Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Date linkage in subpages

See the (misplaced) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Date linkage in subpages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Point

I wonder what if a point of making like a bunch of articles about many millenniums and centuries in the future. Wikipedia is not a place for fictional events nor is it a place to predict the future. What make you guys too sure what in the article will be what happen? I know for the fact that we can't predict the future. All we can do is make the education guess, maybe it's a close guess but can't be exactly. And it will never be. Perhaps some of them will happen by coincidence but there is no such thing as prophecy. It's all fake. We can't predict the future. These articles are nothing but lies and useless information about fictional events. Who would want to know about some fictional events? And all the events listed that they won't even live to see and probably won't even happen. This is goes against Wikipedia policy. It's funny how someone can make up a bunch of stuffs to write about those things. This is useless and not encyclopedia at all.Trongphu (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Mohamed Bouazizi and the Occupy movement additions in the 2011 article

Thought you all might be interested in taking part in the Request for Comment on this subject at Talk:2011#Request_for_Comment:_Mohamed_Bouazizi_and_the_Occupy_movement_additions Wrad (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Portal:History

Is up for FPOC. This is one of the highest (if not the highest) visibility portal on Wikipedia, I recommend commenting on it! Cheers, ResMar 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NDASH revisited

Some editors have been removing the spaces from

• February 29 – February 30 – etc.

I thought consensus was that that dash still needs to be spaced, even though most connection spacing (i.e., van Pelt–von Mises) is now unspaced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#En dashes specifically states that in the cases such as that above, the spaces should NOT be removed. If the format

• 29–30 February

is used, then the space should be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

From the template at the top of that and other MoS pages: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."

Listings on year pages are an example of where we need an occasional exception. Look at this:

• February 5 – U.S. stock market indices plunge more than 3% after a report shows signs of economic recession in the service sector.
• February 5 – February 6 – A tornado outbreak, the deadliest in 23 years, kills 58 in the Southern United States.
• February 7 – STS-122: Space Shuttle Atlantis launches to deliver the European-built Columbus science laboratory to the International Space Station.

The spacing guides the eye into reading it like this:

Date	Event
February 5	U.S. stock market indices plunge...
February 5	February 6 – A tornado outbreak...
February 7	STS-122: Space Shuttle Atlantis...

which is bogus. From both readability and aesthetic standpoints, the two uses of spaced en dash clash. This is why we need the spaces not to be there in these special cases.

• February 5 – U.S. stock market indices plunge more than 3% after a report shows signs of economic recession in the service sector.
• February 5–February 6 – A tornado outbreak, the deadliest in 23 years, kills 58 in the Southern United States.
• February 7 – STS-122: Space Shuttle Atlantis launches to deliver the European-built Columbus science laboratory to the International Space Station.

avoids the problem. QED — Smjg (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So does:

• February 5 – U.S. stock market indices plunge more than 3% after a report shows signs of economic recession in the service sector.
• February 5–6 – A tornado outbreak, the deadliest in 23 years, kills 58 in the Southern United States.
• February 7 – STS-122: Space Shuttle Atlantis launches to deliver the European-built Columbus science laboratory to the International Space Station.

Which follows the MOS I quoted above. Simple really! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Only in the special case where the start and end months are the same. Otherwise, display of the end month needs to be preserved. — Smjg (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you. YOUR form doesn't lead to actual ambiguity, but it requires more effort to parse. In your wikitable form, it would be:

Date	Event
February 5	U.S. stock market indices plunge...
February 5–February	6 – A tornado outbreak...
February 7	STS-122: Space Shuttle Atlantis...

Even if you were right, it would require a modification of this project, which has no consensus (in fact, no favorable comment, except for you.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that's how your eyes see it, but I can't see many people's eyes cutting the "February 6" in half like this. What do you mean "it would require a modification of this project"? Moreover, give the discussion time. — Smjg (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to give the discussion time, as long as the status quo ante is preserved during the discussion. It appears that I was wrong that a project document needs to be modified... Perhaps using a spaced hyphen, rather than a spaced en-dash, would be better. It was also proposed earlier (in an MOS talk page related to date delinking) that the en-dashes we normally use all be replaced by bolded colons, although I'm not sure that helps your concern. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Re the edit summary of your recent revert: Who are these "two editors against"? I don't see any discussion here in which anybody voiced either an opinion that it's better with the clash or a judgement that my improvement is a bad idea for any reason. Unless it's in the archives, which I don't have time to go through right now.

Moreover, this project page still uses a hyphen rather than an en dash between the date and the event. But this IMJ clashes even more if we use a spaced anything for date ranges. — Smjg (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Let's try and have a fair discussion on this. At the moment, this project page specifies that there be a spaced hyphen between the date and the event, and doesn't address how date ranges are to be formatted. The questions are:

• What should be used between the date and the event - a hyphen, an en dash, an em dash or something else? With or without spaces?
• How should date ranges that span calendar months be formatted?
• How should date ranges within a calendar month be formatted?

What the MoS says is irrelevant – on the basis of {{MoS-guideline}}, we are talking about possibly making an exception to the rules there. Opinions please! (Please bullet your response for clarity, like we do in AfD discussions.) — Smjg (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thinking about it now, I suppose an em dash between date and event would be good, as it produces even less clash. Here goes:

• February 6 — Single-day event
• February 6–March 9 — Event crossing a calendar month boundary
• February 6–12 — Event spanning days within a month

Previously I had fought against the the last of these because date-format preferences screwed it up. But now that the software has changed not to reformat date links in articles, I'm thinking we might as well use this format. — Smjg (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• How about we just convert them all to tables? — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• I began to think about that myself. But it would take a lot of work, and there are further variables to debate if we're going to go down this path. But maybe if there's a consensus to do this, we can discuss some details and then begin to implement it. — Smjg (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Or use colons after the dates instead of dashes?--Kotniski (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure. Which convention for formatting date ranges do you think would go well with this? — Smjg (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• OK, maybe not such a great suggestion since it would involve a lot of unnecessary work switching over. Maybe the simplest solution: when you have a date range that involves different months, use "to" between the dates rather than an en dash.--Kotniski (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Use colons. It's perfectly grammatically sound to do so, is a more common usage than en dashes anyway, and solves the non-issue. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see errors here. The ArbCom-supervised RfC last year determined that dates with one or more internal spaces need a spaced dash. February 5 – February (whatever that means, above); February 6 – March 9; but February 6–9. Tony (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you mean "errors"? And could you please supply a link to said RfC? — Smjg (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Errors like "February 5–February 6". Tony (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What's this about? — Smjg (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(I'm assuming he was replying to you rather than to me, and moving his post accordingly. ― A. di M.​  20:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

I'd go with the colon. Examples:

• February 6: Single-day event
• February 6–12: Event spanning days within a month
• February 6 – March 9: Event crossing a calendar month boundary

Looks good enough to me. ― A. di M.​  17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Templates

four templates have come up for deletion. An editor mentioned that they are probably yours. You might want to examine WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_10 and WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_9 for {{First year of previous decade}} , {{First year of next decade}} , {{First year of decade}} , {{C13 year in topic X}} . 76.65.128.132 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Before 1300

Hi

I've been editing the years after 900 and before the 14th (slowly) and I'm confronted to a few problems.

