Talk:2001

2001 collage image candidates

Give your opinion on what topics should be included in the 2001 collage

• 
  option A1 wikipedia
• 
  option A2 wikipedia
• 
  option B Nepalese royal massacre
• 
  option C1 2001 insurgency in Macedonia
• 
  option C2 2001 insurgency in Macedonia
• 
  option D1 September 11 attacks
• 
  option D2 September 11 attacks
• 
  option D3 September 11 attacks
• 
  option D4 September 11 attacks
• 
  option E1 the War in Afghanistan
• 
  option E2 the War in Afghanistan
• 
  option E2 the War in Afghanistan
• 
  option F1 December 2001 riots in Argentina
• 
  option F2 December 2001 riots in Argentina
• 
  option G Second Intifada
• 
  option H 2001 Gujarat earthquake
• 
  option I1 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak
• 
  option I2 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak
• 
  option J January 2001 El Salvador earthquake
• 
  option K Soyuz TM-32
• 
  option L the crash of American Airlines Flight 587
• 
  option m 433 Eros
• 
  option N Tropical Storm Allison
• 
  option o Enron scandal

feel free to add a subject 4me689 (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

A1, B, C1, D4, E1, F2, G, and K. 4me689 (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Several editors have already asked you to stop with these collages. They're unnecessary, and they present major original research and POV problems. Broad subject topics like this typically don't have a lead image at all for this reason. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

According to this logic, may I ask why there are collages in the decade's article and the German Wikipedia's year article? Nagae Iku (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Because German Wikipedia has different guidelines from English Wikipedia, and the decade articles have different guidelines from the year articles. Deb (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I still support the original collage, which has been modified multiple times after Deb's criticism and no longer has the original problems of stretched and distorted images/US-centric/replacement of domestic disasters that did not result in casualties. However, Deb still insists on removing it, well, I have nothing else to say. Alternatively, my proposed alternative could be implemented: expanding the 8 grid to 16 grid, which may reduce disputes over image selection. Nagae Iku (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The POV toward a particular country is just one of the many issues with the collages. They never should have been added in the first place, and editors have been telling 4me689 this for at least a year now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Deb and @Thebiguglyalien. Maybe we shouldn't do this. DementiaGaming (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I think they add great value to article in giving the reader an immediate impression of some of the major events during the year. It's not original research in the sense that they are taken from lists by reliable sources over major events during the year. Marginataen (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why, but I can't reply to the post where you chose the collage's events. So, I'll share my thoughts here: I think the empty space could be replaced with the 2001 Mars Odyssey or the first space tourist. The first asteroid landing or the Indonesian immigrant boat tragedy that caused the death of 353 people (mostly women and children) would also be good options. Nagae Iku (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Mars Odyssey should be the last image in it Gennicyro4 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I've updated by original draft. I've really considered 2001 Mars Odyssey and the other events. First, there's really no image of the Odyssey that either fits or can be cropped into a square. There's no other event I sincerely find that important. With such a monumental event as the September 11 attacks, I believe we are right to include a second image of the attack, namely the Pentagon crash. That's my suggestion at least. Marginataen (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, the 2001 Mars Odyssey had square images that you did not carefully search for：

http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Mars_Odyssey_over_Valles_Marineris_illustration.jpg

Secondly, I do not recommend including two images of the 9/11 attacks as this may be seen as promoting US–centrism. Personally, I do not mind the proposal of including the two 9/11 images, but some people may strongly object. The first version of the 2001 collage also had two images related to 9/11 (the attacks themselves and the War on Terror), which were deleted numerous times by Deb. Nagae Iku (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've made a draft. I've used the original logo of Wikipedia from 2001 and not the later version and as well as another image of the crisis in Argentina. I've removed the Nepalese royal massacre and replaced it with a question mark. This means that I'm an not sure and think it is something to be discussed as there are other candidates. My draft can be seen below:

