![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This is only a draft and I realize it has my opinions dripping all over it so don't be shy and discuss here. We are basically trying to answer the question: "What is notable enough to be included on a recent year page and what is not?" Wrad ( talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty much in agreement with the guidelines as listed. In general an entry which fits into one of the sub-categories must be pretty exceptional to be included on a year page. Obviously it must also be internationally significant as well. At present there are probably 2 missing sub-categories which should be added: Disasters and Terrorist Attacks. The note under 3-Continent Rule "Events which are not cited will be removed" might need the addition "unless it has it's own wiki article".
The only other quibble I have is with the Deaths criteria. I don't see how this can be applied as successfully to less recent years (I realise we're only talking about current/recent pages here). Also some links will go dead after a while which could become problematic later on for marginal cases. Another difficulty is wether or not a non-english article is merely an auto-translation for a mirror news site rather than an independent report, the latter being a much better indication of notability than the former. Unfortunately I can think of no other all-encompassing criteria that could be used so I guess we're stuck with it.
Another thing which might save a lot of repetition would be a link at the top of the year page to this guideline page; I'm pretty sure we're all tired of having to revert the same good-faith edits over and over again! Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A new link to these guidelines is now added to the 2009 page. Hopefully more people will read the guidelines after this.
Then a thought, perhaps some of these rules are to apply more strict for events of the past than for upcoming? After all, only few events are noticed in media until they actually occur, even if it is known where and when they will happen. I guess this is already the case, but maybe this can be specified more clearly among the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBM 72 ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There is mention in the guideline of certain topical year articles like spaceflight. It seems like the country-based alternative should be mentioned as well, with some links, such as to the US and EU articles at least.
Also, the link to the guidelines has been commented out on the 2009 page. Perhaps its addition requires discussion there? — Ken g6 ( talk) 05:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that there shouldn't be the Three Continent Rule, because it seems unnecessary. Please consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliDincgor ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a proposal for the deaths section. What if we limit it to a quota of 25 people in the deaths section only? That way, only really and truly notable deaths will be listed and people will have to present a very convincing case. Other deaths can be listed on the deaths page. Wrad ( talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Can't see there would be much argument about Suzman, McGoohan and Montalban. Basically I think anyone who is included should be expected to be widely (geographically) known outside their particular field. If they are only widely known within their field then they should be included on that sub-category page (eg film, music, television, sports etc) and if they are only famous in their own country then in the "2009 in country" page. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 03:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure this guideline will grow with time, but for the most part we all seem agreed on this. I'm going to move it out of project space. Wrad ( talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Experience on 2009 so far suggests that people do not know about this guidance and it is difficult to keep the page in line with it in part because of this. Is there a reason why we can't have a link actually at the top of the page rather than more or less hidden (and unclickable) to be found only by those who edit the Events section? dougweller ( talk) 08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This page is a good start, but there appears to be a lot of room for improvement. The 3 continent rule, for instance, is necessary but not sufficient, and I think we could use some more sufficiency.
Looking around for better guidelines, I happened upon a page that I initially thought listed other guidelines for Recent years; but upon closer inspection, it's actually Wikipedia:Days of the year. Many of these guidelines are applicable to Recent years. For example, I note that "Standing the test of time" would be a good complement to the 3CR, making it more clear that breaking news that gets picked up on 3 continents is not automatically eligible for recent year articles.
I think most of the Days of the year guidelines should be included in Recent years, with appropriate adjustments as necessary.
— Ken g6 ( talk) 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
At present the criteria for inclusion is articles on wikipedia in 10 different languages. Should this be seen as a minimum or the one and only criteria. Is someone such as Abel Paz sufficiently notable when his article contains no references at all? And should someone whose death is not notable enough for a year page also have their birth removed from the relevant page? Should Joan Mary Wayne Brown be included in 1906 births when her article has been tagged as an orphan? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
What constitutes "recent"? How far back should it be applied? DerbyCountyinNZ 23:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue of the possible inclusion of these pro wrestlers in 2009#Deaths is currently being discussed. As the main proponent of their inclusion has seen fit to gather reinforcements from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling (once it became clear he was not going to get consensus) I thought I would respond in kind. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 21:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a 9 article guideline specifically for births or is an article in Wikipedia sufficient to establish validity and inclusion into a recent year article? ttonyb1 ( talk) 14:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there something somewhere in policy or guidelines mentioning whether or not these types of articles need to have citations, else tagged with templates such as {{ unreferenced}}? The reason I ask is that I came across many of these 'year' articles in Category:Articles lacking sources from August 2009 because they were tagged as unreferenced, but I don't think they should be (ex. 391 BC etc., although I realize these are not 'Recent years' but I wasn't sure where else to post) Anyways, I'd like to quote something official per my post here and am wondering if there's something I'm missing or just haven't read yet.. -- œ ™ 02:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
At present the minimum requirement is 9 non-English articles. In the past few monthsthere have been several situations where at the time of death someone had less than 9 non-E articles but then some days weeks (and it one case months) later they were up to 9. There has also been a case of a user deliberately creating foreign language articles with the sole purpose of trying to achieve the minimum. There have also been cases where the manner of death and consequent media coverage has resulted in enough new foreign articles to pass the minimum and thence lengthy discussions as to whether or not they are really notable enough for inclusion in a year page.
