Talk:2023/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about 2023. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

While it is a civil case, and doesn't have much immediate external impact in a material sense. It seems to be quite noteworthy to me that a former US President, as well as one currently running for the upcoming 2024 US Presidental Election, has been found guilty of sexual abuse and has been ordered to pay $5 million in damages to the victim. It seems to me that in addition to being noteworthy it could have a significant impact on the current 2024 US Presidential Election campaigns. Thoughts? 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed the entry, but I acknowledge your point on the potential impact that it could have on the 2024 US Presidential Elections is a valid one and should be considered. Carter00000 (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand the removal. I hesitated to add it without bringing it up on the talkpage first, but thought there might just be enough there, since it was actually a guilty verdict which resulted in a significant settlement, to warrant inclusion without discussion. But yeah I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus here is. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Noteworthy yes, worthy of being in 2023 in the United States yes, for the main year article, doubtful but we can revisit if there are significant repercussions. Deb (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

^ I agree with Deb. Wjfox2005 (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree with you all too, by this point, haha. I personally think the indictment on March 30th was far more worthy of being included in the events list, but I believe the consensus was that this should be removed because it was just an indictment and no trial had taken place and been concluded yet or something. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that a conviction in any of Trump's other pending legal matters (ie: January 6th, Mar-a-Lago documents, Georgia election interference, hush money payments) would warrant a discussion of inclusion here (though I'm not sure all of them could be included here). Criminal matters, in general, carry a bit more weight than civil ones so that might be why it's not notable enough here. This is just my opinion though; just wanted to chime in. Losipov (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Exclude this event; belongs in 2023 in the United States. To include this event here would be Americentrism. Also find it interesting that this topic has been almost immediately brought up for potential inclusion here and not, say, the (far more significant) arrest of Imran Khan. TheScrubby (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not Americancentrism at all. And honestly, the fact that this accusation constantly flies here whenever someone suggests adding a noteworthy event which took place in America says more about the people accusing others of Americancentrism and trying to have noteworthy events which took place in America excluded from the events list than it does anything else.

I've suggested events from Kenya, Russia, DR Congo and Equatorial Guinea/Tanzania just in the past few days. I've also added events from Israel, the Indian Ocean and several others which had nothing to do with America.

So perhaps ask yourself whether you simply have an aversion to including events which took place in America and are perhaps a little overzealous in that regard.

I was funnily enough going to suggest including the arrest of Imran Khan a couple of hours ago when I first read about it, but seeing as I've brought up/added several new topics in the past few days alone I thought it best to give it a rest for a while. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Having said all that, I still don't think this particular event is actually worthy of including on the list, despite having brought it up. I would have added the Trump indictment on March 30th, though. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that some Americentrism is justified, as the world is heavily affected by American politics as well as those within other large, powerful, and influential countries such as China, Russia, the UK, Saudi Arabia, etc. However, these recent developments don't really do anything outside of the US. I would say the same of Imran Khan's release. The story of Trump's arrest itself is also much more of something to be gobbled up by the Daily Mail, and not too much critical analysis. Both don't merit inclusion, and I do think that bringing it up is a bit of WP:WHATABOUTX, something I usually don't like to see in discussions except in extraneous circumstances where such use can be justified. This isn't one of them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Were these 2 events to have taken place on their own. I'd have probably agreed. However this is 2 fairly serious legal blows for Trump in about as many months, with many more likely to come in the coming months. Trump is a leading candidate for the 2024 US Presidential Election and a former US President. It's hard to gauge the domestic/global impact of events in a country which has such a massive influence and hold over other parts of the globe. I feel the complete lack of any mention of Trump's legal issues in 2023 so far is a disservice to the article and readers.

However, I can understand the difficulties in somehow incorporating these singular events spaced out over months. Alone they aren't particularly concerning, but I think the more they mount up the more noteworthy and impactful they probably become. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Exclude, this article is about internationally significant events. A court case is not noteworthy enough to meet that high bar, same as Trump's indictment earlier this year, neither have any international significance. Yeoutie (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the world is not really interested in this. It was not even a criminal process, but a civil one. 2023 in the United States is the only place where it should be included. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Should (1) "A potent new antibiotic, abaucin, capable of killing Acinetobacter baumannii (one of three superbugs the World Health Organization has identified as a "critical threat" to humanity), is created using artificial intelligence" and (2) "Elon Musks's Neuralink receives FDA approval to begin human trials" be included on the page? Carter00000 (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong include 92.5.100.233 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Noting that this is the IP who originally added the two entries. Carter00000 (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that excluded me from giving my opinion on inclusion/exclusion. 92.5.100.233 (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No. And can this "92.5.100.233" person stop adding entries like this. I mean look, I absolutely love science and technology as much as they seem to. But stuff like this just isn't notable enough for inclusion on the main year page. A small number of such events are occasionally suitable, yes (such as NASA and ESA's flagship missions, or some major breakthrough in fundamental science). But in general, they belong on 2023 in Science, or elsewhere. Thanks. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

How is an AI developed antibiotic that can treat one of the 3 major superbugs threatening humanity not notable? I can see how the Musk entry would be up for debate, but that abaucin removal is preposterous.

The fact that these notable events are all happening within a short space of time of one another is irrelevant. All years are not equal, some barely have any entries in the events list while others (like 2020) have footlong events lists for fairly obvious reasons.

How do you not see abaucin as a major breakthrough in science. How is the launch of JUICE anywhere near as noteworthy as that? 92.5.100.233 (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I also don't get the comment about 'loving science'. I've added/suggested all kinds of recent events from natural disasters to mass cult suicides to AI breakthroughs to viral outbreaks. I've added/suggested around 2 or 3 science/technology related events out of the past dozen edits/suggestions.

And I tell you something else, not a single suggestion/edit I've made has been anywhere near as unnoteworthy as the routine quadrennial executive election of Trinidad and Tobago or Andorra.

If you want to talk about a waste of article space and futile events additions let's talk about including the executive elections from every single sovereign state on the planet in the article. 92.5.100.233 (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I would exclude the FDA approving Musk's neuralink for human trials, as pharmaceutical trials routinely fail. This clearly isn't important enough in my view.

I'm less certain on abaucin, given its potential and being created by AI, plus I don't have much expertise in biology & chemistry. But I don't think removing it would be a big deal, as many notable events are routinely excluded on these pages. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Exclude both just because a drug is created doesn't mean it has been approved by any government agency for usage as is the case for neuralink. PaulRKil (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Exclude both I understand the point the anon is trying to make, but the events section is for events whose significance is already known. Things like the discovery of quarks or penicillin or DNA (I think you can already tell I'm not a scientist) become significant in retrospect, when they have been proved. If at a future date these particular events prove significant, they can be added here as well as in 2023 in science. Deb (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of discussions here about what to do with the many AI developments which have been happening recently. I propose that we create a new article, 2023 in AI (similar to 2023 in the United States or 2023 in Spaceflight) for the less important things, while keeping a handful of the most notable things on this page. Beethoven3 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A dedicated article for AI seems like a good idea, given the sheer number of developments we're seeing now. However, the paragraph beginning "In the realm of technology" on the main year page should absolutely be kept, as I've said before. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. 92.5.100.233 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

While we're at it can we create a 2023 in Politics thread so we don't need to add every single quadrennial election of the executive branch in every sovereign state on Earth to the events list? 92.5.100.233 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There's never been anything to stop anyone doing so. Deb (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Update I've made some expansions to the article 2023 in AI. Please take a look and see if anything should be added or changed, if you would like to. Carter00000 (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Although I agree the rise of AI is notable, I think it could be better suited in a different article than here, such as 2023 in the United States. The companies behind it, after all, are US-based. This is just a minor suggestion; I just think there's a better article(s) to include it. Losipov (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. I think I would agree as the development AI is more of a gradual increase, large increases in the technology have been happening for the last few years. I mean not even the relevant articles (History of artificial intelligence or the ongoing AI boom) don't mention 2023 as a unique year in any way (although obviously that's not controlling evidence). A related question, what about the inclusion of the release date of Chat GPT-4 on March 14? I'm not so sure if that should be included as a notable event but would like to see what others think. Yeoutie (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I added the Chat GPT event because it seemed to mark a major breakthrough in AI. Granted, I'm far from an expert in the field of AI and understanding what constitutes an AI breakthrough or milestone.

The news certainly made international headlines and provoked a hearty debate on AI and its potential in the public sphere and whether it should be limited. At least that was my perception of things at the time. In addition this sort of kickstarted the entire 2023 AI conversation and craze that is currently ongoing.

2023 definitely seems to be a noteworthy year for AI so far. It's dominating headlines and some major breakthroughs seem to have occurred in recent months. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Very strong include. The technology is a global phenomenon. See for example what Baidu and other companies in Asia are doing. And we're talking about what is – arguably – the biggest technological leap since the Internet in the early 90s. The AI boom is revolutionary and should 100% be included. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Very strong include. I agree with Will, this is the biggest technological leap since the Internet in the 1990s, it's like saying for example if Wikipedia was around then someone saying that the Internet will be a minor blimp in that century. Of course, it certainly wasn't. AI will continue to improve majorly in the years and decades to come, this certainly needs to be added. D Eaketts (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Wjfox2005 @D Eaketts Your points make sense. And I wasn't going to remove the AI stuff without consensus anyways. Maybe keep it broad without mentioning every single AI development so the page doesn't get flooded with it? Other than that, I agree. Also, @Yeoutie, I think Chat GPT-4 should be excluded because it deals with one kind of AI and not on a broader level. But that's just my opinion. Losipov (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm just not sure why the information should be included in this article. I agree with @Wjfox2005 and @D Eaketts that it is a global phenomenon which will have huge effects on society, but what makes 2023 so special relative to every other year that AI has seen advances? Not much that I can see, but would like to hear your thoughts. I think this information makes much more sense in the 2010s, 2020s, or 21st century articles. Yeoutie (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Extremely strong include. There is absolutely nothing 'Americancentric' about the rise of AI whatsoever. Most of these companies are international, regardless of where they're based, and technological advancement (especially such as this) impacts the entire human race and practically every other living species on Earth. The term 'Americancentric' is thrown around a lot on this talk page and this has to be the weakest use of it I have ever seen. I'm honestly lost for words that someone has the audacity to suggest including the rise of AI is 'Ameriancentric'. Ridiculous. You need to do some serious self-evaulation, Losipov. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

'Americancentric' is just becoming a pisspoor defence for "I don't like that more events are being added from America". That's the nature of being the dominant hegemonic power in a unipolar world. Whether people like it or not, noteworthy events are going to be dominated by events which take place in or in some way heavily involve the United States. Noteworthy events with global impact are noteworthy events with global impact, whether they take place in America or not.

This crusade against all events American on this article needs to stop. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said exclude it from the article; I just suggested there might be a better place for it than here. I suggested something similar to the phone call between Zelensky and Xi Jinping, as that could be better off in a different article (which the consensus for that was to exclude it, but that's beside the point). I merely wanted to get consensus on whether or not this is the right place for it.

And please don't accuse me of being "anti-Americentrism" or anything anti-America regarding the article. There is no need for personal attacks of this kind. I'm sure you're better than that. Losipov (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

And just so we're clear when I'm referring to personal attacks: "You need to do some serious self-evaulation, Losipov". I don't appreciate this at all. Losipov (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh come on. Don’t be so disingenuous. You know exactly what angle you were going at with your comments regarding it belonging in the 2023 in the US article and the false comment about all AI companies being based in the US (which would have been irrelevant anyway).

