Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Initial phase

This is only a draft and I realize it has my opinions dripping all over it so don't be shy and discuss here. We are basically trying to answer the question: "What is notable enough to be included on a recent year page and what is not?" Wrad (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we name Eurovision Song Contest as something that should not be linked, as well. If that was in the guideline, I'd withdraw my opposition to the removal of the Superbowl. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. Wrad (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that that The Eurovision should not be listed, it is a regular showbiz event.

A lot of events used to be listed, and once we have proper guidelines in place we can go back through the years and remove what should not be included. FFMG (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with the guidelines as listed. In general an entry which fits into one of the sub-categories must be pretty exceptional to be included on a year page. Obviously it must also be internationally significant as well. At present there are probably 2 missing sub-categories which should be added: Disasters and Terrorist Attacks. The note under 3-Continent Rule "Events which are not cited will be removed" might need the addition "unless it has it's own wiki article".

The only other quibble I have is with the Deaths criteria. I don't see how this can be applied as successfully to less recent years (I realise we're only talking about current/recent pages here). Also some links will go dead after a while which could become problematic later on for marginal cases. Another difficulty is wether or not a non-english article is merely an auto-translation for a mirror news site rather than an independent report, the latter being a much better indication of notability than the former. Unfortunately I can think of no other all-encompassing criteria that could be used so I guess we're stuck with it.

Another thing which might save a lot of repetition would be a link at the top of the year page to this guideline page; I'm pretty sure we're all tired of having to revert the same good-faith edits over and over again! Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Since wikipedia can't use itself as a source, I don't think "unless it has its own wiki article" is a good idea. If it has its own wiki article, then we can take a source from that article and put it on the event, that's fine. Wrad (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In my limited experience on year pages, most people don't even read hidden comments, let alone go and read guidelines.

But it would be nice if we could remove an entry and simply add 'removed per #3.4 of the guildlines', (or something to that effect). FFMG (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A new link to these guidelines is now added to the 2009 page. Hopefully more people will read the guidelines after this.

Then a thought, perhaps some of these rules are to apply more strict for events of the past than for upcoming? After all, only few events are noticed in media until they actually occur, even if it is known where and when they will happen. I guess this is already the case, but maybe this can be specified more clearly among the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBM 72 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is mention in the guideline of certain topical year articles like spaceflight. It seems like the country-based alternative should be mentioned as well, with some links, such as to the US and EU articles at least.

Also, the link to the guidelines has been commented out on the 2009 page. Perhaps its addition requires discussion there? — Ken g6 (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've redisplayed the link. Even though casual editors may still miss/misunderstand/ignore it, it's more likely to be seen if it's displayed rather than hidden. At the same time I had to remove a whole heap of edits of exactly the sort this article is trying to prevent being added! MOre than one editor is involved so it would help if everyone else could keep an eye on this, it's a real pain having to remove them when it's too late to revert!! DerbyCountyinNZ 00:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that there shouldn't be the Three Continent Rule, because it seems unnecessary. Please consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliDincgor (talk • contribs) 03:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Deaths

I have a proposal for the deaths section. What if we limit it to a quota of 25 people in the deaths section only? That way, only really and truly notable deaths will be listed and people will have to present a very convincing case. Other deaths can be listed on the deaths page. Wrad (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How would we decide the 25? It would cause a huge debate on the talkpages and generally would be a mess IMO. People will feel slighted that the person they wanted in didn't get in, editors will accuse each other of regional biases, etc. Personally, I like the 10 language rule. I think it worked well on the 2008 article. Some months we have 20 deaths and for other months we have closer to 10 deaths. All in all it looks like we have a similar number of deaths and events on the article, so one section isn't disproportionally larger than the other. Then again I am the one who proposed the 10 language criteria in the first place so I may be a bit biased. --Tocino 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what sort of criteria could be used to limit it to 25/year. There must be some way of reducing the list to 5-10/month. For eg January 2009 has so far (I have italicised those who I don't believe are sufficiently notable):

• January 1 - Nizar Rayan, Palestinian Hamas military and political leader (b. 1959) -- Frankly not a Head of State or just one of many leaders in a minor conflict.
• January 1 - Johannes Mario Simmel, Austrian writer (b. 1924) -- Although he has won various awards, is he likely to be known outside the serious literary community?
• January 1 - Helen Suzman, South African activist and politician (b. 1917)
• January 3 - Pat Hingle, American actor (b. 1924) -- Extensive career but limited major roles
• January 11 - Pio Laghi, Italian Roman Catholic Cardinal (b. 1922) -- Is he really likely to be known outside the RC hierarchy?
• January 12 - Claude Berri, French film director (b. 1934) -- One BAFTA win but unlikely to be widely known outside the film community
• January 12 - Arne Næss, Norwegian philosopher (b. 1912) -- Seems to be an important philosopher, but not sure this makes him truly internationally notable
• January 13 - Patrick McGoohan, Irish-American actor (b. 1928)
• January 14 - Ricardo Montalbán, Mexican actor (b. 1920)

Can't see there would be much argument about Suzman, McGoohan and Montalban. Basically I think anyone who is included should be expected to be widely (geographically) known outside their particular field. If they are only widely known within their field then they should be included on that sub-category page (eg film, music, television, sports etc) and if they are only famous in their own country then in the "2009 in country" page. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Having a quota would be wrong, as the number of internationally notable people that die during a given period varies considerably. In the case of 2009: note how few names there are in the February Deaths section. On 25 June, two very notable people, Fawcett and Jackson, died. A quota by nationality, field etc would also be wrong, as there are two boxers, Arguello and Gatti, in July Deaths. A quota system would mean excluding some very internationally notable people because another internationally notable person from the same field or country died during the same month / year, or excluding some worthy of being listed, simply because too many other people died that day / week / month / year. Under a quota by country and / or profession, if former US presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter die in the same month, you would have to exclude one of them, due to a rule saying you can't have two people from the same profession and the same country listed in the same month. Think how ridiculous that would be, to exclude a former US Pres from the deaths section, whilst including little-known writers and bit-part actors who retired decades ago just because of a quota. I don't see any advantage to a quota; it would certainly not prevent the long arguments and edit wars about inclusion. It could make matters worse, with arguments such as "he's more notable than her" replied with "no he's not, no-one under 60 in my country has heard of him, millions of people have heard of her", etc. Keeping it the way it is is better, as each decedant is judged on his own international notability. Information yes (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Making it a guideline now

I'm sure this guideline will grow with time, but for the most part we all seem agreed on this. I'm going to move it out of project space. Wrad (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How do people learn about this?

Experience on 2009 so far suggests that people do not know about this guidance and it is difficult to keep the page in line with it in part because of this. Is there a reason why we can't have a link actually at the top of the page rather than more or less hidden (and unclickable) to be found only by those who edit the Events section? dougweller (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Days of the year" guidelines

This page is a good start, but there appears to be a lot of room for improvement. The 3 continent rule, for instance, is necessary but not sufficient, and I think we could use some more sufficiency.

Looking around for better guidelines, I happened upon a page that I initially thought listed other guidelines for Recent years; but upon closer inspection, it's actually Wikipedia:Days of the year. Many of these guidelines are applicable to Recent years. For example, I note that "Standing the test of time" would be a good complement to the 3CR, making it more clear that breaking news that gets picked up on 3 continents is not automatically eligible for recent year articles.