Proposal: The 9 non-English articles be taken at the time of death and not subsequently (except by consensus). Realistically if they are not sufficiently notable before their death their actual death should not be an added factor in their notability. This would then require a burden of proof of notability on those wishing to add someone rather than their being added (after achieving 9+) and then a discussion arising as to whether they should be removed. Of course this would still be open to abuse (see Misawa/Martin case above) but it should hopefully reduce the number/length of talk page disputes. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
While GaryColemanFan has made no real argument against this, consensus evidently does not exist. It seems to me that this new criteria would be difficult to enforce. If a name is added a year after the person's death, is someone going to look back at all of the foreign articles to see if they existed at the time of death? Don't take my comment as in favor or against, I'm all for easy to identify inclusion criteria. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
For those of us that have been following the Year articles for a while this process gets to be rather tedious. The proposed amendment would make the process:
It seems that those of us concerned with setting or maintaining criteria that can be used on all Year articles are too few in number to make any serious effort at applying even the current criteria to previous years let alone the suggested amendment (and in any case it would obviously be impossible to apply to any year before wiki started!) which is why I put "from 2009".
Of course if we have to wait for at least half of all wiki users to be in favour of the amendment (or any other matter requiring "consensus" then I guess we're all wasting our time! DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 23:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Is 4-1 a consensus? Or shall we wait a few more decades? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be paranoid that this proposed amendment means Misawa automatically gets removed. There hasn't even been a decision as to when this will be applied let alone backdated (the current criteria hasn't even been applied to 2007). And in any case it could be over-ridden by consensus as was the case last time. I for one have absolutely no expectation that anyone from the pro wrestling group who voted for his inclusion last time is going to change their mind just because of this amendment. This amendment is in fact a response to a considerable number of cases (particularly in September) where people only met the 9 non-English article minimum after death, their inclusion was questioned and in most cases they were eventually removed. This seems unnecessary and by this amendment the emphasis would be placed on the proof of notability rather the opposite. Why don't YOU give it up. YOU are the ONLY one who has a problem with this amendment. This project is for those of us who are interested in making the Recent Year pages into quality articles. We are not single issue users. As it says in the opening paragraph "That an event is important to an individual editor, or even to a particular society or nation, is not sufficient ground for its inclusion." DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 21:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the 9 non-E minimum is that it does not specify quality and an unexpected (and hence newsworthy) death often results in an increase in articles but does not mean that the person is well-known in that language/country but merely that someone saw the news and decided to create a wiki article. Given that we can't know for certain if someone is notable in a given country we can only go by their article, if it a stub copied from the English article and has no reference in its own language then it would appear they are not really notable in that country. Yes that could change "eventually", but what if it doesn't? As for Mitsuhara Misawa the german, french, catalan, spanish, portuguese, italian and one of the asian language articles look to be copies of various parts (usually minimal, sometimes including the list of championships) of the english article. Only a few of them have references (mostly from the NOAH site, only one is not english (the spanish article has a german reference!)). Would I have said tough luck if someone had tried to add him when he died and had less than 9 non-E articles? I wouldn't have said "tough luck" I would have said he didn't meet the criteria. If someone had started a discussion about including him once he did reach 9 non-E articles "would [I] have been willing to have a reasonable, respectful discussion about the merits of including him"? Yes. Do I now think he was internationally notable, given the current state of the majority of his non-English articles 4 months after his death? No. Would I ever consider conceding that he was notable if that was reflected in the majority of his non-E articles? Let's say I would raise no further objections to being included in the 2009 Deaths.
I want to revisit this proposal again. There still seem to be too many people being added to the Deaths section that are not particularly notable. It seems that some editors are waiting until the deceased person reaches the 9 non-English articles minimum and then adding them. This often happens when no user that is unaware of the minimum criterai has triewd to add them immediately upon their death. I feel that such persons are insufficiently notable to be included but really can't be bothered arguing about each one. It should be encumbant on editors that feel someone should be included despite failing the proposed criteria to justify their inclusion on the talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 07:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There is an important practical issue here which has been missed. While any fool can see whether there are 9 other Wikipedia articles, having just had a look at this myself, establishing when the article was created may not be easy, involving language skills many of us do not have, and with languages which do not use the Latin alphabet may be virtually impossible for the lay person. Similar problems arise with other criteria based on the quality or content of these articles. On English Wikipedia there are a number of decent, though not necessarily particularly good, articles which are basically a translation of an article from another Wikipedia, or which only use foreign language sources. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
We seem to be getting a number of minor actors listed on the Years pages. Although I thought the Deaths section also included Births, it appears it does not. I am concerned the Recent Years pages will become unreadable lists of names that overshadow major events. I am proposing the following change in the wording of the deaths section. The changes are in italics or are struckout. The following is the proposed wording:
Deaths and births
Deaths and births are only to be included if the person dead has articles about him or her on Wikipedia in at least ten languages. (William Shakespeare, for example, has several foreign language articles on him, listed on the left sidebar.) This is a minimum requirement for inclusion. Many articles will not merit inclusion even though they may have enough foreign articles.
ttonyb1 ( talk) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a minor formatting question. How should Nobel Prize winners be described in the Births and Deaths sections?
eg
OR
There are many variations on this such as linking Nobel Prize or Nobel Prize in Chemistry which I think we can agree is superfluous.
I favour the second example above as it includes all the necessary information in the briefest form. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Input sought at Talk:2009 regarding their international notability, and hence their eligibility for inclusion in the Deaths section of 2009. Information yes ( talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are some previous formats for the current year:
1) 2006 (MMVI) is a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. It is also the current year
2) 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the AD/DC Era.
