Talk:2021/Archive 4

December photo (Result: Ben Halim)

Out of Anne Rice and Mustafa Ben Halim why was Anne chosen? I mean one was a head of state other a famous author it doesn't make sense to me. Mustafa Ben Halim I feel is more notable. Other opinions are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.233.70.204 (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if this is the case then that’s definitely problematic. Especially given the significance of Ben Halim as head of government of his country - and we generally prioritise heads of government, particularly those significant to their own country. I think I heard earlier that the number of page views since the figure’s death ought to be a central factor in who is deserving of an image. In my view that would set a deeply problematic precedent; in no way should heads of government be prioritised against unless it is another, more significant head of government or if we want to have space for at least one pop culture figure. I think we have it right for now with Kåre Willoch, Ben Halim, and Vicente Fernández. TheScrubby (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree - a head of state/gov should be included. Page views shouldn't be taken into account, because many heads of state/gov have much lower viewing figures than far less notable entertainers & sportspeople. It's debatable if Rice is internationally notable enough to be included in Deaths; she's certainly not notable enough for a photo. Jim Michael (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And how is Halim internationally notable? I have no idea of whom he was, or what he do, he is mainly just known on his country of origin. What other merits out of being a "head of state" does he has to be taken as notable? TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it, and it has been said many times on the Talk page. Many leaders are unknown to the rest of the world's population, but with great transcendence in their respective countries. And that is why some of them have their photos included. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Heads of state & gov are inherently internationally notable because they lead their countries & represent them when communicating with other countries' leaders. Most of them aren't world-famous, but we go by international notability, not popularity, media coverage etc. There's still a dispute about which photos should be included. Jim Michael (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 (Result: proposal implemented)

Why are we repeatedly linking to COVID-19 in this article & the 2020 article? GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay Not quite sure what you're getting at. What would be a better target? Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Do like I've done at 2020 in the United Kingdom & 2021 in the United Kingdom. Link to the article Covid-19 only once per month. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

That'd probably still be overlinking. Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

No argument on that. We've the same problem, across all the 2020 in Place articles & all the 2021 in Place articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Easy: solve it. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed many of the repeated COVID-19 links from articles including this one, but they're still being added. Jim Michael (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest & Nobel Prizes

I've started discussions about these on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. Jim Michael (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Michael Nesmith (Result: excluded initially under false consensus on musical inclusions; subsequently changed to borderline inclusion)

Let's dissect Nesmith's importance (and the highly US specific country rock genre and noting that country music itself founders like Carter Family and Jimmie Rodgers (country singer) are not globally important either; only Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson and Dolly Parton are); first obit says "The credit for inventing country rock usually goes to the Byrds, the Eagles, or Gram Parsons."; so not even most important in this ultra minor genre; the second obit starts with "He didn’t always get his dues" highlighted first, so a minor figure, with a tinge of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; now the MTV claim in the second obit "And then there was the story that Nesmith had subsequently “invented” MTV: always fascinated by the potential of pop video, he had sold his video-based 1979 TV show PopClips to Time Warner, who, director William Dear said, “watered down the idea and came up with MTV”. It became so widespread that he gained a reputation as the forefather of the most powerful force in 1980s pop promotion. It was an entirely deserved and correct rewriting of history" so a "rewriting of history" would portray him as not so important in such a development and it's wrong to portray him as such; the lede of the Nesmith article straight out says "In the early 1980s, he was asked to help produce and create MTV, but could not due to prior commitments for his production company."; the third obit says "The Monkees is mostly remembered today as a show about a band that didn't play their own instruments"; hardly of supreme importance to music history. One would wonder why a classic rock band at it's peak and a musician who supposedly invented MTV would not be in the Rock hall of fame, the high point of rock music and which lists rocks most important figures. (no excuse for a classic rock band not to be in here). Country rock itself being so minor with only The Byrds being listed out of the bands you pick. Michael Nesmith discography; his highest charting solo album being ranked 143 hardly inspires "global" importance to music history. There's number ones who are not worldwide important. This is a very minor musician in the grand scheme of things. Is this guy really so important, especially for a image over a head of government, why - if so? There's no reason to list a American musician who never got a solo number one or is not a member of a hall of fame band. My area of interest is everything but physics and chemistry (i manage a excel of thousands and thousands of figures so far and continuously growing); from the circus to Palauan politics (or every country really! - as noted by my long history attempts to diversify the politics list here for example - [1] and [2] - . It shouldn't matter what i know anyway; everyone is free to comment on such a page as this one, doesn't matter what you specialise in. GuzzyG (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Chart sales and commercial success (which, by the way, The Monkees were one of the most commercially successful bands of the 1960s) is far from the only factor in determining the importance and significance of a music/entertainment figure. You may choose to portray Nesmith's recognition (particularly in more recent years) as a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in order to fit your narrative that he was a minor figure (who, going by the way you interpreted his significance, was so minor that nothing would be different if he never existed). More realistically, it is a reflection of a change in consensus among music critics and historians - believe it or not consensus can change. Nor do you take into account the praise Nesmith has received from his [contemporaries]. Try a [Vanity Fair] article, while you're at it, which describes the significance of the band and Nesmith in particular - months before Nesmith died, in fact. The Smithsonian too makes reference to Nesmith in their article to do with [MTV], also making reference to [this article] in the process. You're arguing for his complete removal (Davy Jones and Peter Tork, who are of lesser significance than Nesmith, are also included on their respective year pages with images) rather than merely against prioritising his image, on the basis of a profoundly mistaken premise rejecting any notion of his significance as mere revisionism partly rooted in your basing of musical significance on commercial sales - which is a ridiculous argument which'll see for example somebody like Justin Bieber be deemed more significant than the Velvet Underground. Your contributions would also be far greater appreciated here if you didn't completely derail threads by ending up discussing figures which have nothing to do with, and are not relevant to the original topic on hand - which is something which you have always done, rather than focusing on the original topic. I said it before and I'll continue to say it until you get the message, if you have issues with certain figures not being included (usually due to them falling under the radar rather than being consciously excluded), start a new, separate thread bringing notice to these figures, and argue for their inclusion. Not to bring them up either in false comparisons or in disruptive comments derailing discussions and using the figures as attacks on how people here are included. TheScrubby (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