1. The classification by month is very difficult because most dates are not known exactly. So I've divided everything in topics and area. Does any one see a problem with this and if not could this system be made "official"? 2. The boxes on the left side, specially the one referring to the corresponding dates in other calendars are fine but they are so big that they usually take over the whole page and prevent from posting nice pictures :(. Does anyone knows how to add the open/close option to the box?

Thanks User talk:Benjamin G.(talk) 15:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.249.161 (talk)

Category:Years by day is incomplete

It would be nice to complete the series of articles in the individual years at Category:Years by day. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Adopting MOS on older articles, requesting comment

There's an ongoing RfC to discuss whether Deaths in 2012 and a large number of related articles should adopt the standards of the MOS. Previous versions, spanning back 8 years, did not do this, and we're looking for input from the community to see if adopting the conventions from the MOS would be appropriate. Thus far, we haven't gotten much input from uninvolved editors, so any involvement from the outside community would be greatly appreciated. You can find and comment on the RfC here. Thank you!   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Templeton Prize?

I have noticed that many of the various year pages contain a section specifying the winners, if any, of the Templeton Prize for that year, e.g., 2001#Templeton_Prize. This section is typically next to an analagous section for the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry, Physics, Literature, etc.

I do not think that the Templeton Prize is sufficiently notable to merit its own section on these pages. It is less notable than other awards which may be presented to one or more people during the year, for example, the Pulitzer, the Academy Award for Best Picture, the Time Person of the Year, and the Medal of Honor.

Of course, these awards mean various things to different people and their relative "notability" is likely to depend on who is being asked. Since the Nobel holds special significance for a very large group of people, and is frequently featured in similar [1] lists of dates in notable sources, the Nobel should probably be accorded its own section. I propose that in the interest of economy (entries for individual years are already extremely long) editors refrain from adding other sections for individual awards. 129.2.201.239 (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the significance (i.e. notability) of the Templeton Prize is somewhat (considerably?) less than for the Nobel Prizes and its inclusion in Year articles doesn not seem merited. There is already a [[Category:2012 Awards]] where other prizes and awards belong. Perhaps an Awards in 2012 article is called for as well? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

bad link

on the year 1613 page, entry for 11 January, mentiona a giant named Theotocus, the link for Theotocus goes to the wrong wikipage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.83.44 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC on year by country categories

You are invited to participate in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#RfC on "Years by country" categories. Fram (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullwinkle, is a dope, 2

It's happening again. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 9#Bullwinkle is a dope. An IP from the same ISP is attacking 1988 with items like

• February 30 – Bullwinkle, is a dope

Is there a bot which can handle things like this? WP:AWB can find most of them, but I suspect most of the entries should be removed rather than fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Superbowls

Although not subject to WP:RY, I question whether Superbowls from 1968 through 1993 should be included in the year articles. (Superbowl I, in 1967, almost certainly should be included.) They are not included past 1993, except for a few which were inserted contrary to WP:RY for those years, for 2003, 2004, and recently 2010. In the next two hours, I will notify the Wikiprojects and make notes on the talk pages of 1967 through 1993. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject American football and the individual year articles notified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they should be included, while I don't doubt that it is very popular sport in the US, it is fairly unknown anywhere else in the world.

I mean, the sport itself is known, but the actual teams and the superbowls are of little or no interest internationally.

I think they should be in the United states year articles, not the 'international' articles. FFMG (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Super Bowl's are broadcast internationally. Why does the US have to be excluded from the world on every subject? This is a trend that I've noticed, and I think it is very unfair. Last time I checked, the US was part of the world too. We aren't always perfect. (Tigerghost (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

Annual events, even those that are widely followed, are not historically notable EVERY year they occur. There are a great many of these which would qualify (or at least argued for) for inclusion if that were the case and Recent Year articles would (and were) overloaded with them. They belong more appropriately on the relevant sub-article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In my country the Super Rugby competition is broadcast internationally, (as it involves Australia, New Zealand and South Africa), it is also broadcast in Europe and probably in the US too, (the article has a more complete list of broadcasters). In South Africa the final of the Super Rugby bring the country to a virtual standstill, (well, if a South African team is involved at least).

Should we also include this sport to the years article as well? What about the IPL, this is another 'yearly' sport whose final has maybe more viewers that Gridiron, should it also be included? FFMG (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Superbowls are definitely "subject to WP:RY." The page itself specifically, by name, prohibits adding them to year pages. Wrad (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

But WP:RY doesn't apply to years "1968 through 1993". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so you are referring to individual year pages. I was confused. I thought you were talking about the decade pages. If this consensus is for removing the Super Bowls from individual year pages, then I'd be for it, but not for removing them from the decade pages, as the list format that exists currently on them seems appropriate. (Tigerghost (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

I'm not sure why something which should appear on a decade page should not appear on the year page, if the year is known, but that's not the purpose of this discussion. I only was asking about removal from year pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I see even less reason for including them in Decade artilces. If something isn't notable enough to be included in a Year article then it certainly isn't notable enough for the decade. The exception would be something which spans mutliple Years, just possibly something like "Team XXX becomes the first team to win 5 Superbowls in a row". Even that still seems more approprite for a Decade in sports article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Along similar lines, how about the Zayed Future Energy Prize or the Booker Prize? They seem worthy, but should they be included each time they are awarded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.138.20 (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Another question would be relating to the World Food Prize and Pritzker Prize. It would break up the monotony of simply a list of births (of people who were not well known at the time), and deaths (a person is rarely notable for their death itself) Should somebody add them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.34.86 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How about the Mercury Prize? Should this be listed for every year? Or any other prizes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.34.86 (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

None of the other prizes mentioned seem to be as noteworthy as Nobel Prizes. I see no compelling reason for their inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say we didn't need academic, scientific, cultural or sporting achievements here.(111.223.100.50 (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC))

Removing Template:Events by year for decade from several decades

Hi everyone, after a brief conversation with Ludde23, I plan to remove the Template:Events by year for decade template from several decade-based articles (including 1250s, 1260s, and 1270s, but very possibly others). Ludde23 made the observation that many decade-based articles were practically stubs, and made the very pragmatic decision that many of these would benefit by automatically transcluding events from the year based articles. That was the right decision for probably most of the articles, but I also think that there are some that were better before. For the ones that are left as is, it would probably be good to somehow encourage people to make these transclusions obsolete through custom work on the articles. -- RobLa (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Too many centuries

