias as the first multi-millionaire of the leading capitalist country - considering America is renowned for capitalism, he stands out as a figure in America and is written about extensively as that, even if he's not known worldwide. Hence as a representative of America, he should be listed (as he stands out as a figure there). Scrubby and Jim's MO is rooted in pop culture, where figures like Tanya Roberts are important because every country has actors and they're popular, or "famous" internationally. Despite never being written about, never will being written about like that, never being treated as historical figures. Just bare pop culture. (and what Jim and Scrubby like to imply they're against). The whole nature of "international" history is flawed. Let's use Scrubby thug's own country, Ned Kelly is the most written about Australian. He signifies the Australian bush in many Australians eyes. But he's purely a one country figure, so Scrubby's MO would be to include Alex Dimitriades instead, despite Kelly being the supreme figure of Australian historiography. (and being a perm part of history via The Story of the Kelly Gang). It's so ludicrous it's not even worth acknowledging, figures here should be represented by their importance to the country they're from, world importance is rare and leads to pop culture figures with bare importance like Ritter and Roberts instead. the "nightmare of politicians" is these people's own making, because they exclude most forms of fields because of this very rule. They're a self defeating bunch who've created this problem themselves. The fact that Scrubby is defending Andrew Peacock and wanting Mondale removed speaks for itself it's just bias involved with himself, defending a minor politician of his own country, while enforcing taking out the second most powerful of the one major superpower. There's nothing further to debate after that. GuzzyG (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Which pop culture figures who have little or no international notability have I added to main year articles, &/or said should be? Jim Michael (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

GuzzyG You miss my entire point about Peacock, which I already explained further up and which I’m not going to go over in the same detail again. If a figure like Mondale gets to be included, why can’t Peacock, who was Australia’s equivalent figure in most respects - took his party to two elections (while Mondale took his to one), served as an Ambassador and was internationally consequential in his role in the lead-up to the independence of Papua New Guinea? Furthermore, I specifically never attempted to add Peacock until after Mondale was, so there is absolutely no matter of bias involved here with the exception of bias against non-American political figures (hell, just one day before Mondale died, I lampshaded this entire issue here on the "Consistency" thread started by PatGallacher). As Jim Michael correctly said, a discussion to do with a guideline for the inclusion of political figures is long overdue, and not something that should be arrogantly dismissed by yourself. Fair enough if Mondale is ultimately deemed significant enough for inclusion (I say this though: if Mondale was Australian - or from any other country that’s not America - and he had the exact same kind of career and achieved exactly what he did in his equivalent positions.... would anyone try and include him here complete with an image?), but when figures such as John B. Anderson are included for years without anyone contesting it like they would with a figure like Andrew Peacock or Paddy Ashdown, it becomes a sick joke. It’s not just Anderson too; earlier in the month it was Ramsey Clark as well. Over the last two years I’ve been editing here, I’ve noticed that extremely minor, domestic American figures such as John Dingell, Ralph Hall, and Slade Gorton would be included with none of the same opposition that international counterparts would face - the first two in particular were included for months before I ended up removing them. The need for a guideline is not something that ought to be met with ridicule; I would appreciate your contribution to making such a guideline stronger, but not if you dismiss it out of hand with contempt. I also do not appreciate your slandering of me, and your accusations of “bias involved with” myself. Or the accusation that myself and Michael’s contributions are at all rooted in “pop culture”. Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you honestly not understand how a country that is a super power is different to a country whose head of state does not even reside in that country? It's a massive false equivalence to even compare a parliamentary system and the US. The fact Australia is your (and mine) country, leads one to think this apparent comparison is motivated by self interest, but it's completely out of touch. Michelle Obama is going down in historical literature as probably more important than any Aus PM, that's just how it is for a superpower. Not listing Michelle O but listing Tanya Roberts would be racist. Half the names on this list are not going to be written about or last. It's such a ludicrous claim to think Jim Steinman or Willy van der Kuijlen would be covered before Mondale in any historical work. If you can't see the difference between the world's biggest superpower and a country with another on it's flag, than yes, i can't help you. GuzzyG (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

M Obama isn't internationally notable, so she shouldn't be included. It would be Americentric bias if we did. Kuijlen scored goals playing for his country, which makes him internationally notable enough. Race, nationality etc. have nothing to do with it. Jim Michael (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