First; i'm being strict to global standards as applied to most other figures. Second; i don't really agree by global standards Rock and Roll hall of fame members should be added just for being in a band; just going by the consensus here. Ian Stewart (musician) being added as a favour and tribute, is not global influence. Robert Trujillo joining after a bands prime period and one of their worst critically is not global importance. It should surely based on musicians important to their instrument/as frontman/woman as a whole. Keith Moon is important. Joe Hahn isn't, you can't really claim a band's achievements to it's members individually and this is why it's wikipedia policy to not give band members notability and a article for the sole fact they're in a band. You need solo importance too. Saying multiple people qualify for this list based on one collective achievement is odd. Hilton Valentine is not a global figure of importance by himself, despite his collective achievement. Most average people can name a band by a song, but you need to be a indepth fan to know every member on anyone but the most known groups. By this measure Joey Jordison should not be listed either; so to be clear i do not agree with this Hall of Fame rule, but i go by the consensus. This is even lesser for a figure not in the hall of fame, judged by their peers as not apparently worthy enough, despite some people giving props. (every figure gets this after death). So band achievements are irrelevant for me; because notability is not automatically achieved from a group project in my opinion, his more notable solo achievement would be as a actor playing a musician on The Monkees (TV series), as this is individual. (but this would open up a claim of being a main/credited actor on a US tv show, probs not a road you wanna go down!). Also since this band started as a TV show fake band to capitalise on the Beatles, yes anyone could have played this role. GuzzyG (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Second, the MTV articles; you can find a article claiming MTV invention for different people it seems, here's one for Richard Lester [3] - director of A Hard Day's Night (film); by the Beatles, (the band Monkees were meant to imitate); this guy led the team to create it Robert Pittman (media executive); (would he be listed?); PopClips, Nesmith's show that's cited as a influence (which is what he's cited as, a influence for MTV); aired from 1980-1981. Top of the Pops (aired first, main influence on Music Television, first aired same year as Monkees founding). Even from Australia; Countdown (Australian TV program) was earlier, (and Molly Meldrum would not be listed). To claim Nesmith is of major importance to music video based on being a "godfather" after a retro outlook after Michael Jackson's Thriller (music video) brang them to importance is not sufficient enough, the Beatles had a music film before this guys first music video and that matters because The Monkees is meant to directly imitate them. Hardly of uniqueness to the industry. (probably why their peers have not put them in the hall of fame). John Lack is in all these articles as of more importance to MTV itself and he doesn't even have a article, yet alone being listed. A bare influence on a much larger thing created by different people is not real global influence. Especially when there's other more important music television shows to consider that influence and i wouldn't be surprised if American journalists did not know this influence. The vanity fair article is clearly off; The Beatles are largely cited as pop rock too and they are clearly the Monkees exact template.