I think there are too many century articles. Certainly there is enough information in ~half of them for the articles to be preserved, but the earliest and latest could easily be merged into their respective millennia. Serendi^podous 10:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Years 1906 through 1912

over the past few years I have been editing the above articles in an attempt to bring them in line with the guideline here that the Events section lists "any important events that occurred." (The italics are in the original text). I have taken this guideline to include Births and Deaths as well although that is not explicitly stated (perhaps it should be). As there is no definition of "important" I have taken this to mean any entry which seems to lack international notability (by subject, extent of article and number/extent of non-English articles). User:CalendarWatcher has reverted many of these edits without good reason and with no attempt at discussion. These reverts lately have consisted of mass reverts of not only my edits but others not related to the removal of content making it now impossible to discuss the relative notability of individual entries. This was recently brought to WP:AN which was pretty much useless for resolving this issue. No-one else seems to be willing to discuss the basis for inclusion/exclusion so I am bringing this here in the hope that some meaningful discussion can be carried out before I resume attempting to tidy up these articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

870s

Could someone take a look at 870s and specifically 876? The tags were accidentally removed in the latter, and I'm not sure I replaced them in the right spot. Thanks Illia Connell (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I've got 876. The <onlyinclude> tag is supposed only cover the Events section, and there needs to be a blank entry, even if there aren't any events. But I could be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Illia Connell (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Category move discussion

Someone has suggested changing the name of some categories from "xxx establishments in Turkey" to "xxx establishments in the Ottoman Empire" here. There are lots of categories affected. For a given year, should a category relate to the current geographic area or to a historic political boundary ? Ephebi (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Biased coverage

I have noticed that in many cases, the entire contents of the US-specific events by year page has been copied wholesale into the general year page, something not done with any other country. Obviously, it is a difficult and to a large extent subjective decision as to what event qualifies as notable, but clearly the situation as it currently is, is very disproportionate. The list of US events mentioned include small weather incidents, crimes, sporting events, cartoons, movies, minor gossip and so on. Similar events to these in other countries are listed on the country specific page but not on the main page. Clearly, a common policy on notability needs to be upheld as grounds for entry, irrespective of the country it is happening in.109.148.123.174 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a long-standing problem but actually much of this is due to the initial, almost total, absence of Year in the United States articles. This was remedied by User:Mrwojo who singlehandedly created all the missing articles and copied every existing US-related event from the main article. Unfortunately very few users have bothered to remove the US-specific events and at least one user resists any such attempts. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Recent years were created to solve/prevent this problem (and others) for the current and future years. Sadly a recent check of 2008 showed that a considerable amount of such material has crept back in. Removing ANY country (you can't do it just for the US, even though it's the most obvious) or topic-specific material from any Year article is a considerable task. I suggest giving it a go on one page and see how it goes! Good luck!! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is relatively uncontroversial to wish to restore a sense of balance in the articles. As it stands, the entire contents of the US-specific pages has been copied over on to the main page. On 'a priori' grounds, this is unacceptable as every notable event in the US surely does not, by some axiom, become automatically internationally notable. This includes events like the opening of theatres, weather events, sporting victories, commemorations and so on. Clearly these things happen elsewhere in the world and if that was grounds for inclusion the page would be swamped. Rather the only sensible option would seem to be to maintain an impartial standard of notability regardless of country. An event has to be of particular historical importance. For example, Germany reoccupies the Rhineland=notable, rodeo opened in Mississipi=non-notable.Noodleki (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As I noted above, in the vast majority of cases the US articles did not exist until after the main articles had already been populated with US-centric entries. These were then copied into the US article, not the other way round. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

Not sure if this is the right place, but I have two issues.

1. Deaths in 2012 is a redirect while Deaths in 2013 isn't. Shouldn't it just be a conglomerate article transcluding the individual months (really improves readability and centralizes things)
2. Deaths in 2013 is listed in a very odd way (new items at the top) standard format is to add new things to the bottom of documents.

Can I get the thoughts/reasons for this particular change in structure? Werieth (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You are more likely to get a response to this as Talk:Deaths in 2013. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(This discussion was added to Talk:Deaths in 2013 by ^Wylie_Coyote.)

Categories for States and territories disestablished before 1000CE

I have proposed that 158 sub-categories of Category:States and territories by year of disestablishment should be upmerged. All these categories relate to disestablishment before 1000AD. I believe that they fall within the scope of this WikiProject.

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 13#States_and_territories_disestablished_before_1000CE, wher your comments will be welcome.

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Move request

See Talk:1000000000 (number)#Requested move. The reason for the interest of this project is that the request is to move it to 1000000000, which is in the namespace used by this project for year articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 2080s for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2080s is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2080s until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Establishments in the Thirteen Colonies by year

Can I propose that this be renamed to something like "British North America" instead of "Thirteen Colonies"? The latter name is only accurate for forty-three years of the >150 years which this list appears to cover and it has weird connotations for articles like Wessagusset Colony and Plymouth Colony which weren't considered part of the 13 at all. I could put in a category move request, but I don't know if there has already been a discussion that led to this consensus. JRP (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this too, and it ought to be brought up at CfD for any "in the Thirteen Colonies by year" category since it leads to categories like "Establishments in the Thirteen Colonies in 1650" even though there were only about four of them at that point. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put up a note on the CfD and asked for help there to tag all of the categories, almost 200 of them. Ick. JRP (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Lead of articles on years

It seems that we have a rather inaccurate lead for articles on years. The articles on pre-Gregorian years say a fooian year "was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar" while, as we know, the Roman calendar, particularly the pre-Julian one, has different year designation, with no anno Domini or Common Era (as that calendar generally has meaning when it comes to months, but not years). The same goes for the articles on Julian years, which say a fooian year was "of the Julian calendar" when in fact the Julian calendar doesn't use AD/BC either. As such, writing that for instance the year 480 BC was "a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar" is incorrect. Secondly, the Roman calendar was not the sole one in usage, so I think the existing lead sections in year-related articles should be tweaked en masse. For the articles on pre-Gregorian years I preliminarily propose "a year in Gregorian calendar" instead of current corresponding opening words. Brandmeister^talk 01:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments; the Julian calendar quite definitely had an AD concept in 1500, for example, and people using that calendar thought in BC terms when imagining things that had happened two thousand years before. Could you explain what you mean? Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Meh, I haven't noticed the related caveat in year-related articles. Closing this. Brandmeister^talk 10:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Anniversaries

Proposed addition to WP:YEARS#Events

Anniversaries are not to be listed unless the commemoration is, itself, independently notable. For future anniversaries, there must be current plans and the plans must be important and the commemoration expected to be independently notable.