I think most of the Days of the year guidelines should be included in Recent years, with appropriate adjustments as necessary.

— Ken g6 (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree! They look good, especially this one. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you've stumbled across WP:DOY and found it useful, perhaps you would consider adding your opinions on the talk page about making it an official guideline. It is indeed a de facto guideline and it is practiced 100%, but it needs the stamp of approval which has been tough to get. More input would be helpful. You may run into the same pitfalls here with narrowing notability requirements. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 12:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Deaths (and Births)

At present the criteria for inclusion is articles on wikipedia in 10 different languages. Should this be seen as a minimum or the one and only criteria. Is someone such as Abel Paz sufficiently notable when his article contains no references at all? And should someone whose death is not notable enough for a year page also have their birth removed from the relevant page? Should Joan Mary Wayne Brown be included in 1906 births when her article has been tagged as an orphan? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is only the minimum criteria. Wrad (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to know I hadn't misunderstood! Perhaps it should be clarified on the main page here? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 01:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Scope of this guideline

What constitutes "recent"? How far back should it be applied? DerbyCountyinNZ 23:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2009#Andrew Martin, Mitsuharu Misawa

The issue of the possible inclusion of these pro wrestlers in 2009#Deaths is currently being discussed. As the main proponent of their inclusion has seen fit to gather reinforcements from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling (once it became clear he was not going to get consensus) I thought I would respond in kind. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Births

Should there be a 9 article guideline specifically for births or is an article in Wikipedia sufficient to establish validity and inclusion into a recent year article? ttonyb1 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Referencing required?

Is there something somewhere in policy or guidelines mentioning whether or not these types of articles need to have citations, else tagged with templates such as {{unreferenced}}? The reason I ask is that I came across many of these 'year' articles in Category:Articles lacking sources from August 2009 because they were tagged as unreferenced, but I don't think they should be (ex. 391 BC etc., although I realize these are not 'Recent years' but I wasn't sure where else to post) Anyways, I'd like to quote something official per my post here and am wondering if there's something I'm missing or just haven't read yet.. -- œ^™ 02:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Deaths criteria

At present the minimum requirement is 9 non-English articles. In the past few monthsthere have been several situations where at the time of death someone had less than 9 non-E articles but then some days weeks (and it one case months) later they were up to 9. There has also been a case of a user deliberately creating foreign language articles with the sole purpose of trying to achieve the minimum. There have also been cases where the manner of death and consequent media coverage has resulted in enough new foreign articles to pass the minimum and thence lengthy discussions as to whether or not they are really notable enough for inclusion in a year page.

Proposal: The 9 non-English articles be taken at the time of death and not subsequently (except by consensus). Realistically if they are not sufficiently notable before their death their actual death should not be an added factor in their notability. This would then require a burden of proof of notability on those wishing to add someone rather than their being added (after achieving 9+) and then a discussion arising as to whether they should be removed. Of course this would still be open to abuse (see Misawa/Martin case above) but it should hopefully reduce the number/length of talk page disputes. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%. Wrad (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with it 100%. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be pushed along as it would prevent further cases of edit-warring. One more week should be sufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been another week and there being no further input and a 2:1 vote in favour (yes I know 3 people isn't many!) I'll make the change. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it because majority votes aren't used on Wikipedia, and there was certainly no definite consensus proven here. A month and a half with only one supporter of the idea isn't enough to change policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So what would have been enough to make the change valid/invalid? Your summary[1] implies that 000's would be needed to vote, (indecently, the opposite is also true, if they _didn't_ want the policy changed they would have voted).

I agree with the change in policy, but that would only make 3-1. FFMG (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No consensus defaults to no change. The question was out there for a month and a half with no consensus. Case closed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

While GaryColemanFan has made no real argument against this, consensus evidently does not exist. It seems to me that this new criteria would be difficult to enforce. If a name is added a year after the person's death, is someone going to look back at all of the foreign articles to see if they existed at the time of death? Don't take my comment as in favor or against, I'm all for easy to identify inclusion criteria. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this amendment is to place greater emphasis on the user adding a person to establish that person's notability. There have been a number of people who have had as few as 5 or 6 non-English articles at the time of their death. This would indicate that they were in fact not particularly notable at the time they died. The fact that have died has led to articles for them being (at last) created does not mean they should be considered "automatically" notable. At present the process has in these cases been:

1. A user adds a deceased person to the deaths section being either unaware or ignoring the criteria (which are included in multiple hidden notes in the article).
2. The deceased person is deleted for failing to meet the minimum criteria.
3. The deceased person reaches the minimum criteria and is again added to the deaths section.
4. If someone considers the deceased person to not be of sufficient notability then a discussion is started on the Year talk page.

For those of us that have been following the Year articles for a while this process gets to be rather tedious. The proposed amendment would make the process:

1. A user adds a deceased person to the deaths section being either unaware or ignoring the criteria.
2. The deceased person is deleted for failing to meet the minimum criteria.
3. If someone considers the deceased person to be of sufficient notability then a discussion is started on the Year talk page.

It seems that those of us concerned with setting or maintaining criteria that can be used on all Year articles are too few in number to make any serious effort at applying even the current criteria to previous years let alone the suggested amendment (and in any case it would obviously be impossible to apply to any year before wiki started!) which is why I put "from 2009".

Of course if we have to wait for at least half of all wiki users to be in favour of the amendment (or any other matter requiring "consensus" then I guess we're all wasting our time! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Unless somebody here speaks 10 or more languages, it could be quite a challenge to determine whether all the post-death foreign articles actually read like encyclopedia articles or, rather, like obituaries. As it stands, it's hard enough to tell a lot of English articles apart from a whole bunch of other things, and while the proposal may not be the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, it might not be a bad start in terms of quality-control. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I would have the guideline stipulate, though, that this qualification applies to anyone who dies in 2010 or afterwards (October or November 2009 could also work, but might seem a little random) for two reasons. First, as Mufka implies above, it would be tedious to apply this change retrospectively. And second, it would be unfair to apply it to people who died before Wikipedia became internationally popular. Obviously, William Shakespeare didn't have 10 non-English articles when he died; but even those who died earlier in this decade might be underrepresented insofar as even the English Wikipedia didn't really take off until the second half of the decade. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My intention when making this was that it be applied from either the time it was accepted or from the the present year (ie 2009) onwards (it seemed easier just to use "2009" and deal with the specifics later!). Potentially it could be applied retroactively to say 2007 as wiki was fully underway by then. Of course it would require considerable work and might not be worth the effort. Applying it to 2009 would not be so difficult as there have been a number of discussions about notability based on this issue. I suspect though that achieving consensus (using whatever definition) might be difficult to achive in that regard. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is 4-1 a consensus? Or shall we wait a few more decades? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We should forget about it altogether. The proposal goes against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, which is a good reminder that the current state of things is absolutely meaningless. Articles are created every day about notable topics. Just because an article didn't exist at a certain point in time obviously doesn't mean that the topic is unimportant. Aside from a few biased patrollers on the 2009 page, things are going well. There's no need to mess with anything, as working on a case-by-case basis will prevent notable people from being excluded for no good reason. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should forget about the proposed change, one could argue that, in this case, it has nothing, (or not much), to do with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress.