Clockwise, from top left: The American company Enron is hit by a major scandal • The euro is introduced as a multi-national currency in the European Union • A T-55 tank and crew in Aračinovo during the Macedonia insurgency • U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom • An earthquake in Gujarat kills 13,805–20,023 people • An IDF soldier as the Second Intifada against Israel continues • Police and protesters in Buenos Aires, Argentina during the Argentinazo riots • Four coordinated Islamist suicide terrorist attacks, known as the September 11 attacks, are carried out by the Islamist terrorist organization Al-Qaeda against the United States • American soldiers in Afghanistan as the U.S. initiates the war of terror, a global counterterrorism military campaign following the September 11 attacks • Smoke coming out of The Pentagon after being hit by the third plane in the September 11 attacks

I've notified the people on Wikipedia:WikiProject Years to ensure that everyone gets a say--Marginataen (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if we do this, Wikipedia shouldn't be on here - it is illogical, as Wikipedia did not reach its peak popularity until years later. We should replace it with another war on terror event, like the torture of Afghanis at the prison in Guantanamo Bay. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, its like MySpace for 2003 or Facebook or Twitter etc... it makes no sense. Gennicyro4 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I changed my mind - replace it with the Enron scandal or American Airlines Flight 587. DementiaGaming (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Update on source-guided coverage versus OR coverage

I've used year in review books by Time and Britannica to build basis for the article, in addition to some reports for specific subjects. I'm mainly writing this here for posterity, though I'd be elated if anyone else had ideas.

Demographics, conflicts, architecture and art, media, environment and weather, and health all largely use this better sourcing. Sports, economy, politics, religion, and science and technology still have significant "handpicked" content. The events timeline is still entirely handpicked, and there doesn't seem to be any immediately solution for it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I've gone through and changed some of the content and sourcing, so now it better reflects what the sources indicate as major aspects of the year, and the events aren't dependent on sources from 2001 or 2002. That just leaves the events timeline at the bottom. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Births and deaths proposal

As we discussed above, should we add "births and deaths" to this "Events" section below, which are three notable persons born in 2001, and notable event within list article, which it provide WP:NLIST:

Extended content
Main pages: Category:2001 births and Deaths in 2001 Prominent people born in 2001 included Rachel Zegler, Dixie D'Amelio and Billie Eilish. The United States in particular saw 2,977 people killed during the September 11 attacks. The year witnessed the passing of world leaders Laurent-Désiré Kabila, Ahmad Shah Massoud and Giovanni Leone; and musicians Aaliyah and George Harrison. References

81.23.193.94 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Of the births you mention, Billie Eilish seems the only one that comes anywhere near the level of notability we'd need, and I don't think any of their births can be called "events". Deb (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This is just the same block evader who continues to post this same content to this talk page. It can be disregarded.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok. But it seems like now there are some folks born in 2001 that could be added to the page besides Billie Eilish. Such as Dixie D'Amelio and Kai Cenat. I know these folks aren't much, but maybe we should take a look at all the Category:2001 births pages to see if anyone significant pops up. If not, maybe we should just add a section to this page but only have it say "main article (or see also): 2001 births" or something. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact that people were born in the year doesn't make their births significant aspects of the year itself that need to be mentioned in the article. If you want to add see also links, they should go in a dedicated see also section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe, it's like undue weight. 103.156.248.45 (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Too much content in the introduction

I checked the section on architecture and found several inaccuracies. The source appears to be faulty. Two of the buildings said to have been completed/opened in 2001 were actually completed/opened in 2000. I think this 2018 source is probably based largely on Wikipedia entries. Besides, now that those entries that were correct have been moved to 2001 in architecture, this paragraph is just a duplicaiton what is in the main article. Hardly any of the content is of international significance and it doesn't belong in the introduction. Deb (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Deb Responding here instead of my talk page as you've started two identical discussions and this seems the more appropriate venue. Addressing your points one by one:

