Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 13

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years
Latest comment: 3 years ago by AmazinglyLifelike in topic Maps?
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Company predecessor foundation

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

IP editor(s) have recently made several additions such as this, many of which have been removed. Here is a rough list with some false positives and omissions. Do these entries have value, or should they be shot on sight? Certes (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Still appearing: different IP every time. This one appears to be accurate: primary source. Certes (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
One IP has been blocked for such additions, so boldly deleting them might be reasonable. Certes (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Phrasing of recent additions has changed slightly: search. Certes (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I've blocked several of these IPs actually, as this contributor clearly has no idea what they are doing. They are just copying the same text with different company names. They may think they are doing something useful but I doubt they speak English well enough to understand the warnings, as they don't take any notice. Deb (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
User:2400:2200:437:742c:f731:2f93:4352:5c6e
User:2400:2200:b7:9d4e:7094:27c1:1ddd:3cc0
User:2400:2200:4b0:2719:da32:56ff:de9c:4807
User:2400:2200:35d:c452:df1e:233c:9947:ac
User:126.255.184.80
It does seem to be time to consider a range block, though even that wouldn't resolve the issue. Deb (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:British companies established in [YEAR]

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have notice that Template:British companies established in the year series is being added to a number of articles recently - just like to mention that the registration and control of companies in the United Kingdom is separate in "England and Wales", "Northern Ireland" and "Scotland". So legally the concept of a British Company doesnt exist. Perhaps consider splitting the category up. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Years#Notable leaders

Latest comment: 4 years ago65 comments9 people in discussion

I propose these guidelines to prevent infinite expansion and chaos in these sections. Ythlev (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure we need a huge gallery of notable leaders, not something that would be allowed in other articles. MilborneOne (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@IceFrappe: Ythlev (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop saying no consensus there is definitely consensus for the gallery to be limited and have a specific order per above and Talk:2020s#'Notable world leaders'. Ythlev (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This makes no sense to me. The term “superpower” made sense during the Cold War, but it is not commonly used to describe the countries of the world in 2020. No one (except for the person who made this proposal) would apply it to Russia. Many people believe that China is actually more powerful than the United States and it would be wrong to delegate them to second place. A far better, measurable, way to evaluate power is GDP. This also avoids the totally arbitrary term “notable organizations” and “remaining great powers” plus the need to list every country in the world “alphabetical order.” “Notable organizations” can go in another category. I dont see the United Nations or any of its organizations, G7, G20, OPEC, or NATO, all of which are “noteable” by any reasonable standard. The last part, two years in power, incumbants, a limit of 3 per country, is acceptable. Michael E Nolan (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valepert (talk • contribs)
it is not commonly used to describe the countries of the world in 2020. "Superpower" is just a word. Whether or not people use the word does not determine the ordering here. No one (except for the person who made this proposal) would apply it to Russia. Russia is a UNSC permanent member and it has plenty of nukes. It also has significant influences like in the Middle East or control of the airspace between Europe and Asia. Many people believe that China is actually more powerful than the United States and it would be wrong to delegate them to second place. How many? A far better, measurable, way to evaluate power is GDP. It has been proposed before and rejected by some. The problem is countries like Japan and India have huge GDPs but are not really drivers of geopolitics. Ythlev (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@IceFrappe:. Ythlev (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vcardozobr:. Ythlev (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The first leaders must be from the 5 countries of the Security Council (US, China, Russia, UK and France), followed by the 4 leaders of the G4 countries (seeking a permanent seat on the council: Germany, Japan, India and Brazil) plus Italy, finally by international organizations. Remember that the G4 countries have formal support from some of the members of the Security Council and several nations around the world to be accepted. Or, put them all in alphabetical order without highlighting anyone and it's done.
Why plus Italy? Ythlev (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The countries of P5 and G4 are indisputable (i think that this form is the only one that has support and legitimacy), Italy in some places is recognized as a great power, mainly for being part of NATO Quint and G7. Or else keep Italy in alphabetical order. Vcardozobr 13:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
G4 is defined as "countries which support each other’s bids for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council". Are they bound to do so by contract? Even if so, until they become permanent members, they still do not have veto power, so what makes them different from other countries? Ythlev (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, these countries vote for themselves and have been demanding seats together for 15 years. We can say that they have a great influence and legitimacy in this case, due the fact that they are formally supported by Russia, France and the UK and several other countries of different regions and sizes for permanent members in a future reform of the council. In 2004, when they almost succeeded, Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called United Nations advisers with recommendations for countries to be elected as permanent members, and the countries were: Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan. Also, statements such as: "We reaffirm the support of our countries for the candidacies of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan for permanent membership" and "We repeatedly reiterated our position that India and Brazil absolutely deserve to be on the Council" from France, UK and Russia are common. This shows the influence of these countries and places them a step above the "commons", as "officer candidates" to permanent members. I propose that we use this P5 + G4 format, or use alphabetical order without highlighting anyone. Vcardozobr 17:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I gave a quick look at Talk:Great power and it seems many users, who have done lots of research, do not consider Brazil, India, and Italy to be great powers based on sources, so I think they should not be pinned. Ythlev (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
That is the problem, if we put only the P5, we will have complaints from the others, if we put P5 plus G4 and Italy, we will have complaints that the G4 and Italy are not great powers. That's why i said above, that we should also consider turning the list into alphabetical order by country, as on the G20 page. Vcardozobr 20:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Users have said that they still want some countries to be pinned. Ythlev (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nick.mon: I thought I made it clear that the conventions for the galleries are listed here, not on the talk page of a particular decade. I generally prefer pinning fewer countries; I would be fine with only superpowers pinned. However, countries such as UK, Germany are pinned by convention due to them being great powers. However, India and Italy are not universally considered such (Talk:Great power), so should not be pinned. Ythlev (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ythlev, thanks for starting a discussion :) Anyway, I repeat here my old proposal: we should insert in the top the Security Council's members (USA, UK, Russia, China and France) and then the remaining members of the G7 (Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada), as the the "seven largest IMF – advanced economies in the world". It's an absolutely partial order, but I think it's a quite reasonable one. Or maybe we should list the countries by GDP, which probably is the most neutral list. Regarding Italy, as an Italian I'm probably biased, but there're lot of sources which consider Italy as the Least of the Great Powers (not as influential as Germany, or France or the UK, but, at least, a great power) moreover, it's part of the EU Three, Europe's Big Four and the NATO Quint, so despite its political instability and economic troubles, I think we should insert it among the top of the gallery. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Here there's a list of the first 15 countries by GDP (nominal) and theirs membership to formal (or informal) international organizations: -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Country UNSC G7 G20 G4 Quint BRICS GDP
  United States  Y  Y  Y  N  Y  N 1st
  China  Y  N  Y  N  N  Y 2nd
  Japan  N  Y  Y  Y  N  N 3rd
  Germany  N  Y  Y  Y  Y  N 4th
  India  N  N  Y  Y  N  Y 5th
  United Kingdom  Y  Y  Y  N  Y  N 6th
  France  Y  Y  Y  N  Y  N 7th
  Italy  N  Y  Y  N  Y  N 8th
  Brazil  N  N  Y  Y  N  Y 9th
  Canada  N  Y  Y  N  N  N 10th
  Russia  Y  N  Y  N  N  Y 11th
  South Korea  N  N  Y  N  N  N 12th
  Spain  N  N  N  N  N  N 13th
  Australia  N  N  Y  N  N  N 14th
  Mexico  N  N  Y  N  N  N 15th