Most pioneering tech is centered in small geographic nodes of tech development. Again, every single event noteworthy or not generally takes place in a single location. That doesn’t make it a domestic event.

Don’t try and backtrack out of this one. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Dude, I agree with you on your position, but please tone down the intensity of your comments and look to constrictively debate. You're starting to act a little bit snappy towards Losipov, and it is starting to become a little bit uncivil. It does seem like that you're going to "win" the debate anyways, and it's time to drop the stick and slowly back away from the horse carcass. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Noted. For what it’s worth I apologize again for making you feel personally attacked, Losipov. I am merely attacking the words you posted here, that’s all. However I could stand to learn to do this less vociferously in future. I shall work on it. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer to include. I'm at a loss. These developments originated in the United States, sure, but they permanently have changed the world to an extent not seen since 9/11 (even COVID was mostly temporary when it came to its measures). The entire idea of "removing Americentrism" and removing it from year articles after the Barbara Walters RFC (which demonstrated that the Wikipedia community in general doesn't support "international notability" as previously interpreted) is perhaps the most blatant violation of WP:RGW I've seen throughout my time on the site. I think strongly that while the Americentrism arguments have died down at least since the old "international notability" phase of year articles, the POV still seems to be a bit too strong. Left uncontrolled, the idea of removing Americentrism becomes anti-Americanism, and that's gonna get this article shown up on the NPOV noticeboard. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader like I said to the IP, this was merely a suggestion. I completely understand that AI is extremely notable and definitely warrants inclusion, but I'm starting to feel like the 2020s article, as pointed out by @Yeoutie, is better (simply because this didn't start this specific year). But that's my opinion, and please understand that I was not trying to pick any fights with anyone. I don't understand why I'm being attacked for simply suggesting it (not you, don't get me wrong, but that IP for sure). Losipov (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do feel like that the way in which you presented the idea seemed to haunt me a little bit too much in phrasing as it implied a return to the old "international notability" phase on year articles. I appreciate the suggestion, and I understand your point of view, but there are fears of a slippery slope I have if we remove it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Look for what it’s worth I apologize for making you feel attacked. But I do think you need to self-evaluate your reasons for implying Americancentrism here.

If that came across as a personal attack to you, I assure you it wasn’t. I know nothing about you as a person. I am responding wholly to the comment you started this discussion thread with.

I was referring solely to you self-evaluating your suggestions of Americancentrism. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Fine, maybe I should have worded my suggestion differently. And yes, I realize that not all AI companies are based in the US or that it is simply American based. So it should be kept (for now, at the very least). But please try and be more respectful in the future (and I just saw your apology, which I greatly appreciate).

And for what its worth, thank you too @InvadingInvader. Losipov (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If we are including it, it has to be an event, not just a gradual development, so only particularly significant moments should be included. Otherwise Exclude. As for ChatGPT, who is in a position to say that this will prove to be a significant event in the long term? We can afford to wait and see. Deb (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that some core components to human culture and development are more drawn out to the point where we can't narrow it down to an event in the same year solely to do it justice. The 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression throughout the early 1930s are very good examples of this. The economy didn't crash itself in 1930, but a major event the year before continued to affect the world. Similar with ChatGPT; it launched in November of 2022, but there's already an AI arms race between Microsoft and Google, to the point where Google's own employees are teasing company leadership for saying "AI" too much (ref). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

So may I ask why include the info here? If ChatGPT was launched in 2022, and AI has been being developed at Microsoft and Google for years before 2023, why is this year so special to include it in the lead of the article compared to those previous years? Again, important technological developments happening in this field, so important I think we shouldn't try and cram AI into some random year article and instead move this info to a more appropriate article for these types of long-lasting events like 2020s. In essence, examples thrown around are rocket tech in 1957 or stock market crash in 1929, but what thing happened uniquely in 2023 which warrants inclusion like those? Yeoutie (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Some events in AI include the launch of Bard, GPT-4, OpenAI's partnerships with Microsoft, the licensing of ChatGPT's technology to various companies including but not limited to Duolingo, Quora, and Snapchat, as well as the licensing of Bard's technology to Wendy's for experimental drive-thrus in Columbus Ohio. We didn't see these derivative advancements last year, and many of them probably could be too small themselves to mention independently in here, but their collective impact on AI are symbolic of the increased role that AI plays. A blurb in the lead encompassing these advancements in general is most appropriate, since these encompass the general trend throughout the year. May I ask why it is even the best idea to only have year articles be lists of events, rather than more prose-based articles such as the new 2001? Why appeal to tradition when there is a better way to have both? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

To more directly answer your question on why 2023 is so much more special in AI than other years, the advancements in AI seen in 2023 rather than 2022 are more numerous, consistent, and year-spanning than in 2022. For 2022, we only saw ChatGPT. In 2023, we have all those events I mentioned in the previous comment. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

To me it seems that, the more numerous they are, the less significant each single event is. Deb (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but what can we do to encompass the general trend that is AI? It's still important. Unless we start making year articles like the new 2001 (which ain't a bad idea), a blurb in the lead is the best we can do. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the people strongly involved in tech analysis and future projections and so forth are in a position to do that, and they seemed to think the Chat GPT thing on March 14th was a big deal, as well as the past few months in general for AI.

A breakthrough, or breakthroughs, a milestone or leap.

Now granted, I am far from an expert on this. So if I’m wrong, and these tech articles and analysts and predictions are wrong (or I’m just reading them wrong), correct me by all means. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a somewhat rough comparison here is the Space Race. So say in 1957 (I know my timeline is way off but it’s a hypothetical so bear with me) there were several major advancements in rocket propulsion technology and some high profile launches that surpassed everything that had been achieved beforehand.

That would be worthy of a mention in the 1957 article right? Both in the opening and in the events list? 1957 would in part be defined by those advancements in rocket propulsion technology and rocket launches. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Another example I'll give here is wars. The Ukraine War technically began in 2014. However the massive escalation in 2022 resulted in it dominating the year of 2022 in both events and the opening. World War 2 is another example. Again it began in 1939 but the major offensives and battles and atrocities of that war occurred towards the later years, in the early 1940s.

When something 'begins' is not the be all and end all of an event or movement.

So this argument that AI technically existed before 2023 isn't really a strong one, in my opinion. If 2023 is a year dominated by AI advancements and leaps and innovations then the fact that AI existed before this is totally irrelevant. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude "An AI arms race between private companies has continued since the late-2010s, with Microsoft-backed OpenAI and Google-owner Alphabet today most dominant among firms." this is way too detailed. Concerning the earlier parts: I think it would be good if it was mentioned very briefly in the lead and/or elsewhere in the article.

It's a major development but utterly overhyped and there are many more scientific and technological developments that aren't even mentioned with just a single word in this article despite possibly larger potentials for positive impacts, especially not the lead.

It's also inaccurate: these are not "arms" but polypurpose software – in specific software that could be briefly describable as being: chatbot functionality similar to but more sophisticated than Cleverbot which has been around since over a decade, so-far minor coding helper tools, a possibly near-term substantial misinfo- & scamming-tool, already-substantial artistic image creation tools / helper tools, and an unrealiable/inaccurate general text-generation solution still in search of problems. Even when just considering AI developments but not other developments that may be more relevant to e.g. major global risks or reduction of deaths and suffering, it's inadequate to single out specific AI companies at a minimum – see other developments at Timeline of computing 2020–present#AI software where people interested (further) in the subject-matter could maybe be directed to. That it's a global phenomenon is even more reason to not name specific companies or products. Mostly agree with Deb.

Prototyperspective (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"there are many more scientific and technological developments that aren't even mentioned with just a single word in this article despite possibly larger potentials for positive impacts, especially not the lead."

Can you give some examples? 79.69.119.219 (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

When limiting this to only technological new developments (why?), not scientific ones (studies/study results, open letters, general developments and trends in science, new scientific fields, new scientific projects) and also excluding other AI developments (why?):

• life extension tools demonstration like reprogramming in mice, RSV vaccines, space debris mitigation tech like ESO ADEO, green hydrogen production methods, rise of TikTok, drone and combat drone defense technologies, wetware computing/organoid intelligence results, asteroidal planetary defense technology demonstration, more gradual developments in e.g. floating solar or agrivoltaics or cellular agriculture or mycoprotein food production or various in vivo microbots or heat pumps or perovskite solar cells or recycling methods, epigenome editing demonstrations, genetic engineering tools, etc.

It would be a good point if there was any good reason to limit things included here to novel technology developments while developments only related to technology or scientific-only or more gradual in nature are excluded. I said more scientific and technological developments.

Concerning the "Americancentric"-relating rationales for inclusion, I'd like to remind people here that apparently on this basis (not a global development in terms of producer but only in impact) a mention of the substantial global media attention receiving UFO Report (U.S. Intelligence) was removed in 2021 despite that it wasn't even in the lead. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I firmly agree all those should be in the events list at the very least though. I think the events list is woefully misrepresentative of 2023 as things stand and the unyielding insistence on including completely mundane, quadrennial executive elections for every single sovereign state in the world over events like the ones you've just listed will never cease to confound and depress me.

I actually agree the stuff about AI should be trimmed in the opening, and a more general focus on the tech/science developments (some of which you've listed there) could be incorporated into the opening.

I feel like ultimately your argument is for more inclusion rather than exclusion of the AI craze though, whether you intend it to be or not. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I only said that the latter part that I quoted should be removed. I'm neutral as to whether the part before that is kept in the lead but I'd prefer if it was made a bit shorter and less promotional in tone. It's very inadequate to name specific products or companies there, at the least in this case.

It's already mentioned under Events despite of other major science-related events usually not even getting briefly mentioned. The releases of Cleverbot or Visual Studio or other equivalent software were not listed under Events, nor were other developments with larger media attention (or other developments of much higher non-media impact on overall deaths/DALY/global problems/global risks/etc). Moreover, it's probably inaccurate to call the two named companies "the most dominant among firms" when referring to the earlier mentioned AI art too.

This part should be removed asap given that it's also factually incorrect, this is not an arms race. Please keep science fiction fueled hype out. Even if it was an arms race or primarily/substantially an arms race, the latter part is basically promotional, biased and absolutely not okay. Otherwise I'm all for keep when the question is whether or not to include info about and a wikilink to AI boom here.

Another way that it's inaccurate is that it suggests that "have become capable of creating realistic and coherent text" is something new. It's not.

Why is the IPCC report not mentioned in the lead and has only one very brief sentence under Events while one third of the lead covers generative AI despite that bio/medical applications of generative AI are not mentioned (the focus instead is put on near-useless to largely-problematic text-generation or largely-niche music generation)?