So you would rather see things carry on as they have been, where purely domestic and minor American figures such as Anderson, Clark, Dingell, Hall, Gorton, and Frank Carlucci (among others) are included without much - if at all - scrutiny, while political figures who are far more significant within their own countries (Peacock, Ashdown, Shirley Williams, etc. - and I use Williams as another example given that she also died within the last month, and as you can see on the "Consistency" thread was very swiftly removed) or regions are dismissed almost immediately? As I said previously, Wikipedia ought not to be a place where some prevailing attitude of American exceptionalism should exist. Also these debates have absolutely nothing to do with the pop culture figures you bring up, as these concern only political figures. And yes, I would have an issue with US First Ladies being included purely because they happened to US First Ladies - particularly when someone like Barbara Bush is almost immediately included complete with an image, while Mary Wilson, Baroness Wilson of Rievaulx struggled to get in despite her husband being arguably a more consequential Prime Minister to the UK than H.W. Bush was as President to the US. No doubt when Clarissa Eden passes, she would almost certainly struggle to make the cut as well. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Being the spouse of a politician doesn't confer international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You both fundamentally misunderstand political structure it seems. Mary Wilson is a nobody and by political structure not comparable to M Obama, we list Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh who is the spouse of the head of state... this should be obvious.... yeah, yeah the commonwealth magically makes them internationally notable. (BTW tell a Papua New Guinean that Andrew Peacock is notable to their countries history just for doing the bare minimum for good..). I'm soneone who thinks Hawaii is occupied land, spare me the American exceptionalism haha. If scoring soccer goals is internationally notable but being the second main political leader (roughly the same level as a PM in britains system) of a UN 5 SC country than i don't know how else to communicate how wrong it is. I don't know how that "Consistency" thread means anything other than you guys enforcing her removal by your own standards and then whining here that no other country than the US would be listed, if you simply dropped this dumb requirement that issue would be solved. It's so simple but you rather accuse people of slander. GuzzyG (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

And are the spouses of heads of state for virtually any other country included? Prince Philip was notable anyway besides the fact he was Elizabeth II’s spouse, and I brought up the “Consistency” thread example as one where a figure like Williams was almost immediately questioned and then removed, which doesn’t usually happen with low-level American politicians such as those I mentioned above (and which so far you have not addressed at all). Furthermore, I had nothing to do with the Williams debate, and it all obviously happened before this proposed guideline was written up. The rest of what you said just now I will not dignify with a response. You have done nothing but be un-cooperative, and have constantly been making irrelevant points (that involve implying that we are somehow racist) and refused to contribute constructively to the original purpose of this thread at all. I ask you to leave this discussion and stop derailing it if you do intend to continue in the disruptive manner that you have been up to this point - complete with snarky laugh comments in your edit summaries. Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Well i don't and i'm sure many others wouldnt because i know it would get a "importance" tag by you within a day, the fact that you continue to act like there isn't a difference between the top 15 countries and the rest is why this won't go anywhere. the US/UK/France/China/India/Russia/Brazil/Nigeria/Japan/Egypt absolutely should take precedent and have most of their figures listed. They are clearly relevant.... even more so considering people like Jiang Qing and Marie Antoinette are listed in Wiki's 2000 most important people list (the vital lists). A rule of yours would disqualify them from the death lists! Yawn, notable in a way a US Vice Pres always is, ignoring power how is a consort more important internationally than a VP is? Ignoring presidents, the most notable 19th century VP would be Aaron Burr and he's lasted longer than the previous notable consort before Philip.. Albert, Prince Consort. History isn't on the side of Vice Presidents being irrelevant, especially since they took on a larger role in the mid 20th century (which is why 19th century VPs are largely not as impoortant). I don't care about anything other than how any normal encyclopedia would act and one in any country would cover VPs. People like Martha Washington, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie O (not the radio host btw!), Hiliary Clinton and Michelle Obama are all covered sufficiently in them, pick up a biographical dictionary and see for your self. It should be obvious. GuzzyG (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have now reported you over your conduct and behaviour throughout not just this thread, but also your talk section. Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't include people who lack significant international notability. We're not attempting to copy the criteria of biographical dictionaries, many of whom have various gaps &/or biases. Jim Michael (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually since my full time thing is analyzing statistics based on historical importance in every field you can think of, i may aswell post these. I've blanked every other stat out to make it clearer and only left two of the most easiest to assess. (wikipedia pageviews and google ngrams results). Here's Aus deputy PMs, [30] and American vice presidents. [31], the column starting with ZO is Ngrams, the other is pageviews. The interest isn't even close, Aus PM's themselves don't match up. [32], infact Aus PM's get beat by American first ladies. [33] (and NGRAMS is a book mentions tracker!). Australia is in no way comparable and Doug Anthony is not a major figure. It's uncomparable, it's not at all bias to favour the US, as written history normally does. They are historically relevant figures at this point of time. GuzzyG (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't include or exclude people based on pageviews &/or popularity. Robert Mundell is one of the most notable people to have died this year, but he isn't highly-placed on pageviews. Most people haven't heard of him. Jim Michael (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This very list is dominated by popularity, just in the direction of historically irrelevant soccer players and actors who get by on the presumption of you who somehow think any history would include them. Mundell is a academic, responsible for something. The point was showing book mentions (hence actual history, since you missed it) and showing that Australia (where im from), is in no way comparable to the US and that Scrubby's comparison with Doug Anthony is completely invalid and laughable. I'd have thought a project like this would be serious and cover people who'd actually be historically important. Below you dismiss, Hillary Clinton. Tell me with a straight face that Tanya Roberts is more of a notable name to list than Clinton... It's completely laughable to even think of that... you seriously expect a Brazilian, Chinese, Nigerian or Italian encyclopedia to cover Tanya Roberts or Jim Steinman over a upper echelon American politician and tell me with a straight face youre somehow against pop culture....this needs a wide RFC, because something is wrong with a system that questions Clinton and not any of these completely unnotable names. Not to mention the racism in defining other countries by their success in the west and that utter racism that results in keeping off figures like Tochinoumi Teruyoshi and Johnny Pacheco while weak figures like Paul Ritter stay unquestioned.. Do you not see how this rule only keeps the European dominance in place because only European figures have something like a Schengen area of cross-notability. It's just a completely useless rule that does more harm than good. GuzzyG (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You're implying that I added Roberts &/or Steinman or that I removed Teruyoshi &/or Pacheco. Where's the evidence of racism? Who's saying that people have to have been successful in the West in order to be included? There isn't European dominance - a larger bias on WP is Americentrism.