The intent of the change it to prevent a handful of users creating artificial articles/subs, (that, for some reason they did not create when the person was alive), simply to add that person to the 2009 article, to somehow give the illusion of international notability.

This proposal is saying that in such cases adding the person should be first discussed in the talk page.

The way I see it, the proposed change is to prevent such users, if the person does genuinely achieves notability after their death, then by all mean, they will be added. But at least a handful of users will not create badly translated articles simply for the sake of having someone listed in the year article.

Also, remember those are just guidelines, not hard coded laws that have to be followed at all costs. Consensus will always prevail. The propose changes would allow editors to remove those entries and ask that they'd be discussed further. FFMG (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the things that I have a huge problem with is that this proposal was put forward specifically in response to one individual (Mitsuharu Misawa). DerbyCountyinNZ got upset that the discussion didn't go his/her way, so he/she came to this page to find away to avoid having to discuss things in the future. Simply put, the current system works. If someone is truly not internationally notable, a discussion should be used to determine that. A person's inclusion or exclusion shouldn't come down to how active a particular Wikiproject is on some foreign Wikipedia. It should be about the international notability of the person, which is best determined through a consensus-building discussion. Also, remember that, despite just being a guideline, it is used as a hard coded law on the Talk:2009 page, where the three usual suspects do little more than repeat "It's just a guideline, but we've only gone against it once and almost certainly won't do it again." GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your really are making it extremely difficult to remain WP:CIVIL|civil]]! Quite frankly I have refrained from responding to you until now because I don't seriously expect a reasonable discussion from someone who argued that Ted Kennedy (45 non-English articles, 258 citations, pagesize 160kb) wasn't notable and hadn't heard of Bobby Robson (32 non-English articles, 153 citations, pagesize 76kb), but made s ure that Misawa (9 non-English articles, 24 citations, pagesize 22kb) got included.

You seem to be paranoid that this proposed amendment means Misawa automatically gets removed. There hasn't even been a decision as to when this will be applied let alone backdated (the current criteria hasn't even been applied to 2007). And in any case it could be over-ridden by consensus as was the case last time. I for one have absolutely no expectation that anyone from the pro wrestling group who voted for his inclusion last time is going to change their mind just because of this amendment. This amendment is in fact a response to a considerable number of cases (particularly in September) where people only met the 9 non-English article minimum after death, their inclusion was questioned and in most cases they were eventually removed. This seems unnecessary and by this amendment the emphasis would be placed on the proof of notability rather the opposite. Why don't YOU give it up. YOU are the ONLY one who has a problem with this amendment. This project is for those of us who are interested in making the Recent Year pages into quality articles. We are not single issue users. As it says in the opening paragraph "That an event is important to an individual editor, or even to a particular society or nation, is not sufficient ground for its inclusion." DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My comments on other cases are easy to explain. Simply put, outside of Chappaquiddick, I don't think Ted Kennedy ever did anything notable. He was a Kennedy brother, which is his big claim to fame. On the off-chance that he accomplished something that I've never heard of (and this is coming from someone who met him and talked with him...yes, civilly), he was only in a position to do so because of the family's reputation. As such, he is notable for being a Kennedy. Eunice Kennedy Shriver's inclusion was opposed for the very reason that she was only notable for being a Kennedy...completely forgetting that she helped found the Special Olympics (or, as the now-indefinitely blocked User:Information yes so eloquently put it, all she ever did was work with "retards".). Do I honestly think that Ted Kennedy should be excluded from the 2009 article? Of course not. I was playing devil's advocate and seeing if people could actually come up with a reason for his notability to prove that a double standard was not being applied. Unfortunately, I got little more than assurances that he was "high-profile" and "notable". For what? Nobody would say.

As for Bobby Robson, I honestly hadn't heard of him. He was clearly not the right person to pick as an example, as looking into it further has shown me that he is definitely notable and internationally recognized. Perhaps this should be a good example of how one person thinking something doesn't make it true for the whole world. That's an important thought that could be applied a lot more frequently on the 2009 article.

You are saying that a major change needs to take place because of September's events. However, you also say that the people in question were discussed and ultimately removed. Problem solved. Why introduce a new policy when common sense can (and should) be applied? You say that exceptions can be made, but, if we can go back to the example of Mitsuharu Misawa, I have a good idea of what that would have looked like. He didn't have 10 articles because Wikipedia is a work in progress. More articles were created after he died. Would you have been willing to have a reasonable, respectful discussion about the merits of including him? Or would you simply have pointed to the policy and said "Tough luck"? I know the answer, and if you can be honest with yourself, I'm sure you do as well. I don't think that systematic bias should ever rule Wikipedia, so I think any reasonable topic should have a chance at a legitimate discussion. It was made quite clear in the discussion that the majority of the opposition was simply due to a dislike of professional wrestling (for example, you stated that one of your reasons for declaring Misawa not notable was because "Pro wrestling barely qualifies as a sport"...completely ignoring the fact that your feelings on his profession have absolutely no relevance to the discussion). Discussions can help move Wikipedia past this type of issue. Unnecessary, non-negotiable policies can not. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the "Work in progress" argument helps. How long do we wait before there is evidence is notable? Ed McMahon, someone I thought was "obviously" notable when he died, had 6 non-E articles at his death and 4 months later has 7 most of which are stubs or unreferenced. Billy Mays also (after 4 months) now has 7 articles (including the 2 single sentence entries created specifically by a user merely to try and get him to 9 non-E articles). Even if either of them got to 9 non-E articles unless those articles were considerably more substantial there would still not be a sufficient indication of notability.

The problem with the 9 non-E minimum is that it does not specify quality and an unexpected (and hence newsworthy) death often results in an increase in articles but does not mean that the person is well-known in that language/country but merely that someone saw the news and decided to create a wiki article. Given that we can't know for certain if someone is notable in a given country we can only go by their article, if it a stub copied from the English article and has no reference in its own language then it would appear they are not really notable in that country. Yes that could change "eventually", but what if it doesn't? As for Mitsuhara Misawa the german, french, catalan, spanish, portuguese, italian and one of the asian language articles look to be copies of various parts (usually minimal, sometimes including the list of championships) of the english article. Only a few of them have references (mostly from the NOAH site, only one is not english (the spanish article has a german reference!)). Would I have said tough luck if someone had tried to add him when he died and had less than 9 non-E articles? I wouldn't have said "tough luck" I would have said he didn't meet the criteria. If someone had started a discussion about including him once he did reach 9 non-E articles "would [I] have been willing to have a reasonable, respectful discussion about the merits of including him"? Yes. Do I now think he was internationally notable, given the current state of the majority of his non-English articles 4 months after his death? No. Would I ever consider conceding that he was notable if that was reflected in the majority of his non-E articles? Let's say I would raise no further objections to being included in the 2009 Deaths.