3) 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, a leap year starting on Tuesday of the Anno Domini/Common Era.
4) 2009 (MMIX) is the current year of the Anno Domino/Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is a common year starting on Thursday.
Possibilities for 2010:
1) 2010 (MMX) is a common year starting on Friday of the Anno Domini/Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 10th year of the 21st century and 3rd millennium, and the 1st year of the 2010s decade. It is also the current year.
2) 2010 (MMX) is the current year, a common year starting on Friday of the Anno Domini/Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 10th year of the 21st century and 3rd millennium, and the 1st year of the 2010s decade. ( Homerjay90 ( talk) 19:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
Agreed format for 2010:
2010 (MMX) is a common year starting on Friday of the Anno Domini/Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 2010th year of the AD/CE, the 10th year of the 3rd millennium and 21st century, and the 1st year of the 2010s decade. It is also the current year. ( Homerjay90 ( talk) 07:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC))
Once the clock strikes 2011, could the article for 2011 be as follows?
2011 ( MMXI) is a common year starting on Saturday. In the Gregorian calendar it is the 2011th year of the Common Era or Anno Domini designation, the 11th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century, and the 2nd of the 2010s decade. It is also the current year.
or
2011 ( MMXI) is the current year, a common year starting on Saturday. In the Gregorian calendar it is the 2011th year of the Common Era or Anno Domini designation, the 11th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century, and the 2nd of the 2010s decade Continental738 ( talk)
I would like to see what the article for 2011 will actually look like once 2010 has rolled over into 2011 Continental738 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
How is the "a" ungrammatical? Is this American usage? To me, "starting on Friday" means starting next Friday from now. In fact, is the day the year starts really so important that it has to be the first thing we say about it?-- Kotniski ( talk) 11:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
So should the lead article for 2010 be:
2010 ( MMX) is a common year starting on Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, and is the current year...
We could go back to "common year starting on [day]" format, instead of "common year that started on a [day]".
64.106.112.241 ( talk) 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's any reason to say which year of a century, millennium, or decade a particular year is, unless it's the first or last year of a millennium, century, and decade. So I think the lead paragraph in 2010 should be:
2010 ( MMX) is a common year starting on Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, and is the current year. It is the 2010th year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era, and it is also the first year of the 2010s decade.
Adding the information on which year of a century, millennium, and decade, can really confuse readers even more than saying "2010th year in the AD/CE.
64.106.112.241 ( talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, I don't think we should state which year of a millennium, decade, or century a particular year is, unless it's the first or last year of a decade, century, or millennium. Maybe we could state which year of a millennium and century a certain year is, but leave out the decade info unless it's the first or last year of a particular decade.
2010 ( MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, and it is the current year. It is also the 2010th year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era, the 10th year in the 3rd millennium and 21st century, and the 1st of the 2010s.
Continental738 ( talk) 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
1900 ( MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 1900th year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era and 100th and last year of the 19th century.
1901 ( MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 1901st year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era and 1st year of the 20th century.
2000 ( MMX) is a leap year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 2000th year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era, the 1000th and last year of the 2nd millenium and the 100th and last year of the 20th century.
2001 ( MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 2001st year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era and the 1st year of the 3rd millenium and the 21st century.
2010 ( MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 2010th year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era.
The infobox at each Year article includes which millenium, century and decade the year falls into, there is no need for excessive repetition. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 01:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why this format has been put into effect in the first place but it makes no sense to begin a year article like this:
2010 ( MMX) is a common year starting on Friday of the Gregorian calendar and is the current year.
Does one year start on "Friday of the Gregorian calendar" and the following year starts on "Saturday of the Julian calendar"? It's not grammatically correct, so that's why I changed a few lead articles to say (e.g. 1970 (MCMLXX) was a common year starting on Friday in the Gregorian calendar). I Think it makes more sense to say "in the Gregorian calendar" as opposed to "of the Gregorian calendar". So 2010 could begin as follows:
2010 ( MMX) is a common year starting on Friday in the Gregorian calendar and is the current year. It is the 2010th year in the Common Era (or Anno Domini) and the first year of the 2010s decade.
64.106.113.157 ( talk) 07:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
One person on Wikipedia claims that it can really confuse the reader when one mentions which year of a decade, millennium, and century a particular year is in, unless it's the first or last year of such time periods. So I wonder if the 2010 could be changed to this:
2010 ( MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday in the Gregorian calendar and is the current year. It is also the 2010th year in the Common Era, or of Anno Domini; and the 1st year of the 2010s decade.
64.106.113.235 ( talk) 06:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Given the lack of any constructive input to my last prompt, I'm wondering if there are any users still interested in this project? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 01:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
At first I was confused by the opening paragraph of the 200x articles which states: In the Gregorian calendar, it was the 200xth year of the Common Era or of Anno Domini; the xth year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century; and the x+1 year of the 2000s.
So like a good editor should, I researched this topic and found the following reliable reference [2] to verify that the Gregorian calendar had no year “zero”, and thus the above sentence is factually accurate. To help the article, I added that useful and valid reference as an in-line citation. Almost immediately I find that my edits are being reversed, and that when I put back the reference User:Ttonyb1 tells me on my User talk:Mantes page that I will be in violation of WP:3RR unless I capitulate to his removal of the valid and useful reference that I added.