It would be nice to change the examples to some which, in addition, meet WP:RY, but that's not essential. "Recent" years (since 2002, and future years) have more restrictive conditions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As an event in itself the anniversary also must be internationally notable (there must be actual commemorations in multiple countries, not just reports in the media). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, for the most part. I'm not entirely sure the commemoration must be international if it is internationally notable. Can you propose specific wording for WP:YEARS? (Actually, I think the Titanic was commemorationed in both the US and UK, but it wasn't notable. The "War of 1812 conference" in 2013, which was the particular "event" which brought this to mind, is not really even an anniversary.) Perhaps change "independently" to "indepedently and internationally"? Or perhaps change "commemoration" to "international commemoration"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

Back when the Titanic anniversary occurred, I read an article that showed that many young people weren't even aware that the sinking of the Titanic was an actual event and NOT a movie, because it was a historical event not taught to them in school. Not allowing the inclusion of these anniversaries is based on the assumption that people know that these events happened. If someone wasn't taught or knows that the Armenian Genocide occurred, what are the chances that they'll visit the page talking about it? Mentioning the anniversaries helps people who otherwise wouldn't have known about these historical events. Arthur, your reasoning doesn't make sense! The sinking of the Titanic was, in wikipedia's words: "one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in modern history." So, just because it wasn't commemorated in India, or any other country besides the US and the UK, it won't be mentioned? I think anniversaries of major HISTORICAL events must be mentioned in their respective year pages. Oh and please don't forget to sign your posts. --Packinheat2u (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Formatting

The Events examples presently read

<nowiki>
===January===
* [[January 3]] - [[Flash Airlines Flight 604]] crashes into the [[Red Sea]] off the coast of [[Egypt]], killing all 148 aboard.
* [[January 4]] - [[Mikhail Saakashvili]] wins the presidential elections in [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]].
* [[January 4]] - [[NASA]]'s [[MER-A]] (''Spirit'') lands on [[Mars (planet)|Mars]].

</nowiki>

Per de facto change in, I believe, 2010, shouldn't that be:

<nowiki>
===January===
* [[January 3]] - [[Flash Airlines Flight 604]] crashes into the [[Red Sea]] off the coast of [[Egypt]], killing all 148 aboard.
* [[January 4]]
** [[Mikhail Saakashvili]] wins the presidential elections in [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]].
** [[NASA]]'s [[MER-A]] (''Spirit'') lands on [[Mars (planet)|Mars]].

</nowiki>

I know it's changed, but we've never actually achieved consensus for the change, or made it here on the project page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Editathon on June 8th

On Saturday, June 8th, editors are holding a distributed 1864 Edit-a-thon to improve our coverage of the year 1864. Signup: https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/crdt1sr7grvoi9jbaucvan3tlno since the official page is in Danish. WikiProject Years members might be interested in joining in! Sumana Harihareswara 16:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Inactive Editors

Am I allowed to remove all editors who are currently inactive to a separate category?

Thanks, Matty.007 17:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Best Picture Oscar 1989

I noticed that the Oscar award for Best Picture was incorrect for 1989 (it was Driving Miss Daisy, not Rainman, according to the Academy's website. I don't know whether this affects other years as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.250.14 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but isn't this more appropriate at Talk:1989, rather than for the project as a whole?

On second thought, it is a matter for this forum. Rain Man was awarded the "best picture" award in 1989. Driving Miss Daisy was awarded the "best picture" aware for 1989, in 1990. Hence, Rain Man should be listed in 1989, but possibly in 1988 in film. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Decadebox, etc. subpages

Could someone remind me where the range of year/decade/century/millennia which have articles are stored in the subbox. It was never updated for the decades 2100s through 2190s, and now someone is creating years 2060 through 2069. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean this:

Millennium:	3rd millennium
Centuries:	20th century 21st century 22nd century
Decades:	2040s 2050s 2060s 2070s 2080s
Years:	2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072

DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I found it. Its {{dr-make}}, but I can't find documentation of what things need to be changed. I think I fixed the ranges, but I may be wrong, and I'm almost sure that some of the decade BC check for, for example, 100s BC (decade), is incorrect. Considering the number of instances of this template, I don't want to "play" with it. Perhaps if some critical values were included on the talk page so that one could verify that the ranges were correct.... I'll try that tomorrow. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Critical values fixed (see table on template talk page), but we need to do something about, for example, 100–109. See Template talk:dr-make for some details. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody check me on whether I've handled the "(decade)" cases correctly by replacing:

1. {{dr-make}} with {{dr-make/sandbox 2}}, and
2. {{drep}} with {{drep/sandbox}}

? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If I don't hear anything, I my further testing doesn't reveal any problems, I'll make the replacement in about 30 hours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Making replacement now. I've been distracted. Please note the addition of the d flag in {{drep}} to insert "(decade)" after "BC". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

MOS

Recently, I noticed that the years (individual years) seem to be going against MOS. Namely WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK for the specific reason that singular events or unrelated dates are linked. These irrelevant links often present no meaningful use to the reader and are covered in MOS. January and 1940s are examples of how it should be, but pick almost any individual year and you have this bizarre series of days and years being linked. Since the change is backed by MOS and Arthur Rubin did express concern; I'm bringing it here for greater response. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, the change is not backed by the MOS. I have no objection to the summary formats for 1940s and January, but WP:YEARS (for year articles) and WP:DOY (for articles such as January 5) have specific guidelines, which are explicitly not overridden by WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK. You can propose changes in the MOS, with notice to both projects, or in both projects, but the present state of, at least those articles not modified by bots or well-meaning editors, is to link items to the left of the en-dash, year of death (in birth entries in year articles), and year of birth (in death entries in year articles). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I feel that it is very relevant to the topic at hand. You also don't point me to these specific guidelines of which are in fact in dispute with the MOS. Let's analyze 1789 as the listed example. Let's pick one: the entry for "July 1 – The comic ballet La fille mal gardée choreographed by Jean Dauberval is first presented under the title Le ballet de la paille at the Grand Théâtre de Bordeaux, in Bordeaux, France." (emphasis for discussion) Follow the link to July 1, is the entry present or germane? No, it is entirely absent. Does July 1 have any relevancy other then that was the date this event occurred? No. This is not like the March 15 incident or 7/11. In each article we see many useless terms that share little to no relevancy, i.e. "July 19 – John Martin, English painter (d. 1854)". Ohconfucius did make a response to the similar effect, but the wording of both YEARLINK and DATELINK say they have to be "intrinsically chronological articles" for it to apply. I'm taking the exact definition of the word intrinsically as "Of or relating to the essential nature, inherent". Which means that January should link to individual articles on the individual days. Years should link to chronological related articles, near, decades and centuries as they do in the template box. It is a twisting of the policy to link the year of births and deaths to an individual on a "Year" article that is already prohibited on the actual article of the individual. Benjamin Lundy's article does not have "January 4 1789 dash August 22 1839", so why see fit to do it on year articles? It doesn't make any sense. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not my place to judge consensus; I'm not good at it. But the global consensus is that WP:YEARLINK and WP:DATELINK do not apply to "intrinsically chronological articles", leaving it up to local consensus or individual article consensus. I don't know why January doesn't link to the individual date articles in the holidays section, but it doesn't seem to. Where would the appropriate local consensus be determined? We don't have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Months, and I'm not sure where an appropriate central location to discuss the diverse formats of the Events/Holidays sections.