Anyone is welcome to start a new section about entertainers, sportspeople or bias - but we should restrict this one to politicians. Jim Michael (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I've got to say as well, the uncooperative hostility of GuzzyG's language towards us, and his wild accusations & dirty implications of our attitudes here (implying that we are at all racist or somehow personally responsible for what he sees are these flaws in pop culture additions, which is a completely different and frankly off-topic issue altogether) as a form of red herring to what is really the nub of our issue (Americentrism, especially the inclusion of minor domestic American politicians. No, this doesn't include Mondale) is more than a little problematic. And yes, absolutely agreed - would definitely support a new section on guidelines for other categories, but restrict the discussion here to politicians. Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Would Hillary Clinton be added if she were to die right now ? She only served as Secretary of State as her highest office, but she was significant in world politics in well everything else.

She has some international notability - she's a borderline case. Jim Michael (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Several people have said that there are too few contributors to year articles. Should we encourage more editors here? If so, from where - WP:WikiProject Politics? Jim Michael (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Jim Michael, Yes. With all means. More contributors is good ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Second that, yes. Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay; this is my viewpoint so bear with me. It seems as if Wikipedia does not have a standarized list of rules for who should be included or not. We need those standarized rules. For me, a person can be included onto the list if she or he meets 3 standards. A Impact; A Large Impact Culturally or Politically in any field in his or her home country, Some level of international notability for any reason whatsoever, and finally this one is important for me; you have to have other wikipedia articles in other langaugss about the person you want to add. The first problem we have to tackle however, is what does International Notability mean ? We have not answered that; and it's causing us issues ( obviously ).

..........

If we stick with the definition that International Notability means that he or she made a impact in global affairs then, we would have to exclude 90 percent of the entries on the lists. Because maybe with the exception of nobel winners, Sabine Schmitz would not be on the list, Predrag Živković Tozovac would not be on the list, Andrew Peacock would not be on the list, and Yes, Walter Mondale.

But we should also exclude most actors and actresses listed on these forums, since they had no significant impact on the interntional stage regarding Cinema and the Arts. So Cloris Leachman, Hal Holbrook, Tanya Roberts, Paul Ritter would be eliminated.

THE PROBLEM IS WE HAVEN'T STUCK BY THOSE RULES BEFORE !!! So you have R. Lee Emey, an American Actor who had no significant impact on the art of Cinema if we want to define it that way listed in 2018's deaths.

Now the only thing i found on Wikipedia's help articles regarding international notability is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_years#International_notability.

" One way to demonstrate the required notability is that the event received independent news reporting from three continents on the event. Events which are not cited at all, or are not linked to an article devoted to the event, may be challenged on the talk page. "

It's very very basic isn't it ? Not helpful for us at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojoju1998 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, most Governor Generals and Head of States have little to no international notability other than their office. And yet we include them. My overall point is WE NEED STANDARDS. A LIST OF RULES.

As many people point out, the problem with sticking with Jim's Rules is that you end up including more pop culture figures and ironically more American Figures. Tanya Roberts as I said before had no significant impact on international culture, and yet she's added on because of pop culture ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojoju1998 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Significant international notability is a requirement for inclusion on main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but " Significant International notability " is very vague and can lead to subjective interpretation. So in my view, if we go with my list of standards, as listed above, we would exclude 90 percent of the people listed, since most of the dead people don't have any impact outside the country they're from. Jojoju1998 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

We wouldn't exclude anything like 90% of those who are currently in the Deaths section. Jim Michael (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

We would though. Let's take a look at this month for example; how is Paul Ritter internationally significant ? How is Cloris Leachman significant ? Jojoju1998 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ritter has articles in 22 different language Wikipedias, Leachman 51. Even Tanya Roberts (who personally I'd have ditched straight away) has 43. Now you can argue that's because international entertainment is biased towards English-language sources, but it's still a fact. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

So by that comparision, Mondale has 55 different language articles ( including Vietnamese ) in Wikipedia. Ruth Bader Ginsburg ( Who no one seems to dispute ), has 48 different langauge articles. Jojoju1998 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'd include Mondale. The problem is that we have no useful metric that fits all situations here. I've managed to include people before because their deaths were covered internationally in reliable sources despite their fame being in a niche subject and thus not having many international Wikipedia entries, for example. We tried looking at Britannica entries because it covers most countries, but that's got so many holes in it that it was worse than useless as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

We should have one though. Alot of " famous " people are going to die in the next 10 years or so, and we need to figure out where to put them.