So I am bringing the issue to this talk page in the hope that a consensus of editors will be reached on the issue of whether or not the opening paragraph should have an in-line citation pointing to a useful and valid reference. I believe that a verifiable in-line citation for such a controversial/misunderstood fact will assist everyone who reads this article to understand and accept why 2001 was the 1st (and not the 2nd) year of the new millennium. I do not understand why any editor would actively choose to not reference this fact and, even more so, actively pressure another editor to not reference that fact.
Although I think that User:Ttonyb1 should have opened this discussion (instead he chose to edit war), I am bringing the issue here. I have made my opinion clear that I believe that the article will be better if it is properly referenced, so there is no need for me to take further part in this discussion. Editors who are more senior that I are better equipped to make the arguments for or against references. I will be watching, but will not participate. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion that I anticipate will follow. Mantes ( talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Once it's 2011 in all time zones in the world, will the 2010 article see "is" being changed to "was"? Continental738 ( talk) 00:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
And how come sometime in 2006, previous year articles have been using "was" and future years using "will be"? I remember looking at year articles prior to 2006 that had "is" regarless of whether it was a past year, ongoing year, or future year. Continental738 ( talk) 17:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I would like to ask for less criteria in the WP:RY article, a minimal amount for inclusion on natural disasters/terrorist attacks and important business events to be eligible for inclusion. If the less criteria and minimal amount on natural disasters/terrorist attacks came into effect, this would prevent most arguments on the year articles about earthquake inclusion, terrorist attacks and other inclusions.
As for the less criteria bit, I mean that more items would be eligible for inclusion on the year articles, like the UK Riots and the U.S. Debt ceiling crisis and credit rating downgrade or EU/IMF bailouts...
For the minimal amount for inclusion on natural disasters I mean a standardised number for natural disasters like:
and others...
Important business effects. If one business event would make markets fall for over 3 days non-stop OR in fear of an event make markets fall for over a day, then I think that should be added.
This 'central guideline' for all the Recent Year articles was written by a relatively small amount of users (42). This amount, according to me must be around 100 and have editors from different areas. By having 42 editors on this Recent Years project, some editors may not agree with these guidelines and to overrule that there has to be a consensus which leads to bitter arguments...
Please add, at least some of my ideas to this guideline.
– Plarem ( User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 19:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I know that there is a fear that too many rules and restrictions will be applied to recent years. Like I said above, moving some natural disasters to a separate article is good idea, however there is too much bias and emotional attachments to natural disasters. It is difficult for many to attain to Wikipedia's neutral policy. The content of a generic year page involves sifting through events, and choosing which ones in particular are the "most important" or are "most relevant." It is sometimes risky business choosing which ones are indeed the most significant, as arguments can be made for any large scale event. Neutrality is extremely difficult in this case. If a generic year page did not exist, and only pages such as "(year) in politics", "(year) in natural disasters" were available, internet altercations could be avoided. Debates can be valuable, but regarding year articles, they are too excessive and unproductive.
Obviously deleting every generic year page is unrealistic, so in order to limit debate or disagreements, I think that it is appropriate to set at least a few sensitive guidelines, at least for natural disasters. Plarem, using specific number of deaths for specific types of disasters could help, but may be a bit too closed ended. I will reaffirm that using between 100-300 deaths for all disasters could be useful, and not as random. In many cases, the level of impact is usually(not always) intrinsic to number of casualties in any given disaster. Using 200+ deaths as qualifying criteria, will yield surprising few disasters per year. -- Trilobite12 ( talk) 17:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It appears that many(including myself), are having difficulty choosing which natural disasters can have a place in a yearly article. True, some natural disaster may not have a direct or an immediate effect on the world, however I think it is fair to consider their scale. I am aware of the world relevance standard, but honestly I think one should look at international notability instead. In Haiti for example, score died in an earthquake, however it did not really affect any other nation or state outside its borders. Of course I believe it needs to be mentioned(and is an extreme example), but it falls into the international notability category. Events that involve death, are especially sensitive, and thus need a little more sensitivity. While the content must remain neutral, it is exceedinglydifficult to remain completely neutral.
In [ discussion], was proposed that for natural disasters to qualify for inclusion, 100 or more deaths would have to be involved. These types of disasters are not terribly frequent, and most of the 7 that happened this year were for the record books.
Thoughts? -- Trilobite12 ( talk) 14:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The reason why I included those fact was to demonstrate that when natural disaster's death toll reaches 100, there is in many cases a huge impact. But true, it is a deviation from the criteria. Nonetheless, 100 deaths seems to be a good qualifying figure.