No, we cannot keep expanding pinned countries for something like Least of the Great Powers. Including Germany was already a compromise. If you think Italy is on par with Germany, then we only keep superpowers. Ythlev (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Who decides that "we cannot keep expanding pinned countries for something like Least of the Great Powers"? This is only your personal opinion. Germany is not a compromise at all, becuase Germany is far more influential than UK or Fance, even if it isn't in the UNSC, and its leader Angela Merkel has been widely described as the de facto leader of the European Union, the most powerful woman in the world, and by some commentators as the "leader of the free world".[1][2][3] Moreover, regarding Italy, it is included in the great power list, so we should place it in the top of the gallery. Anyway, I think that GDP is a good compromise, as Valepert proposed. Or, if you are against this proposal too, we had to use the alphabetical order, as Vcardozobr proposed. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
this comment is not mine, but written Michael E Nolan on project page, I just moved on talk page. --valepert (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, sorry Valepert, I didn't notice that :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Moreover, you're talking about superpowers. By 2020, we only have one clear superpower and some potential superpowers, which, according to you reasonment on Italy and India, could not be placed in the top of the gallery, because some scholars are against this statement. I repeat, if we can't reach an agreement, the alphabetical order is the only way. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright then, alphabetical. Ythlev (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
So we have (1) alphabetical order (2) limit of three people per nation, and (3) GDP as the compromise critia for which nations.
Question: how many nation per decade article? Maybe we use the top 4 or 5 GDP nations (for that decade). tahc chat 18:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good point, tahc, but maybe 4 or 5 countries aren't enough, because, for example, I think that all Russian leaders, like Putin or Medvedev, would be out of the list. Another criteria which had been decided was "at least 2 years in power" (and this is particularly important for countries like Italy...). -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
We cannot put the top 11 GDP nations just for Russia... that would be up to 33 photos of leaders.
How about GDP nations #1-3, with a maximum of 3 leaders per nation; GDP nations #4-6, with a maximum of 2 leaders per nation; and GDP nations #7-9, with a maximum of 1 leader per nation. That would include up to 18 leaders. tahc chat 19:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC))
Well, you're right and I'm not a great fan of Putin at all, but I must admit that he cannot be out of the list. What about the first 15 countries, with a maximum of 3 leaders per nations? Moreover, they must have ruled their countries for at least two years. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

For example, this would be the 2000s list, considering the 2009 GDP nominal:

But this would be the 2000s list, considering the top 10 based on 2005 GDP PPP. tahc chat 21:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are their pictures required? Don't the links lead to an article where we can see their faces? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I don’t know, pictures of leaders had always been in the article, but, I don’t know if they’re really necessary. tahc, do you think should we use GDP (nominal) or GDP (PPP)? -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
If we have photos at all, I think we should use GDP (PPP) are more accurate. tahc chat 22:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Top 15 nations by GDP (PPP)

This is how the 2000s gallery looks with the top 15 nations by GDP. IMHO, I think it's a quite reasonable gallery. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks absolutely complete. I support this version of the gallery.
P.S. Medvedev did not fit? Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Doomer1557: Medvedev became president in May 2008, so less than 2 years in the decade :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How many nations?

Ok good, let’s listen to other opinions. Anyway, I’d include more leaders (top 15 or 20), but I realize that maybe a top 10 is the simplest thing. -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that in the list should be much less world leaders, because most of them can not be called "Notable". I propose making a list of only members of the G20. We can also include all the leaders of countries with nuclear weapons (like North Korea). In the decades before the G20, NATO and WTO member countries can be used. Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The more complex the criteria, the more disagreement there will be. GDP is simpler. Ythlev (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a good idea. We also need to consider that the leader has been in power for at least a year (in a decade). Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
No... Wikipedia:WikiProject Years#Notable leaders already says for at least two years in the decade. tahc chat 20:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

So... Nobody is against the order based on GDP? Can this be considered consensus? In this case, I plan to start editing from tomorrow. Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(1) No one (else) has said "order based on GDP"... I think consensus is for alphabetical order based on nation's name.
(2) We need consensus for how many nations (based on GDP). Nick.mon and myself could compromise with top ten nations based on GDP PPP. tahc chat 20:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The list of 15 people looks more complete (with Canada and Japan). Will this order (GDP PPP) be relevant for other decades? Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
As I said some days ago, I'm in favor of a top 15 based on GDP (PPP), as Doomer1557 has proposed, just to have a more complete list. Anyway, I can live with a top 10 too, but if I had to choose I'd "vote" for the top 15. -- Nick.mon (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Likewise, I think it would be better with fewer than 10 nations, such as 5 or 6. tahc chat 23:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I think there are somewhere in between the 50 nations which are included in the gallery now and 5. I think that 10 or 15 are good solutions. For example, with 15 countries during the 2000s we would have leaders from almost each continent and all the main regional powers. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
5 or 6 is too few. I am sure that there are many more notable leaders in the world. 15 is a pretty acceptable number. Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

PPP GDP or nominal GDP?