If more input is needed ask for that on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Include on case-by-case basis as per Deb. While there’s certainly significant issues with Americentrism on these pages (and it’s not helpful to deny that such an issue does exist in general, and to sweep it under the carpet/dismiss it), I don’t think that’s a criticism that can really be applied here. TheScrubby (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There's just as much, if not significantly more, issues on this page with severely weak or plain false accusations of Americancentrism whenever someone tries to add noteworthy events (or just unnoteworthy events they genuinely thought were noteworthy) in some way tied to the United States. That is what was being criticized, so your strawman and muddying of the waters here is completely unhelpful and unnecessary. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the correct term for it would be, but the opposition to perceived Americancentrism on this page has basically ventured into the shadowy depths of inverted snobbery by this point. It's becoming borderline neurotic the way people so carelessly and zealously throw around accusations of Americancentrism and use it as a shield to attack and have removed events they don't think should be in the article. It's becoming a nothing term void of any substance due to its exhaustive, often inaccurate, overuse. 79.69.119.219 (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I said the insinuation that to include AI information is Americentrism is not something I agree with, and that the criticism is not something I think can be applied in this particular case - I cannot believe that you’re actually doubling down under the circumstances. I remain firmly opposed to actual Americentrism, which is where figures/events that would not be included had they been from any other country, are included when they are from America. That is systemic bias, and I absolutely stand by every assertion that I have made of Americentrism - which does not include this particular scenario. No, instead I believe that events from every country should be treated equally and that no country and their events should get special treatment. If an equivalent event/figure from anywhere other than America is deemed insufficiently notable for inclusion on the main yearly articles, then those from America should be treated no differently. The figures aspect is no longer an issue because the Deaths section - which had been a source of endless conflict and contention - has been removed. But no, I will absolutely continue to call out and vote against the inclusion of events which would be blatant examples of Americentrism/American exceptionalism. TheScrubby (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s a ridiculous standard to rigidly adhere to though because all countries are not equal in development, scale, reach, power, influence and importance, whether we wish this to be the case or not. The election of a warmongering leader in America for example has far more dire potential impacts on the world than the election of a warlord in an impoverished thirdworld country with no force projection or weapons of mass destruction and so forth.

In addition, certain countries have disproprotionate levels of certain events and things. AI for example being heavily concentrated in one small area of the US. Or Nobel Prize winners being massively disproportionately Jewish (do we stop including Nobel Prize winners in articles because of this? No, it’s preposterous).

Just because this is the case doesn’t mean we cannot report on these meaningful events that happened to be concentrated in one region or dominated by a particular group of people.

If a year happens to be dominated by American events and figures then it just is.

I agree with not being anything -centric as much as is reasonably possible but certain events have different magnitude and scale and potential impact depending on where in the world they happen.

A tsunami that striking a highly urbanized, developed coastal region does not have the same impact as a tsunami that strikes an unpopulated stretch of barren coastland.

Right? 79.69.119.219 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Frankly I disagree entirely with the premise of your response (especially the tsunami analogy), and I have nothing further to add other than that I will not give or make excuses for preferential treatment/systemic bias towards events from one country, and that I am thoroughly opposed to having one standard for events from one country, and another standard for events from 200+ other countries. I have zero intention in commenting further on this thread and zero intention of doing anything resembling WP:BLUDGEON, and I advise you to do the same. TheScrubby (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You don’t agree there is disparity between the various regions and sovereign states and even individuals of this Earth? And that events that happen in certain institutions or regions or sovereign states have different weight and impact and importance and influence than they would if they took place in others?

What color do you happen to think the Sky is, out of curiosity? 79.69.119.219 (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

”Sigh” - please read WP:BIAS and (especially) WP:STICK. TheScrubby (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Should "A hybrid solar eclipse is visible from Australia, East Timor, and Indonesia" be included on the page?

I note that the event has its own article linked in the entry and is quite sizable.Carter00000 (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Strong Exclude as prior talkpage consensus is that we don't add solar eclipses or any celestial events, even if they have an article. PaulRKil (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

From when have this change been done? Where is that talkpage consensus? Aminabzz (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Exclude as per PaulRKil. TheScrubby (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Why are eclipses excluded from the events section of year articles?! Aminabzz (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

So where is "Eclipses" in that WT:YEARS page? Aminabzz (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this talk page, so many discussions are being, let's just say, "poisoned" by the block-evading IP 92.14.216.40. Mutt Lunker remarked,

Geolocations, idiolect, intemperance of interactions, areas of interest, all fit.

What should we do about the discussions and the edits that IP has been involved in? They brought toxic atmosphere to these discussions. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give some specific examples of how the IP has "poisoned" discussions and brought toxic atmosphere to the page? I interacted with the IP above quite a bit, and felt the IP acted quite normally, except for wanting to discuss items more then usual.

Since I'm quite new to editing on this page, perhaps I'm missing some context? I see that the SPI has many, many entries, and the IP's final message on their talk page was quite hostile [1]. Carter00000 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOCKSTRIKE is a useful guide to the options. Striking through the sock's comments allows the good faith comments of other users to remain in context, while highlighting that the struck comments are by a block-evader and should be perceived in that light. Otherwise, hatting, and other options. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding context of the long-term abuse, the IP-hopping nature of their activities makes it difficult to gain a picture of their history of disruption. It covers their tracks and we shouldn't have to assess each new edit: we know it's them, they are blocked, can not be trusted and should not be here. It's been pointed out to them on numerous occasions that they can WP:APPEAL their block if they really have turned over a new leaf and, if they were successful, signing up as a user, rather than popping up on endless IPs as each previous one is blocked, would show good faith. The ony response, to continue the hopping and their true colours always show, per the latest talk page rant. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Then it is clear that their main purpose of editing Wikipedia was to spread what they believe Wikipedia should have looked like, preferably without consensus. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main MO for the IP was to reverse the years articles' content back to what it was like in 2019 and 2020, which both are very big articles to begin with, as during that time there's no one to regulate what should be added or what should be not - discussions were not that important at that time. And they are throwing tantrums whether the discussions wasn't going in their way, which resulted in harassment against InvadingInvader on March as Wikianon2023. That's the basic gist of what I know about them. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

While it’s always a good thing to call out sockpuppetry when such cases arise on these pages (as is unfortunately the case all too often), the most appropriate place to resolve this would be to file a report at WP:SI. TheScrubby (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

To what end? Are any not already blocked? Any active ones at least. The issue in this thread is dealing with their edits, particularly their posts here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean “to what end”? Sockpuppetry is something we take very seriously here, and if there is indeed a suspected case then it should be immediately reported and investigated by admins, regardless of whether they were active now or active in the past. This way as well, we can help prevent further sockpuppet edits from this user. I wouldn’t know if any are currently blocked or active because I haven’t been intimately engaged with this particular case, but I would imagine the onus is on those who have made the initial accusation. TheScrubby (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is about what to do with the edits of the socks, not the socks themselves, as they have already been dealt with. No SPI is outstanding and SPIs don't deal with the legacy of the sock's edits, the issue at hand. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we think this is notable enough? It seems there has been support for inclusion but the prior entries were premature. It appears now that most sources agree that India is now the most populous country. I've always been on the side of borderline include since we don't do this for any other milestone. For example, we probably wouldn't add an entry if China had overtaken the US for the world's largest economy.

If we keep inclusion, I think it makes the most sense to include it in the lede as we don't have an exact date for when India overtook China. We could go with April 24th as that is when the UN announced it, but I think it makes more sense within the lede. PaulRKil (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I am leaning towards include. But only with a reliable, credible, official source included. Not some obscure blog or opinion piece. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I copied the entry from 2020s about the population change and it cites the united nations. To me, that seems authoritative enough in spite of some peoples perceptions of the UN. PaulRKil (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with inclusion until List of countries and dependencies by population is updated, and if an exact date can be RS'd. Include as an event. The prominence given as a sentence in the lead to me is undue weight. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see consensus on this specific talk page to remove it, please direct me to the discussion if such one exists. Would dispute the decision as well; UEFA to Europe itself as well as football/soccer fans worldwide is a BIG deal and certainly has the Due Weight which merits inclusion. I believe that the UEFA invisible comment violates Wikipedia:Invisible comments on it telling editors on how to edit, and certainly if no consensus to exclude UEFA exists. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to a discussion on UEFA and the other five federations when it comes to their championship series'. My understanding is that we really only mentioned global sporting events such as the World Cup and the Olympics on main year articles as seen in this discussion. My only concern is that it introduces a situation where editors may feel compelled to enter other events like the World Series or the Super Bowl. PaulRKil (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a starting point at the very least is what the initial outcome is in Rostov, but I'm open to any comments or suggestions on it. This seems like an absolute no brainer to include IF the reports are accurate (much is still unconfirmed, I should add).

Pinging @PaulRKil and @InvadingInvader, but I'm all ears to anyone. Losipov (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The current entry looks fine to me, but let's see how the story develops in the coming days/weeks. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think its always appropriate to wait until more authoritative sources are able to corroborate the information. The original entry was largely added when the information was coming from open source intelligence and telegram channels who were largely just sharing statements from Prigozhin, who is objectively not the most reliable individual. At this point, the entry looks good but may need more detail as the events unfold. PaulRKil (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with PaulRKil and am going to say Wait. It's probably gonna be on here eventually...but the success of Wagner's incursion changes whether this is simply an event or something bigger spanning multiple entries. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Should "A submersible carrying five people goes missing while attempting to view the wreck of the Titanic" be included on the page? Carter00000 (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Include. (Edit: But perhaps reword it to emphasise the international aspects.) This is clearly a prominent story and a notable event in 2023. It's drawing worldwide attention, and been the main headline across major news outlets, for days now. International crew, international rescue effort (Canada and the U.S.), deep sea mission to an iconic shipwreck (Titanic). Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

? Of course. The language should be tweaked when more information evolves, but undeniable that this should be included. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Include this. It is worldwide news, and a major international event. The ganymedian (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Exclude we don't include similar events in main year articles, for example we don't have the disappearance of Hale Boggs and Nick Begich nor do we include the disappearance of Steve Fossett. There is a lot of media coverage but just because there is coverage doesn't mean it warrants inclusion. PaulRKil (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, as while the event is noteworthy, the articles for specific years regularly exclude many noteworthy events. The death toll, while tragic, wasn't especially high and this event was isolated due to specific problems with the submarine. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Include due to wide international interest. Try to merge all the necessary details into one entry, and consider making such date that the event it's listed on as the day when the sub is first reported. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment. I've removed the importance inline tag for this entry, given the responses in this discussion. Carter00000 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2023‎ (UTC)

Yes, I agree, given the likely repercussions of this event. Deb (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with removing the inline tag and rescind my exclude comment. PaulRKil (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, these events may have international impact. Canadian wildfires, for example, had affected United States and may have affected UK. Last day, MINUSMA was ended, and Nahuel M riots, while mostly localized to France, had cancelled Macron's visit to Germany. Should we include it? I'm not sure. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest to only include MINUSMA, as it was a international taskforce. The wildfires and riots I feel are more localized to their country, so are not as significant. Carter00000 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've boldly added the UN ending MINUSMA. Carter00000 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The death toll for Doksuri is getting up there (122 last time I counted), and it affected three different countries. Should we add it? Let me know. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the July 9th entry about the 2023 Uzbekistan presidential election should be removed, because the incumbent was elected in a rigged election with no genuine political competition. It also wasn't a referendum (i.e. for constitutional or territorial changes). Most national elections are featured, but some aren't (i.e. obscure, regional or local, or rigged). I think this one should be removed for being rigged. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Strong Include. We have usually included elections which have been alleged to be "rigged" in the past. We're here to document events as reported in RS's and not here to right great wrongs by creating original research evaluating weather a election is "rigged" or not. Carter00000 (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@JohnAdams1800, I note that you've removed the entry with the edit summary The 2023 Uzbekistan election is not sufficiently important--the incumbent was easily re-elected, the country is obscure, and there was no corresponding referendum as well.