If no one is responding may I just add that to the recent years article myself? -- Trilobite12 ( talk) 17:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus because there is no discussion. If no one wishes to discuss this, then I could assume that everyone is OK with this proposition. -- Trilobite12 ( talk) 22:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
My feeling is that different minimums for different types of disaster would be the best way to go (although getting consensus would be even more difficult). DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 00:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The current structure should be used to evaluate natural disasters. Any event not qualifying for the main year article according to those standards should be in a separate "Natural Disasters in (year)" article. |
So natural disasters are evaluated the same way as before? If so, I can understand why. However as I have read over the discussions regarding disasters, I found that it is difficult for Wikipedians to remain neutral. Someone will react negatively at the inclusion or exclusion of an event, because one may have an emotional attachment to that event(especially disasters). Moving natural disasters that do not quite meet the criteria to separate page is objectively a fine idea. There is no doubt in mind that many will revile the move, however. Recent Years pages differ from most other Wikipedia articles, in that editors and contributors need to sieve through information, and decide which information is the "most important" Even for topics that are highly controversial, like the [Creation–evolution controversy]], remaining neutral while editing is much easier. Virtually all that is needed is the background, issues, view points, and arguments made by either side (That of course, is highly condensed) And with non controversial is remarkably easier to remain neutral. As for Recent Years, it is far more difficult. Having some more rules would help. My reason for including that list of 2011 disasters, was to demonstrate that using 100 deaths as qualifying criteria, would not cause the article to bloat. Even if in an given year, there are 10 of such disasters(each year nine or ten 100+ deaths disasters occur), they would not dominate the space in the article. If anyone is willing to move the number up to 200, that is fine by me. -- Trilobite12 ( talk) 17:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The suggestion that I have would not apply to every single topic in Recent Years, and really is not incredibly as taut as you suggest. It is most practical to use the a specific guideline in this case because the recent articles are unlike most other Wikipedia articles
For example: An article on the prehistoric creature RWQ, for example, involves integrating what the mainstream scientific community believes to be correct about RWQ. Obviously there is plenty of disagreement amongst paleontologists regarding its behavior, and their exact physiological characteristics. For an article to remain neutral, it must incorporate the conflict amongst scientist, while still affirming that mainstream researchers believe x is true. That is the key however, the researchers say that x is true, not the article. The articles does not aver that x is an absolute, simply because there is disagreement. If say, only one credible scientist thinks that x is false, whereas the rest have found common ground, that one scientist's view must still be represented within the article. If say the general public disagrees with x, then their views also should also be included. While general direction of the article on RWQ, should be derived from what the majority paleontologists think(because they have the benefit of evidence), disagreement is still incorporated. Wikipedia is not absolute
What I getting at here, is that Wikipedia does not argue(unless speaking for its own rules and codes of conduct), it represents. In the context of the year articles, it only represents how a relatively small group think about a certain event. in If an event is included withing a recent year article, then it gives that impression that its title to "relevance to world", is absolute and there is no room for debate. This is unlike most articles, where editors can use mainstream thought and scientific consensus. While these individuals(I hope), have the intentions of being objective, it is incredibly difficult to pinpoint what effects some events may have on the rest of the world. The inclusion of an event is executed as an absolute measure, however under the a criteria that is loose ended(world relevance).
It is particularly difficult to assign natural disasters the title "world relevant", because there are much too many elements to consider. There is no field of research that studies which disasters are the most significant, because significance in this case is much too subjective. Now granted, there are some disasters that are clearly indisputably world relevant(Tohoku eartquake), but for others, significance is much less clear. It is has been made clear through past discussions, that too many people are attached to certain major events/disasters, and can nearly always find reason for them to be included.
Factoring in all of this, there is reason to have at least some parameters for natural disasters. This is not to restrict certain information, rather the opposite. The vast majority of the time, proposals for natural disasters are shot down. Also we cannot trust that folks remain completely neutral in discussion. At least for natural disasters there should be some solid figure for inclusion.
(If we are truly to be objective, then would it be just to remove the the Haitian earthquake from the 2010 article? I mean, it has no world impact after all, so why should it be there?) -- Trilobite12 ( talk) 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This guideline is not complying with a subsidary of (all hail) the Manual of Style, (all hail) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.
From WP:RY:
==Events==
===January===
===February===
===etc.===
==Predicted and scheduled events==
===March===
===April===
===etc.===
==Births==
===January===
===February===
===etc.===
==Deaths==
===January===
I have boldfaced what is not complying with.
From WP:OVERLINK:
An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value.ref Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article,
I have boldfaced what is not complying with.
I'd like to see this changed to follow with the (all hail) Manual of Style. – Plarem ( User talk contribs) 21:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen here regarding that application on these guidelines, specifically the guidelines regarding date linkage, to "sub-articles" that commence with the relevant year (such as, in the case in question, 2011 in the United States). It is claimed that as 2011 is the "parent article" of the article in question such article is also covered by these guidelines. I consider that if the date linkage guidelines, or any other part of these guidelines, were intended to apply to such articles, these guidelines would state so, which they do not. Accordingly, the general guidelines opposing such linkage (per MOS:UNLINKDATES and WP:UNLINKDATES) apply to the articles in question. In fact, most of the pages in the "Year in country" series do not link dates, and to apply date linkage to these pages (not to mention the numerous other topics listed in the topics box of each year), would, in my opinion, lead to thousands of articles containing a plethora of unnecessary links. Davshul ( talk) 11:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Can some one edit it to what years are recent? Some people might get confused. GuzzyG ( talk) 13:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This is only a draft and I realize it has my opinions dripping all over it so don't be shy and discuss here. We are basically trying to answer the question: "What is notable enough to be included on a recent year page and what is not?" Wrad ( talk) 20:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty much in agreement with the guidelines as listed. In general an entry which fits into one of the sub-categories must be pretty exceptional to be included on a year page. Obviously it must also be internationally significant as well. At present there are probably 2 missing sub-categories which should be added: Disasters and Terrorist Attacks. The note under 3-Continent Rule "Events which are not cited will be removed" might need the addition "unless it has it's own wiki article".
The only other quibble I have is with the Deaths criteria. I don't see how this can be applied as successfully to less recent years (I realise we're only talking about current/recent pages here). Also some links will go dead after a while which could become problematic later on for marginal cases. Another difficulty is wether or not a non-english article is merely an auto-translation for a mirror news site rather than an independent report, the latter being a much better indication of notability than the former. Unfortunately I can think of no other all-encompassing criteria that could be used so I guess we're stuck with it.