Personally I'm in favour of nominal GDP. It is more objective. Ythlev (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a great expert in GDP, I think tahc stated that GDP (PPP) is usually more accurate. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Which leaders would be more notable in '00s? Those of India, Brazil, and Russia (PPP) or Canada, Spain, and South Korea (nominal)?
Which leaders would be more notable in '10s? Those of Russia and Indonesia (PPP) or Italy and Canada (nominal)? tahc chat 16:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Why exactly GDP? How does it relate to the importance of a country's leader? I can say that in the 10s both Putin and Trudeau were rather notable rulers. Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There has to be some objective measure of "importance", otherwise other users will add leaders they think are important. Ythlev (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Then what to do with the past decades? Like the 1920s or 1940s? Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't they still have GDP in the 1920s and 1940s? What is your point? tahc chat 13:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I mean, in those years, GDP was less important than now. Especially during the years of wars (especially World wars). Doomer1557 (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
No, GDP was always important, even if it was not referred to by name by the public.
If we think the leaders should be different in a certain decade due to a "world war", then that can be treated as a special case on that page. tahc chat 18:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
So, do you think we could reach an agreement on a Top 15 gallery by GDP (PPP)? -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
List of countries by past and projected GDP (PPP) lists much more that 15 economies, but only back to the 1980s.
List of countries by past and projected GDP (nominal) lists much more that 15 economies, but only back to the 1970s.
List of countries by largest historical GDP only lists only the 10 largest economies, but does go back to 1960 (nominal).
List of countries by GDP (PPP) in the nineteenth century rank much more that 15 economies, but gives only one estimated rank for the whole century.
Do we have any GDP data for top 15 from the 1900s to the 1960s? tahc chat 20:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I found this website for the GDP (PPP) in 1965 but I can't find any data for the previous decades. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ AFP. "Merkel: From austerity queen to 'leader of free world'". www.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 30 December 2018.
  3. ^ "The World's Most Powerful Women 2018". Forbes. Archived from the original on 18 September 2019. Retrieved 30 December 2018.

Suggestion to return to the old version

Almost a month without new posts. Since none of the participants in the discussion proposed a consensus version, and the current version is very inconvenient, I suggest returning to the old version (without alphabetical order). This may cause some problems, but it is better than the current version. Doomer1557 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Doomer1557, ok, IMHO a top 15 list by GDP (PPP) was a good compromise, however, if we restore the previous version but, which are the nations that we put first in the gallery? --Nick.mon (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Nick.mon, It would be nice to combine the old version and the top 15 by GDP (15 countries would be at the top). But there is one problem - it is quite problematic to find a list of countries by GDP for later decades (the paragraph "Notable world leaders" exists until the 1790s at the moment). Therefore, it is easier to just completely revert to the previous version (not very objectively, but acceptable).
P.S. There is another idea - to abandon the gallery. Wikipedia has pages "Lists of state leaders by year" , each of the articles lists all the world leaders in alphabetical order in a given year. How about this? Doomer1557 (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, in my view a gallery of world leaders is not necessary, we could just mention the lists for each decade. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Nick.mon, well ... Is it considered a consensus if only 2 people participate in the discussion? Doomer1557 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh I sincerly don't know, but you re-started the discussion a week ago, and no one answered, so I think you can remove the galleries, and then if someone disagrees we will discuss again :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Births and deaths

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Who should appear in the #Births and #Deaths sections of year articles? Is there consensus that, whilst WP:N is necessary, it's not sufficient – inclusion requires a higher standard sometimes referred to as "international notability"? If so, are there any lists or categories of internationally notable people, or criteria for that threshold? I'm thinking of something like the importance class assigned on the talk page by wikiprojects. If we had such a guideline than it might be a simpler task to keep the pages in order, adding missing entries and removing those whose notability consists of one appearance in Olympic tiddlywinks. This might be a Herculean task not worth bothering with, but I throw out the idea in the hope that others can help develop it into something useful and feasible. Certes (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Certes, I agree with you and I would like to propose that WP:YEARS formally adopts and states each of WP:DOYCITE, WP:BIRTHDOY and WP:DEATHDOY as project standards in compliance with WP:DAYS. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, No Great Shaker. Another threshold that I stumbled across was having entries in >9 wikipedias (different languages), which may be a good proxy for international notability. Something should be done, but I think it would be wise to form a wider consensus before hacking out half of these articles' plausible looking content. Certes (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree, but we could apply the policy to new entries which is what happens at DOY. There is a long-term (very long) drive to gradually bring the articles up to scratch by seeking out sources and only removing stuff that cannot be reliably sourced or is definitely minor interest only. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

CFD for neologisms chronology categories

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 4 § Neologisms, words and phases introduced in time periods. —⁠andrybak (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of the near future

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

2090s has been merged into Timeline of the near future. Other decade and year pages are also being considered for merging. Certes (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That's my doing; feel free to ping me from Talk:Timeline of the near future or wherever discussion is happening, if you have any opinions. There's very little content in the future decade and century articles, and much of it overlaps with the timeline, so my intention was to merge all of them. The very-near-future years are a bit more predictable, so I'll have to see if all of them really deserve a merge. It will take me a while to look at all of them, though. -- Beland (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Territory Leaders

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I just added the territory leaders to the country incumbents section in '2019 in the United States' and I was wondering, because there's only one of me, that the Years and Politics communities could get together and help me add the territory leaders to all of the year pages? Will be posting this to WikiProject U.S. Politics and 2019 in the United States as well.Elipoloos123 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Review page update

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

2020s page merges

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Hey, I don't think it makes sense to merge all the years of the 2020s into 3rd millenium. First of all, these articles are close enough that we know a lot of specific events which will happen during these years. Especially 2021 and 2022. Somebody was proposing to merge them, and I think that makes very little sense. Second of all, it would be more logical to merge these articles into 2020s, so that 21st century can be used for the big picture timeline of the next 80 years and 3rd millenium can be used as the biggest of big pictures, to be general predicted trends that nobody can know when they will happen. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 05:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We have far too much information on next year to hide in a millennium article. @Beland:: This proposal really needs notification on at least 2021 etc. where it will be seen. Certes (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I considered merging as proposed, but 2020s and 21st century have already been flipped over to include content exclusively about events that have already happened. This content used to be at Timeline of the near future but Serendipodous preferred 3rd millennium instead because the latter ended up being just a pointer to the former. As I mentioned in the previous discussion, if we find the merged content is too long, we can make divisions at any arbitrary point. I agree the early 2020s are getting a bit busy to keep merging, and actually just noticed there are already subarticles for railroads, space, and sports, which should be linked. How would people feel about an article separate from the millennium and from the 2020s, like Timeline of the future to 2029? As requested, I've also added merge tags to 2021, 2022, and 2023. -- Beland (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I basically agree with spinning off individual years though it makes less sense as years increase. 2026 is a borderline case but I certainly would wait before spinning off 2027. Pichpich (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
2027 etc. were merged just before this discussion began. The status quo as of March was to have per-year articles up to 2089; that threshold has been slowly reducing since. 2021 would be a very temporary merge as it would need to be split again in six weeks. Certes (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, Cyberpunk 2029 has reverted the redirection of the future year articles and even removed merge tags from all of them (except 2024, which I have removed the tag from since Cyberpunk 2029 didn't do so there), so therefore I have also removed the merge tags under 3rd millennium#2027-2029 (renamed from 3rd millennium#2021-2029) as well. Perhaps, we should ask Cyberpunk 2029 why they think that year articles should not be merged. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
That's not me, but the reason I think they shouldn't be merged is that there are many planned events to happen these years, and it makes sense not to group the articles in with mere speculation, like we would have in the 22nd century articles. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Notable World Leader Galleries for the 1980s, 1990s & 2000s.