The 9 non-English articles requirement is probably now inappropriate. As Wikipedia continues to grow, it would be expected that non-Enlish language encyclopedias would expand to include lesser known and lesser-notability subjects. I would propose an entirely different standard - that in the article itself, rather than just listing a name and occupation, require a reason why their death was notable to the year and adds to an understanding of the events of that year. Reserve for the 'Deaths in XXXX' the list of deaths by month. For example, 2004 Ronald Reagan (June 5) was the oldest living former president and one of only 6 men alive at the time that had held that office. - In. Percy Wickman (July 3) highest office was being one of the 83 members of one of Canada's 13 provinces (or territories) - Out. It's not so much uniqueness or level, as much as really, how much of an impact did that person's death have on the year itself.Cander0000 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I generally like that approach, in theory, but in practice it could very quickly become very restrictive. Since a subject's notability is demonstrated (not necessarily defined, but demonstrated) by the presence of a WP article on that subject, and since there are so few "Death of X" articles (like Death of Ronald Reagan or Death of Michael Jackson), the deaths section could quickly shrivel up into a very tiny list. Then again, maybe that's a good thing. But since the "deaths" section is distinct from the "events" section, it's implicit in the structure of the article that deaths do not have to be seen as notable events; they simply reflect the deaths of (internationally) known people. I'm not strongly against the suggestion; I just think that the article's structure already solves the what-sort-of-notability problem. There's general agreement, though, that the nine non-English article approach is imperfect. Perhaps your approach is better, but as noted, I have a couple reservations. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to revisit this proposal again. There still seem to be too many people being added to the Deaths section that are not particularly notable. It seems that some editors are waiting until the deceased person reaches the 9 non-English articles minimum and then adding them. This often happens when no user that is unaware of the minimum criterai has triewd to add them immediately upon their death. I feel that such persons are insufficiently notable to be included but really can't be bothered arguing about each one. It should be encumbant on editors that feel someone should be included despite failing the proposed criteria to justify their inclusion on the talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. If people are adding them when they don't meet the criteria, they should be removed. In the spirit of Wikipedia (a work in progress), however, there is nothing wrong with adding them if they later meet the criteria. Heck, if a time limit mattered on Wikipedia, this failed proposal would have been archived about eight months ago. It's time to stop beating a dead horse and move on with your life. No problem means no solution is necessary. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an important practical issue here which has been missed. While any fool can see whether there are 9 other Wikipedia articles, having just had a look at this myself, establishing when the article was created may not be easy, involving language skills many of us do not have, and with languages which do not use the Latin alphabet may be virtually impossible for the lay person. Similar problems arise with other criteria based on the quality or content of these articles. On English Wikipedia there are a number of decent, though not necessarily particularly good, articles which are basically a translation of an article from another Wikipedia, or which only use foreign language sources. PatGallacher (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal : Deaths

We seem to be getting a number of minor actors listed on the Years pages. Although I thought the Deaths section also included Births, it appears it does not. I am concerned the Recent Years pages will become unreadable lists of names that overshadow major events. I am proposing the following change in the wording of the deaths section. The changes are in italics or are struckout. The following is the proposed wording:

Deaths and births

Deaths and births are only to be included if the person dead has articles about him or her on Wikipedia in at least ten languages. (William Shakespeare, for example, has several foreign language articles on him, listed on the left sidebar.) This is a minimum requirement for inclusion. Many articles will not merit inclusion even though they may have enough foreign articles.

ttonyb1 (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense. The only problem might be that users create foreign language articles just to make the minimum requirement which means marginal cases will have to have the foreign language articles checked to make sure they are genuine (which could become tedious). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Births/Deaths:Nobel laureates

Just a minor formatting question. How should Nobel Prize winners be described in the Births and Deaths sections?

eg

• September 8 – Aage Niels Bohr, Danish physicist and Nobel Prize laureate (born 1922)

OR

• September 8 – Aage Niels Bohr, Danish physicist, Nobel laureate (born 1922)

There are many variations on this such as linking Nobel Prize or Nobel Prize in Chemistry which I think we can agree is superfluous.

I favour the second example above as it includes all the necessary information in the briefest form. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ed McMahon, Willy Ronis, Mary Travers

Input sought at Talk:2009 regarding their international notability, and hence their eligibility for inclusion in the Deaths section of 2009. Information yes (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Formats for the Current Year

Here are some previous formats for the current year:

1) 2006 (MMVI) is a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. It is also the current year

2) 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the AD/DC Era.

3) 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, a leap year starting on Tuesday of the Anno Domini/Common Era.

4) 2009 (MMIX) is the current year of the Anno Domino/Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is a common year starting on Thursday.

Possibilities for 2010:

1) 2010 (MMX) is a common year starting on Friday of the Anno Domini/Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 10th year of the 21st century and 3rd millennium, and the 1st year of the 2010s decade. It is also the current year.

2) 2010 (MMX) is the current year, a common year starting on Friday of the Anno Domini/Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 10th year of the 21st century and 3rd millennium, and the 1st year of the 2010s decade. (Homerjay90 (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Agreed format for 2010:

2010 (MMX) is a common year starting on Friday of the Anno Domini/Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 2010th year of the AD/CE, the 10th year of the 3rd millennium and 21st century, and the 1st year of the 2010s decade. It is also the current year. (Homerjay90 (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

I do not see a reason for a change to the existing format and do not support these changes. I suggest we stay with the format in the article page. ttonyb (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to change it either. But, Homerjay90, if you think that the WP:RY format is not ideal, you might want to start by explaining why you feel this is the case. Your minimally explained rearrangements of the leads are coming across--at best--as arbitrary, and in many cases as disruptive. If you do not understand why this is so, you might be well-advised to read WP:CON. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

See continuation discussion under Centuries, Milennia, and Decades below. Davshul (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Once the clock strikes 2011, could the article for 2011 be as follows?

2011 (MMXI) is a common year starting on Saturday. In the Gregorian calendar it is the 2011th year of the Common Era or Anno Domini designation, the 11th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century, and the 2nd of the 2010s decade. It is also the current year.

or

2011 (MMXI) is the current year, a common year starting on Saturday. In the Gregorian calendar it is the 2011th year of the Common Era or Anno Domini designation, the 11th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century, and the 2nd of the 2010s decade Continental738 (talk)

As indicated above there is no consensus to change the current year format. I have no issue updating the example in the article to 2011, but leave the format alone. ttonyb (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer that all references to millennia, century and, most importantly, decade, be removed. There's also no real point in adding "It is also the current year" the opening words are clear enough: use "was" for past years, "is" for the current year and "will be" for future years. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see what the article for 2011 will actually look like once 2010 has rolled over into 2011 Continental738 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Starting on (a) Friday

How is the "a" ungrammatical? Is this American usage? To me, "starting on Friday" means starting next Friday from now. In fact, is the day the year starts really so important that it has to be the first thing we say about it?--Kotniski (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to redo the automated links to these calendars (not exactly articles). I would have have preferred common year with January 1 as Friday, but starting with Friday or on Friday is more accurate than starting on a Friday. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The links can be piped, so that doesn't really matter. So in American English, do you not have this distinction "on Friday" (=next/last Friday) vs. "on a Friday" (=some Friday)? What would "on a Friday" mean to you?--Kotniski (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's subtle, but how do you phrase "Christmas comes on Friday this year"? That's the way we say it, not "on a Friday", even in quasi-formal speech and writing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that doesn't sound so bad (don't know why), though I wouldn't see anything wrong with "on a Friday" there either. The form with "a" still sounds better to me in the phrase we were talking about, though. I guess it's a UK v. US thing (or just personal preference).--Kotniski (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So should the lead article for 2010 be:

2010 (MMX) is a common year starting on Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, and is the current year...

We could go back to "common year starting on [day]" format, instead of "common year that started on a [day]".