Another thing which might save a lot of repetition would be a link at the top of the year page to this guideline page; I'm pretty sure we're all tired of having to revert the same good-faith edits over and over again! Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A new link to these guidelines is now added to the 2009 page. Hopefully more people will read the guidelines after this.
Then a thought, perhaps some of these rules are to apply more strict for events of the past than for upcoming? After all, only few events are noticed in media until they actually occur, even if it is known where and when they will happen. I guess this is already the case, but maybe this can be specified more clearly among the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBM 72 ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There is mention in the guideline of certain topical year articles like spaceflight. It seems like the country-based alternative should be mentioned as well, with some links, such as to the US and EU articles at least.
Also, the link to the guidelines has been commented out on the 2009 page. Perhaps its addition requires discussion there? — Ken g6 ( talk) 05:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that there shouldn't be the Three Continent Rule, because it seems unnecessary. Please consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliDincgor ( talk • contribs) 03:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a proposal for the deaths section. What if we limit it to a quota of 25 people in the deaths section only? That way, only really and truly notable deaths will be listed and people will have to present a very convincing case. Other deaths can be listed on the deaths page. Wrad ( talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Can't see there would be much argument about Suzman, McGoohan and Montalban. Basically I think anyone who is included should be expected to be widely (geographically) known outside their particular field. If they are only widely known within their field then they should be included on that sub-category page (eg film, music, television, sports etc) and if they are only famous in their own country then in the "2009 in country" page. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 03:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure this guideline will grow with time, but for the most part we all seem agreed on this. I'm going to move it out of project space. Wrad ( talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Experience on 2009 so far suggests that people do not know about this guidance and it is difficult to keep the page in line with it in part because of this. Is there a reason why we can't have a link actually at the top of the page rather than more or less hidden (and unclickable) to be found only by those who edit the Events section? dougweller ( talk) 08:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This page is a good start, but there appears to be a lot of room for improvement. The 3 continent rule, for instance, is necessary but not sufficient, and I think we could use some more sufficiency.
Looking around for better guidelines, I happened upon a page that I initially thought listed other guidelines for Recent years; but upon closer inspection, it's actually Wikipedia:Days of the year. Many of these guidelines are applicable to Recent years. For example, I note that "Standing the test of time" would be a good complement to the 3CR, making it more clear that breaking news that gets picked up on 3 continents is not automatically eligible for recent year articles.
I think most of the Days of the year guidelines should be included in Recent years, with appropriate adjustments as necessary.
— Ken g6 ( talk) 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
At present the criteria for inclusion is articles on wikipedia in 10 different languages. Should this be seen as a minimum or the one and only criteria. Is someone such as Abel Paz sufficiently notable when his article contains no references at all? And should someone whose death is not notable enough for a year page also have their birth removed from the relevant page? Should Joan Mary Wayne Brown be included in 1906 births when her article has been tagged as an orphan? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
What constitutes "recent"? How far back should it be applied? DerbyCountyinNZ 23:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue of the possible inclusion of these pro wrestlers in 2009#Deaths is currently being discussed. As the main proponent of their inclusion has seen fit to gather reinforcements from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling (once it became clear he was not going to get consensus) I thought I would respond in kind. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 21:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a 9 article guideline specifically for births or is an article in Wikipedia sufficient to establish validity and inclusion into a recent year article? ttonyb1 ( talk) 14:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there something somewhere in policy or guidelines mentioning whether or not these types of articles need to have citations, else tagged with templates such as {{ unreferenced}}? The reason I ask is that I came across many of these 'year' articles in Category:Articles lacking sources from August 2009 because they were tagged as unreferenced, but I don't think they should be (ex. 391 BC etc., although I realize these are not 'Recent years' but I wasn't sure where else to post) Anyways, I'd like to quote something official per my post here and am wondering if there's something I'm missing or just haven't read yet.. -- œ ™ 02:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
At present the minimum requirement is 9 non-English articles. In the past few monthsthere have been several situations where at the time of death someone had less than 9 non-E articles but then some days weeks (and it one case months) later they were up to 9. There has also been a case of a user deliberately creating foreign language articles with the sole purpose of trying to achieve the minimum. There have also been cases where the manner of death and consequent media coverage has resulted in enough new foreign articles to pass the minimum and thence lengthy discussions as to whether or not they are really notable enough for inclusion in a year page.
Proposal: The 9 non-English articles be taken at the time of death and not subsequently (except by consensus). Realistically if they are not sufficiently notable before their death their actual death should not be an added factor in their notability. This would then require a burden of proof of notability on those wishing to add someone rather than their being added (after achieving 9+) and then a discussion arising as to whether they should be removed. Of course this would still be open to abuse (see Misawa/Martin case above) but it should hopefully reduce the number/length of talk page disputes. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
While GaryColemanFan has made no real argument against this, consensus evidently does not exist. It seems to me that this new criteria would be difficult to enforce. If a name is added a year after the person's death, is someone going to look back at all of the foreign articles to see if they existed at the time of death? Don't take my comment as in favor or against, I'm all for easy to identify inclusion criteria. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
For those of us that have been following the Year articles for a while this process gets to be rather tedious. The proposed amendment would make the process:
It seems that those of us concerned with setting or maintaining criteria that can be used on all Year articles are too few in number to make any serious effort at applying even the current criteria to previous years let alone the suggested amendment (and in any case it would obviously be impossible to apply to any year before wiki started!) which is why I put "from 2009".