- I've addressed you first point the incumbent was easily re-elected in my previous comment.

- On your second point the country is obscure, this is essentially systemic bias. As per the page, Bias can be...implicit when articles or information are missing from the encyclopedia. Your rationale is essentially stating that systemic bias should be the basis for evaluating weather a item is included. We're not here to evaluate weather a country is obscure, nor should we be making that distinction.

- On your third point there was no corresponding referendum as well, I'm not sure how it is relevant. Current consensus does not typically require a corresponding referendum for a election to be considered valid, or included on a page. Carter00000 (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. I don't think this should come down to whether it was "rigged" but rather if it is a notable enough event. Not every election is included in this article and elections like these really bloat the article. Yeoutie (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Related to this, this article is becoming overrun with similar elections that are not notable enough and belong in 2023 national electoral calendar and similar articles. In my opinion elections such as: Niuean, French Polynesian, Antiguan and Barmudan, Mauritanian, and more should all be removed. Just because it is an election is not sufficient enough to warrant inclusion here. Yeoutie (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked at 2022 and 2021 and got the impression that we tend to list all national elections, even the ones in small countries. I think that's a reasonable approach. I guess there are roughly fifty to eighty such elections per year. Year pages list a few hundred events. Sure, a significant number of them will be elections – I guess around 25% to 30%. Seems OK to me. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you are correct as I consulted with the 2016, 17, 18 and other articles as examples and did not look at the most recent years. Seems like the standards for the inclusion of elections have become broader as very few elections are included in articles pre-2020s, going back for decades. Yeoutie (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Few elections are listed on 2016 and 2017, but lots on 2018 (117 words on that page contain "elect"). I wonder if there used to be a rule about inclusion of elections on year pages that changed around 2018, but I guess if there was one it was more implicit than explicit. I tried to find general inclusion rules for year pages, but didn't come up with much. WikiProject Years and Timeline standards don't seem to provide detailed guidance. Maybe there were discussions about which elections to include on Talk:2017, Talk:2018, etc.? I didn't check. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Include, of course. Frankly, people who think Uzbekistan is "obscure" shouldn't be editing this page. Wikipedia:Competence is required. And of course national elections are notable enough for year pages. Just look at 2022, 2021, etc. etc. We list national elections, even in tiny countries like Cape Verde. If the elections are considered rigged or illegitimate by national or international observers, we clearly say so in the lead of the election article. Unfortunately, that's the case for lots of elections, e.g. 2021 Ugandan general election, 2022 Turkmenistan presidential election and many others, but of course we still list them on the year page. Let's not be silly. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Include all elections or events that affect a nation's head of state or head of government including presidential elections, national parliamentary elections, and other such elections including indirect elections (papal conclaves, committee votes that are used in single party states like China, appointments by a monarch, etc.) and events like the death of a leader, resignation, coup, war, government collapse, etc.

If we want to remain free of a western bias, we need to include every sovereign nation state regardless of size or influence. PaulRKil (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

With the first quarter of 2023 done, I think we can begin making a collage which would obviously be altered throughout the rest of the year.

1. The Syria/ Turkish Earthquake 2. French Pensions protests (although this is domestic, some domestic events get global attention) 3. Israeli Judicial Reform protests (same situation as France) 4. The rise of AI (maybe Chat GPT could be used) 5. The Chinese Spy Balloon incident 6. Trump's indictment (same thing as France) 7. Signiture Bank Collapse (mostly a US thing but it had global impacts) 8. Finland joining NATO, which hasn't happened yet, but it will soon TRJ2008 (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Certainly the collage can be less American-centric than you propose: Benedict XVI's funeral, assault on Brazilian high institutions, High Seas Treaty... _-_Alsor (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Also in agreement here, although I probably wouldn’t include the Brazil capital events on the collage, for much the same reasons as those of the US in January 2021. TheScrubby (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with most of these, though I don't think the Chinese spy balloon should qualify, it wasn't that big a deal at the end of the day. GevBen (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say five for now: Silicon Valley Bank, ChatGPT and AI, Brazil, the Earthquake, and Finland joining NATO./ InvadingInvader

Nominate the inclusion of the following events for consideration (with some events repeated from previous nominations). (1) Croatia adopts the euro and joins the Schengen Area, (2) 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake, (3) Northern Ireland Protocol, (4) High Seas Treaty, (5) Iran and Saudi Arabia agree to resume diplomatic relations, (6) Acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS, (7) IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, (8) Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO. Carter00000 (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although I would not include the sixth IPCC report. The previous ones have not been included in the collage. Not that it's irrelevant, but it's not particularly noticeable either. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd replace the IPCC report with either the Israeli or French protests. Every previous year for the last few years has had a major protest from around the world in the collage and I feel like these were the most high profile ones this year so far. GevBen (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for so many pictures - in fact, there is no need for a collage at all. Let's wait until we know what this year's big news stories are. Any particularly significant individual events can have images placed alongside their entry. Deb (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I prefer to wait until this year is finished. I remember feeling that the collage of 2022 are being not up-to-date after October's events, with crowd crushes and collapses of that time. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Best option is to not have the collage at all since it is entirely useless. Least bad solution is at the very least to wait for the year to be over before we even start talking about it since trying to compile the content before year's end would just be a complete waste of time. --McSly (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the notion not to have a collage until the end of the year. And I also agree that we really don't need many pictures at the moment if there even was one right now. That being said if I had to say what I think should eligible for the collage:

• For certain - Turkey-Syria Earthquake, Finland joining NATO
• Should be considered but could be swapped out - French or Israeli protests (I don't think it's likely we'd choose both), American Bank Collapses, Brazil Congress Attack, AI, High Seas Treaty, Sudan Conflict

As I said though, I think we should wait until the end of the year just to post a definitive collage because by that point everything would be a lot clearer in retrospective on what to add and also it would avoid constant changes as notable events are always likely to spring throughout the rest of the year. CaptainGalaxy 12:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Whenever everyone decides to vote on images, I gladly volunteer to assemble this year's collage! The ganymedian (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Should we add 2023 North India flood & 2023 South Korean floods to the page? The death toll for both events are quite high, comparable to other disasters which have been included on this page (ie. June 21, June 14, March 18, January 10). Carter00000 (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The North India flood deserves to be on there, it killed 422 people. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I note that user JohnAdams1800 has made a number of removals across the page. The edit summaries for the removals seems to cite consensus which is not readily apparent or documented.

• The UAW strike isn't important enough to merit inclusion here. It would merit being in the 2023 in the U.S. article but it's too localized and not a natural disaster.

• The SAG-AFTRA strike is too localized to merit inclusion on this page.

• Hurricane Hilary is too localized and didn't cause exceptional damage or death.

• The St.Petersburg bombing is part of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and doesn't merit its own entry.

• The New Zealand-EU trade deal is too localized and routine to merit an entry on this article.

• The Tenerife fire didn't cause any fatalities, and is thus too localized to merit an entry.

• Bilateral relations, both commercial and military, are not sufficiently important to merit entries unless they are truly extraordinary or conflicts.

I would like to seek some additional input on weather the items should be removed, given the quantity of the removals and the justifications for the removals.

Carter00000 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Propose to reinstate all removed items for the time being, given the vague references to consensus given as justification in the edit summaries. The items may be removed again later if there are other editors who wish to remove the items and/or consensus to remove the items. Carter00000 (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support totally agree. There is no need for an extensive justification if it is sufficiently clear, easy to understand and are common sense knowing what is the raison d'être of Year in Topic. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose mass removal, at least for now. This is the old international notability standard back at it again. See my essay on why we should not bring back International Notability for context. There is no consensus for neither the standard nor the removal. I am vehemently against the standards as enforced from 2021 to early 2023 being reigned in yet again.

I personally am strongly against the removals of either UAW or SAG-AFTRA. Unions affect a major chunk of notable businesses which have a wide effect on culture. For UAW, the argument is a bit stronger for exclusion, but prices for automobiles are due to go up because of this alone, and it's covered by reliable sources (Vox and AP. For now, given the grave impacts that RS's have cited could be caused from the UAW strike, I argue for its inclusion, though if it gets resolved quickly without major effect to the economy as described by RS's, I will support exclusion.

I could see as to why bilateral diplomatic and trade relations aren't too significant enough. The standards for natural disasters seem to arbitrary, though I could see the argument for Hurricane Hilary and the Tenerife fires. I would be open to a firmer standard or criteria for natural disasters pending that it gets an RFC.

For other events, I would suggest that we include or exclude them based on due weight, and not arbitrary standards. Previous debates on 2022 regarding the inclusion of Robbie Coltrane and more so Barbara Walters (the "Coltrane RFC" and "Walters RFC" respectively) cited the wide dissatisfaction with international notability as it has been previously defined on Years articles. I do not wish to see it implemented here ever again. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose mass removal. The SAG-AFTRA strike should absolutely be included. The strike being due, at least in part, to the emergence of AI, is highly notable. It would be useful and informative to readers in the future, looking back at the progress of this tech. Also, Hollywood studios have global reach and a major influence on culture, and the workers are often based in other countries, not just the US. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

So what? The real impact of this is minimal and almost nonexistent in the world. Just because it's Hollywood, we're not going to include the death of the cat that used to walk around the studios. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

in my opinion it should be Case by case basis.

SAG-AFTRA & UAW strikes should be included, because they are covered 24/7 on the news and has a big impact on their respective industries.

Hurricane Hilary should be included, because it infected not only the us but also Mexico and some Caribbean countries.

The St.Petersburg bombing should be excluded because this Page is not a timeline for the Ukrainian war.

The New Zealand-EU trade should be excluded because is this the local trade deal which I don't think the general public even knows or cares about, and should be put on their respected places year pages as it's just useless trivia.

The Tenerife fire should be included because the press is on it and it is devastating Spain. 4me689 (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the New Zealand-EU trade agreement is the most event most worthy of inclusion in the list. New Zealand and the EU together encompass 28 separate countries, accounting for approximately one-sixth of global trade. Considering the impact on the world economy as a whole, I believe this event should be in included on the page. Carter00000 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I would second the inclusion of the NZ-EU deal based on Carter's argument. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You should know that treaties between the EU and singular countries (NZ, Fiji, Malawi or San Marino) are common. This is how international diplomacy works since its millenary origin: with treaties whenever possible. No treaty should be included.

The Tenerife fire is not the worst that the Canary Islands, nor Tenerife, nor Spain have ever had. No notorious figures of damages and victims.

Hurricane Hilary has affected several countries, as any other hurricane, storm or wave can affect. Without notorious figures of damages and victims.

The strikes are notorious and this year's have had no international effect.