64.106.112.241 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Centuries, Milennia, and Decades

I don't think there's any reason to say which year of a century, millennium, or decade a particular year is, unless it's the first or last year of a millennium, century, and decade. So I think the lead paragraph in 2010 should be:

2010 (MMX) is a common year starting on Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, and is the current year. It is the 2010th year in the Anno Domini/Common Era, and it is also the first year of the 2010s decade.

Adding the information on which year of a century, millennium, and decade, can really confuse readers even more than saying "2010th year in the AD/CE.

64.106.112.241 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, except I'd leave out any reference to the decade as well. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits have recently been made to the lead paragraph in almost all of the years 1989 through 2014 (and possibly many others), which includes a statement along the following lines:

2010 is "the 10th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century; and the 1st of the 2010s decade."

Apart from the fact that these changes appear to have been made without any prior discussion, technically many would regard them as incorrect, taking the view that the 3rd millennium and 21st century commenced on 1 January 2001. I proposed that these amendments be reversed and that the text return to as suggested in the opening comment of this section, possibly omitting the reference to decade. Davshul (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There was some prior discussion about two section up. Still, I can't say there was a clear consensus. Nonetheless, your followup comment is wrong, in that it is clear that the 3rd millennium and 21st century commenced on 1 January 2001. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I had not noticed he earlier discussion. However, apart frrom the User suggesting the then proposed new format for 2010, all other comments (in both the present and earlier discussions) were again such change. As noted by me, and more strongly stated Arthur Rubin (with whom I agree), the references to the milleneum and century are incorrect. So where does this leave us? Davshul (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the existing text confuses the reader. I would not change the substance of the text except to fix a couple of punctuations issues as indicated below.

2010 (MMX) is the current year and is a common year that started on a Friday. In the Gregorian calendar it is the 2010th year of the Common Era and of Anno Domini; the 10th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century; and the 1st of the 2010s decade.

For earlier years I would change it to the following:

2009 (MMX) was a common year that started on a Thursday. In the Gregorian calendar it is the 2009th year of the Common Era and of Anno Domini; the 9th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century; and the 10st of the 2000s decade.

I would not change the "is" to "was" in the second sentence - regardless of the date the statement ii still true. Changing it ""was" implies it is no longer the 9th year of the 3rd millennium. etc. ttonyb (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't think we should state which year of a millennium, decade, or century a particular year is, unless it's the first or last year of a decade, century, or millennium. Maybe we could state which year of a millennium and century a certain year is, but leave out the decade info unless it's the first or last year of a particular decade.

2010 (MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, and it is the current year. It is also the 2010th year in the Anno Domini/Common Era, the 10th year in the 3rd millennium and 21st century, and the 1st of the 2010s.

Continental738 (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My prefernce would be to leave out the decades altogether and only mention the century or millenium if is the first or last year. So, ignoring corrections for day of week, and using "is" rather "was" (not sure which I prefer):

1900 (MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 1900th year in the Anno Domini/Common Era and 100th and last year of the 19th century.

1901 (MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 1901st year in the Anno Domini/Common Era and 1st year of the 20th century.

2000 (MMX) is a leap year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 2000th year in the Anno Domini/Common Era, the 1000th and last year of the 2nd millenium and the 100th and last year of the 20th century.

2001 (MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 2001st year in the Anno Domini/Common Era and the 1st year of the 3rd millenium and the 21st century.

2010 (MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 2010th year in the Anno Domini/Common Era.

The infobox at each Year article includes which millenium, century and decade the year falls into, there is no need for excessive repetition. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Derby's suggestion, except there is no need to go back to change the earlier years (1900; 1901), as these appear correct and text is amended slightly to make reference to the Julian calender, then still in use in certain countries. (It should be noted the days of the week mentioned in Derby's examples are incorrect, apart from 2010, and that we should add that that 2000 was "the first century leap year since 1600".) Davshul (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with any of Derby's suggestions, but I'd change one thing. There's a problem with the phrasing of "the Anno Domini/Common Era". This implies that AD is an "era" in the same sense that CE is an "era". But it isn't. Yes, both terms are associated with the exact same span of years, but they do not denote the same things. CE refers to the past 2010 years collectively. But AD is not an era at all; it designates years individually. In the AD/BC system, AD is properly placed before each year, whereas BC is properly placed after the year. "In the year of our Lord 2010" makes grammatical sense, but "2010 in the year of our Lord" does not--2010, being a year, cannot be "in" some other year. "2010 BC" also makes grammatical sense: "2010 [years] before Christ". "BC 2010", in contrast, is grammatical nonsense: "Before Christ 2010". In a nutshell, AD refers to each year of the Common Era, and CE refers to all years that, individually, can be prefixed by AD; there is no "in the year of our Lord era" ("anno"--think "annual"--strictly indicates a year, not an era). So I'd suggest something like the following: "It is the 2010th year in the Common Era and is the 2010th year Anno Domini", or "Often regarded as the 2010th year Anno Domini, it is also the 2010th year of the Common Era", or "It is the 2010th year to receive the Common Year and Anno Domini designations", or whatever, really, just as long as it doesn't imply that a year ("Anno Domini") and an era ("Common Era") are the same thing. CE may be AD's secular sister, but she's not an identical twin. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: As no one has voiced disagreement with the above position, I've edited the guideline in accordance with that view, so that the phrasing makes a bit more sense. As far as I can tell, it's a rather minor edit (although probably not minor enough to mark as minor), but if anyone disagrees, feel free to revert/discuss. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Thursday of the Gregorian calendar" Format

I don't know why this format has been put into effect in the first place but it makes no sense to begin a year article like this:

2010 (MMX) is a common year starting on Friday of the Gregorian calendar and is the current year.

Does one year start on "Friday of the Gregorian calendar" and the following year starts on "Saturday of the Julian calendar"? It's not grammatically correct, so that's why I changed a few lead articles to say (e.g. 1970 (MCMLXX) was a common year starting on Friday in the Gregorian calendar). I Think it makes more sense to say "in the Gregorian calendar" as opposed to "of the Gregorian calendar". So 2010 could begin as follows:

2010 (MMX) is a common year starting on Friday in the Gregorian calendar and is the current year. It is the 2010th year in the Common Era (or Anno Domini) and the first year of the 2010s decade.

64.106.113.157 (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to get consensus before making any such changes. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

One person on Wikipedia claims that it can really confuse the reader when one mentions which year of a decade, millennium, and century a particular year is in, unless it's the first or last year of such time periods. So I wonder if the 2010 could be changed to this:

2010 (MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday in the Gregorian calendar and is the current year. It is also the 2010th year in the Common Era, or of Anno Domini; and the 1st year of the 2010s decade.

64.106.113.235 (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I do not see an issue with mention of the year of a decade, millennium, and century of a particular year and suggest it not be changed. ttonyb (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this project still active?

Given the lack of any constructive input to my last prompt, I'm wondering if there are any users still interested in this project? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is needed to decide if the opening paragraph should have an in-line citation pointing to a useful and valid reference.

At first I was confused by the opening paragraph of the 200x articles which states: In the Gregorian calendar, it was the 200xth year of the Common Era or of Anno Domini; the xth year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century; and the x+1 year of the 2000s.