Third, The Jackson 5 was the first great boy band (founded earlier than the Monkees) (would we list Randy Jackson (Jacksons singer)?). Doo-wop is the real root of boy bands and the Monkees are not in anyway part of that influence. Even before doo-wop spread them, there's a long, long history in early recorded music of older boy band today equivalents of equal importance like Peerless Quartet or even internationally Comedian Harmonists. Monkees have no unique importance to boy bands and any of their original stuff was rooted in the Beatles anyway, which only makes the Beatles important as unique musicians. Also in a modern way, if people like Nick Carter (musician) and Donnie Wahlberg are not listed for their bands impact on modern boy bands, than i don't really see why Nesmith gets credit for the Monkees. Jones and Tork are a reach too then.

Fourth; that's a false comparison; The Velvet Underground as a whole is top five most influential [4]. But yes, i would say Bieber is more important individually than anyone other than Lou Reed, unless you think Willie Alexander is more important than arguably one of the biggest male musicians of this century, up there with Drake and Timberlake sales wise. (irrespective of critics).

Fifth, these comparisons are meant to show people that there's a problem when it's cited that we have strict rules to keep of Americans, yet Nesmith and people of similar small cultural worth is never questioned, yet now we have importance tags on Robbie Shakespeare and Bipin Rawat; one of the most influential reggae bassists and the head of Indias military. [5] It's a bad list when there's a constant fight to keep on non-Euro and non-US figures and the big problem with this rule is that it claims to be anti US but only impacts non-US culture. It's a bad rule, these comparisons are valid to show that and non-disruptive, the disruption comes when my comparisons are ignored and you imply that i should not post as my contributions "are not welcome"; i don't see why that is needed and is more of a disruption, in my opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Bonus; this article [6] says "Nesmith would call his “Rio” clip the “first music video,” though everyone from The Beatles to Queen to Cab Calloway would probably take issue with that." which combined with a groundbreaking "promotional video" (no word for music video then) with Bohemian Rhapsody per it's article [7] (which aired on Top of the Pops, again before PopClips existed) per [8]. Would establish this guy as embellishing a claim to the "first" music video and then people just run with it (and cite his small show, which aired on Nickelodeon, as the influence, despite other shows existing!); hardly proving of singular importance to music videos or to be globally important. GuzzyG (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear; "According to Lack, it was the success of PopClips that inspired him to go to Bob Pittman, a former radio programmer whom Warner hired to run its nascent, 24-hour film service, The Movie Channel. Lack told Pittman to start developing a similar channel for music, and the two men used the proven success of PopClips to sell their idea to the board of directors. When they finally got the go-ahead, Lack claimed in I Want My MTV, he went back to Nesmith and offered him a job as a creative consultant at the fledgling MTV. Nesmith turned him down. He said he didn’t like Bob Pittman, Lack recalled, and he didn’t like the direction they were headed. MTV would go on without him." makes the MTV claim more relevant to John Lack and Pittman, who ran the 24 hour film service (which seems just as much a influence as Nesmith's Top of the Pops like show) as Nesmith didn't want nothing to do with it (except credit it seems lol). Is this really singular importance? Would we list Robert Pittman (media executive)? (Lack doesn't have a page, so we can't him). GuzzyG (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m actually at work right now, so I don’t really have the time to give an in-depth response. But although you downplay the importance and significance of The Monkees, these are not views widely shared by music critics and historians, especially today - as much as you dismiss the articles written about them and Nesmith both before and after his passing. The Monkees not being in the RRHOF is not so much an commentary on their notability or significance as it is a (oft-criticised) biased veto by the heads of the organisation, partly based on the fact that they started out as a manufactured made-for-TV boy band. A veto that has also been placed, and criticised, against other highly notable bands such as Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, King Crimson and Motörhead, among others. [TIME Magazine], [Goldmine] and [NPR], among many other sources, have openly called for their RRHOF induction. The Jackson 5 were more of a family pop/R&B group, and in any case the significance of The Monkees in that regard is that they were the first manufactured made-for-TV boy band (and if not, then the first major and significant one), and one whose (commercial) success and notability extended well beyond just the United States. Although The Monkees did start off as a pastiche of The Beatles, you don’t give them enough credit in that they outgrew this and came into their own musically, particularly once they gained artistic control after their first two albums (and again, once they came into their own they proved to be quite innovative not only in terms of helping develop the country rock sound - primarily Nesmith’s initiative - but also with the uses of new technologies such as the synthesiser, of which The Monkees were one of the first bands to make use of on their Pisces album). I will concede that the Bieber/VU comparison was a bit of a false one in this case. I don’t know enough about Rawat to comment, but as the user who originally included Robbie Shakespeare I’m in full agreement with you that he warrants inclusion and that the importance tag was not needed. While Nesmith was far from the only major figure in the development of the music video, it would also be inaccurate to strip him of any and all credit, particularly when it is clear that music critics and historians generally do regard him as one of the key pioneers in that field. TheScrubby (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