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'd like to politely request that the galleries of notable world leaders for the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s be restored to their respective pages. Telling the stories of the past few decades is incomplete without their images on those respective pages. Please contact me as soon as possible about whether or not I can be part of the restoration process. Thank you. Mr. Brain (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Brain: The gallery gave rise to a lot of controversy about how many leaders should be in it, according to what criteria they should be included there, and in what order. In the end, I suggested deleting the gallery, and no one was against it. 'Doomer1557' ( talk) 14:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


I found the solution. 140 leaders per decade?

EditingIsMyHobby (Talk)

Adding the years relating to the Thirteen Colonies

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can you guys add the years relating to the Thirteen Colonies. ArekSmith (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Common year starting on Sunday

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Most recent edits to Common year starting on Sunday and similar articles are trivial changes to the example year used for the calendar. It's harmless but clutters the edit summaries. Is some sort of game taking place? Certes (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

After unsuccessfully applying for protection, I've taken these pages off my watchlist. It seems that we must concede this playground to the vandals. Certes (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Half a million uncited statements in year/date articles? One weird analysis by local man could SHOCK you

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

At Wikipedia:Analysis of citation issues for date and year articles, I have started attempting to analyze this issue based on actual data. My calculations are fairly half-assed, but preliminary findings indicate that there might be a very large number of uncited statements across all time-based articles -- over 100,000 from the 366 date articles alone, and possibly as many as 500,000 when the (over 2,500) year articles are taken into account. I haven't gotten to the decades or centuries yet, but I think this is worth reading if you want to see the scope of the issue at hand. jp×g 07:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably half the statements Wikipedia articles aren't ref'd to acceptable levels. It's good to address this, as long as the addressing mostly takes the form of adding refs rather than deleting material (except material that can't be ref'd). Herostratus (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I have finished my analysis, and I will post the big graph here (I recommend reading the original essay to figure out how I got these numbers).
(rounded
estim.) 		Days Years Decades
← 600BC 		Decades
1800 → 		Cent. Mill.
(prose) 		Mill.
(list) 		Total
Articles 366 2,736 130 24 61 6 7 3,330
Entries / article 349 128 7 163 187 24 131 151.1
Total entries 127k 351k 0.8k 3.9k 10k 146 914 503,019
Total citations 15.6k 89.3k 60 264 1.3k 146 116 106,846
% not cited 87.5 74.6 93.0 93.3 87.6 0.0 87.3 78.8%
# not cited 120 – 130k 260k 0.8k 1.8 – 3.6k 9.3k 0.0 114 ≈391 – 403k

(For reference, as of the time of writing (January 2021), {{Citation needed}} has just over 454,000 transclusions on the English Wikipedia!) jp×g 23:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Date formatting in decade articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed an issue with inconsistency. The table uses DMY dates, but the prose intro uses MDY. Other articles, like 2010s, seem to use the same pattern. Can I get somebody with project familiarity to opine on which standard should be used? This will affect more articles than just the one I mentioned above. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that it's possible to find near-term consensus on this. Folks in the United Kingdom are going to want DMY, but folks in the United States are largely going to prefer MDY. Short of implementing language variants for en-GB and en-US (and other English language variants), I don't see a truly satisfying long-term solution either. -- RobLa (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding years relating to Indiana

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You guys need to add years relating to Indiana. Arek333 (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Naming of Sri Lankan years articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion here regarding the naming of Sri Lankan years articles prior to 1972 when the country was officially and commonly known as Ceylon. Your comments are welcome.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC: remove all uncited information

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments11 people in discussion