What a poor Year in Topic it ends up being, sincerely. Not every sine international event should be included. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do we even keep saying "international"? Seems like that we're going back to "international exclusive" inclusion criterias when we should really be following the due weight policies instead. I don't think there's ever going to be a non-local consensus which endorses the standards that you are alluding to. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that we no longer have the "international notability" standard here, but even due weight policies has its limits, the 2023 page is not a timeline of the Ukrainian War, nor its a news site. this is just a Wikipedia page for the year 2023, and its supposed to give highlights of the year to readers, not a timeline by timeline of the year. if possible we can always go with the RFC approach for this discussion, which is looking like it's getting close too. 4me689 (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Correct. But it does seem like that this is way too loaded of a question for an RFC. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Then load 2023 in the United States. What's the point of this one, if Year in Topic is already there, if international notability is already irrelevant. This is a real disaster. Manage it yourselves, because I don't want to participate in this if it is neither productive nor of quality. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we all agree year in topic is needed for much more niche events, but for the biggest events in a year in topic, they deserve inclusion here based on due weight per how much coverage they get. Most of the people who concur with my opinion think that year articles are too exclusive, and more so based on arbitrary disaster standards (aka, what I refuted in my international notability essay) rather than coverage. A majority of us, aside from maybe you and John, are generally in favor of coverage based standards, and while I value your opinion on more substance-based events, a rough philosophy I myself agree with, I think you're being too exclusionary. Besides, SAG-AFTRA's and the UAW's international impact, as demonstrated by previous comments, works against you in substance. So would the business buyouts of Splunk by Cisco, and Coach New York (Tapestry) buying Versace and Michael Kors. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the removal of the SAG-AFTRA strike and Hurricane Hilary (the reasoning is because it drew so much attention in and confused everybody). DementiaGaming (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

update, an RFC has been made on this situation. 4me689 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the RFC, given that there has been clearly insufficient WP:RFCBEFORE. Carter00000 (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay I'll just wait, i'll see how long this discussion keeps going on and how deep the arguments go before starting up the RFC again. 4me689 (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose removal of the SAF-AFTRA strike Hollywood movies are not a local topic. See https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/2022/. The foreign revenue for the 200 highest grossing movies of 2022 was large, often exceeding the revenue in the United States. It has received significant coverage from the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c7p29rdrw9xt. The topic of the effect of AI on jobs also makes it more generally notable. Oppose removal of UAW strike. U.S. car makers' share of overseas markets, as well as domestic markets, is declining but it is not insignificant. Also, Fortune magazine had an article entitled Your American Car Is Probably Not as American as You Think in 2019. It is behind a paywall but the title shows that the strike is of importance to foreign manufacturers and has more than a local scope. The inclusion of Hurricane Hilary can only be justified because it was rare geographically. Thankfully, despite the pre-storm hype, the damage and casualties were not extraordinary in any of the locations that it affected. I am on the fence on this one but lean toward exclusion. The Tenerife wildfire was not extraordinary enough to justify inclusion and has no further implications. The St. Petersburg bombing is too localized an event to include. The target of one of a notorious person's lesser known operatives does not lead to wider implications. Such events are unfortunately common worldwide, as well. The trade agreements are now probably too common to include. There may be more justification for the China-Solomons agreement as China extends its influence to other countries. I am not sure about the data communications agreement because I don't know the terms. If this has implications for privacy or international business, it might merit inclusion. Of course, all are notable enough to have articles. Donner60 (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Since these two items are the most commonly scolded for inclusion in the above discussion, why don't we just reach a consensus on removing these two? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Support I support it, as I removed the items originally, including these two. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Support the removal of the entries as proposed. Carter00000 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I support the removal of these entries. 4me689 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, so the news about Israel formally declaring war on Hamas on October 8th has now been merged back in with the news of the initial Hamas attack on October 7th two times now. This is clearly misleading readers. You wouldn't change the specific dates of declarations of war against Germany and Japan in WW2, right? I see no valid reason to merge the two items, one is the attack and the other is a formal declaration of war in response. Two seperate events on seperate days. How is this even an issue? It should be noted that the main article includes the declaration of war under October 8th. GWA88 (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Keep Merge. Given that the two events are directly connected to each other, with one being the direct consequence of the other. The events also occurred in a very short time frame, on consecutive days, within less then 48 hours. The general practice on this page is to reduce the number of entries, given the wide range of events the page potentially covers, so a split in the entries which you propose is not normally done. If needed, the sperate dating can be noted in the merged entry.

It is also suggested you moderate your tone. Accusations of clearly misleading readers, issues with historical accuracy, and asking How is this even an issue?, are both unhelpful and uncivil, especially when you know consensus is against you. Carter00000 (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus established yet. That's why I've started the discussion. GWA88 (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

When you are reverted twice by two different people, you can consider the general consensus to be against you, unless a formal discussion results in a different outcome. You may review WP:EDITCON for more information. Carter00000 (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note. It should be noted that even if the events occurred in a very short time frame, on consecutive days, within less then 48 hours, that's still seperate events on seperate days. General practice or not the fact remains that the declaration of war by the Security Cabinet of Israel happened on October 8th, 2023. GWA88 (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I note that user JohnAdams1800 has removed an entry relating to the 2023 Mastung bombing.

• September 29 – Islamic terrorists detonate a bomb during a Mawlid festival in Mastung, Pakistan, resulting in the death of over 52 people and 70 injuries.

The edit summaries for the removals don't seem to cite any consensus or policy which is readily apparent or documented.

• The September 29th Pakistan bombing had a significant death toll and importance (it occurred on an Islamic holiday), but doesn't have enough importance internationally for this article.

Should this event be included? Carter00000 (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Include, given the high death toll, the fact that it happened during a national festival, and the nature of the event Carter00000 (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Exclude, as I removed it because such events routinely and tragically occur around the world, including on days of national importance and religious significance. This event merits an entry in the article about 2023 in Pakistan, but not this page because it has smaller due weight than other events in coverage and impact. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Borderline exclude, Yes true that this does have a big death toll, but I don't know if the general public knows it that much outside of the area affected, tho I am open to changing my mind if a good argument is told. 4me689 (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Borderline include. There aren't policies or guidelines aside from consensus which support exclusion here. This is a very high death toll compared to most other events, so I would say that the due weight guidelines for now would support a weak argument for inclusion. I would be open to changing my opinion if a better argument for exclusion can be made. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Any appetite for combining the Mustung and Hangu mosque bombing in the same entry as they both occurred on the same day in Pakistan and both had religious undertones? Would perhaps solidify the notability of these religious terror attacks. Example: September 29 – During Mawlid celebrations in Pakistan, terrorists bomb a festival and a mosque, resulting in the deaths of 65 people. Yeoutie (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we should add it back in in this style. DementiaGaming (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Support this course of action. I think merging the two events into one entry is a good idea and would definitely help solidify the notability of the entry. Carter00000 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious on the thoughts in adding Nobel Prizes Rationale to the the Nobel Prizes section which I just did here. In my opinion it's an improvement to the section because it gives you the reason why they were nominated in the first place giving more context to that area. I'm thinking of putting this on WP years talk, but I don't feel like putting that on there yet. 4me689 (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Should 100% be included. However, now that you've started this discussion here, I suspect we'll see a repeat of previous years' debates on whether Nobel Prizes should even be mentioned at all on year pages. Sadly there seems to be a small, hardcore minority of anti-intellectual editors, ferociously opposed to their inclusion (perhaps they just hate science, humanity, and progress?). I hope the sensible majority of people resist these efforts to dumb-down the page again. Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

this section isn't about the whole Nobel Peace Prize section, just on people's thoughts on adding the Rationale to the section. 4me689 (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Your presumption that editors in opposition to their inclusion might "just hate science, humanity and progress" is telling. To slander them as a collective as being "anti-intellectual" is even more so. Assume good faith and remain civil.

I oppose their inclusion because they are awarded by a private, non-governmental organisation. In response, I’ve been told that they represent the pinnacle of human achievement. Which begs the question: why are these fields of human achievement of more value than any or all others? Why not include the Academy Awards for best actor and best actress in each year’s article? We should not provide any organisation with such special treatment. Asperthrow (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Put them in their own section. They can fit on a timeline, but given that it's gonna look like October 1 is one prize, October 2 is another, and October 3 is third. I would suggest that we even consider putting awards separated from the heading. Think like this:

Awards
Academics

• Nobel Physics Prize: Reichstag climbing-Spider-men
• Nobel Peace Price: Sam the WikiGnome

Just an idea. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Support the inclusion of rationale for the winners, but the rationales should be brief and include additional citations if necessary. Not all entries may need a rationale (i.e. the 2023 chemistry and physics prizes for original discoveries) or may already have one (i.e. the 2023 Physiology or Medicine entry). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Strong support for the inclusion Noble Prize winners and for rationales for each winner, as the entries seem incomplete without the rationales. Carter00000 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel as though we should discuss whether to keep the hospital explosion in Gaza on here. Many sources, including official U.S. and Israeli reports say the explosion was caused by the Islamic Jihad, and really only affected the parking lot of the hospital. It seems more and more unlikely that 500+ people were killed by this. The ganymedian (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the death toll is definitely under 500 from the information at this point, with it being as low as 50 by some estimates. I wonder if there is an argument for inclusion based on the international condemnation and reactions in its aftermath? Yeoutie (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely no argument for leaving it as is. It didn’t happen the way it says it did, it should at the very least be changed to reflect the reality of the situation. Even just adding something like “the story was later confirmed as false” would be a great improvement. GevBen (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Now that you say this, it makes me question weather it should be put on here. The death toll estimates mostly put it lower than the music festival massacre, so I take back my other comment. I feel like we should wait, though. DementiaGaming (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable as a second image for the Gaza war. DementiaGaming (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this story was thoroughly debunked, it’s an actual outrage that it is still up in this article. I thought this website was dedicated to delivering information, not putting up random false stories to further some agenda. I don’t want to just delete it unilaterally, but the longer it stays there the more potential damage it can cause. It needs to be removed ASAP. GevBen (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It has simply been such a covered story by reliable sources that I believe it should have a mention. However, it should of course be said that initial reports were wrong Marginataen (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have modified the wording of the entry to include a range of casualty estimates. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Does this event merit an entry on this article? I'm looking for a consensus; I'm not very familiar with the event, but I haven't seen this widely reported anywhere (i.e. Aljazeera, the New York Times, Washington Post, Euronews, AP News, etc.) except for Fars News Agency (Iran's state media) and it seems to be purely local.

I personally oppose the entry for now, as it seems to lack due weight--I haven't seen it being widely reported on any reputable news site and hasn't evoked any major reactions in Iran itself from the government.

Also can someone add a citation for the event if we decide to keep it? There's no citation for the event. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. A domestic incident, and the casualty count isn't notable enough for inclusion on 2023. If, say, 100 or more had died, and there were some international element (such as multiple nationalities among the deaths), it might be worth including. Also, the editor doesn't help their case by omitting a citation. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

October is here, and we have already come to the consensus for seven images on the 2023 collage, as you can see on the edit page. There have been two major conflicts within the past month that are both candidates for the eighth picture on the collage, both with major implications. The first one is the September Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It only resulted in the death of around 440 people and only persisted for one day, but ended in the inception of major protests within Armenia, the egression of over 100,000 Armenians (one-third of the population of the region) from Nagorno-Karabakh, and the partition of the region unto Azerbaijan.

The second preference is the Gaza-Israeli engagement. As of this post, it has started today, but has already ended the lives of of 530 people and may amplify into a full-scale war within the next few days. However, unlike the Nagorno-Karabakh war, there is less peril or certainty for genocide like the Nagorno-Karabakh situation.

Both regions have a lengthy, significant history to them, and both are favorable for displaying on the collage. There is also two months left to the year, so if another major world event transpires, we may have to remove an event. I added the Hawai'i wildfires as a image to the collage, so I affirm that I am entitled to say that it might be a candidate for not being critical enough to be on the collage if such a major event happens. Let me know what you guys think. DementiaGaming (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, because it likely ended the conflict (1988-2023) after the 2023 Azerbaijan offensive and the dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh on January 1, 2024. It's very specific to this year and had a major impact with the exodus of over 100,000 Armenians and the deaths of about 440 people.