These people are are not widely acknowledged, influential professional critics or historians. The first article link of the reactions to his death is the best; with Allison Rapp [9]; but this is just typical praise after death. Mark Rozzo, who made the "most influential pop rock band" claim in Vanity Fair, ignoring the Beatles, appears to write a mix of articles, not specialising in music. Highlights include "Inside L.A.’s Ultimate Mid-century Modern Home" [10]; the Smithsonian article is again written by a non-specialist in Michelle Delgado, whose twitter just mentions her being a blandish "culture" writer; so no special expertise in music specifically.. The Texas Monthly article is written by Sean O'Neal [11], who doesn't focus on music; with articles like "‘The Chosen’ Is Christian TV That Even Heretics Can Get Behind" and "Texas Could Sure Use a Man Like Hank Hill, I Tell You What"; hardly a music based background. Joseph McComb from the Time piece focuses on music; but he has 292 twitter followers and refers to himself as a "Copy editor, music trivia maven"; hardly a mega important critic or historian. Goldmines magazine article is just written by "Phil", who continuously writes about the websites own hall of fame, so it's not surprising he'd be against another hall of fame. [12], the NPR article being written by Marc Hirsh; a general culture editor it'd seem [13], dude has no specific interest or long history as a recognised music critic, he has only 1,154 twitter followers and none of these people are anyway near a music historian, if there's "many" sources, we should have them by respected music critics and music historians, this is atleast what you claim here "But although you downplay the importance and significance of The Monkees, these are not widely shared by music critics and historians". The most recognised rock critic today, Robert Christgau, has no coverage of them on his website [14] and Lester Bangs, the historically most important has such quotes as "One thing I’m glad to be able to say is that Peter didn’t come to pander either to Monkees nostalgia (if you don’t believe it exists in totally sick form just check out Dolenz, Jones, Boyce, and Hart sometime) " from this article. [15], "sick form" is hardly positive; so if the two most recognised rock critics do not praise them; it requires alot more evidence than non-specialist journalists. Why don't we get 5 proper music historians who say the Monkees and Nesmith in particular are of supreme importance. It'd be much better than random people with no qualifications. also note; none of these members should make it either; Ian Hill, Nicko McBrain, Gordon Haskell, or Phil Taylor (musician), Haskell not being listed on 2020 only makes this claim more valid, Taylor on 2015 is a mistake. These are not globally important solo musicians and they're not in a hall of fame band and that was the condition. GuzzyG (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

pre-empting this new article being cited; [16]; this is a quote from this journalist "These days, there are debates over whether the Byrds, Gram Parsons or the Eagles invented country rock. To me, nobody married the two like Nesmith."; so it's to him against known consensus, a personal opinion, Geoff Edgers reports on many arts, not one. If every Byrds and Eagles member are not listed, someone only recently put in the discussion for this specific genre shouldn't. The Everly Brothers are the real pioneers of country rock anyway and this is why general reporters eulogising current figures should not be taken as opinions of music historians. (Don Everly should not be listed either, as judged by wikis notability not giving him a solo article). Would George Strait be listed, how about Luke Bryan? If country musicians themselves are only important to region specific audiences than why would a sub genre be as important? Especially when Nesmith's best solo charting is 143 and The First National Band is short lived and had zero big impact on the charts. If members of bands like the First National are important, than nearly every bands members would make this list. GuzzyG (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Jim will help us. He has provided stable insight at least in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CF80:7440:D504:9458:B679:130D (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