Per User talk:Elizium23#References on date articles and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#Year and date articles - sourcing there has been some controversy about WP:DOYCITE, i.e. the new policy that "year" and "days of year" and "date" articles must conform to WP:V and have inline citations for entries. Therefore, Nihonjoe and Rcb1 have variously proposed that we remove all unsourced content from the affected articles until it can be sourced, or like SomeBodyAnyBody05, that we not provide sources for any of it in the first place. So this RFC is simple: remove all uncited information from the affected articles? Yes/No? Elizium23 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Elizium23, Please remove my name from the mentions, I've never was with that removing all unsourced content from the Year list solution in the first place. I'm against this whole citation stuff in general. I believe if the info that is being regarded to on the year list pages is verified and sourced on the individual page, It should not have to be resourced on the year page such as a event or person's death and birthdates. Thank you. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so here is my opinion: I cannot remember ever having gone out of my way to edit a year or date article, so take it with a grain of salt. I don't get why there is a specific WP:V carveout for these articles. Presumably, it's because it would be a pain in the ass to go through and find citations for all the stuff in them, which I can at least understand the motivation for. However, this feels like too general of an argument: it is time-consuming to cite sources when writing any article whatsoever. With the date articles, at least, I see this as less mountainous and more molehillous (seriously, there are only 366 of them). Assuming that all the information in them is cited on the pages that it comes from, going through and verifying/importing all the citations seems like a quite reasonable (if dreary) task that a few people could do. Even when you add in the years, there have only been a couple thousand of them so far -- I would not be averse to taking a look and pulling together a task force and coming up with a workflow to get through them all (I think it would be very much amenable to the implementation of some time-saving technology). Just nuking the articles completely without any plan for building them back up seems like kind of a travesty, but I agree that there should not be huge reams of uncited text in en.wp for want of a few people working on it for a couple weeks. jp×g 02:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. All articles need to conform to WP:V, and challenges to WP:V can only be fulfilled by citing sources inline in the articles in question. In theory, I can say "Remove all uncited content anywhere on Wikipedia!" and – poof – now WP:MINREF applies to each unreferenced statement on 5 million articles. In practice, this is not how it works, of course. Such conduct is either misguided or WP:DISRUPTIVE. Of course you need to actually read each statement you want to challenge to do it in good faith. You can remove individual statements however much you want after reading them and thinking it needs a citation. But project-wide "challenges" like this are frivolous. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oof. First of all, the RfC is not properly formed. You're supposed to give a neutral description of this issue. It's fine to just issue a complaint instead, but then it's just a discussion not an RfC. So that's what I'm considering this thread to be: talking about the issue, not necessarily trying to achieve any answers, yet.
So anyway, before addressing the merits, I'd like to know where WP:DOYCITE came from ("Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. A blue link to a Wikipedia article is not sufficient. Most project members are reverting new additions without direct sources on sight" (emphasis in original). This is a big deal and contrary to de facto usual practice for similar material -- for instance, links to notable residents of a locale are usually considered OK if the bluelinked article contains the proof -- so where's the well-attended RfC that decided this? It's not on the talk page of WP:DOYCITE.
So one thing about rules is, they are supposed to reflect and codify existing practice rather than be created and enforced as new legislation. If common practice has been that this material is usually deleted -- doesn't seem like it -- then OK. If not, then not OK, maybe. It's an odd rule because it contains a behavioral observation ("Most project members are reverting new additions without direct sources on sight") which is not usual for rules and I think we'd want to know more about like, like is it true, and if it is true, what project are we talking about here. In some cases, a project is allowed to overrule generally accepted Wikipedia-wide practice, but in a lot of cases, not.
I'd also point out the WP:DOYCITE, even if it is legit, is a guideline, while WP:IAR is a policy. If the editors enforcing WP:DOYCITE can't explain how removing the material is objectively, or at least pretty convincingly, a net benefit to the reader and to the project, they're kind of skating on thin ice and maybe violating a core policy. There are lot of guidelines here, most of them are good but some of them are silly and some of them were put in by random small groups of people. That's why they're guidelines, so that they can be overridden or ignored when appropriate.
There's a lot on unref'd material in the Wikipedia, and deleting it all would decrease the size of the Wikipedia by more than half. Maybe that should be done, but let's do it as an overall Wikipedia-wide effort, and let's see if the Wikipedia community really wants to do this, and if they want to start with material that has refs in bluelinked articles.
When coming across non-ref'd material that is not objected to on some material grounds -- that is, there's no indication that's its untrue or misleading -- the usual best practice is to find and put in a ref. If no ref is possible, then you have a problem. If there are obtainable refs, why aren't you putting them in instead of deleting the material. If you don't have the time or interest do to so, why are you making extra pointless gruntwork for other people. At most -- again, for non-contended material -- tag the material and move on.
I know this is a pretty off-the-wall suggestion, but maybe you all should edit war over this so it'll go WP:ANI and the admin corps can sort out what's what here. They're smart. I will say that my experience that people who go on a crusade of deleting large swaths of material, for whatever reason, have been smacked down pretty hard in the past. Herostratus (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Herostratus, the discussion that led to WP:DOYCITE is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Archive 13#Exemption from WP:V Elizium23 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, OK, Elizium23, and thanks. So... let's see... well, that RfC was well attended, 22 participants. The "headcount" -- for what's it's worth -- was 14-8, which is 64%... that's near the bottom of the what can be considered a supermajority. Around 67% or up, depending on how important the proposed change is, is usual I think for numbers to be considered as showing consensus (granted, 64% is very close to this). It also was squirreled away on a project talk page, and unless it was widely advertised to the general editor corps it can't really be binding.
Strength-of-argument, however, is really important, particularly when the the argument can point to policies, as here (WP:V). Well, let's see... Here's from the lede of WP:V (I'll elide some material just for readability; I'm not cherry picking I don't think). Remember, this is the lede:

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it... Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.

I think it's sky-is-blue bog-obvious that WP:V does NOT want you to remove the material we're talking about. People can check that the information comes from a reliable source (by going to the bluelinked article and checking the refs there). And that is what we're about, here. That's what the rule is about. The only material that requires an inline citation (besides quotes) is material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged. That's sometimes true of birth dates (Sonny Liston, Gene Tierney, Jackie DeShannon) and those cases should indeed be treated differently -- deleted, maybe. But that's rare.
As to "giving them time", when I (rarely) tag uncontested material I give it a couple-few years. For this (true, and cited, but in another place) I'd allow at least ten years, maybe twenty, as a reasonable time. That's if you tag at all rather than doing the work yourself, which is frankly obnoxious in this case.
Sure, like most rules it's polite and squishy. But I mean "consider adding a citation" doesn't mean "consider adding a citation, and then say 'nah' if you feel like it", and I'm pretty sure that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references" isn't to be taken as "and boy those are some stupid editors, amirite?". The people writing the rule could have said something to that effect, but they didn't, and that matters.
Sure, like many rules, it contradicts itself right in the next sentence ("Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source".) This is actually not uncommon in our written-by-committee rules, and sure you can cherrypick, and the Devil can quote scripture to make his points, but WP:NOTBURO is also a policy, and it says:

[W]ritten rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.

The policy WP:IAR also basically says this. The spirit and intent of WP:V is that presented facts need to be true, and we need to have proof that they're true that the reader can see. The spirit and intent is not "but the proof needs to be presented in exactly such-and-such way and in such-and-such place or we can dispense with those facts". I mean, it is much much easier to access a bluelinked article than an offline book -- you have to go to the library, and probably order the book, which may not be available anyway; and it's even harder for old newspaper articles. If we're concerted about our proofs being hard to get to, we should go after offline sources way before worrying about the reader having to make an extra click. Or go after facts sourced to incorrectly formatted refs.
I mean, look. I meant what I said. All this is so bog-obvious that the editors removing the material are not even wrong. It's not really a content issue, it's a behavioral issue. Go to WP:ANI (take one for the team and force the issue if you have to; if the material was subject to WP:BRD and that was ignored, you're good, and if only newly-added material is attacked then it's a chaotic attack on a basically random subset of material, and you're good, and if they're regularly doing this but respecting WP:BRD it's basicaly trolling by make-work and you're good). And get the editors attacking the articles topic-banned from doing this, and Bob's your uncle. Herostratus (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Elizium23. It would be helpful to sort this out, thank you.

  • Oppose. I feel with conviction that it would be an error to remove all unsourced content. Especially in the pre-Internet era, it can be difficult to find links to appropriate sources and for many Year pages the items with references and those without them seem to be largely random. The short exercise I undertook confirmed my expectation that there was no obvious correlation between the importance of events or people and the existence of a reference.