Of course if we have to wait for at least half of all wiki users to be in favour of the amendment (or any other matter requiring "consensus" then I guess we're all wasting our time! DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 23:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Is 4-1 a consensus? Or shall we wait a few more decades? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be paranoid that this proposed amendment means Misawa automatically gets removed. There hasn't even been a decision as to when this will be applied let alone backdated (the current criteria hasn't even been applied to 2007). And in any case it could be over-ridden by consensus as was the case last time. I for one have absolutely no expectation that anyone from the pro wrestling group who voted for his inclusion last time is going to change their mind just because of this amendment. This amendment is in fact a response to a considerable number of cases (particularly in September) where people only met the 9 non-English article minimum after death, their inclusion was questioned and in most cases they were eventually removed. This seems unnecessary and by this amendment the emphasis would be placed on the proof of notability rather the opposite. Why don't YOU give it up. YOU are the ONLY one who has a problem with this amendment. This project is for those of us who are interested in making the Recent Year pages into quality articles. We are not single issue users. As it says in the opening paragraph "That an event is important to an individual editor, or even to a particular society or nation, is not sufficient ground for its inclusion." DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 21:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the 9 non-E minimum is that it does not specify quality and an unexpected (and hence newsworthy) death often results in an increase in articles but does not mean that the person is well-known in that language/country but merely that someone saw the news and decided to create a wiki article. Given that we can't know for certain if someone is notable in a given country we can only go by their article, if it a stub copied from the English article and has no reference in its own language then it would appear they are not really notable in that country. Yes that could change "eventually", but what if it doesn't? As for Mitsuhara Misawa the german, french, catalan, spanish, portuguese, italian and one of the asian language articles look to be copies of various parts (usually minimal, sometimes including the list of championships) of the english article. Only a few of them have references (mostly from the NOAH site, only one is not english (the spanish article has a german reference!)). Would I have said tough luck if someone had tried to add him when he died and had less than 9 non-E articles? I wouldn't have said "tough luck" I would have said he didn't meet the criteria. If someone had started a discussion about including him once he did reach 9 non-E articles "would [I] have been willing to have a reasonable, respectful discussion about the merits of including him"? Yes. Do I now think he was internationally notable, given the current state of the majority of his non-English articles 4 months after his death? No. Would I ever consider conceding that he was notable if that was reflected in the majority of his non-E articles? Let's say I would raise no further objections to being included in the 2009 Deaths.
I want to revisit this proposal again. There still seem to be too many people being added to the Deaths section that are not particularly notable. It seems that some editors are waiting until the deceased person reaches the 9 non-English articles minimum and then adding them. This often happens when no user that is unaware of the minimum criterai has triewd to add them immediately upon their death. I feel that such persons are insufficiently notable to be included but really can't be bothered arguing about each one. It should be encumbant on editors that feel someone should be included despite failing the proposed criteria to justify their inclusion on the talk page. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 07:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There is an important practical issue here which has been missed. While any fool can see whether there are 9 other Wikipedia articles, having just had a look at this myself, establishing when the article was created may not be easy, involving language skills many of us do not have, and with languages which do not use the Latin alphabet may be virtually impossible for the lay person. Similar problems arise with other criteria based on the quality or content of these articles. On English Wikipedia there are a number of decent, though not necessarily particularly good, articles which are basically a translation of an article from another Wikipedia, or which only use foreign language sources. PatGallacher ( talk) 11:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
We seem to be getting a number of minor actors listed on the Years pages. Although I thought the Deaths section also included Births, it appears it does not. I am concerned the Recent Years pages will become unreadable lists of names that overshadow major events. I am proposing the following change in the wording of the deaths section. The changes are in italics or are struckout. The following is the proposed wording:
Deaths and births
Deaths and births are only to be included if the person dead has articles about him or her on Wikipedia in at least ten languages. (William Shakespeare, for example, has several foreign language articles on him, listed on the left sidebar.) This is a minimum requirement for inclusion. Many articles will not merit inclusion even though they may have enough foreign articles.
ttonyb1 ( talk) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Just a minor formatting question. How should Nobel Prize winners be described in the Births and Deaths sections?
eg
OR
There are many variations on this such as linking Nobel Prize or Nobel Prize in Chemistry which I think we can agree is superfluous.
I favour the second example above as it includes all the necessary information in the briefest form. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Input sought at Talk:2009 regarding their international notability, and hence their eligibility for inclusion in the Deaths section of 2009. Information yes ( talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are some previous formats for the current year:
1) 2006 (MMVI) is a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. It is also the current year
2) 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the AD/DC Era.
3) 2008 (MMVIII) is the current year, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, a leap year starting on Tuesday of the Anno Domini/Common Era.
4) 2009 (MMIX) is the current year of the Anno Domino/Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is a common year starting on Thursday.
Possibilities for 2010:
1) 2010 (MMX) is a common year starting on Friday of the Anno Domini/Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 10th year of the 21st century and 3rd millennium, and the 1st year of the 2010s decade. It is also the current year.