There is consensus, contrary to logic, that years of birth and death in biography articles do not link to the relevant years. That's no reason why logical linkages shouldn't occur when not forbidden by guidelines arrived at by consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Examples like "January 4 1789 dash August 22 1839" are not intrinsically related, nor is doing them in any individual year. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that a decision by a few editors cannot overturn the larger consensus and that has and was decided as "intrinsically chronological articles" are acceptable. There is nothing key to listing individual days and years for a listed person birth and death; the majority of which are not even covered appropriately. That is why their removal is justified. I rather not make a big mess of this; but YEARS is fitting the walled garden approach with this. I'd really like other opinions as well; because this matters greatly to this project. Though in complete fairness; I am flabbergasted at the inconsistent, redundant and some what silly approaches that are currently advanced. Could we reach some sort of compromise if I provide this Wikipedia Project a few GAs and advance new standards along with the existing MOS? I'm more than willing to lead by example here. I'd be willing to let you specify a number and work to meet such a lofty goal if it means advancing Wikipedia's coverage while dealing with this dispute.

I really have no intention of endless bickering; so I'm going to throw the ball in your court. Negotiating is one thing, but I prefer not to spend the next three months carrying on a LAME worthy dispute when the both of us have plenty of better things to do. Agreed? I know that this may seem like an error to take this stance, because I am throwing out the sure-fire way to get me off your back for a good amount of time. Though I suppose it could seem that I am playing a bit dirty as well; because the easy road to my favorable resolution nets my time and effort to improve this Wikiproject - something I have no expressed interest in doing otherwise. Mull it over a bit; as the chief active member, I don't want to put you in a bind - but it is probably the most honest and fair assessment of what I wish to do with my time on Wikipedia. I've had enough drama for a year or two with the last issue. I'm not going to entrench in another. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see other opinions, as well. However, I do object to your "contrary to MOS" statement. The current arrangement is not contrary to MOS; the MOS is explicitly silent on the issue. That leaves it up to this project (and probably WP:DOY, and possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Time, which has even fewer people active than this one).

As an aside, I opposed WP:OVERLINKING, but I enforce it when I notice violations. If consensus is obtained to remove the standardized links to other chronological articles, I'll help to enforce it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation of MOS, because the definition of intrinsic certainly does not apply to its usage in the article. Very well; I'll take that as if you do not want me to attempt GA or FA articles to test that theory or advance my own interpretation prior. Not going to grandstand here while I toss out ideas and attempt to find some middle ground - I'd be willing to put 5-10 GAs or 3 FAs worth of work behind it. Full articles with complete prose, maps, and all. Each page representing 40-80 hours worth of research. And if it doesn't fly, then you just re-add the links as you will. I wanted your thoughts on my proposal... but I can't force you to reply. I'll watch this page a little more before slipping back into other areas. Not going to stick in an area where help isn't wanted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I find the whole linking/unlinking debate (I mean in general, not this present discussion) a bit tedious. I have had the frustration of linking or delinking whole Year articles in what was the apparent MOS:DATE at the time only for a bot to come through and revert and have then done the opposite on the next article and had the same thing happen. Personally, again, I think all dates in Year articles and sub-articles should be unlinked; if a user wants to go to a year it is fairly simple to type in 4 numbers or less; and how often is someone going to want to go to a specific date (which is also not THAT difficult to type anyway)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerbyCountyinNZ (talk • contribs) 10:28, July 4, 2013

Okay. Does anyone want me to throw together a FA to test it then? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Silence still? We may disagree about MOS, but I don't want push back saying "things weren't" discussed before making changes people do not like. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Its been a week since the last other editor input on this. If no one wants to debate this issue then I will re-institute the changes as the "intrinsic" matter is unchallenged. There is no practical or relevant use to linking individual dates on Birth/death listing on year for the same exact reasons that they are not relevant on the biographical articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing RfC

There is an ongoing RfC here that will impact this project and how events are listed on the Year pages. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

67 BC

The reference to Ostia being sacked is incorrect. As noted in the 68 BC entry, the event occurred the prior fall. I attempted to make the change but received a "Error contacting the Parsoid server" message. Perhaps someone else can make the change.

Hippodras (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Births and Deaths, again