The Gaza-Israeli conflict is part of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict, which has been ongoing since 1948 and has its own long and detailed articles. I don't think it work well for a collage for just 2023, though it is the first time Israel has declared war since the 1973 Yom-Kippur War. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What if the conflict becomes a major war that results in thousands of deaths DementiaGaming (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say the Gaza Israel conflict. While it is part of an existing conflict, this is a major escalation and has resulted in the first declaration of war by Israel in fifty years. As I’m typing this, Israel is also seemingly launching an offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon. To John Adams’ point, the same could be said about the Azerbaijan conflict as it’s part of a decades long post soviet conflict. This is definitely a larger global event. PaulRKil (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree. Hundreds of innocent women and children are being massacred by Hamas. DementiaGaming (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Per consensus, I have removed the Hawai'i wildfires and added both conflicts. I will ask The ganymedian to do this collage, as he said we would do it. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

In fact, we might as well add two or three images for the Israeli conflict, i.e. the hostages, the music festival massacre, the battle of Sderot... DementiaGaming (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please don't. The ganymedian is one of a handful of contributors who seem interested in little beyond getting their graphics into the public eye. Deb (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The Israel-Hamas war has dominated this year's news, it seems to me that Jesus will return sooner or later. I think we should add 3 images relating to the war on the collage. Certainly, we will add 2 pictures, but do you guys think we should add 3? DementiaGaming (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Stick to 2 images, because the war began in October and is part of the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict which has been ongoing since 1948. As stated above, I support one image from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the 2023 collage (i.e. the exodus of 100,000 Armenians) in the collage. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@DementiaGaming: You say that the specific image suggestions can be found at the edit page. Where is that? (found the list of events at The ganymedian's talk page). I would like to discuss that we begin making our collages using the multiple image template, mainly because images can can be viewed in a higher resolution when clicked. Here's a draft from me:

• International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova
• Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians
• 2023 Israel-Hamas war
• 2023 Chinese balloon incident
• 2023 United States banking crisis
• Cyclone Daniel
• 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake

Marginataen (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You can find the images by clicking "edit" on this 2023 page. These are the consensus images

DementiaGaming (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@DementiaGaming: I'll just comment on my choice of events. I didn't include Putin's arrest warrant. It's basically just a continuation of the war in Ukraine and its not like he was going to vist the U.S. hadn't it been issued.

I suggest including the War in Sudan instead. It was a war that started in 2023 and was caused the deaths of tens of thousands and above 1 million refugees. I've also included Charles coronation. I belive it was a huge event. If Israel launched a full on ground invasion of Gaza, some picture of that would probably replace the one of a Hamas missile, albeit speculation.

Something that might also be worth considering is the Wagner Group rebellion; the first real blow to Putin's power in 20 years Marginataen (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason we included the arrest warrant was the reason behind it - over 700,000 children have been unlawfully deported and transferred by Russia since 2022, which escalated this year. I think, for that reason, it is more important than the war in Sudan. It is the first time they have issued an arrest warrant for a world leader, anyway. DementiaGaming (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now made this proposal in which I have included (clockwise, from top left) the following eight event:

• 2023 Chinese balloon incident
• War in Sudan (2023)
• 2023 United States banking crisis
• Coronation of Charles III and Camilla
• 2023 Israel–Hamas war
• 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh
• Storm Daniel
• 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes

My suggestion:

• 2023 Hawaii wildfires
• 2023 United States banking crisis
• 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh
• 2023 Chinese balloon incident
• 2023 Brazilian Congress attack
• Storm Daniel
• 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes
• 2023 Israel–Hamas war

ArionStar (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - We should not be discussing any possible collages yet. There is still two months of the year to go and we can't make a decision whether to have a collage or what it should contain until January 2024. Deb (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think January will be too late - it may take a while to figure out what to do on the images. Unless you oppose, we should continue this debate as new events progress. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I do oppose the creation of a collage at all, and I certainly oppose deciding on its content before the year is over. Deb (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Deb whether or not we should inclusion of a collage at all on the 2023 page should be subject to discussion. I note that there is currently a discussion open on WP:YEARS on this very topic. Carter00000 (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• if I have to propose...
  • 2023 Brazilian Congress attack
  • 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes
  • Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO
  • Coronation of Charles III and Camilla (but not sure)
  • 2023 Nigerien coup d'état
  • Wagner Group rebellion

• 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh
• Storm Daniel
• 2023 Israel–Hamas war
• 2023 Marrakesh–Safi earthquake

The rest of the things that have been proposed, and from the perspective of "finalizing" the year....meh. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Events that clearly change the history of the year 2023 (Brazilian attack, Turkish earthquake, Chinese balloon, Israeli war, Hawaiian fires) shouldn't be scraped out. ArionStar (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Two of these events are domestic: nobody was killed and only 84 people were arrested in the Brazilian Congress attack, and nobody outside Brazil was aware of it. I guess the Hawaii wildfires did have an impact on most Pacific countries, but the death toll of the wildfires was only 97 DementiaGaming (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I further note that the Chinese balloon incident, while involved more then one country, was essentially a non-event hyped up by the media. The event had no lasting effect or impact on anything in the end. Carter00000 (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"nobody outside Brazil was aware of it"...it's clear that we don't live in the same world. I suppose there will be little difference between what you say and your opinion about the assault on the capitol.

And totally agree with Carter on Chinese balloon incident. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The Capital attack was indeed international news and it's absolutely wrong to say that nobody outside of Brazil head of it. But still, I don't think it should be included in the collage Marginataen (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, I worded my message wrong: Nearly nobody outside Brazil had been impacted heavily by it. DementiaGaming (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@DementiaGaming: I disagree; just see Reactions to the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack#International. The article is also in good condition, well referenced, and by the way, there is the article Artworks damaged, destroyed or stolen during the 2023 Brazilian Congress attack too. ArionStar (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's a new draft. Thoughts?

Collage Suggestion

Clockwise, from top left: Israeli IDF forces during ground operations in the Gaza Strip after the breakout of the Israel–Hamas war • After increased tension, Yevgeny Prigozhin (pictured), leader of the Wagner Group, stages a one day rebellion against Russia's leadership, dying in a plane crash two months later • Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh • Charles III and his wife Camilla are crowned as king and queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms • Refugees flee to Chad from a new war in Sudan • Consequent to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the flags of NATO and Finland are raised ouside the Finnish parliament as the country joins the alliance • The Storm Daniel creates havoc across the Mediterranean • Destroyed buildings in the Hatay Province of Turkey after Turkey and Syria are hit by a series of major earthquakes

• I nominate the inclusion of the following events for consideration (with some events repeated from previous nominations).

1. Croatia adopts the euro and joins the Schengen Area
2. 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake,
3. Northern Ireland Protocol
4. High Seas Treaty
5. Iran and Saudi Arabia agree to resume diplomatic relations, Acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS
6. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
7. Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO
8. Developments relating to Global Warming
9. 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Carter00000 (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I only support the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake and the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. Those two events have received international coverage and have extremely high due weight due to their death toll and severity. The other events are important, but are not highlights for this year in my opinion. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. DementiaGaming (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

the last photo I would post here about the Israel-Hamas war is of two politicians, one not even directly involved in the conflic; the (mutual) bombings, the Hamas assassinations in Israel or the escape of the Gazans is by far the most important and remarkable thing..... _-_Alsor (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Support this sentiment and propose that a image showing the missile trails in the sky be included, given their recognisability and the likely association with the conflict. Carter00000 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Either we show an image of bombed Gaza or the atrocities by Hamas. By chosing either, we sort of take a stance/frame it. However, this event is the one most likely to change before the end of the year, so I would rather wait. Marginataen (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Lead_image, a discussion on whether to depreciate collages in general in going on. Please share your thoughts.--Marginataen (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Basically the worlds first successful complete eye transplant. It is a major medical breakthrough and I believe deserves a mention. Jake11223344 (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say borderline exclude because while it is major and I included it in another article, it isn't something that has an impact on every human being in the same way as the first successful COVID vaccine or the discovery of antibiotics did. Also, the patient hasn't had any vision return to the donor eye. If it did restore vision, I'd also be open to including it. PaulRKil (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I didn't know what it was, but now I realise I've heard of it. "2023 NYU Langone Health attempt" was not exactly meaningful. Deb (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Leaning towards include. It's a notable milestone in the medical field. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say include, as it is a major medical breakthrough and received international news coverage. It has sufficient due weight to merit entry on the page about 2023. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Include–This is a milestone medical breakthrough and it is worth including in the article. Nagae Iku (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The rebel groups from the Myanmar Civil war have launched what are reported as successful counteroffensives, named Operation 1027 and Operation 1107, in the Myanmar civil war. I'm looking for a consensus on whether the counteroffensive should be added, as I believe this has sufficient due weight to merit an entry on this page, because this is a major ongoing armed conflict that also indirectly involves Russia, China, and India which are providing support to Myanmar's military junta. I have one citation (below) and can add more if the consensus is in favor of including this.

One thing is that I'm not sure which date(s) to add for this event, and perhaps they should be added after the counteroffensives have ended because it's ongoing and territorial control can rapidly change--the National Unity Government & rebels could gain additional territory, or the Myanmar military junta could retake territory for example. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Per a discussion on WikiProject Years, every image for this article needs a unique consensus for it, so here is the discussion for this image. Should this image be added in the May events section of the article?

• Yes – The coronation was a very large event which had complete international coverage. Include the image. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

He was a key historical figure and should be on the list. Jake11223344 (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Because, as was explained in the edit summary, Deaths are no longer included in recent Year articles but are included in Deaths in 2023. Deb (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello

@Deb. Would you be so kind to link me to the discussion where that decision was taken? Marginataen (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Check out the first discussion here and you can follow the links listed there to find out more. Even if you don't agree with it, you won't be able to include any deaths without consensus on this Talk page, and so far User:Jake11223344 hasn't attempted to obtain that. Deb (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I note that user Wjfox2005 has removed two entries relating to recent acquisitions by Cisco & Tapestry.

• September 21 – Cisco announces it will acquire cybersecurity firm Splunk for $28 billion USD, the biggest technology merger of the year.
• August 10 – Tapestry, the holding company of Coach New York and Kate Spade, announces it will acquire Michael Kors' Capri Holdings, which also owns Versace and Jimmy Choo.

The edit summaries for the removals don't seem to cite any consensus or policy which is readily apparent or documented.