I can only find one reference on wikipedia regarding international notability. And it's not helpful. And we can't have people offering up differnet subjective views of what international nobility is. Jojoju1998 (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. With no reliable metric available, any definition is going to be at least partly subjective. Personally, I'm still a fan of the "international coverage of their death" idea. Was this persons death reported in reliable sources in many parts of the world (and I don't mean a reprinted couple of lines from an AP feed, I mean a proper obituary). If so, that's got to be a least a pointer towards it. But then you fall foul of the issue that some people are incredibly high-profile but only in certain parts of the world. For example, people who are at the apex of some sports could be household names in one continent, and their death could be front page - not just sports page - news, but the rest of world could be saying "who?". Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem with using international coverage of their deaths is that heads of state/gov of countries which few people are interested in will often receive little media coverage because few readers are interested in them. An entertainer or sportsperson who never performed outside their country or won anything international will receive a great deal of international coverage if they have millions of fans in other countries. Jim Michael (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Jojoju1998 firstly I welcome your contribution to this debate and fully agree with many of the points you've made (R. Lee Ermey has also been removed from the 2018 page, for the record). For the sake of not overcomplicating things, we should focus on a political figures guidelines firstly (as this is where the discussions really began in earnest; it was the issue that brought the issue of who should be included in these main yearly articles to a head), and then move to figures such as those in film, music, other areas of pop culture, sports, etc. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to debate per se. It's more like; okay why this but not that ? If that makes any sense ?

Wikipedia does not help us; because they offer up little to no information on how to include deaths in a clear manner. ( F You Wikipedia overlords ) so we're stuck trying to figure this out on our own without guidance. Jojoju1998 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata is not a good metric unfortunately fyi. Corbin Bleu has 214 while Einstein has 211 and noone would compare the too. But let's also go back to my main point using actual historical figures from around the world

1. Emperor Taizong of Tang - cofounder of the Tang dynasty (who has 46 wikidata languages)
2. George Washington Carver - preeminent Black american scientist of the 20th century (who has 46 wikidata languages)
3. Sequoyah - premminent Cherokee intellectual (who has 40 wikidata languages)
4. Subutai - Genghis Khan's top military general (who has 44 wikidata languages)
5. Toussaint Louverture - leader of the first successful slave revolution (who has 49 wikidata languages)
6. Han Fei - preeminent figure of Chinese legalism thought (who has 51 different wikidata languages)
7. Narmer and Menes both regarded as being the first Egyptian Pharoah. (N has 61 and M has 51 wikidata languages)

(i track data like this 24/7 for over 50k figures, so can link way more if needed, just linking obvious important figures around the range of Leachman/Roberts).

Now all of these figures are supremely important to the history of the world. Now does Leachman with 51 or Roberts with 43 compare? Obviously not. So if preeminent non-white figures have less than the bland character actresses, how can we suspect to cover other cultures if a more strict rule is implemented? - their arts, buisness and other types of figures would be discounted. We can take Jim Michael's POV from my talk page "However, the main reason is that their work doesn't appeal to the vast majority of the world." which im guessing implies Robert's and Ritter's does, but that begs an even bigger question. What is the vast majority of the "world". Zhou Xuan and Lata Mangeshkar may only appeal to their respective countries, but China has a population of 1,400,050,000, while the US has a population of 328,239,523, combine that with Europe itselfs population 746,419,440 and Oceanias total 41,570,842, which is in the range of about 1.1 billion, less than China (and India with 1,352,642,280 and Africa itself with 1,275,920,972), which begs the question if someone is a household name in China, why exactly should they not be listed and what exactly is Jim's definition of appealing to the world considering Ritter and Roberts comes from one of the lowest populated continents? A rule like this just doesn't work. International popularity is just not as much as a thing, figures are just normally important to one country. We cover atleast 50+ people a year on these lists, keeping out people like American VP's or highly regarded non Euro/American artists like Mangeshkar despite being local is wrong. I stand by this. If this list can list Ritter's and Roberts then it can list figures like Tochinoumi Teruyoshi and Johnny Pacheco too. GuzzyG (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The large majority of notable people are domestic, so we shouldn't include them on main year articles.