During the discussion about Sarah Harding (which resulted in consensus to exclude her) we agreed that musicians need significant individual international notability to be included on main year articles. Their band/group's notability doesn't grant them a place on main year articles, so it's clear that Nesmith should be excluded. Jim Michael (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s entirely fair to view Nesmith as equivalent to Sarah Harding. For one thing, Girls Aloud does not have the historical significance that The Monkees have, and as previously stated the latter was one of the most commercially successful bands of the 1960s internationally. Nor does Harding have any notability outside Girls Aloud, whereas Nesmith is credited as an important figure in the development of the music video and the country rock genre (regardless of whether or not you regard the genre as one of sufficient international notability - GuzzyG at least is of the opinion that it is not). Whether or not his images warrants priority is one thing, but to remove him from the page entirely would be, in my view, a mistake. TheScrubby (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nick.mon, Hi Nick, just to let you know that the discussion for this person is still on the way, plus Vicente Fernández is a way more recognizable figure having a Hollywood Walk of Fame Star, a lot of reproductions on his songs, worldwide knowdledge on his career, and being one of the most prominent singers in Mexico that, again, is also noticed in abroad countries. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Both are highly notable in their own ways and in their own regions - The Monkees are a household name (at least in the English speaking world) and Nesmith’s own individual notability has already been explained in this discussion. In reference to your edit summary on the 2021 page, you can advocate for one notable figure (Fernández) and at the same time not put down the other (Nesmith). Furthermore, @Nick.mon: tried to change it to Lina Wertmüller’s image - it was actually @MrMimikyu1998: who changed it to Nesmith. TheScrubby (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The Monkees is a i guess, maybe not nowadays completely, but Nesmith is not, at all. Just like for article notability; this matters. He has no significant solo global notability. GuzzyG (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nesmith is included, but Bob Dole isn't??? GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

None of the Monkees should be on main year articles, because none of them have substantial individual international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nesmith is obviously notable, as was Dole. These discussions are getting more and more nonsensical, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, both are equally notable. The discussions rests on precedence of established rule that musicians were meant to have individual notability and be in the hall of fame aswell. The main question is if Dole is not globally important, neither is Nesmith; if one isn't listed, than the other should not be either as they're importance is both secondary in nature (Dole to Clinton, Monkees members to Beatles members). GuzzyG (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think their notability is equal - Dole is significantly more notable, but neither are notable enough for a main year article. There's never been a consensus that being in a hall of fame is required for inclusion. Jim Michael (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Dole being more notable. I was being charitable to their respective position of being secondary to other, more important figures. Major politicians from G20 nations are the peak of global importance, that much is clear. Noted about the hall of fame. (i don't agree with this rule either, but if it's not consensus - i won't go along with that requirement from now on either and be more strict with band members) this means Don Everly, Hilton Valentine and definitely Joey Jordison need to be reexamined. GuzzyG (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No-one's disputing they're notable. They wouldn't have their own articles if they weren't. Substantial international notability is the inclusion bar which they don't meet. Jim Michael (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Which would be why both of them have obituaries in major sources from all over the world? I understand the "international notability" thing, but by trying to exclude people who are only notable in one country (and practically unknown everywhere else) we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

We also exclude domestically notable people who are well-known in other countries. There are hundreds of such people, mostly entertainers & sportspeople who have many fans outside their home countries. Jim Michael (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

So on that basis it's OK if I remove, for example, Larry King? See the problem? Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

King should certainly be excluded - a very domestic figure who was merely known by millions of people in other countries due to international broadcasts of his talk shows. Jim Michael (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Now that Nesmith has been removed (which as you can see with this discussion, I firmly disagree with and that he was an important music figure even if he was never mainstream as a solo artist, and even putting aside that, The Monkees were one of the most prominent and famous bands internationally of the 1960s - and no matter how much GuzzyG would like to discredit all the sources I cited unless said sources had to come from a select elite of rock critics, it’s plainly evident that they still retain great notability to this day), surely this would mean Davy Jones and Peter Tork’s places (complete with images) on the 2012 and 2019 pages respectively are no longer tenable. Especially since Nesmith was easily more notable than Jones or Tork. TheScrubby (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

None of the Monkees have enough international notability to be included in the main year articles of the years of their births & deaths. Jim Michael (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I should also point out that Alan Lancaster, who is also from a non-RRHOF band (Status Quo) and is arguably less notable than Nesmith, remains included in the September section of this page. TheScrubby (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Band members (Result: Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees not automatically included, and individual international notability not a criteria for musical figure inclusions)