• I'm not sure what "2018 source" you're referring to, but I looked at all of the sources from 2018 and they all seem legitimate.
• Per WP:SUMMARY both the higher level article and the lower level article should have coverage of the subject. In this case, 2001 would cover the most prominent examples (as it currently does) while 2001 in architecture would be more exhaustive.
• I don't know what you're picturing when you say "international significance", but I hope it's not the thing that a handful of editors were enforcing in this topic area before I reported it at ANI, the community discovered it was bogus, and one editor was topic banned for continuing to try this. Regardless, what you're proposing doesn't seem to have any basis in policy and isn't any sort of standard practice in content creation, so it's not something I'm particularly interested in.
• What are you referring to with "introduction"? If you mean the lead, it's not uncommon for articles of this length to have a lead of this size, though there is admittedly some subjectivity in what's included and it can be changed if it doesn't reflect the balance of the article. If you mean the entire article, then it should include broad coverage of each aspect in proportion to how it appears in the sources.
• Regarding the individual items you removed in your third revert:
  • The inclusion of the SEG Tower was a mistake on my part; the source invoked it as a comparison to the DG Bank building, not for its own construction. Thank you for catching that.
  • Aurora Place seems to have been sold and began operation in 2001. I wouldn't object to a tighter standard of only including structures created in 2001, even if there are buildings created in 2000 that had more overall impact in 2001. The important thing for me is that the subjects covered are shown to have due weight instead of being cherry picked.
  • The present day Changi Chapel and Museum opened in 2001; you may be confusing it with the previous building that housed a museum on the subject.
  • As far as I can tell, the source's reference to the Queen Elizabeth II Great Court is about a studio exhibit held there for its architect to celebrate its inauguration, but it would already have been operating by that time, so no objections to its removal if that's not good enough.

Are there any other concerns, or is that everything? Pinging Freedom4U and Mathglot who are also involved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Starting with the OP premise: the Lead is about 2.3% of the total article size, which is quite conservative. I went to the Featured article category, picked a bunch of articles on one page, and checked the size of the lead as a percentage of the total size as calculated by {{Section sizes}}. Here's what I found: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari=3.2%; Caesar cipher=6.4%; Caroline Island=4.0%; Casablanca (film)=9.9%; Castle=5.2%; Cerro Blanco (volcano)=4.2%; Chagas disease=12.1%. So the lead here is the smallest of all the FA's I checked.

graphical representation of ratio of lead size to article size for seven FA's and 2001

Green represents the lead section, and yellow is the rest of the article. Total size of the article in kb given in the bar at left; percentage occupied by the lead is given at the end of each line. 178k 2001 = 2.4% 133k The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari = 3.2% 19.6k Caesar cipher = 6.4% 55.4k Caroline Island = 4.0% 109k Casablanca (film) = 9.9% 115k Castle = 5.2% 86.2k Cerro Blanco (volcano) = 4.2% 69.3k Chagas disease = 12.1%

Those FA lead percentages average out to 6.4, so if you wanted to make the lead at 2001 closer to the average lead size of the Featured articles I tested, consider doubling or tripling it. Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

One of my main concerns is that the lead has been written by a single person who has made a subjective judgement on what is and what isn't important. Comparing the lead in a list article to the lead in an article that consists mainly of narrative prose is completely inappropriate. We have Year in Topic articles, which should have been checked before adding content here which was not included in those. I have not made three reverts. I've made an improvement by removing content that appears to have been included mainly as a space filler. Deb (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the purpose of the lead is to summarize the body. If you feel that there are any sections in this article that are over or underrepresented in the lead, it would be more helpful if you could provide specifics. To your other points, I have already explained the relevant content-writing practices to you above if you could direct your attention there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

New articles very often start out as a one-person effort, and any article written by a single person is going to reflect subjective judgements of what to include, so nothing unusual there. If that is your main concern, I don't know what to tell you, other than this is a wiki, so any editor can come along and change it, and this talk page exists to resolve any disagreements, which is what we are doing. You have a point about the lead of lists possibly being different, and I may look into that; my recollection is that there is a lot more variation in the lead of lists, and they range more widely, from very short to a lot longer, and I don't think this one is out of bounds. Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I did another test in response to your objection about not checking lists. So, I went to the 'Ca' page of Category:Featured lists that have appeared on the main page, clicked a bunch of articles and looked at them, and here's what I found: Caldecott Medal: 2.5%; Cardinal electors in the 2013 papal conclave: 6.3%; Cartography of Jerusalem: 10.1%; Charlie Chaplin filmography: 12.4%; Citra Award for Best Actress: 3.4%; Coldplay videography: 9.2%; Counties of Croatia: 10.7%. Average size of the lead as a percentage of the selected featured list articles was 7.8%; smallest was 2.5%. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)