I feel with almost equal conviction that the Year pages should be consistent. In recent weeks, I have had a dispute with User:Elizium23 about adding unreferenced births and deaths, where the subjects have existing pages. While I would always add a reference for current entries, in most historic Year and Year in Topic pages few, if any, references are provided. I think it is pedantic to the point of absurdity to insist on, for instance, a reference for the birth or death of Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill, let alone Julius Caesar, just to conform with "policy". To start adding references to such sections in historic years would only create unnecessary work for editors, who would then feel the need to add them for existing entries. Similarly, to remove new entries simply because they do not, like every other entry in the section, have a reference seems to me most unhelpful and I would welcome a consensus being reached about this. Rcb1 (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)rcb1

  • Strong oppose, wanton misuse of guideline (not policy) - This is just.... wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin..first of, guidelines are NOT meant to be used for wholesale gutting of encyclopedic content. Especially not guidelines that pop into existence overnight without thorough vetting by the community at large (I never even heard of WP:DOYCITE until this RFC). and speaking broadly, it should NOT be the practice of any factions of EnWiki to implement large scale deletion of content, except it be content that clearly violates POLICIES (which I reiterate DOYCITE is not). Cheers Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    Firejuggler86, the policy is WP:V Elizium23 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
But that information could already be verified on the linked article with reliable external sources. This should only be enforced when an article doesn't have reliable sources backing the birth and death dates. This interpretation of the policy will lead to a lot of innocent IP's getting reverted for not having sources on their new entries. When they most likely won't know or understand the policy. We should just remain the way we are with the year pages and remove info that is not cited on the individual pages. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't have a problem with the guideline itself. I have a problem with how this rather obscure guideline was applied. In the past, as long as the linked article had sources for the date, we didn't need to add them to the date articles, possibly to prevent the page size from at least doubling due to all the very short entries with sources that would be longer than most of the entries. Some of these date articles could have many hundreds (perhaps into the thousands) of sources, which could make the sources take up far more space than the entries themselves. Regardless, now I'm aware of this obscure guideline, and I'll make sure to include a source in the future for any additions I make. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree with (User:SomeBodyAnyBody05) on this. I couldn't possibly express it better and have nothing more to add. Rcb1 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)rcb1

Right. So now, our problem here is how to roll back the change to WP:DOYCITE. What we've got here is a bad close, resulting in a rule saying one thing, and common sense and accepted practice saying another. That's not functional, but it's going to be hard to undo. First let's see if we can get User:Agtx to reverse his close. I've written to him, but he's only done 13 edits in 2020, only one being after September. So we'll see. Failing that, I guess maybe we'll need a {{WP:CENT]] RfC? Herostratus (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Herostratus, you seriously wish to roll back WP:V with WP:LOCALCON? This ain't gonna happen. We were in flagrant violation of policy until WP:DOYCITE was instituted. There's no turning back. Elizium23 (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Mnmhm, come now. You're reading WP:V wrongly, is all. It's not even close, really. I wrote extensively above, but in a nutshell, WP:V says that material has to be cited somewhere. Only contested material needs a direct inline citation. And the usual solution to unref'd material is to ref it, not remove it. Herostratus (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Very wrongly...it almost seems to me - and if I am wrong then I stand corrected - that Elizium123 thinks that DOYCITE and WP:Verifiability are intrinsically inseparable..that DOYCITE, be it a guideline that was added, as Herostratus noted, through a discussion of 22 editors, is somehow automatically appended to the wikipolicy on verifiability! That's....quite frankly, totally ludicrous, if that is in fact how they think wiki policy works... Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice, the discussion that led to DOYCITE was intended to undo an exception from WP:V carved out years and years ago. That's all it was -- remove an unfortunate exception. You can't unring that bell. Elizium23 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I've reviewed my 2017 close and confirmed that it reflects a correct reading of the relevant policies (WP:PROVEIT and WP:SOURCELIST) as well as the consensus reached in the RfC. I also note what the consensus actually was in 2017: that uncited material may be removed if challenged. It doesn't require such removal wholesale. That's why you're having another RfC now on that separate question.
I understand that Herostratus disagrees with my close and the consensus that was reached, but the points they are raising here were also raised in the RfC. If Herostratus or anyone else thinks that there's a different consensus now, it's been long enough that I don't think anyone is going to object to a new RfC. But I'm not reconsidering a close from more than three years ago. I stand by my closing statement and won't weigh in with my personal opinion on this RfC. agtx 02:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Agtx:, with all due respect (and I understand this is being flung at you out of left field), the issue at hand is not about what the result of that RFC was; it was that the RFC itself was an improper process. For the simple reason that, in a nutshell, a consensus of 14 people out of twenty-two participants *cannot* implement radical changes to Wikipedia's core policies. (that is effectively what is being claimed by its implementers, anyway). We assume that when you closed it, you were not aware that that was what you were closing. I am not entirely sure of the reason that Herostratus wanted to enquire if you would be willing to unclose it now (some procedural reason I assume), but it is not a matter of disagreeing with the outcome and desiring it re-closed with a different result - it is more accurate to say that that RFC itself and its implementation were likely a (procedural) policy violation of some type...i hope that cleared up any misunderstanding. your decision is still respected, and apologies for any disturbances :) Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like you have a disagreement with the 2017 RfC or its close. It sounds like you have a disagreement with how to implement that consensus, three years later. I suggest you have that discussion here. agtx 14:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes? This is a no-brainer. Of course all material lacking cites should be removed. This is not only good for readers but also for editors. I can't tell you how many times I've written an article about X tangentially related to Y so I go to the article for Y and hunt for sources. Very often, the sources aren't there. It's freakishly frustrating. I have absolutely no sympathy for those who claim that adding sources is a burden. ImTheIP (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd strongly advise you to read my essay estimating the amount of work involved in this task before endorsing it; as best I can tell, this would involve approximately 400,000 statements being removed (and, presumably, re-added later). For comparison, {{Citation needed}} has just over 454,000 transclusions, so what you propose would be roughly equivalent in scope to removing all tagged uncited information from en.wp. Of course, it would be slightly easier since references probably exist in Wikipedia for most of the content in those articles, but the amount of work involved is unimaginably great, even if all you're doing is removing the uncited material; we are still talking about approximately three thousand pages, with about half a million entries. jp×g 23:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove nothing. This whole concept misreads WP:V. “Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.” That doesn’t say to use inline citations for all material, just the questionable stuff. So a categorical deletion of any material no one would ever challenge (e.g., “in fourteen hundred and ninety-two. . . .”) simply because a citation doesn’t follow it is not pursuant to policy — it’s just madness. Lereman (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Requirement?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor is deleting names from years lists (born on section), asserting that they are not notable enough to be in them if they are not in the "Year in the Country X" list. Is that right? --2603:7000:2143:8500:1956:8532:BE28:4ED3 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Formatting inconsistency on century and decade articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently, there is some formatting inconsistency on century and decade articles such as the 21st century and the 2020s. Namely, the decade box shows century links all in one row, while the century box requires two rows for century links, with the first two links shown in the first row and the last one in the second row. Also, the ten decade links in the century box are no longer organized into a 2x5 rectangle, unlike the ten year links in the decade box. Could anyone please fix this inconsistency if possible? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 deaths