Do we have consensus to exclude all band members who have little or no individual international notability, including Sarah Harding, Michael Nesmith, Don Everly, Hilton Valentine & Joey Jordison? Jim Michael (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Suppport None of these have individual notability. If band members are not restricted, important bands like Black Sabbath who have had, many, many members would have multiple people eventually listed for the sole thing of being in the group, some people being listed for other members contributions in the group if they joined after a successful period. Minor members like Tony Martin (British singer) would qualify. Imagine adding every Santana (band) member or worse, AKB48 in which there's probably over 50 members. This only creates more needless debate over exactly what member should be listed when the easiest thing would be to hold them to individual achievements, which is how this website handles band members for having a solo article. I don't see why this page should be any different. GuzzyG (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This guideline would work for the large majority of the time in regard to determining whether or not to include band members in the Births & Deaths sections of main year articles. However, it would exclude a small number of very notable musicians whose bands have a lot of international notability, including Keith Richards. Jim Michael (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Richards is one of the ones who qualify, individual musicians regarded as one of the best at their instrument should qualify. Richards fits that. (as do musicians like Keith Moon, Jimmy Page etc). Figures like Brian May are ok, it's the ones like John Deacon which would be the issue. This question does not include Charlie Watts for a reason and this makes it so Richards would qualify. Noone would say Ringo Starr shouldn't be listed. Richards is one of the genuinely notable band members to people who know the Stones, moreso than Watts too. GuzzyG (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, i think i misunderstood you. My bad, ignore my post if you meant Richards would still be listed. GuzzyG (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying the individual international notability requirement would exclude Richards, but that'd be a problem because I think he's notable enough. We need it as a usual part of our inclusion criteria, but make a small number of exceptions for band members with outstanding notability who don't have an internationally notable solo career. Jim Michael (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that then. GuzzyG (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hang on. That appears to suggest that you're basically saying they qualify if their bands are famous enough, which is completely counter-intuitive. Either they're notable or they're not. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No, we're saying that Richards would be one of few exceptions. In the large majority of cases they'd be excluded. For example, AC/DC are a very internationally notable band, but most of its members shouldn't be included. Jim Michael (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Case by case basis. Nesmith, Everly and arguably Jordison have international notability. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Everly doesn't have an individual article, so we shouldn't include him. Nesmith's international notability is slight & Jordison's even less. Jim Michael (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If the inclusion of individual band members on a case by case basis will incite endless debate, why not compromise and include the lead singers of each band? I would also say the band should have sold millions of albums for that lead to qualify for inclusion. Likely an unpopular suggestion, but I’m trying to find an amicable way we can reach consensus without getting too heated.. PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Case by case will mean they'll be many long discussions about the inclusion of many such people. Lead singers aren't always notable enough, even if their band is one of the most successful/popular. Some bands have 2 or more members who are roughly equally the most notable of their band. Jim Michael (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Retain and include RRHOF inductees, at least so far as band members from rock groups go. Members who weren’t inducted with the rest of the band should be judged on a case by case basis (to use The Animals as an example, Valentine should be included as he was deemed significant enough as co-founder and guitarist of the “classic” era of the band to be inducted, while Vic Briggs who died several months later was not inducted and does not have sufficient notability to be included - and I say this as somebody who also loves their “Eric Burdon and the Animals” line-up) - which would help resolve potential issues with bands like Black Sabbath, where only the original four are inducted (of the rest who aren’t already inducted with other bands, only Ronnie James Dio and maybe Vinny Appice should be considered for inclusion). As for non-RRHOF bands, it should be case by case basis. TheScrubby (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Members of halls of fame are decided by a small number of biased people, partly on the grounds of personality, popularity etc. rather than notability. Likewise, things such as having a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I don't think we should use such things as part of our inclusion criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

NYCFC's first MLS Cup win (Result: exclusion)

I do not understand why I am prevented from adding, in the section dedicated to sport, the historic victory of the MLS Cup by the NYCFC, obtained last December 11 against the Portland Timbers away. This victory had great prominence in the big apple and beyond (see Biden's tweet ...). Soccer is becoming more and more important in the United States, having already surpassed hockey in popularity. The most important city in the world, which wins its first major trophy in the most popular sport on the planet, certainly deserves a mention in this 2021. Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included on this main year article, because the MLS Cup doesn't have significant international notability, which is the bar for inclusion on main year articles such as this. It's on 2021 in American soccer. Main year articles don't have sports sections, because few sports events are important enough to be on them. Jim Michael (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Opposed as per Jim Michael. TheScrubby (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no section on the page “dedicated to sport”. What do you mean by that? PeaceInOurTime2021 (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The MLS is followed worldwide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_Major_League_Soccer_broadcasters) and it is always more important in the USA (https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/27/the-rise-of-major-league-soccer.html - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/mar/09/mls-to-become-bigger-than-baseball-why-the-need-for-comparison).