Anyone's welcome to start a new section about (individual) actors, sportspeople etc., but we should keep this section to politicians.

Being white or not doesn't enter into it.

Number of Wikipedia articles, their length & pageviews don't indicate international notability. Most Wikipedians are young & far more of them are interested in 21st century entertainers & sportspeople than political leaders of little-known countries or historical figures who died centuries ago. Jim Michael (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is in my view; is that by having one set of standards for politicians and not considering everyone else; you end up with a mostly American Death List ironically enough.

We should have a uniform set of rules for all categories, this back and forth about what is significant or not, is not helpful in my view. Jojoju1998 (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This section is about politicians, so that's what this discussion should be limited to.

The list won't be mostly American, but Americans will inevitably be present in a proportion that's significantly higher than their population in the world, because they're disproportionately internationally notable.

The bar for inclusion remains international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is we dont have a subjective standard list of rules as to what that international notability is. And we have you and Scrubby saying one thing and Guzzy saying another. Jojoju1998 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"The problem is in my view; is that by having one set of standards for politicians and not considering everyone else; you end up with a mostly American Death List ironically enough" The intention was never to have just a guideline for politicians; it was meant to be a start. After which we would move on to subsequent categories. For now we are not "considering everything else" because this so far concerns only politicians, but there absolutely should also be discussions for other categories in good time, where we work out the nuances of who should be included. Just working on politicians first (because it happened to be the issue that started it all) will not at all lead to a mostly American death list, because we don't intend to just leave it at that once a consensus is reached on a guideline for political figures. Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

So building upon the original proposed guidelines for politicians to potentially specify that the fourth category would (naturally) include those who played prominent roles in major international events (such as organising a war or playing a central role in organising a consequential peace treaty); those who gained international notoriety for potential war crimes/crimes against humanity; and those who are generally considered to be a key founder of a nation. Are there any other considerations for inclusion that we should specify? Thescrubbythug (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus - be it not a particularly strong one - in regard to the politicians issue. When marginal cases become apparent, we can discuss them. Is there anyone here who still wants Mondale included? Jim Michael (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that while borderline, Mondale should be included for the reasons best stated by SomeBodyAnyBody05 - the fact that he did transform the Vice Presidency arguably more than any other figure *was* consequential, and it can be also argued that the majority of potential post-Mondale VP inclusions wouldn't be eligible had it not been for Mondale himself (not convinced at all that he merits an image though, as others are more deserving from the same month). Also Michael McKevitt has just been re-added, and I'm inclined to keep him on the basis of the fourth category, which is that he gained international notoriety for his terrorist actions post-the Good Friday Agreement, for which he was ultimately convicted. Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

My attempt to mediate the Deputy Leaders dispute (Result: see discussions above)

So it is my view that we have two differnet ideas on what makes a death important enough to include on the list. I want to help resolve this; so if we can have a person from each group, present their argument here, and then I can try to find common ground between them.

Because I don't want to take this to the Wikipedia " Government ".

It's already at WP:ANI. Jim Michael (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but he in my view took the discussion way off point with ad hominiem attacks.

I want to bring it back home. Jojoju1998 (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that took the discussion well outside the topic of politicians. His patronising tone & confrontational attitude makes progression difficult. Jim Michael (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have different views of what " International notability is ". Jojoju1998 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It's difficult to describe it exactly, but it most cases it's clear & we can discuss borderline cases. Jim Michael (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It's why we ought to specify which cases are clear cut (i.e. for politicians, heads of government/state and heads of major intergovernmental organisations), and which ones ought to be dealt with case by case (i.e. to see if a politician that someone won major internationally recognised awards or whose actions were historically consequential, such as those who organised and took central roles in acts of war). It really shouldn't be that complicated. Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem becomes when you have the inbetweeners.