WP:Recent years has a minimum criteria for inclusion of Births and Deaths, but there is still no criteria for other years. Unless there are objections I propose to add the following: "Only internationally and historically notable persons should be included. Notability is determined by the number of non-English wiki articles and/or it is demonstrated within their article that they were notable in multiple countries." Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This assumes that having inter-wiki articles is a sign of international and historical notability. It isn't, it just means that the volunteers at the other inter-wikis know English and how to to copy. Nevertheless, if you are going to use this criteria, you need to give a number of non-English wiki articles required otherwise this criteria remains vague. And this criteria must be enforced evenly. From what I've seen it isn't. The criteria is used to exclude individuals from non-English speaking countries but individuals from English speaking countries are allowed to be included even though they don't meet the criteria. Take 1970 for example: Kimberly Page, Christian Duguay (actor), Stephanie Courtney, Dayna Devon, Jeff Hordley, Antonio Edwards, Sean Kelly (Canadian musician), Todd Newton, Eric Champion, Robert Peirce, Ammon McNeely, Katie Derham, Patrick Norton, Andi Peters, Jim Schlossnagle, Will Clarke (novelist), Molly McKay, Joe Doucet, Mark Smith (Gladiator), Richard Hancox, Orny Adams, Dave Hughes, Mr. Lobo, Clay Dreslough, Lawrence Gray, Rudy York, Sophie Treadwell, Terence Patrick O'Sullivan, Herb Shriner, Andrew Watson Myles, George Watkins (baseball), Bob Kalsu, Wilfrid Kent Hughes, Del Moore, Eddie Peabody, John H. Hoover, Doris Blackburn and Mimi Benzell have no inter-wikis but have been included. There are many others with only one or two inter-wikis. If you were to look at other years I'm sure you'd find a long list of American/British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand entries that have been included even though they don't meet this criteria.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's my point! There are far too many people in Year articles whose international and historical notability is minimal and it is overdue for something to be done about it. Many have been added with no consideration of notability while others were added before there was a sub-article where they would be better placed. The problem with setting an exact minimum (WP:RY uses 9) is that the number (and the size) of articles is affected by recentism (the best/worst examples being recent minor tv actors/musicians who've had 1 hit in their 5 year career having far more articles than others with 40 year careers). That is why I used the caveat that international notability could also be established within the article. However, it should be clear that a small article with no content that suggests any international notability and with NO non-English articles should be excluded and moved to a sub-article, if not already there. Relatively few non-E articles which are clearly c&p from the English and have no non-English citations are also usually not worthy of inclusion. But I don't see that trying to be more explicit would help so unless someone can come up with a better idea I feel that a somewhat vague criteria is better than none, it just might work. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Not having a objective definition of notability will inevitably lead to disputes and editor's having to justify their actions (like you're having to here). WP:DAYS has a clear definition of notability: "people for whom there is a Wikipedia article". This is easy to understand and enforce. WP:YEARS has made things difficult by insisting on international and historical notability. I'll leave it at that.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Made it difficult? Only because no-one can be bothered to try and do anything about it. Not having a minimum criteria degrades the quality and integrity of the articles and is also a contradiction to the purpose and presence of appropriate sub-articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson County was established as a Tennessee county on June 11, 1792.

Jefferson County was established as a Tennessee county on June 11, 1792.

Tennessee did not become a state till 1796........State of Franklin attempt 1784...back to North Carolina etc... How could Jefferson County be established before it became a state unless it was established in North Carolina who claimed most of this area.....an it was named Washington County......Virginia also claimed much of the "Tennessee" geography till 1796 etc.....

Richard Ballenger rballenger@mspark.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.85.4 (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This is in no way internationally significant and certainly does not belong in the 1792 article (as with many of the other entries). It might belong in 1792 in the United States which, as with most Year in US articles, seems to have no minimum criteria for inclusion. The most appropriate place for this would be in History of Tennessee. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

An RfC has begun over year-in section linking

An RfC proposal has begun here.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do the <onlyinclude> tags go?

Hi all!

In (assume e.g. wherever appropriate) the 1040s people were born and died in 1040 but not in 1043 (think El Cid) because of inconsistent placement of the <onlyinclude> tags in the respective "year" articles.

So where do the <onlyinclude> tags go? (My personal bent is include everything, especially that far back.)

Thanks. Saintrain (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC) [Edited to remove question about headers. I missed very clear list in project page.]

Requested page move of 1957 in literature

Interested parties should have a look at this move request Talk:1957_in_literature#Requested_move, which, if successful, would have a knock-on effect on all Year in Literature articles. Deb (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories:(Year) in the United States

connection with Category:Years of the 21st century in the United States

Hi, why ALL the Categories <Year> in the United States are not part of the Category Years of the <XX>st century in the United States? For example:

• Category:2011 in the United States is NOT part of Category:Years of the 21st century in the United States‎,

but in ALL the other countries it is like this, eg:

• Category:2011 in Canada is part of Category:Years of the 21st century in Canada
• Category:2011 in Bangladesh is part of Category:Years of the 21st century in Bangladesh
• Category:2011 in Argentina is part of Category:Years of the 21st century in Argentina

Thanks, --W like wiki (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably because it is in Category:2010s in the United States. Personally I don't find the decade categories useful since there are templates to navigate between by year categories. Also if you want to change, how many of these would go in by century categories given that we also have Category:Years of the 21st century in North America? I think that excess categories hinder navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian, thanks. So if I have Category:Years of the 21st century in North America and want to go to Category:2011 in the United States there I see two ways/branches: one by the year (Category:2011 in North America) and the other one by place/country (Category:Years of the 21st century in the United States‎). 1st one is working, 2nd not. I don't understand why under United States there is just American Samoa‎, Guam etc.--W like wiki (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said we have too many categories for navigation to be easy. Personally we don't need the by decade and the by years should be where you expect them to be. For 2011 you need to look in Category:2010s in the United States. Upmerge the decade categories and the problem goes away. But then not everyone agrees with that. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

connection with Category:Years in the United States

And why there is no connection between all the Categories <Year> in the United States with the Category:Years in the United States, that I really don't understand??? The name of this cat let me expect that I ll found there the year pages of the U.S. --W like wiki (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Bottom line is that the more possible parents you add the more difficult you make navigation and the more categories that are needed. As I said, do away with the decade categories and just directly categorize the by year categories into the by century categories. As to why the ones you are asking about are not there, read my comments. If the structure is too complicated, stuff will be missing from some branches. The way to fix that is to reduce the categories and not to increase it! Note well that if you have decade categories, they substitute for by year in most or all of the tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles are only included in the lowest subcategory. I would expect a Year article to be included in a Decade category (if it exists). Decade categories (and any Year articles which does not have an appropriate Decade article into which they would be included) should be included in the Century category. It appears the categorization has not been standardized or any attempt at consistency (which doesn't surprise me). There also appear to be no category and Decade subcategories for the 18th century in the United States or earlier, though there probably should be. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Year 730/Births/Anon, a certain scientific grasshopper?

Is this a real entry? It doesn't link to anything relevant (that is, anything that mentions a grasshopper.) Ellen Franzen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.138.147 (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Removed as vandalistic rubbish. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead template for Years articles?

Hi there - I stumbled across the 'Year in ...' series as part of the Wikify project - many years - maybe all? are in need of a lead paragraph e.g. 1934_in_film - I wondered if there is a consensus about how to create a lead section? Is there a standard template for introduction text? Would be happy to get to work adding it as part of the Wikify drive. Depthdiver (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for Date of Death to be included ! in Semi Protected Article.

Anita Garvin ( a famous hollywood actress, fellow Laurel & Hardy and Charlie Chase Co-star ) died on 07-July-1994. Can this be included in the Deaths in July 1994 Section?

Date of death can be verified from here :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Garvin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schozab (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Famous hollywood actress"? She doesn't seem particularly notable, 1994 in film is probably more appropriate. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Year of..." bias in e.g. 20BC

When I click on, say, 20 BC, I see that it includes a notice saying that "At the time, it was known as the Year of the Consulship of Appuleius and Nerva (or, less frequently, year 734 Ab urbe condita)" and it seems odd that we privilege Roman consular years so highly. Shouldn't we also include Chinese dynastic era-years ("At the time, it was known as the First Year of Hongjia")? And perhaps Athenian Eponymous archon ("At the time, it was known as the Year of the Archon Apolexis")? Perhaps also Japanese, Korean, and Viet eras for later times? Furius (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Is music fiction?