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The category "2021 deaths" has been listed as of interest to this WikiProject. It now need to be updated - it has a list of "Deaths in January 2021" but now needs to have similar lists for February 2021 and March 2021. Rollo August (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rollo August: Category:2021 deaths is for articles and starts with Deaths in 2021. Deaths in February 2021 redirects to Deaths in 2021#February. Deaths in March 2021 redirects to Deaths in 2021#March. The FAQ at Talk:Deaths in 2021 says:
Q: A new month started five days ago. Why are deaths in the old month still appearing here?
A: It takes some time for deaths to be reported in the media and published here. Editors have agreed to keep the old month listed in the article for seven days after the new month begins. After that time, the "old" deaths are transferred to the article Deaths in <old month name>.
I suppose the redirects could be added to the category when the month has started to show readers we didn't forget the months. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

2020 in science fiction

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found this draft DRAFT:2020 in science fiction; it was rejected as TOOSOON in 2019. As 2020 has already passed, someone might want to see if this is salvageable -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Unlinking dates

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Do we have a consensus to bulk unlink dates from year articles, as here? If so, does it extend to articles on months, years in topic, etc.? If so, should we request a bot to do this rather than editing individual articles? Ping: Thescrubbythug, Deb. Certes (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No. There is no such consensus and the dates should not be unlinked. Deb (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Personally I’m in favour of dates being linked, and would prefer to keep it that way. Though I was made aware by a contributor to the yearly UK pages that the date linking constitutes MOS:OVERLINK and therefore should not be in place. Plus the script used to automatically alter dates on the yearly pages from the mdy format (which honestly makes little sense to begin with given a small minority of countries actually uses mdy rather than the dmy format) to dmy automatically removes date links as well. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Thescrubbythug I understand that. Whoever the contributor was, they are wrong in thinking that it constitutes MOS:OVERLINK, because this does not apply to Year or Year in Topic pages. However, the Year in United Kingdom series of pages (like some others) was probably begun without links and so it stays that way for consistency. Deb (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
One option is to click the suggestion button at the top of User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates and request that unlinking be made optional. Another is simply to make a copy of the script and comment out calls to ohc_delink_dates() by adding // in front of them. Certes (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Incumbents

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Is the inclusion of an "Incumbents" section at the top of country year articles the subject of some long-standing consensus? I'm planning to remove them from Thailand articles, most of which were created by a single editor who mindlessly copied the format from existing articles and has since been indef blocked for refusing to communicate. Appropriate mentions of some of the names can be accommodated in the lead instead. See 2005 in Thailand for example. The head of state and head of government are already mentioned in the lead, and Crown Prince and Supreme Patriarch don't really need mentioning in every year article. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, are citations expected for each and every listed item, even if facts are adequately supported by references in their linked articles? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Year in review proposal

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would appreciate input on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#"Year_in_review"_discussion. Noah 💬 14:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Date format for yearly articles

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I brought this up on the talk section of the 2021 page back in January, though I have only now been made aware of this WikiProject. Basically, as I said over there, one thing I've noticed about these yearly pages is the date format - specifically using "month, day, year" (January 1) for dates of events and deaths. Given that the overwhelming majority of countries, including in the English-speaking world, uses "day, month, year" (1 January), shouldn't the yearly pages reflect that and the "month, day, year" format be confined to those countries that use it in their respective year in topics? I get that MDY has been the status quo format for a while now, but to me it’s made little sense as to why that was put in place over the far more widely used DMY. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The easy answer is that most of the contributors to the English Wikipedia live in North America. Deb (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to see that stats on that. Jim Michael (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
While it wouldn’t surprise me if that was true (though it’s worth mentioning that while Canada mainly uses mdy, that’s also not their only date format), the point stands that the format should reflect what is used by the majority of nations, including those that are English-speaking, given that this website is widely used by people around the world rather than mainly from a single continent. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
We've decided to live with each other's idiosyncrasies, and I don't see that truce changing easily. Certes (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
For consistency, the main year articles should all use the same date format. Jim Michael (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, for articles with global scope, though it's legitimate that 2020 in the United Kingdom and 2020 in the United States don't. Certes (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree - main year articles means 2021, 2020, 2019 etc. Those such as the ones you mention should use the date format that's usual for the country they're about. Jim Michael (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

New essay analyzing citation rates in date articles and the workload involved in repair

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A couple months ago I went through the date, year, decade, century and millenium articles and wrote an essay looking at the citation issues involved; I thought I'd linked it at all the relevant places, but I see that I failed to do so here.

The basic thrust of it is that the 2,736 individual year articles have an average of 128 entries (100 if 2020 is excluded), of which about 74% are uncited. Based on this, I estimate that there are between 250,000 and 260,000 uncited statements in year articles (out of 391,000 to 401,000 across all time-period-based articles). There's a much more detailed explanation of how I arrived at these figures, as well as some ideas about what to do (including whether anything should be done at all). Check it out if you want to kill some time and maybe learn something! jp×g 20:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Mass move request for timelines of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I proposed to rename pages from "Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, YYYY" to "YYYY in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". Discussion is at Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2020#Requested move 15 May 2021. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for Yearly based WikiProjects

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

So I want to propose a new type of WikiProject that would either be a stand alone WikiProject OR be a sub-WikiProject of multiple WikiProjects (Depending on the year). Examples of main WikiProjects would be Current Events, History, and Years. If you take 2020 for example, WikiProject COVID will be a part of it, but in 2018, they wouldn't. My idea is a WikiProject based for a year. For example, the WikiProject of 2021, WikiProject of 2020, ect... The idea for the WikiProject would be to improve articles that are about that year. If you were to pick this year for example, all articles about events or anything related to 2021 would be a part of that WikiProject. WikiProject history is more for the event aspects. WikiProject Current events is for current events, so they only cover a small amount of articles. WikiProject years is more for timelines and categories. No WikiProject really covers a year with the goal in mind to improve articles about that year. They all cover aspects of that year, just not the entire year.

WikiProjects can be created by anyone if they can get some members (Aka not just 1 or 2 people). I would be willing to create 2021's if anyone else would like to join. I would feel safe starting it once maybe 4-5 others say they want to join.