Let's say if John Kerry were to die right now; I would argue that because he had a substanstial role in organizing the Iran Nuclear Deal among other acts, that he should be included. But not Frank Carlucci or John B Anderson. Jojoju1998 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Kerry would definitely be at least considered. But yes, Carlucci and Anderson were included for years without anybody objecting, on the 2018 and 2017 pages (I have removed them both in the last couple of days), and the fact that they were without any scrutiny while any equivalent figure from elsewhere would have been almost automatically scrutinised and excluded is not okay in the slightest. When people such as TDKR Chicago 101 believed it is okay for such minor figures to be included because nobody happened to object, that’s when it became very obvious that something was seriously wrong with the standards of who gets included here without any form of basic guideline. Thescrubbythug (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Include Kerry; exclude Anderson & Carlucci. Jim Michael (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Would Mondale rank above Anderson and Carlucci however ? Jojoju1998 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Anderson is easily the least notable of those 3, but none of them have enough international notability to be included. Jim Michael (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug could say the same thing about the two recent australian politicians who died and who were added onto 2020 and 2021's death lists and whose names escape me right now. Jojoju1998 (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Mondale is also easily the most notable of the three (him, Anderson and Carlucci), and I’ve come around to the argument that he’s at least a borderline case - if not for anything else, than for the fact that Mondale was consequential in that he did transform the VP role into one that was more important internationally speaking. My objection was always more to the point of why Mondale was automatically entitled to an entry and an image with little argument, for reasons I outlined in earlier threads (and I remain opposed to American Vice Presidents automatically being included for no reason other than being notable for holding that office, and who otherwise was not important or consequential, like Dan Quayle). Thescrubbythug (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Mondale is more internationally notable than Quayle, but still not enough for a main year article. Jim Michael (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Jojoju1998 Doug Anthony (longest serving Deputy PM of Australia) and Andrew Peacock (one of Australia’s most prominent Foreign Ministers and major party leader who took his party to two elections). But as you would read in above threads, I more used them as examples of people who were roughly equivalent to Mondale’s position, but who never would have been automatically added to the yearly lists because they were not American. Even if Australia happens to be a middle power that is the most important in the Oceanic region. Thescrubbythug (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Mondale's Position and the role of Deputy PM are not the same though; as other people would attest. Jojoju1998 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

So let's be fair and remove the two Australian Politicians. Jojoju1998 (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exclude Anthony & Peacock. Jim Michael (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Though they use two different political systems, the fact of the matter is a Deputy Prime Minister is still in practice the equivalent of a Vice President in that they are both the deputy head of government. And it is also true to say that despite being a middle power significant in its region, Australian politicians are virtually never included unless they are Prime Minister (or Governor-General). While if we go by the proposed guidelines Anthony should be deemed not internationally consequential enough, Peacock as I mentioned previously was one of Australia’s most prominent Foreign Ministers, and has been acknowledged in virtually every article written about him in the wake of his passing as being a key figure in the lead-up to the independence of Papua New Guinea. Hence why Jim Michael says they are of a similar level of notability, and why I included him (after Mondale was). Thescrubbythug (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The US Vice Presidency is not just the deputy head of Government however.

The US President is both head of state and Head of Government. He or she rules and reigns at the same time. As such, The Vice President coshares that head of state and Government roles and powers. He or she represents the President on many international trips because he or she share together with the President the role of head of state. The President often delegates the role of Head of State to the Vice President. That gives the US Vice President more international notability.

In Westminster Style Systems, you have :

Governor General : Head of State

Prime Minister : Head of Government

Deputy Prime Minister : Supporting the Head of Government.

In the US System, you have :

President : Head of State AND Government.

Vice President : Coshares the role of head of Government with the President. Exercises the Role of Head of State on behalf of the President. Jojoju1998 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The Deputy Prime Minister isn’t described so much as “Supporting the Head of Government”, it’s literally described as “deputy chief executive” and the “second highest ranking” member of the Government, which essentially means deputy head of government - and one who acts as head of government when the head is away or incapacitated. In that sense they are the equivalent to the Vice President, with the one difference being the head of state aspects. In any case, I already said that Anthony is deemed not internationally significant enough for inclusion. I should also add that it is of Jim Michael’s view that Anthony, Mondale and Peacock all should be deemed internationally insignificant enough to be removed, while my view is that Mondale and Peacock are both internationally consequential in their own ways, albeit both minor. Thescrubbythug (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Disregard my youtube link. For now. Jojoju1998 (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGxwadF0v7c

You would never see a deputy prime minister of any country travel like this; meeting other important global figures, but that's because the Vice President as i have said before, coshares the role of head of state with the President. Jojoju1998 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC : Standards for including people in Deaths (Result: international notability the main bar for inclusion; also see Mondale discussions and other discussions in its wake)

What are the standards for including dead people on the main death list ? Jojoju1998 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Significant international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

And yet since we don't seem to agree on what is significant international notability, the whole conversation itself is a non starter since we don't have any objective rules and guidelines to rely on in the first place. Jojoju1998 (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Major international awards such as Olympic medals, Academy Awards, achievements in international competitions, leading a country etc. Jim Michael (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

So we can exclude Tanya Roberts, Prince Philip, Mondale and Peacock, Paul Ritter, Most of the Catholic Cardinials.......And most Head of States, since unlike Pure Presidential Republics ( Like the US ) they hold 0 to no power. Jojoju1998 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, winniing Academy Awards is itself a mostly American biased standard since the Oscars is an American based insitution. Jojoju1998 (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Heads of state/gov are automatically eligible. They lead their countries & hence have inherent international notability.

Academy Awards have a pro-US bias, but are the world's top film awards. Jim Michael (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Jim Michael 1. But most people who win Academy Awards ARE AMERICAN.So we would exclude literally any other actor/actress fron any other country if they don't win or get nominated for a Academy Award, so that in itself is pro American Bias. Any type of competition, achievements, Olypmic Medals would favor Americans inherently because the United States is the third largest country and has cultural/political/economic influence worldwide. It's the Superpower factor. Don't underestimate it.