So like a good editor should, I researched this topic and found the following reliable reference [2] to verify that the Gregorian calendar had no year “zero”, and thus the above sentence is factually accurate. To help the article, I added that useful and valid reference as an in-line citation. Almost immediately I find that my edits are being reversed, and that when I put back the reference User:Ttonyb1 tells me on my User talk:Mantes page that I will be in violation of WP:3RR unless I capitulate to his removal of the valid and useful reference that I added.

So I am bringing the issue to this talk page in the hope that a consensus of editors will be reached on the issue of whether or not the opening paragraph should have an in-line citation pointing to a useful and valid reference. I believe that a verifiable in-line citation for such a controversial/misunderstood fact will assist everyone who reads this article to understand and accept why 2001 was the 1st (and not the 2nd) year of the new millennium. I do not understand why any editor would actively choose to not reference this fact and, even more so, actively pressure another editor to not reference that fact.

Although I think that User:Ttonyb1 should have opened this discussion (instead he chose to edit war), I am bringing the issue here. I have made my opinion clear that I believe that the article will be better if it is properly referenced, so there is no need for me to take further part in this discussion. Editors who are more senior that I are better equipped to make the arguments for or against references. I will be watching, but will not participate. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion that I anticipate will follow. Mantes (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's a bit pointless to include this reference in each and everyone of the 200x articles, as these are just lists of events, births, deaths, etc. There already is an article about the 0 (year), which is well-equipped with references. Favonian (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If there were no other references in any of these articles (like the WP:DOY articles), I would argue that this reference should be excluded so long as the statement includes a link to an article that has the sourced information. But since these articles do have some references, it's hard to argue that there shouldn't be any. My preference would be that all these articles have no references. Reason being that they are lists and there tend to be a lot of entries, and there is a factor of notability that is solved by linking to an article that establishes the notability. With refs the lists would become quite a mess because every single line would need a ref. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> As I have indicated , it is not needed. </sigh> ttonyb (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding the same citation to dozens of pages just to prove a point is hardly constructive, especially when there is no consensus for change. The place to discuss such a change is here, as has been pointed out. As the change has been disputed and until there is consensus to accept the change any attempts to make such a change would be considerd edit-warring and might lead t oa 3RR violation. I see no point in adding a citation about the Gregorian claendar to every year, what a waste of time! The citation need only to be in the Gregorian calendar article which is referenced in every year anyway. Personally I find the lede of year articles overly trivial; anyone with a basic grasp of numeracy should be able to work out which year of a decade, century or millenium a particular year is and it's even more obvious given the top infobox! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

2010, 2011

Once it's 2011 in all time zones in the world, will the 2010 article see "is" being changed to "was"? Continental738 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be changed when the UTC date changes to 1 January 2011. This will mean it will need a note saying something like "2010 is still the current year in the Americans and Eastern Pacific" until it is 2011 everywhere. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And how come sometime in 2006, previous year articles have been using "was" and future years using "will be"? I remember looking at year articles prior to 2006 that had "is" regarless of whether it was a past year, ongoing year, or future year. Continental738 (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Less criteria and natural disaters standards

I would like to ask for less criteria in the WP:RY article, a minimal amount for inclusion on natural disasters/terrorist attacks and important business events to be eligible for inclusion. If the less criteria and minimal amount on natural disasters/terrorist attacks came into effect, this would prevent most arguments on the year articles about earthquake inclusion, terrorist attacks and other inclusions.

As for the less criteria bit, I mean that more items would be eligible for inclusion on the year articles, like the UK Riots and the U.S. Debt ceiling crisis and credit rating downgrade or EU/IMF bailouts...

For the minimal amount for inclusion on natural disasters I mean a standardised number for natural disasters like:

• Earthquake inclusion: 6.5 Richter scale/50,000 deaths/450 million USD(375 million EUR)of damage
• Tornado inclusion: 110 deaths/500 million USD(415 million EUR) of damage
• Terrorist attacks: 55 deaths by single shooter/70 deaths if responsible by one terrorist/120 deaths if organization responsible/100 million USD(65 million EUR) of damage
• Riots: 3 days/400 deaths/200 million USD (140 million EUR) of damage/If one event is responsible for over 1 day of rioting

and others...

Important business effects. If one business event would make markets fall for over 3 days non-stop OR in fear of an event make markets fall for over a day, then I think that should be added.

This 'central guideline' for all the Recent Year articles was written by a relatively small amount of users (42). This amount, according to me must be around 100 and have editors from different areas. By having 42 editors on this Recent Years project, some editors may not agree with these guidelines and to overrule that there has to be a consensus which leads to bitter arguments...

Please add, at least some of my ideas to this guideline.

– Plarem (User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 19:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame you chose to start a new section rather than reading and participating in the discussion already underway immediately above. Some of us have already put some serious thought into this matter in that section, and I for one don't really feel like repeating myself. Please read all the points above, and try responding to what others think. HiLo48 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that there is a fear that too many rules and restrictions will be applied to recent years. Like I said above, moving some natural disasters to a separate article is good idea, however there is too much bias and emotional attachments to natural disasters. It is difficult for many to attain to Wikipedia's neutral policy. The content of a generic year page involves sifting through events, and choosing which ones in particular are the "most important" or are "most relevant." It is sometimes risky business choosing which ones are indeed the most significant, as arguments can be made for any large scale event. Neutrality is extremely difficult in this case. If a generic year page did not exist, and only pages such as "(year) in politics", "(year) in natural disasters" were available, internet altercations could be avoided. Debates can be valuable, but regarding year articles, they are too excessive and unproductive.

Obviously deleting every generic year page is unrealistic, so in order to limit debate or disagreements, I think that it is appropriate to set at least a few sensitive guidelines, at least for natural disasters. Plarem, using specific number of deaths for specific types of disasters could help, but may be a bit too closed ended. I will reaffirm that using between 100-300 deaths for all disasters could be useful, and not as random. In many cases, the level of impact is usually(not always) intrinsic to number of casualties in any given disaster. Using 200+ deaths as qualifying criteria, will yield surprising few disasters per year. --Trilobite12 (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Natural disasters

It appears that many(including myself), are having difficulty choosing which natural disasters can have a place in a yearly article. True, some natural disaster may not have a direct or an immediate effect on the world, however I think it is fair to consider their scale. I am aware of the world relevance standard, but honestly I think one should look at international notability instead. In Haiti for example, score died in an earthquake, however it did not really affect any other nation or state outside its borders. Of course I believe it needs to be mentioned(and is an extreme example), but it falls into the international notability category. Events that involve death, are especially sensitive, and thus need a little more sensitivity. While the content must remain neutral, it is exceedinglydifficult to remain completely neutral.

In [discussion], was proposed that for natural disasters to qualify for inclusion, 100 or more deaths would have to be involved. These types of disasters are not terribly frequent, and most of the 7 that happened this year were for the record books.

1. Japan Earthquake(300 billion USD)-300000 Homeless, and Costliest in recorded history-International Aid
2. Christchurch Earthquake(13 billion USD)-10000 Homeless Costliest in New Zealand's History, and second deadliest-International Aid
3. April US tornado outbreak(10 billion USD)-14000 Homeless Largest and costliest tornado ever outbreak recorded-Some International Aid
4. China Floods (5 billion USD)-500000 Evacuated, large numbers homeless
5. Joplin MO Tornado (3 billion USD)-10000 Homeless? Costiest Single Tornado
6. Rio de Janeiro flooding(1 Billion USD)-23000 HomelessPerhaps worst weather disaster in Brazil's History
7. Burma earthquake(100 million USD- Several hundred homeless

Thoughts? --Trilobite12 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If the criteria is the number of deaths then the cost and the numbers of those made homeless is irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I included those fact was to demonstrate that when natural disaster's death toll reaches 100, there is in many cases a huge impact. But true, it is a deviation from the criteria. Nonetheless, 100 deaths seems to be a good qualifying figure.