  • My proposal is more of asking for support for a 2021 WikiProject to see how that "test run" goes. If it works, then maybe WikiProjects for other years would be on the table.

If you want to support/join a 2021 based WikiProject or you are fully opposed to it, don't hesitate to leave a comment below. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Started a proposal here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip: I don't think it makes much sense. There is a reason why WikiProjects cover aspects, not incidental connections. It's unlikely that someone would be hugely enthusiastic about, say 2021 but not 2020, or a subject matter expert of the former but with little knowledge about the latter. Furthermore, many events in certain years are entirely unrelated and only incidentally connected by time. If you are interested in a certain year, these articles can be easily found through categories, and there is no one stopping you from improving them. I just don't see the need for WikiProjects, their organization, or the tools they have to coordinate this work. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Many people have reason to lack enthusiasm for 2020 but you're quite right. "Wikiproject current year" might be more popular, or have I just reinvented Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events? Task forces for past decades could also work: I can see editors being interested in and knowledgeable about, say, the 1970s, but not enough for a project per year. Certes (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I did. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Proposed new guidelines for inclusion of politicians in yearly birth/death sections

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

The following RFC essentially asks for feedback and suggestions for a proposed guideline to do with inclusion of political figures in the main yearly birth/death sections. Any feedback is welcome provided that it remains on-topic and to do strictly with political figures. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This has already been brought up on the Talk:2021 page as a direct result of the discussions held on the Walter Mondale-Deputy heads of government/state thread, and specifically a result of minor domestic political figures with no international notability such as John B. Anderson being included on the main yearly death sections for years without scrutiny.

Perhaps this could be the best criteria when it comes to including politicians on the birth/death sections of yearly pages going forward - which would be incredibly useful not only to prevent these sections becoming overly represented by "a nightmare of politicians" as described by Alsoriano97, but also to ensure that figures from a particular country don't receive automatic preferential treatment over those who held equivalent positions elsewhere. The question is specifically, which politicians should be considered internationally notable or consequential enough for inclusion on the main yearly pages rather than just Year In Topic. I've broken this proposed guideline down to the following categories:

1. Heads of government/state (Prime Ministers, Presidents, Chancellors, Governor-Generals, etc.) are automatically included. This is something that has quite rightly been in place for some time, and should remain that way. I would additionally add that people regarded as key, central "founding father" figures of a nation should be considered consequential enough for inclusion.

2. Heads of major intergovernmental organisations (such as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, President of the European Commission, etc.) should also be automatically included.

3. Politicians who served as Foreign Affairs Minister, Secretary of State, Foreign Secretary, etc. whose actions were internationally notable and/or consequential should be considered for inclusion.

4. Any other politicians (including deputy heads of government/state and Opposition leaders/Presidential candidates who failed to win an election) should only be included if they are internationally notable and/or consequential for reasons other than just holding the title of their office - such as those who were also notable for non-political reasons; those who won major international prizes such as the Nobel Prize; those who played prominent roles in major and historic international events (such as organising a war or playing a central role in organising a consequential treaty); and those who gained international notoriety for potential war crimes/crimes against humanity.

Political figures for the last two points should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Would be glad to hear what people think about these proposed guidelines going forward, and if there are any other considerations for inclusion that we should specify. Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jojoju1998 I alert you to this as well, which to be entirely honest is probably a more appropriate place to have a discussion on this, given that a consensus here would have a direct impact on all the pages to do with the Years WikiProject. Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
George Shultz would be included right ? Since many historical experts credit him with developing the 1980s Cold War Policy that led to the collaspe of the Soviet Union. Jojoju1998 (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I actually said on the Talk:2021 page (before the discussion got derailed) that I would be in favour of Schultz, as well as others such as Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and Dean Rusk. Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has a policy on notability. What's wrong with that? If the person has an article on WP.en, include him; if s/he doesn't, don't. It doesn't get more automatic than that! Guarapiranga (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
This is to do with the sections on pages such as 2021, not for example Deaths in March 2021. As explained on Talk:2021, there’s something seriously wrong with a system where figures such as John B. Anderson and Frank Carlucci are included without question and with nobody removing them for years, despite the fact that both were minor domestic political figures with insufficient notability, and who had they been from any other country, they would have been almost immediately scrutinised and removed. That is the basis of why myself and Jim Michael have brought this issue to a head, and why we came up with this proposed guideline. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Tangential remark: is it sensible to create a guideline which extends beyond politicians? Many entries are for people who were barely notable in other areas, such as once reaching #73 in the Ruritanian music chart. (Ideally, it would also advise whether releasing version 69.420 of Sportsball Manager qualifies as an event, but that's a stretch.) Certes (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I don’t know if a single guideline that blankets every category is a great idea, given that there would have to be a fair bit of nuance for who should qualify as notable enough from each category. I am in full agreement though that there should be guidelines for other areas though, such as for areas of “pop culture” (film industry; music; etc.) and sport (where there’s regularly controversy over the inclusion of European soccer players or American baseball players). The other concern is that users would criticise the inclusion of a certain “pop culture” figure over a political figure, despite the fact that you really cannot compare the two. In any case, working out nuances between categories would be essential. Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Categorising by date first mentioned

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

For cities whose date of establishment is not known, should they be categorised by the date of the earliest mention in historical records? Please see and comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_27#Establishments_based_on_first-mentioned_dates. – Fayenatic London 14:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

There was a strong consensus not to categorise by the date first mentioned in records. – Fayenatic London 12:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:AFCRC

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi, just checking if these redirects are appropriate before I accept. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Partially accepted, striking. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protect all future year redirects

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Recently, various IPs (2806:263:C406:74C:14D9:2BF1:7076:7BDD, 177.228.66.225, 177.240.56.58, 177.228.65.57, and 177.228.64.163) have reverted 2030, 2031, 2032, and 2050 to standalone articles. Those IPs were most likely all used by the same person.

We need to stop this disruption from happening again. Perhaps, we should semi-protect all redirects for the future years from 2030 onward. Please put your argument in the appropriate section below (Support or Oppose). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Support semi-protection

Oppose semi-protection

Year as a list or article

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm quite confused if years, like 2021, 2020, 2019, 2015 should be rated as Lists or as articles. There is a mix of it. Adam080 (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I consider them to be articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Maps?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think that all of these pages should have a map of the world that shows what countries existed at that time. Probably just one for years but two for decades and centuries to show what's changed. It would be really ambitious though, so I would need help.Thoughtss? AmazinglyLifelike (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years/Archive_13&oldid=1255043084"