I think that the first MLS Cup of the NYCFC deserves a SIMPLE MENTION, even only one line on this fantastic page! Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

A large number of sports events are viewed internationally, but we only include the few most important in the world on main year articles. Jim Michael (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

”it is always more important in the USA” is blatant Americentrism, and not a valid argument for inclusion here. The MLC is by nature a domestic American sports competition, and is far from the most prominent and internationally significant competition for soccer; that would be the FIFA World Cup. If any competition relating to soccer would be included here, it would be FIFA, not a competition that is based purely in one country (especially when it is not even among the most popular and widely played sports in said country). TheScrubby (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree - it should stay in the "2021 in the United States" article. Deb (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Wayne Thiebaud (Result: borderline inclusion)

His article doesn't indicate any international notability. Many places are mentioned in his article, but all are in the US. Jim Michael (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Black Kite:. For my part, I’m neutral on Thiebaud, and would not be fussed either way regarding his inclusion. TheScrubby (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, his article (like many others at Wikipedia) isn't that good and is very US-centric. However, a swift Google will find exhibitions in the UK, the Netherlands, and Canada amongst others, though they are rare because the vast majority of his paintings are in private collections in the US. Here's a Guardian UK review of one. I can see a NYT obituary, obituaries in other countries, a Britannica entry. Modern artists tend to be fairly unknown to the general public - if you mention Jasper Johns, Ai Weiwei or Gerhard Richter to people you'll generally get blank looks, but that doesn't means they're not known worldwide in the art world. Incidentally, searching for Thiebaud in amazon.co.uk finds over twenty books bout his work. Black Kite (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

His international notability should be clear in his article, but none of it is included. It portrays him as a very domestic figure. You said in an edit summary today that one of his paintings sold for $19m in London last year. Assuming it can be reliably sourced, that's important enough to be in his article, yet it isn't. Like you say, most modern artists aren't known by most people, which is all the more reason that their articles should detail their notability. Jim Michael (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It is in the article (Wayne_Thiebaud#Auction_records). Black Kite (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention London. It mentions Christie's, but the ref says that the auction took place in 4 cities & that the sale of WT's painting took place in NYC. Jim Michael (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the source I was looking at was written by Christie's London. Anyway, regardless, it was a worldwide sale for a painter whose works sell for 7 and 8-figure sums and who has had dozens of books published about them. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If dozens of books have been written about him, that should be stated in his article. Jim Michael (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes it should, but as I said, it's not a very good article. That, however, doesn't affect his notability. I'll put a few of the more important (and biographical) ones in, though it seems pointless to include every single monograph. Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: - Is he a household name in the US? Deb (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Deb Modern artists, except for the (unusual) likes of Banksy, do not tend to be household names in these days of instant celebrity. As I mentioned above, most people wouldn't have heard of those three people, yet they are generally considered amongst the finest of living artists. It's the same for classical musicians, musicians outside the mainstream pop/rock/dance continuum, architecture, sculpture, poetry etc. This does not mean that those considered the finest in those categories should be ignored. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite - I totally accept that, but "generally considered among the finest of..." needs a bit of qualification. Lots of artists are considered among the finest by lots of people but I feel like we need something more concrete. I asked the question because I can't gauge how well-known he was as artists go. If his death was - for example - mentioned on the national news, it would probably give him an edge. Deb (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Harding & Michael K. Williams (Result: both excluded)

Should she be included because Girls Aloud are internationally notable, or excluded because she doesn't have significant individual international notability? Jim Michael (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would lean towards including her. Obituaries in multiple (admittedly mostly English-speaking) countries, reliable sources like Billboard, death at 39yo. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Count me as opposing inclusion. Girls Aloud, and especially most of the individual members, have very limited notability outside of the British Isles, and have not been inducted into any major international music hall of fame. Really, the only member who should be considered for inclusion on the basis of notability is Cheryl Cole. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I think Cheryl is the only member of GA who has enough individual international notability to qualify. Jim Michael (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  IncludeThis page takes the piss. I’ve never ever heard of some of the 90 year old male politicians from Mumbai who die but they’re listed. Harding has made worldwide news and features on the main page. I think she constitutes being listed here.