If no one is responding may I just add that to the recent years article myself? --Trilobite12 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am against the inclusion of this until there is sufficient consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus because there is no discussion. If no one wishes to discuss this, then I could assume that everyone is OK with this proposition. --Trilobite12 (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No you couldn't, but that approach might finally drag me in here ;-) Although it seems brutish, I think we need to rule a line at a point in the "number of deaths" scale, perhaps at 100. Financial costs should not be criterion. They don't work as a fair comparison for the whole world, and are pretty meaningless to most people when they hit the billion mark. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The difficulties with setting a blanket standard of 100 for all natural disasters are that:

1. Some types of disaster exceed this level numerous times every year.
2. Some types of disaster happen so frequently, even within single countries, that the sheer frequency makes them insufficiently notable.
3. Some types of disaster can exceed 10000. Can similar diasasters of barely over 100 (1% of others) be considered similarly notable?
4. Some man-made disasters (e.g. mass shootings) have never reached 100 deaths. Should another limit be set for these?

My feeling is that different minimums for different types of disaster would be the best way to go (although getting consensus would be even more difficult). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's put the man-made disasters aside for now. By most definitions they don't fit under "natural disasters" and this is hard enough anyway. I'd still recommend having an absolute minimum (open to discussion on the number - 100 is my current preference) and perhaps a list of those "disasters" for which you would like higher minimums. Still pretty ugly, but we need some rules. What would be your exceptions with higher limits? HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

My proposition would be having different minimums for different types of disaster. Also, my other proposition would be that the minimum would range from 200-300 deaths. (For different disasters)I would put it in around those numbers because for some disasters, the amount of people dead is very different than for another disaster...(Sorry if I sound a bit brutal, but we have to do it like this or we would have more bitter arguments on the year articles...) – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 20:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

115 or 145 are too random to be useful. Figures of 100, 200, 250 or 500 would be more appropriate. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Then if 115-145 are too random, I change my proposal to 200-300 deaths for different types of disaster. – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs) 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose this entire concept. The existing structure is sufficient, adding all these new rules will just make it more confusing. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why, just a few new rules to the guideline to prevent some arguments on the Recent Year talk pages... – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs) 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Because i don't believe they will prevent those arguments. See WP:CREEP. The more rules you have, the more they get ignored. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Counter proposal

• This would avoid creating a byzantine maze of rules just for this one subject area that would probably be ignored anyway. If an item is added, it can be removed with an edit summary note that the entry was either moved to or already exists at the spin-off article. There are enough such disasters in any given year to easily support these new articles, and we don't have to worry about the main article becoming bloated if there happens to be an extraordinarily dangerous year. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Something I proposed sometime ago (iirc). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The article List of natural disasters may help users gain some perspective on the relative scale. Of the ten deadliest disasters of the last 100 years, number ten is the 1948 Ashgabat earthquake, which killed an estimated 120,000 people. The deadliest disaster ever recorded, the 1931 China floods killed somewhere between one and two and a half million people. The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami killed between 15,000 and 20,000 people. A disaster and a tragedy to be certain, but when put in a historical perspective the death toll is actually relatively low. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So natural disasters are evaluated the same way as before? If so, I can understand why. However as I have read over the discussions regarding disasters, I found that it is difficult for Wikipedians to remain neutral. Someone will react negatively at the inclusion or exclusion of an event, because one may have an emotional attachment to that event(especially disasters). Moving natural disasters that do not quite meet the criteria to separate page is objectively a fine idea. There is no doubt in mind that many will revile the move, however. Recent Years pages differ from most other Wikipedia articles, in that editors and contributors need to sieve through information, and decide which information is the "most important" Even for topics that are highly controversial, like the [Creation–evolution controversy]], remaining neutral while editing is much easier. Virtually all that is needed is the background, issues, view points, and arguments made by either side (That of course, is highly condensed) And with non controversial is remarkably easier to remain neutral. As for Recent Years, it is far more difficult. Having some more rules would help. My reason for including that list of 2011 disasters, was to demonstrate that using 100 deaths as qualifying criteria, would not cause the article to bloat. Even if in an given year, there are 10 of such disasters(each year nine or ten 100+ deaths disasters occur), they would not dominate the space in the article. If anyone is willing to move the number up to 200, that is fine by me. --Trilobite12 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of deaths is not a good metric to use for determining international impact. The Haitian earthquake last year had no real impact outside of Haiti despite the high death toll. A big part of the reason for the widespread destruction in Haiti was the fact that it was already one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere and had no building codes.Not the case in Japan, which is one of the wealthiest nations on Earth and had been preparing for decades for such a disaster, only to find it was even bigger than they had prepared for.The Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear incident this year has caused other nations such as Germany to reconsider their own nuclear programs, and led people in coastal areas around the world to consider what would happen if tsunami on such a scale were to impact their area.Two horrible disasters that killed thousands of people, but very different on terms of international impact. I don't believe an elaborate set of hard-coded rules will be followed by the type of users that are constantly posting every little thing to the current year article, as it is obvious they are already ignoring the guidelines we already have. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Some Parameters(for natural disasters at least)

The suggestion that I have would not apply to every single topic in Recent Years, and really is not incredibly as taut as you suggest. It is most practical to use the a specific guideline in this case because the recent articles are unlike most other Wikipedia articles

For example: An article on the prehistoric creature RWQ, for example, involves integrating what the mainstream scientific community believes to be correct about RWQ. Obviously there is plenty of disagreement amongst paleontologists regarding its behavior, and their exact physiological characteristics. For an article to remain neutral, it must incorporate the conflict amongst scientist, while still affirming that mainstream researchers believe x is true. That is the key however, the researchers say that x is true, not the article. The articles does not aver that x is an absolute, simply because there is disagreement. If say, only one credible scientist thinks that x is false, whereas the rest have found common ground, that one scientist's view must still be represented within the article. If say the general public disagrees with x, then their views also should also be included. While general direction of the article on RWQ, should be derived from what the majority paleontologists think(because they have the benefit of evidence), disagreement is still incorporated. Wikipedia is not absolute

What I getting at here, is that Wikipedia does not argue(unless speaking for its own rules and codes of conduct), it represents. In the context of the year articles, it only represents how a relatively small group think about a certain event. in If an event is included withing a recent year article, then it gives that impression that its title to "relevance to world", is absolute and there is no room for debate. This is unlike most articles, where editors can use mainstream thought and scientific consensus. While these individuals(I hope), have the intentions of being objective, it is incredibly difficult to pinpoint what effects some events may have on the rest of the world. The inclusion of an event is executed as an absolute measure, however under the a criteria that is loose ended(world relevance).

It is particularly difficult to assign natural disasters the title "world relevant", because there are much too many elements to consider. There is no field of research that studies which disasters are the most significant, because significance in this case is much too subjective. Now granted, there are some disasters that are clearly indisputably world relevant(Tohoku eartquake), but for others, significance is much less clear. It is has been made clear through past discussions, that too many people are attached to certain major events/disasters, and can nearly always find reason for them to be included.