See Works of fiction set in 2012 and some of the other year articles, sections listing mentions in music. Video-games might barely qualify (although I wouldn't have them in lists of fiction), but when did music become called fiction? Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is yes. Although the plot of many songs is minimal, many do have a plot and it is often fictional. Video games definitely count. If the list were Works of literature set in 2012, then I'd see the case for the sort of narrowing that you're suggesting, but I think it has been named as it has specifically because the creator wanted it to be a broader list (I do rather question the utility of this list, but that's a separate issue). 11:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd really like to here how music is fiction. It is real and exists! That means not fiction. Lyrics on the other hand might be viewed as fictional if they tell a story, but then they are really, really short works of fiction. Maybe too small to count. So I have to say no on music unless there is a compelling case I'm not aware of. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the articles and their content are appropriate but the title could perhaps be better. If there is nothing suitably concise and all-encompassing then perhaps music could be split off, though I'm not sure there would sufficient content to justify such articles (remembering that the articles are only for works specifically mentioning the year but not recorded in that year). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Decade portals

Hi! I just tagged the decade portals, moving them from Wikipedia:WikiProject History to WikiProject Years. They range from Portal:1920s and Portal:1950s to Portal:2010s. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Years by country

I created the {{Year in Europe}} navbox last week to replace {{Europe topic}} in European country year articles such as 2014 in the United Kingdom. Currently the new template links to a "History of <country>" article if neither "<Year> in <country>" nor "<Decade> in <country>" exists, though since history articles usually list only major events and don't include events from all years, it may be better to link to a different article instead, or to just redlink to the year article. Maybe someone who has experience with year articles has a suggestion. SiBr₄ (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads up: Wikipedia's decade articles are disasters

Most of the decade articles, basically from 1920s onward, violate many Wikipedia quality policies, from having original research to lack of references to indiscriminate collections of information to not representing a global view and only focusing on aspects of Western culture. In short they are a disaster and represent the worst Wikipedia has to offer. And for the most part they have been destroyed by drive-by IP edits, which is why I always have and always will hate IPs. Of course, few people care about these articles as they are low visibility and no one wants to take the time to overhaul their structure and improve their content, but I just wanted to throw it out there. I have taken the liberty of removing the indiscriminate listings of random people and things from 1980s onward to at least give a semblance of quality, but I don't really have the time to do much more in terms of quality content. They are just some of many articles that have slipped through the cracks unfortunately. Cadiomals (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that some time ago. Good luck trying to make any headway on cleaning them up! Personally I think it's a lost cause unless several editors are able to maintain a high degree of focus on one such article at a time and then keep following it for several years to ensure it doesn't revert to its former state (as happened at WP:RY to 2008). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ and Cadiomals: This is a problem I've been picking away at for a while, though through a slightly different lens. The articles covering more recent decades at least have something, whereas the articles covering more distant decades were pretty sparse. What I've done starting with 1800s (decade) has been to do the following:

1. Pull in the bullet points from 1800, 1801, etc
2. Sort them by category
3. Convert bullet points into prose, pulling from topic articles as appropriate

This approach isn't perfect by any means. In particular, it preserves whatever biases exist in the year articles (e.g. heavily lopsided toward U.S. and U.K. history). It does have the that it's a reasonably mechanical process, so it's something I can slowly whittle away at as a hobby and still improve the articles in question. Another benefit is that I'm getting a much better feel for what an unbiased outline of a decade article should look like; my strategy has been to hammer out the structure precedent with the (hopefully less controversial) 19th century decade articles so that it becomes easier to approach the 20th century decades in a logical fashion. -- RobLa (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Easter

Typhoon2013 (talk · contribs) has been making the following changes to Christian holidays in recent year articles (2011–2015), and I'd like input as to whether it should be done:

1. Adding Holy Week or changing Palm Sunday to Holy week
2. Adding Easter Monday to Easter (making Easter a 2-day "holiday").

Any input? (I've notified Typhoon2013 on his talk page.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who changed "Major religious holidays" to "Major religious holidays and observances" for 2014 but I was going to suggest that it be changed back to the specification at WP:RY. However I note that Years before 2006 do not appear have a holidays section of any kind; 2006 has "Major holidays", 2007 has "Holidays" and 2008-2013 have "Major religious holidays". In light of this I propose that the holidays section, in all forms, be removed from all years. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The diverse meanings of the word holiday around the world also make the section questionable. Using the standard definition of the word "holiday" from my country, Australia, would exclude 90% of those dates. (And we do like to think that we speak a form of English here.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree to removal.There do exist reference sources listing holidays observed/recognized by national governments, which presumably qualify as major, but even those are sometimes changed.John Carter (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's probably for the best that the sections be removed, as the question as to what is a "major" religious holiday or observance is open to question. If we were to filter based on religious significance, Hanukkah would not be listed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous: of COURSE one lists the major religious holidays -- your indecisiveness regarding what constitutes 'major' is not relevant. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with their removal too. The fact that some editors may disagree with what a major holiday is shouldn't mean we have to remove the list in its entirety. Calidum 05:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What's special about religious holidays? And what's a major one? In my country the list would have two entries - Christmas and Easter. How about Labour/Labor Day? It's pretty common around the world, but obviously not religious. What about New Years Day? And if we can't agree on what a (major) religious holiday is, how do we maintain the section? And did you read my post above on the diverse meanings of the word holiday around the world? You can't really just sit there and say you don't like it without commenting on the thoughts others have put into this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

They're important because people (aka readers) care about them. If you're suggesting we include other holidays, like Labour Day, then suggest that. But just because determining what constitutes a major holiday may be difficult doesn't mean they should be removed. Plus, these have been in past articles for years so a couple editors agreeing it should be removed isn't a true consensus. Calidum