On a related note, going by that standard, Helen mccroy, Paul Ritter, Bertrand Tavernier, Yaphet Kotto, Haya Hareet, Cloris Leachman; should be removed from the list because they did not win a Academy Award; and yet we include them. If we just had academy award winners, it would be mostly American. I thought we were trying to avoid American Bias right ?

2. Head of States/Government... okay...If we are going to remove Mondale; let's be fair and remove Peacock, and other Vice Presidents in current and past death lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojoju1998 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a minor correction here. Cloris Leachman was an Oscar winner - she won Best Supporting Actress for The Last Picture Show. Generally speaking I’ve been reluctant to comment on film related figures here because the focus was meant to be purely on political figures, and I think comparing figures from these two fields (as GuzzyG consistently did) was inappropriate given that it would be akin to comparing apples and oranges. But if we are taking purely film figures, I would argue (using two constant examples referenced by GuzzyG) that Tanya Roberts is a borderline but valid addition to this list given that part of her fame was as the main Bond girl in A View To A Kill, and of course James Bond is one of the most internationally notable and successful film franchises. She also played prominent supporting roles in the TV shows Charlie’s Angels and That '70s Show, which were both well-known internationally as well, and should also be considered as secondary factors for her inclusion. I don’t agree that there should be an image of her here, though. As for Paul Ritter, much as I am personally a fan of his through his role in Friday Night Dinner (a personal favourite show of mine), as well as his prominent supporting role in Chernobyl, I would have to agree that he is not notable or significant enough for inclusion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

We need a discussion about actors, but I think it best to wait until we've finished the politicians discussion. Ritter's international notability is primarily for Chernobyl, a popular, acclaimed, UK-US miniseries that's set in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Jim Michael (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Academy Awards aren't the only way an actor, director, producer etc. can be internationally notable. Jim Michael (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Fully agreed on the first point. It’s why I was loathe to comment on this issue at all up to now. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Politicians other than heard of state/gov shouldn't usually be included. They'd have to have significant international notability - a deputy or cabinet position alone isn't sufficient. Being a spouse doesn't confer any international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

And yet since we don't agree on what International Notability is; this conversation is a non starter. Wikipedia does not have a standard set of rules for us to decide what is notable and what is not; therefore it is extremeley hard for us to have a objective view point.

By the way, should we include the Duke of Edinburgh ? Being the spouse of the Head of State doesn't confer any international notability doesn't it ? Jojoju1998 (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Prince Philip may qualify because he'd had Danish & Greek titles before gaining British ones & there's a cult on Vanuatu named after him. Jim Michael (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding just politicians, it should be fairly simple: include heads of government/state and heads of intergovernmental organisations. These aren't and shouldn't be controversial inclusions. People who served as Foreign Ministers or counterpart titles should be considered depending on the impact they had internationally (i.e. if they played a major role in one country's military intervention of another), so case by case essentially. Any other politician (including deputy leaders and opposition leaders who failed to win an election. Spouses of heads of government/state fall under this as well) should be considered on a case by case basis, and not at all on the basis of simply being known for holding the title of their particular office. These are all standards I laid down on the original guideline thread (before the thread was widely disrupted), and would be good to serve as - at the very least - a basis to build from, with other qualifying factors for the fourth category (major awards such as the Nobel Prize was only meant to be just one example, not the only example as some may have thought) something I was hoping could be debated on the on the original thread. Comparing any politician to any celebrity as one user tried to do when the thread got derailed shouldn't be taken into consideration at all - I fully concur that there should be a discussion on how actors, musicians or other pop culture figures are included, but to compare them to any political figure at this stage is comparing apples and oranges, and would not be constructive at all. Members of royal families (besides those serving as head of state) should be considered completely separately. Thescrubbythug (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The heading of this section indicates that this discussion should cover all people in the Deaths section. This is premature when we haven't even finished the discussion about politicians. Jim Michael (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Well my viewpoint is that we should have a uniform standard list of rules that cover everyone; or else you're going to have porblems. Jojoju1998 (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

" These are all standards I laid down on the original guideline thread (before the thread was widely disrupted), " But those are your " proposed " standards, and we don't seem to have a consensus on that; so it's a non starter. We need official standards approved by Wikipedia. Jojoju1998 (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, there isn't consensus yet, with one user so far (GuzzyG) against the entire concept. But one user being against it does not constitute it being a "non-starter". However, it's a good place to start, and we need to start somewhere in order to work out a guideline generally agreed upon to be fit for use on Wikipedia - and I welcome your contribution and your views to make such a guideline stronger. As for a uniform list blanketing every category, I feel that would be a fundamentally flawed idea as we simply must work out the nuances for each category, and how a person in each category could be eligible. Once again though, the discussion for the time being is on political figures; discussions for other categories can come after (figures from the film industry for example, where we could prevent over-Americentrism by agreeing on figures who won awards not just from the Western-centric Oscars, but also perhaps winners of the Asian Film Awards. Or with music we could draw upon figures who were inducted in various Hall of Fames. Again, something that can be discussed in good time). Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay so; Head of States/Governments are a given. Head of Governmental Organizations are also a given if they are international organizations; or organizations that have a higher global impact.