  Wow, this is an terrible Anglo-centric take, and one with racist undertones - especially considering you're criticising the so-called inclusions of politicians (which the ones that are included are nearly always ones who served as heads of government or state) from the Middle East (going by your most recent edit summary on the 2021 page) and India - the latter of which boasts the second largest population on Earth. The fact that Harding features on the main page means nothing given the anybody who has an article that's recently died can be nominated for it without notability as a major factor. Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Imo I think she should be included, she was part of one of the UK’s most successful girlbands and is figure of British pop-culture. Her death headlined all major news programs in the UK and headlined numerous websites online. To me it goes without saying that she should be included. Bradonwiki (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

As myself and @Jim Michael: have already pointed out, most of the notability is confined to the British Isles, and that Girls Aloud is not an inductee of any major international music hall of fame. Nobody is disputing her notability (as a member of Girls Aloud) within British pop culture, but this is why we have 2021 in the United Kingdom. So far as individual notability goes, as said the only member that could possibly qualify for inclusion here is Cheryl Cole, and this is also reflected by the difference in the number of Wiki language pages for Cole (more than 50) compared to the rest of the band members. Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

My question is: to what extent is having a death with sufficient international coverage a valid requirement to include certain people? I mean Sarah Hardings' death has been picked up by news portals in several countries and even their regions (not front page, far from it), so in that sense she could be perfectly included. Now, I think my position is closer to Jim's and Thescrubby's because her popular impact is too concentrated in one particular country. And I'm not going to evaluate the comment Thankyou08 because it's a real insult to intelligence. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, that was simply a terrible comment. However, 23 non-English Wikipedia entries is not a trivial number, and we do use this as a metric. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Although it should be considered a borderline metric, it should by no means be a decisive one - especially when it can be manipulated as is the case with Corbin Bleu. These lists would be flooded with inclusions if we automatically included anyone with say, more than 10 or 20 language entries - and as @Deb: has previously pointed out, these lists are excessively long to begin with. https://www.insider.com/why-corbin-bleu-wikipedia-pages-2019-1 Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@2001:bb6:76aa:f758:94ec:5f51:ce36:48f7: rather than send me a rant on my personal Talk page and personally accuse me of "gatekeeping", you should have a look here. I alert you to this discussion - and furthermore, I did not personally remove or support the removal of Shukla. Regarding Shukla, my only involvement was to add an importance tag rather than have him automatically removed (which, for the record, I did precisely the same with Aydin Ibrahimov). The reasons why Harding should not be included are detailed here, while in the case of Michael K. Williams, he quite simply isn't internationally notable or significant enough for inclusion here - and as is, there's been criticism that too many entertainment/pop culture figures are included. Are we to automatically include every minor American character actor because they happened to play prominent but supporting roles in a few popular shows in America? 2021 in the United States would suffice for him. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Addendum: This user subsequently removed Mikis Theodorakis and Jean-Paul Belmondo, neither of whose notability and significance are in doubt, and with an edit summary that frankly speaks for itself: "I dunno Scrubby said there's too many entertainment figures and what not. Lads we can't include people just because they appeared in a few flims or wrote a few songs 😉" - he then subsequently went back to my Talk page (rather than coming here in spite of being pinged here) and tried to ask how they're more significant than Harding or Williams. Absolutely unacceptable behaviour all round. This page has now been protected from IP edits for two weeks. Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Was wondering about what people think r.e. Williams as well, and whether or not he should be included. For me it seems perfectly clear that he falls in a similar category to Tanya Roberts and Conchata Ferrell - except that unlike Roberts his most famous roles were supporting roles rather than lead ones. I've added him to this thread rather than create a new one given the above example of an IP complaining about the exclusion of both (on admittedly "fanboy-ish" grounds). Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

He has no international notability. Jim Michael (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@JosHeartTransplant: I bring your attention to this discussion. Enough with the edit war and stop adding Harding when there is no consensus in favour of her inclusion. TheScrubby (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Karolos Papoulias (Result: inclusion; photo excluded)

Just wanted to ask Karolos Papoulias was a president of Greece for a decade would make sense to get a picture instead of Kåre Willoch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.78.163 (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

No, because he's not important enough for a photo due to the President of Greece being a figurehead. Jim Michael (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

As per Jim Michael, the President of Greece is a ceremonial head of state; a figurehead. Had he served as Prime Minister, he would likely be prioritised for a photo. But we generally don’t prioritise ceremonial heads of state for an image. TheScrubby (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Tomorrow, 2021 will be a was in NZ

Hi, I'm from New Zealand. 2021 can still be 'is' today, but tomorrow 'is and was'. The day after tomorrow, it will be 'was'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damianlewis21 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

We normally wait for the year to change using UTC otherwise it gets into a bun fight of changes as different parts of the world try and change it according to the local time zones. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)