Factoring in all of this, there is reason to have at least some parameters for natural disasters. This is not to restrict certain information, rather the opposite. The vast majority of the time, proposals for natural disasters are shot down. Also we cannot trust that folks remain completely neutral in discussion. At least for natural disasters there should be some solid figure for inclusion.

(If we are truly to be objective, then would it be just to remove the the Haitian earthquake from the 2010 article? I mean, it has no world impact after all, so why should it be there?) --Trilobite12 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

This guideline is not complying with a subsidary of (all hail) the Manual of Style, (all hail) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.

From WP:RY:

==Events==
===January===

• January 1 – Past event.
• January 1 – Same as above (S/A). (Wikilink all dates that begin an event/birth/death entry, even where those dates repeat. Wikilink the central names or concepts in descriptions of events, assuming those names or concepts have articles on Wikipedia. If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article but is deemed sufficient for inclusion, it must be externally sourced in the year article, especially if it refers to living people.)
• January 2 – S/A
• etc.

===February===
===etc.===
==Predicted and scheduled events==
===March===

• March 1 – Future event. (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and should not be making predictions of its own about the future. It should not make statistical extrapolations of unclear or unverifiable significance. The purpose of this section is to indicate the contents of current schedules or predictions of events that reliable, external sources have deemed potentially important.)
• March 2 – S/A
• etc.

===April===
===etc.===
==Births==
===January===

• January 1 – [[Name]], Nationality and very brief description (Do not Wikilink anything other than the date of birth and name. External sources are presumed to exist in the subject's own article, but may be duplicated in the year article to ensure that the latter article passes WP:BLP.)
  
• January 2 – S/A
• etc.

===February===
===etc.===
==Deaths==
===January===

• January 1 – [[Name]], Nationality and very brief description, (born [[YOB]]) (Do not Wikilink anything other than the date of death, name, and year of birth. External sources are presumed to exist in the subject's own article, and their duplication on the year article is not strictly required.)
  
• January 2 – S/A
• etc.

I have boldfaced what is not complying with.

From WP:OVERLINK:

What generally should not be linked

An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value.^ref Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article,

• Avoid linking plain English words.
• Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions.
• Avoid linking units of measurement that aren't obscure. If a metric and a non-metric unit are provided, as in 18 °C (64 °F), there is no need to link either unit because almost all readers will understand at least one of the units.
• Avoid linking dates (see below).
• As a rule of thumb (see below), link on first reference only.
• Do not link to a page that redirects to the page the link is on.

I have boldfaced what is not complying with.

I'd like to see this changed to follow with the (all hail) Manual of Style. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 21:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Consubstantial" is generally defined as "of the same substance." Are you sure that is what you mean to say? In any event RY articles appear to be ignoring that rule. I generally agree with OVERLINK but in this case I don't see the harm in exempting these few articles from it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I mean not complying with in the evening and it just did not come to me...– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And, I forgot about WP:IAR and that the date articles are historical... I am sorry for any inconvenience caused... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There was an error when the WP:LINKING was changed to report that dates were to be unlinked. The RfC specifically exempted "timeline articles" "inherently chronological articles". That includes year, day-of-year, and possibly year-in-topic articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Date linkage in subpages

A dispute has arisen here regarding that application on these guidelines, specifically the guidelines regarding date linkage, to "sub-articles" that commence with the relevant year (such as, in the case in question, 2011 in the United States). It is claimed that as 2011 is the "parent article" of the article in question such article is also covered by these guidelines. I consider that if the date linkage guidelines, or any other part of these guidelines, were intended to apply to such articles, these guidelines would state so, which they do not. Accordingly, the general guidelines opposing such linkage (per MOS:UNLINKDATES and WP:UNLINKDATES) apply to the articles in question. In fact, most of the pages in the "Year in country" series do not link dates, and to apply date linkage to these pages (not to mention the numerous other topics listed in the topics box of each year), would, in my opinion, lead to thousands of articles containing a plethora of unnecessary links. Davshul (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The key phrase in your statement above is "... in my opinion ...". Your activites over the last week to damage many year in country sub-articles by de-linking their dates within them only goes to show how short-sighted you are. Here is the example ... on March 6, 1933, the world article 1933 lists the death of Anton Cermak, a Chicago, Illinois mayor who was assisinated --- further, there is an article March 6 which also shows his death. According to the current criteria for notability (Wikipedia Recent years), neither would be included if they occured in 2011 --- neither in 2011 or in March 6. And yet, 1933 in the United States contains no death information at all --- further, there is no wiki page for March 6 in the United States. Some day a bot will create all this information as wiki pages, like this bot should today if it existed, and create what you blindly believe is i quote "lead to thousands of articles containing a plethora of unnecessary links" --- I state catagorically that you have no idea what an encyclopedia is. All you are doing is removing content that ultimaletly will exist. Some day the article 1933 in the United States will show all the deaths that occured then (as today it shows none) --- further, someday there will be an article titled March 6 in the United States (or even June 13 in Canada) both articles will be filled with the appropriate information of hundreds of births, deaths, and events from various years on those dates. You are a destroyer of content --- heaven help you for your book burning activites, since this is actually all you are really doing--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

i see the same fight against your vandalism is going on by the major editor over at 2011 in Canada --- clearly niether of us who are the major editors of these articles believe that your activities of de-linking dates is anything but vandalism--70.162.171.210 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

i have been informed that the word "vandal" is too harsh --- i will withdraw it but not anything else said.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, but it is clearly against the guidelines to remove the links. Date links are allowed in timeline articles, and are encouraged, specifically, in "year in country" articles. It's not in WP:LINKING, where it should be, but it was in the RfC which established the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm for keeping the links, personally Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Years and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Please provide a neutral pointer at other relevant country WikiProjects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I looked at similar articles with a different year (e.g. 2010 in Canada, 2009 in the United States), and all their dates are unlinked. There weren't discussions about linking/unlinking the dates on their talk pages either. Personally, I would stand by my original decision and unlink the dates, or the whole lot of links would be a nightmare to navigate comfortably, though I would still classify the linking as good faith rather than vandalism. And 70.162.171.210, I know you are passionate about your viewpoint, but accusing other editor of "book-burning" and "vandalism" doesn't help the discussion one bit. It only antagonises fellow editors instead of making actual productive work. See Wikipedia:NOT VANDALISM and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Shuipzv3 (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  Please check the logs. 2010 in Canada and 2009 in the United States were partially unlinked last week, although I'm not sure they were fully linked before. 2011 in the United States and 2011 in Canada were unlinked last week. See fait accompli. It should be pointed out, as well, that 1980 (or possibly 1990) and earlier were unlinked by an unauthorized bot before anyone complained; I'm not sure the links have been restored. Nonetheless, there is no credible assertion in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines that the "month-and-day" headings should be unlinked in year articles; the only real reason that they haven't been restored is that it's a difficult bot to write. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent years

Can some one edit it to what years are recent? Some people might get confused. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a problem which has never been resolved. My feeling is that any year which has been edited "live" should be considered a Recent Year. This would mean 2002 onwards. Wiki started late 2001 but there's probably not enough to count it under that criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)