Lower level officials however are a bit complicated. Would Benjamin Franklin be included; he did not serve in high level government office. Jojoju1998 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Include Franklin - very important historical figure with substantial international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, definitely include Franklin - he was a historically significant figure in that he played a key role in America’s independence from Britain. And even if he wasn’t a Founding Father of the United States, he would still be included anyway for his work as an inventor and in the fields of science. To use another non-American example, though he wasn’t a scientist or inventor as well, I would also argue in favour of Henry Parkes being included, as he was known for being the central figure of the Federation of Australia as an independent state along with the first two Prime Ministers. Thescrubbythug (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

But to the other people's points; Parkes was never a large figure internationally; so from my point of view; he would be like Mondale or Anderson. Jojoju1998 (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Figures generally regarded as a central Founding Father to a nation should be considered consequential enough for inclusion. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

But that's not international impact.

Benjamin Franklin had other things to his resume that meant that he was more than a national figure, he was a international figure in Politics, Science, Philosophy. Books and studies were written about him. He is more higher than Parkes. Jojoju1998 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

A central founding father of any nation (be it Franklin, Parkes, Sun Yat-sen, or John A. Macdonald), should be deemed consequential enough for inclusion, even if for whatever reason they never served as leader of the new nation (Franklin being too old and Parkes having died shortly before Federation became a reality). They are notable for being a key figure in starting a country, so in this case international impact doesn’t have to come in as a factor. Thescrubbythug (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wait; there's a cult made around him ?? Jojoju1998 (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The Prince Philip movement. Jim Michael (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Lets just keep it inclusive and include anybody who was listed in Recent Deaths so we don't have to make arbitrary decisions. ( Or, if we thought that would include too many people, we could just include people whose deaths got a blurb in ITNR.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  Agree with above comments.Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd argue that any notable individual (which can be determined by them having a blue link) should be included. Hipocrite (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The Deaths section on main year articles is only for internationally notable people. There's a full list of deaths of everyone who has an article on Deaths in 2021. Jim Michael (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I undertstand that. I'd argue that this "internationally notable" idea contributes to systematic bias. Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

When minor, purely domestic figures with no international notability such as John B. Anderson and Frank Carlucci are included on the main yearly pages for years without any objections when any other equivalent figure from elsewhere would have been thoroughly scrutinised and excluded, it’s clear that there’s something seriously wrong with how we’ve been including people up to now. This is why there should be some form of basic guideline with who should be included, and the proposal I’ve written up is a start that we could potentially build on. Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

They're there because editors add people & events which have very little or no international notability & in many cases they aren't removed by anyone. Jim Michael (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• • reply - sounds superficially appealing, Hipo, but wouldn't it make for an ungainly gigantic list? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

An ungainly gigantic list that would dominate these articles & which would be a duplicate of Deaths in 2021, Deaths in 2020 etc. Jim Michael (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• • • If so, the section should merely link to the sub-article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There are already links to the subarticles in the top right of each main year article. Jim Michael (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Use Sources - I think the best way to deal with this is to look at the sources. Was the death of said person the subject announcements or obituaries from several reputable sources with a wide circulation? Than we should most likely include them. Was their death only announced in local or trade publications (fictional, but likely examples: A Maryland-based artist who is famous in the region and whose death is only mentioned by New England publications. A video game developer who is well known among fans of gaming, but whose death is only announced by video game publications, with no mention in the mainstream press), than we should probably not include them. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Those are the type of criteria for inclusion on year by country articles. We need to be much more selective on these main articles. Jim Michael (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

We need to be way more selective than we have been lately. The page is already more than 50% over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article. And we've barely got any births yet! Instead of talking about what to include, we should be talking about how to split the article. Deb (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

European Super League (Result: borderline inclusion)

We have 2 events listed in April for that new "Super League", April 18 for the creation announcement and April 20 for withdrawal of the English clubs. Given that the league won't be created after all, do we even need to have those 2 events listed in the article? --McSly (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It's been scrapped before being created, so it shouldn't be mentioned in this article at all. Proposed organisations are nowhere near important enough for main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No - it should be mentioned, because it was front-page news (not just sports page news) in multiple countries all over the globe over multiple days. Governments got involved [34] [35]. It only needs one entry though, so I've done this. Black Kite (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That works for me. --McSly (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice about a new WikiProject Proposal

This is a friendly notice about a proposal to have yearly based WikiProjects. You can find the proposal by clicking here. Feel free to drop your opinion about it. (The trial WikiProject would be/is Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject of 2021). Elijahandskip (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)