"...people (aka readers) care about them"? How many people? Which people? You can always find someone to care about something. And congratulations on ignoring the rest of my post. I know from experience that when that happens we have little hope of ever agreeing on this. Yours is a very shallow response. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Which "past articles"? If readers care so much about them why have they never been added to any year (as far as I can discover) before 2006? Answer: Because recent Year articles have been treated as calendars, which they are not. If users want to know the dates of Easter they can look at the Easter article which has a table of relevant dates. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Holidays should be somewhere. If consensus is to not have them on the year page, create a subpage per year for holidays and the ilk, stipulating there must be a wiki article about it (just like any other major list).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on making a simplistic declaration - "Holidays should be somewhere" - without any attempt to give a reason for it at all. And, like Calidum, ignoring the rest of my post, and the posts of other above. Another shallow response. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If a holdiay (whatever definition) is notable enough to have an article there is no reason not to have a list of them. The definition of holiday may vary person to person, or group to group, but notability guidelines would weed out the insignificant topics.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest creating a sub-article as a solution (if all else failed). All that would be needed is enough editors to agree on what should be included (defining "major" "religious" and "holiday") and then the creation of the articles for the last few hundred years (at least) taking into account the appropriate global significance of each holiday. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Wikipedia has a definition of holiday. It's "a day set aside by custom or by law on which normal activities, especially business or work, are suspended or reduced". I suspect that's going to cause our objectors above some problems. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There being no reasonable argument for their retention and a viable alternative (their won article) I intend to remove this section (again) from the relevant articles. And FWIW I disagree that they should have been returned at all as the CLEAR consensus of the discussion to that point was for removal and my understanding of wiki guidelines is that the status quo of that consensus remains until a new consensus is reached. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There has been no sensible argument for retaining holidays presented above. And definitely no real attempt to engage effectively with the problems raised surrounding their inclusion, except just maybe the creation of a sub-article, but that proposal would really have to be properly fleshed out. Your approach seems valid to me at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Could we at least pretend this three-editor cabal doesn't think it owns recent year articles by having a neutral party judge the consensus? This has already been raised at Wikipedia:RFC/BOARD#Talk:2014 with one other person saying it should be kept because 'these holidays are excessively covered by primary sources and are global events.' [2] Calidum 03:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Global? That's just silly. Or ignorant. Or arrogant. Examples please. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The argument about whether (some) holidays are important, or not, is irrelevant. Annual events (e.g. sports, entertainment) have not only never been included under Recent Year criteria, they are specifically excluded. I repeat, for those that missed or ignored it above, holidays have NEVER been included in any Year article before 2006. Can anyone come up with a viable reason for this other than they have never been considered appropriate for such articles and their inclusion from 2006 has only been due to misunderstanding of what Year articles are for? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to concur with Derby here. Holidays are notable, but who determines which holidays are included? I think that what is bound to happen is that someone may wish to include ALL holidays, or at least attempt to, such as the Canadian Thanksgiving Day in the holiday list or the 4th of July or Waitangi Day, which are widely observed in their home nations, but not globally. Also, lists of holidays already exist in the form of these articles (Public holidays in the United States, Public holidays in Mexico, Public holidays in Japan). If holidays should be mentioned, then the appropriate place is in those types of articles, not the year pages. (Tigerghost (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC))

Then we have the "What is a holiday?" issue. Simple example - Mothers Day seems to be described as a holiday in the USA, but is never described as a holiday in my country, and in many others. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The last comment above seems to me less than productive. Different groups, including countries, use terms differently. For our purposes, I would think anything included in any of the encyclopedias of holidays tied to one or more specific dates would qualify, including national holidays, civic holidays, legal holidays, religious holidays, and other widely-recognized day(s)-specific commemorations, if reliable independent sources like those reference books describe them as such. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Less than productive? If we ignore the issue now, it will continue to raise its ugly head forever. Holiday says "A holiday is a day set aside by custom or by law on which normal activities, especially business or work, are suspended or reduced". Note the "normal activities...are suspended or reduced". What some people call religious holidays are particularly problematic under that definition. Ash Wednesday clearly doesn't comply. Nor do many others. In fact, where I live, Easter Sunday isn't technically a holiday. It's already a Sunday, so we don't see any reduction of normal activities or work. Does that work for you? HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It cannot lift it's head at all, actually - only editors can lift it's head. And rarely do we take our own articles as RS's. In this instance, there does not seem to be a single,universally accepted definition for the term. And, yes, I'm reading a recent humorous memoir right now indicating that Holy Week is still observed as a group of significant holidays in at least parts of Spain. There is more to the world than the US and Australia. We would also, reasonably, have to take into account formerly widely observed holidays, including medieval holidays. On that basis, like I said above,those included in independent well-regarded reference books almost always will merit inclusion as holidays by us. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm intrigued. It seems that you are suggesting that we describe as holidays almost all days that anyone anywhere is documented as having ever described as a holiday. I'm not trying to misrepresent you, so please clarify if I'm wrong. It's a very different position from mine, and very different from what Wikipedia's article says. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by your apparently ignoring the fact that I have at least twice in my comments above specifically limited to those holidays included in current reference books on holidays. Please read those comments. I hope people in the future refrain from disruptive straw man arguments and actually address the actual comments of others. And, like I already said, our articles do not meet WP:RS standards. I thought you might know that by now. Regarding specifically Christian holidays, we have several pages on various liturgical calendars, indicating relative priority to those churches, but only those churches. But at least one of the reference sources, I think from Gale, does prioritize them to a degree. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I explained that I did not understand. I sought an explanation. I was as polite as I could possibly be. Yet you show anger in your response. I did make make a straw man response. That's a bad faith post from you. Your contributions here are not helping. You are ignoring much of what I have said. It's impossible to continue this discussion, and you have not convinced me of a thing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This quote from you, "Your contributions here are not helping. You are ignoring much of what I have said" clearly applifes to you as well. Apparently,you dislike the idea of consulting RS's, of which we are not one? And convincing you personally is now what people are required to do?

P.S.: Has anyone thought to contact Wikipedia: WikiProject Holidays for their input?John Carter (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: Could you clarify your position on this please: Above you said you supported the removal of the Holidays section from Year articles, is that still the case? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to try again. John Carter above was firmly pushing the line that we should base what we call holidays on "current reference books on holidays". That seems to fit with Wikipedia policy, but there's a problem. I had been trying to point out that the word "holiday" means very different things in different parts of the world, so what the "current reference books on holidays" say will also vary dramatically, depending on where they are written and/or published. I think the division is roughly that, in the UK, Australia, and other Commonwealth countries, a holiday definitely has to involve time away from normal work or school. In the US and perhaps Canada (happy to be educated n this) "holidays" can include many days that would never be called holidays elsewhere. This seems to include things like Valentines Day, Mothers Day, and Halloween. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) And this distinction extends to religious holidays. For example, I believe that in the USA Ash Wednesday would often be described as a holiday. It's never described as a holiday in my country. To call such days holidays where I live would be just plain wrong.

So we seem to have a kind of binary divide. And books won't help. They will just prove it. Books written on holidays in my country will say very different things from books written in the USA. Each is correct in geographical context, but neither perspective should be allowed to dominate here. I don't see a solution as far the question of what goes in Recent year articles is concerned, apart from leaving holidays out entirely. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Centuries in music

Category:Centuries in music has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. 068129201223129O9598127 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)