• Splunk isn't exactly a household name, and I heard nothing of this merger from any news outlet. So this entry just doesn't seem notable enough.
• Totally irrelevant, boring and non-notable business event

Should these recent acquisitions by Cisco & Tapestry be included? Carter00000 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. But I'd support their inclusion in 2023 in the United States. As far as I can tell, these events have received little or no coverage internationally (certainly not here in the UK). There might be a case for inclusion of the first one, due to its size. The second one is considerably less at $8.5bn, which I don't view as notable for 2023. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Include. All four of the main entities (acquirer and acquired) involved in the two acquisitions are market leaders in their respective industries. Both industries are likely to be significantly impacted by these acquisitions. Carter00000 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. Of little interest to most of the world. Deb (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Strong Include. It's frankly bullcrap to claim that Michael Kors, Coach, and Versace aren't notable based on both the older criteria and new due weight guidelines. Likewise with Cisco and to a lesser but still consequential extent Splunk. I do not think that previous commenters recognize the impact that either mega-merger involves, which while not being as big dollar-wise, absolutely shakes up two of the most prominent industries in the world today: cybersecurity and luxury goods. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"absolutely shakes up" – how, exactly? Who will it affect? Which countries, or aspects of society, etc.? I mean, maybe it does have an impact, and maybe I'm ignorant, but it wasn't at all clear from the entries you posted. Some additional explanation is needed (but in a concise way), for the layman. Mergers and acquisitions are happening all the time in the world of business, so what makes these events special enough to include on 2023? Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wjfox2005 apologies for the late reply; been working on other things. Tackling Cisco/Splunk first: Well aside from the $28 billion price tag, a number which alone should merit some mention, this is the largest acquisition in the software field as of recent. Cisco and Splunk companies are major in an industry becoming more relevant by the day, especially considering that cybersecurity has been the focus of two of the last four new articles I've written myself (Scattered Spider which hacked MGM and Caesars, as well as the alleged 2023 Sony ransomware hack). Sony needs no elaboration, and Scattered Spider's attack in particular hit nearly every aspect of Las Vegas and everyone who has ever gambled at the two largest casino companies in the world, which is a LOT of people. MGM's hack also brought down BetMGM, which many in the US and the UK use to do their sports betting. All of this highlights the crucialness of the cybersecurity industry which you seem to have played down, and an acquisition of one of the largest companies in this sector is undoubtedly notable in world events. Just because you didn't get a CNN alert on something doesn't mean it's not notable or that notability per the DUE Weight guidelines is fulfilled. An argument which states that cybersecurity doesn't matter is inherently ignorant or against the industry.

As for Tapestry and Capri, the luxury market is generally Eurocentric. The two largest luxury companies are Kering and LVMH, and all are French houses which have started to eat up American companies like Tiffany and Company for LVMH and Maui Jim for Kering. Further consider that these brands are among the most recognized brands in the world; Louis Vuitton per Forbes is more recognizable than nearly every company in the world save for Big Tech companies, Disney, and Coca-Cola. Tapestry, Capri, LVMH and Kering control nearly every major luxury brand in the world today, save for Ralph Lauren, Prada, Rolex and Hermes. According to the SCMP and UBuy, Versace and Michael Kors (Capri) are the 6th and 7th most popular luxury brands in the world, and Coach New York (Tapestry) is the 10th. Anything big involving any of the top luxury brands in the world should be here as well. Again, while your personal opinion on luxury is free to disregard these fashion houses, it's BS to think that the globe at large doesn't focus on these brands.

As an ancillary point, not only are these corporations notable for their industry impact, but also have the eyes of Wall Street and traders worldwide focused on them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Well thanks, I appreciate the more detailed explanation. I'm slightly more open to inclusion now. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Who cares about some arbitrary and mundane corporate acquisition! Why is this in the summary of the year 2023??? Cisco or Tapestry (who even are these companies..?) acquiring another company no one heard of or cares about is of no interest to the general public, neither is some large fashion company acquiring another company. This is completely unlike the advancement of AI technology or the one or two companies pushing forward revolutionary products to the public. Please get rid of the commercial acquisitions. This was clearly included by some self-important investment banker or corporate lawyer who's trying to justify that their monkey-scribe work has any real importance to the history of human beings. It does not, and it should not be included in the SUMMARY of 2023 which has far more important things to be mentioned. Unless they are historical game-changing mergers or acquisitions which fundamentally change the way we live, they do not even warrant a footnote in a wiki article about 2023 - this adds NOTHING to the collective conscience. 2605:B100:739:20E:914C:4766:ED68:214E (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. Not every business acquisition/dealing needs to be included and these in particular seem to not impact much of the world outside of these businesses, reflected by the little news coverage. Yeoutie (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Exclude these are acquisitions, not mergers, and I don't think they're that notable on a global scale. PaulRKil (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Include Tapestry, Exclude Cisco, Versace is a big name company which is under the ownership of Tapestry, so Tapestry should be included, Exclude the Cisco acquisition because outside of the business world this was not covered that much, im open to maybe discussing inclusion requirements for business buyouts/acquisitions in a future discussion or RFC. 4me689 (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't we include the Betelgeuse occultation that will occur on December 12, 01:08 UTC? Aminabzz (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

No, but it can definitely go in 2023 in science. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I note that Marginataen has recently added the following entries:

• A mass shooting occurrs in Monterey Park, California, United States, killing eleven people and injuring nine others.
• A helicopter crash in Brovary near Kiev, Ukraine kills 14 people including Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs Denys Monastyrsky.
• October 19 – An Islamist terrorist shooting kills two and injuries one Swedes in Brussels, Belgium with the lone wolf perpetrator dying in police combat the following day.

Are these event notable enough for inclusion on this page? Carter00000 (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, the mass shooting in Monterey Park might actually be on the verge Marginataen (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Only the Ukrainian helicopter crash, as the other two events don't have enough due weight internationally. The Ukrainian helicopter crash received international coverage and had a high death toll including a member of Ukraine's government. The shooting in California is a domestic event that is quite common in the United States, while the Brussels shooting doesn't have a high enough death toll and didn't have much international coverage outside of Europe. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I support this proposal to only include the Ukrainian helicopter crash. Carter00000 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I support only including the helicopter crash. Marginataen (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Only the Ukrainian helicopter crash should be included. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that only the Brovary crash meets the due weight policy. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove the Ukrainian helicopter crash due to DWP. So, now we're adding random helicopter crashes with low death tolls. It almost fits an entry, but not quite. DementiaGaming (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I am don’t think we should have a video of murdered civilians from Oct. 7 on the main 2023 page. I think it is too gruesome and raw. Thoughts? The ganymedian (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so the "too gruesome" argument doesn't hold water. However, there might be positive arguments why another image or video is better. If you have a suggestion about what to replace it with, please share it Marginataen (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, as the main 2023 page is frequently visited by users who may not want to see such content, though it could be added to the article about the attack itself with a warning. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I personally oppose this as an entry, because while it received some international attention and is the deadliest mass shooting in Czech history, it doesn't have sufficient due weight or an extremely high death toll. It was an isolated incident, not part of a larger terrorist attack and such mass shootings are common all over the world (as an American I would know). I'm looking for a consensus, as the citation also needs some editing to remove the problems.

This was the entry:

• 21 December – In Prague, a mass shooter kills over 10 people in the Faculty of Arts, Charles University.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Include – As you yourself have mentioned, the event has received international attention and is the deadliest mass shooting in Czech history. 33ABGirl (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Include – I believe it's notable enough for inclusion. These shootings might be common in America, but aren't as common outside, and this was the deadliest in Czech history. I've edited the entry to reflect this. Also, you say "some" international attention, but it's the #1 reported story across scores of news outlets right now. The death toll is now 15, by the way (including the perpetrator), and 25 were injured. This wasn't exactly a small incident. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Include – Though it's a domestic event, I tend to agree with the comments above. Deb (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

leaning toward include generally we don't include mass shootings and don't include it just because it happened in a region where it is uncommon, but I think we should reexamine inclusion criteria for these types of events anyway. PaulRKil (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to add @DementiaGaming and @Jake11223344 to this discussion as they have been going back and forth over the entry and DG has pointed out it is a domestic event.

I propose leaving it up until a conclusion is made. PaulRKil (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

i apologize for this, I was not told about this discussion. You will not be reported for edit warring. However, I oppose this. If you include this entry, then the 2023 Lewiston shootings will logically have to be included because it had a higher death toll and received lots of more attention. DementiaGaming (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wjfox2005: What decision occurred to remove all images? If you are thinking of the collage RfC, that was for only collages, not all images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't agree to them being removed. But it seems that is what's been decided. See here – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023&diff=prev&oldid=1191182771 Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That was for that a discussion had to occur. Scroll up to this discussion: Talk:2023#Inclusion of File:U-2 Pilot over Central Continental United States (7644960) (cropped).jpg. I had a silence consensus to add and had pinged 33ABGirl and messaged on their talk page about it with no answer. Since you removed the silence consensus addition, please comment in the discussion about why it was removed (like a reason) or self-revert. I actually knew about that specific edit and followed it and Wiki rules to add that image. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've replied in the discussion above. 33ABGirl (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Per a discussion on WikiProject Years, every image for this article needs a unique consensus for it, so here is the discussion for this image. Should this image be added in the February events section of the article?

• Yes – The spy-balloon event was major and had complete international coverage and international headlines for at least a solid week. The public-domain photograph is perfect for this article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• @33ABGirl: — Since you removed this image, which was added under an original WP:SILENCE consensus, your thoughts on this image is requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  No - Inclusion of the image is WP:UNDUE. As there is currently no collage or images on the page, including a single image would imply that the event is the most important event of the year. The event itself had minimal impact on anything, largely being amplified up by the media.

  I've written a proposal here to decide the images. 33ABGirl (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  Bruh. You are the one who removed them and said each image needs consensus. Now you say that we can’t add an image because it creates UNDUE. You legit just perm removed images from all yearly article with no chance of re-addition per your UNDUE reasoning. That’s dumb and I’m challenging that. I believe it doesn’t create undue as I’ve also started a 2nd image discussion right below this (the coronation) and I could start 10 more image discussions right now. Do you actually have a different reason besides UNDUE, or is UNDUE your sole argument against images in the article which you removed them from? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I've struck the sections which you have expressed opposition to. I remain opposed to the addition on the event itself based on the remaining sections. 33ABGirl (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

NVM. I have a way around this. I’ll propose every image for this article and will do one RfC to add all 10 (ish) images to the article, no substitutions since we can’t add any due to UNDUE, so it is either all at once or none at all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I support this approach, as this is similar to what I proposed here. I suggest making reference to this discussion relating to the selection of collage images, as the purpose is alike. 33ABGirl (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Due to the various discussions and policy debates, it seems the appropriate course of action is to more or less survey vote for the inclusion of the following images (to not violate WP:UNDUE, single-image discussions cannot occur), hence a single RfC - support all or oppose all.

• File:U-2 Pilot over Central Continental United States (7644960) (cropped).jpg — 2023 Chinese balloon incident (February)
• File:StarshipLaunch (crop 2-3).jpg — SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 1 (April) [Main page image for 4 days]
• File:2023 Coronation Balcony.jpg — Coronation of Charles III and Camilla (May)
• File:Downtown Calgary Alberta Canada Wildfire Smoke - 2023.jpg — 2023 Canadian wildfires (June)
• File:Os-lahaina-town-fire.jpg — 2023 Hawaii wildfires (August) [Main page image for 8 days]
• File:Daniel 2023-09-09 1200Z.jpg — Storm Daniel (September) [Deadliest weather event of the year]
• File:Fires in Israel and the Gaza strip - 7 October 2023 (53245908850).jpg — 2023 Israel–Hamas war (October) [Wikipedia Top 25 report image]
• File:Destructions in Dnipro after Russian attack, 2023-12-29 (01).jpg — Russian invasion of Ukraine (December)

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support — Proposer. Noting that I was tempted to replace the spy balloon with Cyclone Freddy, but due to Storm Daniel later in the year, having 2+ weather-related images didn’t seem natural. Storm Daniel gets the weather-image as it was the deadliest weather event of the year. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• Proposal — To avoid WP:UNDUE, I recommend we discuss all possible picture selections first, then insert the images together. Doing so would avoid limiting us to a specific set of photographs to be accepted or rejected, as presented above. I also suggest making reference to this discussion relating to the selection of collage images, as the purpose is alike. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I recently added the Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023, joined with the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado to the list. This inclusion was reverted 22 hours later by Wjfox2005, saying it belonged in the 2023 in the United States article, which it already was. My inclusion was based on two parts: (1) the notability, which included local, state, and national responses, including the US National Guard being activated & (2) the shear size of media attention. It is common to include large, single-country disasters in the yearly article (not just country yearly article) if there is an extreme media attention. A few Google searches indicate over 500 media articles (Google news tab) from this event, just Googling “Rolling Fork tornado” (strongest/deadliest tornado of the event) and “Amory tornado” (Just one of 3 different EF3 tornadoes). The disaster article (parent) did appear on Wikipedia’s ITN section. While it wasn’t outside the United States, several international sources (dozens from those 2 Google searches only) came up, including this one by News Corp Australia, based on the opposite side of the world. Notability of the outbreak/stand-alone EF4 tornado article warrant inclusion on this list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Wjfox2005: I'm wanting to ping you again, since you have reverted the edit once again. Can you discuss it here? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"...local, state, and national responses" – exactly. Not international. If the tornadoes had occurred along the U.S.-Canada or U.S.-Mexico borders, or if some sort of international response had occurred (e.g. overseas aid), you might have a case. Death toll of 26 is hardly notable for 2023. There are myriad other disasters around the world this year, some with much higher death tolls, that weren't included. Given your username, I suspect you may have a bias here ;-) Wjfox2005 (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

There wasn’t an international aid response, but there was international media response. Independent in the UK did an article about one of the tornadoes, not even the deadliest or strongest. Yet, it received international media attention. If this list truly requires an international response, then I can go on a short deletion spree since there is a good amount of single country events. I implore you do self-revert and re-add the tornado outbreak. Article from Australia and here is one from India. It is clear that there is hundreds of news articles about this tornado outbreak and dozens of international news articles from several countries. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Wjfox2005 This is a personal attack, Given your username, I suspect you may have a bias here ;-). and not helpful for this discussion. Carter00000 (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion. As mentioned by Weather Event Writer, the event appeared on WP:ITN after a nomination process with extensive discussion and participants, based around similar criteria to those we have here at the WP:YEARS pages.

I further note Wjfox2005 edit summary This was a DOMESTIC event. No international notability. Death toll wasn't high enough for inclusion on 2023. Cheers!. The use of such criteria was recently deprecated by consensus, following a ANI filing and sitewide RFC. Carter00000 (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

If that's the consensus now, then okay. And sorry for my personal attack @WeatherWriter. Feel free to re-add the entry. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove'. Just like that helicopter crash in Ukraine, 26 people is just not enough. Take the 2023 India floods, for example, which killed 400+ people but isn't on this page. DementiaGaming (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

DementiaGaming, see below for that inclusion discussion. I should note, there was an ANI filing followed by a large-scale RfC which deemed each event has it’s own DUE weight discussion to determine it, i.e. domestic-only events can be included. Do you have any other reason besides the invalid WP:OTHERSTUFF reasoning for exclusion of this event? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The outbreak also didn’t break any records as far as I’m aware, none of the tornadoes had a high wind speed or reached EF5 damage, and in my opinion tornadoes that don’t have EF5 damage shouldn’t be on these articles. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

That logic would exclude the 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado, which caused $2.4 billion in damage and is the 2nd costliest tornado in history (more than all but one EF5 tornado). That would also exclude the 2013 El Reno tornado, the widest tornado ever recorded in history. In all honesty, that is horrible reasoning. Well, you can have your opinions and reasoning, but to note, I obviously disagree with you, given the sheer international attention this outbreak and Rolling Fork tornado received. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's funny that you violate the same rule that you accused me of violating two comments ago on the same discussion. DementiaGaming (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Mine is different as you stated “in my opinion tornadoes that don’t have EF5 damage shouldn’t be on these articles”, and I just pointed out how tornadoes with costlier damage totals than EF5s & the record-widest tornado in global history wouldn’t make that cut. I didn’t call you out on OTHERSTUFF, just made a point-blank observation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(P.S.) To tack on, it has huge WP:LASTING effects, with even a full-on Washington Post article a week ago on it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Should Rupert Murdoch retiring as chairman of News Corp and Fox merit an entry for this page? I'm looking for a consensus, because I've seen the entry added, then removed, then added--by others, not me. Does Murdoch deserve an entry on this page, or could this just belong on an article about developments in the media industry in 2023 for example?

Murdoch is a powerful individual whose media empire spans Australia, the UK, and the United States, but on the other hand he's not extremely well-known or a politician holding elected office, and his companies have significant competition. He is unique because he & his family own his media companies, while most of his competitors are publicly traded corporations. Murdoch's retirement will also not have a direct impact regarding the content from his companies (i.e. Sky News Australia, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, the Sun, etc.) and I can't recall similar entries if other billionaires retire from their powerful and well-known companies (i.e. Jeff Bezos retiring as CEO but staying as Chairman of the board of Amazon or Bill Gates stepping down from Microsoft's board). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Strong include. "Not extremely well-known" - eh? Apart from being the most powerful media magnate in human history? And no, he wasn't "a politician holding elected office", but the influence of his media over elections, and politics in general, has been undeniably huge. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

include, it's a big news story, definitely belongs on this page. 4me689 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Include. Murdoch was one of the most powerful people on the planet, and his son Lachlan will soon be too now that he's going to own it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Borderline Exclude because we don't include when other CEOs step down from influential organizations as you mentioned with both Gates and Bezos, and it won't have an effect the day to day of those organizations in any capacity though I am open to inclusion if there are good enough arguments in favor of it. PaulRKil (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Gates and Bezos did not have the same impact that the Murdochs had on world affairs despite running larger companies. This is most likely due to their actions being more focused on their industries, which while presenting exponential benefits to the consumer, did not topple governments or come close to toppling governments the same way the Murdochs did. If you would prefer consistency however I am open to inclusion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Its a hard one to gauge for me but you make a good point, Murdoch is probably the most powerful media tycoon since William Randolph Hearst. I'm open to inclusion on that. PaulRKil (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - A person would have to be far more important than Murdoch is to justify his/her retirement being included as an "event". Deb (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Exclude - Murdoch's businesses will continue. It'd have to be a head of state/gov or Pope for their retirement to be included. Businesspeople, sportspeople, entertainers etc. retiring aren't important enough. X2023X (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I really feel like it is a disgrace that we just have an empty "Deaths" heading. A major part of a year is how died, and it's just so wierd that we can't make a list about the most notable ones while at the same time linking to the main article for a more comprehensive list. The deaths of people like Tina Turner, Matthew Perry and Henry Kissinger drew massive media attention. Much more than many of the events listed in this article. We should be able to make a list like the one on e.g. 1924.

See here. There was far too many disputes and lengthy discussions about the suitability of each person included and issues with Americentric bias (I note that all your examples are American as well) that the decision to remove the Deaths section entirely was unfortunately made necessary. TheScrubby (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should include the death of Henry Kissinger. DementiaGaming (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I oppose including any deaths for the page, including Henry Kissinger's. As TheScrubby mentioned, this would require weighing whether other notable deaths should also be included, to both avoid Americentrism and because there are many notable deaths this year.

For example, Kissinger wasn't the only notable public official to die this year--Sandra Day O'Connor (first female SCOTUS justice), Constantine II of Greece (last king of Greece), Silvio Berlusconi of Italy (controversial Italian Prime Minister), etc. were also extremely notable deaths. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the Deaths sections have been removed from main year articles from 1980 onwards, we only include deaths which have their own articles, such as Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI. X2023X (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Historically the events section is listed according Month Day. This is the only year that is formatted Day Month. This format has been followed for all the years I've seen 1900-2022

Example: 1 January – Croatia adopts the euro Instead of traditionally January 1 – Croatia adopts the euro 2601:1C0:407F:AFA0:FCB3:4F2C:C579:C856 (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

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

I'm unsure about this event, as it is sourced and may have merit, but doesn't have its own article and is largely a regional event related to the Rohingya genocide would better belong on that page. This entry also has grammatical errors and is rather long.

This is the entry:

• 27 December – Hundreds of students from various universities in Aceh, such as: Abulyatama University, Bina Bangsa Getsempena University, and University of Muhammadiyah Aceh, stormed a shelter for Rohingya refugees and forced them out of a convention centre in the city of Banda Aceh, demanding they be deported.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude. Overly long entry, wrong tense, lacking international coverage or notability for 2023. Wjfox2005 (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude per above comments. Deb (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude because no-one was killed, it didn't cause a change in government policy & it doesn't have its own article. It's on 2023 in Indonesia. X2023X (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Should it need to have a death victim first before it can be put into the article? I find it is necessary since the accident wounded 100 and was covered by international media, such as Al-Jazeera, South China Post, and CNN. -_- Asphonixm (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Fatal attacks happen all the time. This one didn't cause any serious injuries, let alone deaths. It wasn't a murder, riot, shooting, bombing, stabbing or arson attack. It doesn't have its own article & isn't notable enough for one. This article is for the most important events in the world this year. This local disturbance isn't one of the most important events of the year in Indonesia, nor among the 10,000 most important world events of the year. There were clashes, suicide bombings & mass shootings with double-digit death tolls this year which aren't included in this article. X2023X (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Does it even belong on 2023 in Indonesia? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we include the 2023 North India floods, which killed 422 people?

• Support inclusion — While it is a domestic event, 400+ deaths is huge for a modern-day disaster. There was an ANI filing followed by a large-scale RfC which deemed each event has it’s own DUE weight discussion to determine it, i.e. domestic-only events can be included. So, I support inclusion mainly due to high death toll. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I also support inclusion for the above reasons, but I'm not sure where exactly such an entry would go. These are multiple floods occurring over months, not a single event, so perhaps it could go on April 1, 2023 when the floods began. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Support, per Weather Event Writer and JohnAdams. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Russia attacking multiple Ukrainian cities at once should be on the list in my opinion 2603:8080:7CF0:8820:2420:8FD:BD7B:B220 (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I support adding the 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine as an entry for December 2023, as it was one of the largest and deadliest air attacks in the Russian invasion of Ukraine this year. This is a current event, so I would not include casualty numbers (deaths & injuries) for now, but I would include this event. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Include – Notable as largest bombardment of the war so far, and occurred countrywide. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Include. Wjfox2005 shares my opinion and rationale on this. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

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

• 3 January – Starting from this date, many countries impose travel restrictions on travel from China due to the relaxation of the country's zero-COVID policy.^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

2022

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

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

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

I would also like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020).The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest.

On the project page, I've presented a similar proposal to use DMY in general for articles on "generic" years, but would also like it create consensus for it specifically on this article about 2023.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request to 2023 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Turkish Earthquake

The Titan Implosion

Charles' coronation

The rise of AI

The spy balloon incident

The Israeli Judicial reform protests

The Wagner rebellion

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

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

We have already come to a concensus on the collage

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're right Superyassi362 (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)