2) 2010 (MMX) is the current year, a common year starting on Friday of the Anno Domini/Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 10th year of the 21st century and 3rd millennium, and the 1st year of the 2010s decade. ( Homerjay90 ( talk) 19:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
Agreed format for 2010:
2010 (MMX) is a common year starting on Friday of the Anno Domini/Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 2010th year of the AD/CE, the 10th year of the 3rd millennium and 21st century, and the 1st year of the 2010s decade. It is also the current year. ( Homerjay90 ( talk) 07:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC))
Once the clock strikes 2011, could the article for 2011 be as follows?
2011 ( MMXI) is a common year starting on Saturday. In the Gregorian calendar it is the 2011th year of the Common Era or Anno Domini designation, the 11th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century, and the 2nd of the 2010s decade. It is also the current year.
or
2011 ( MMXI) is the current year, a common year starting on Saturday. In the Gregorian calendar it is the 2011th year of the Common Era or Anno Domini designation, the 11th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century, and the 2nd of the 2010s decade Continental738 ( talk)
I would like to see what the article for 2011 will actually look like once 2010 has rolled over into 2011 Continental738 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC).
How is the "a" ungrammatical? Is this American usage? To me, "starting on Friday" means starting next Friday from now. In fact, is the day the year starts really so important that it has to be the first thing we say about it?-- Kotniski ( talk) 11:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
So should the lead article for 2010 be:
2010 ( MMX) is a common year starting on Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, and is the current year...
We could go back to "common year starting on [day]" format, instead of "common year that started on a [day]".
64.106.112.241 ( talk) 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's any reason to say which year of a century, millennium, or decade a particular year is, unless it's the first or last year of a millennium, century, and decade. So I think the lead paragraph in 2010 should be:
2010 ( MMX) is a common year starting on Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, and is the current year. It is the 2010th year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era, and it is also the first year of the 2010s decade.
Adding the information on which year of a century, millennium, and decade, can really confuse readers even more than saying "2010th year in the AD/CE.
64.106.112.241 ( talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, I don't think we should state which year of a millennium, decade, or century a particular year is, unless it's the first or last year of a decade, century, or millennium. Maybe we could state which year of a millennium and century a certain year is, but leave out the decade info unless it's the first or last year of a particular decade.
2010 ( MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar, and it is the current year. It is also the 2010th year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era, the 10th year in the 3rd millennium and 21st century, and the 1st of the 2010s.
Continental738 ( talk) 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
1900 ( MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 1900th year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era and 100th and last year of the 19th century.
1901 ( MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 1901st year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era and 1st year of the 20th century.
2000 ( MMX) is a leap year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 2000th year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era, the 1000th and last year of the 2nd millenium and the 100th and last year of the 20th century.
2001 ( MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 2001st year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era and the 1st year of the 3rd millenium and the 21st century.
2010 ( MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It is the 2010th year in the Anno Domini/ Common Era.
The infobox at each Year article includes which millenium, century and decade the year falls into, there is no need for excessive repetition. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 01:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why this format has been put into effect in the first place but it makes no sense to begin a year article like this:
2010 ( MMX) is a common year starting on Friday of the Gregorian calendar and is the current year.
Does one year start on "Friday of the Gregorian calendar" and the following year starts on "Saturday of the Julian calendar"? It's not grammatically correct, so that's why I changed a few lead articles to say (e.g. 1970 (MCMLXX) was a common year starting on Friday in the Gregorian calendar). I Think it makes more sense to say "in the Gregorian calendar" as opposed to "of the Gregorian calendar". So 2010 could begin as follows:
2010 ( MMX) is a common year starting on Friday in the Gregorian calendar and is the current year. It is the 2010th year in the Common Era (or Anno Domini) and the first year of the 2010s decade.
64.106.113.157 ( talk) 07:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
One person on Wikipedia claims that it can really confuse the reader when one mentions which year of a decade, millennium, and century a particular year is in, unless it's the first or last year of such time periods. So I wonder if the 2010 could be changed to this:
2010 ( MMX) is a common year that started on a Friday in the Gregorian calendar and is the current year. It is also the 2010th year in the Common Era, or of Anno Domini; and the 1st year of the 2010s decade.
64.106.113.235 ( talk) 06:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Given the lack of any constructive input to my last prompt, I'm wondering if there are any users still interested in this project? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 01:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
At first I was confused by the opening paragraph of the 200x articles which states: In the Gregorian calendar, it was the 200xth year of the Common Era or of Anno Domini; the xth year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century; and the x+1 year of the 2000s.
So like a good editor should, I researched this topic and found the following reliable reference [2] to verify that the Gregorian calendar had no year “zero”, and thus the above sentence is factually accurate. To help the article, I added that useful and valid reference as an in-line citation. Almost immediately I find that my edits are being reversed, and that when I put back the reference User:Ttonyb1 tells me on my User talk:Mantes page that I will be in violation of WP:3RR unless I capitulate to his removal of the valid and useful reference that I added.
So I am bringing the issue to this talk page in the hope that a consensus of editors will be reached on the issue of whether or not the opening paragraph should have an in-line citation pointing to a useful and valid reference. I believe that a verifiable in-line citation for such a controversial/misunderstood fact will assist everyone who reads this article to understand and accept why 2001 was the 1st (and not the 2nd) year of the new millennium. I do not understand why any editor would actively choose to not reference this fact and, even more so, actively pressure another editor to not reference that fact.
Although I think that User:Ttonyb1 should have opened this discussion (instead he chose to edit war), I am bringing the issue here. I have made my opinion clear that I believe that the article will be better if it is properly referenced, so there is no need for me to take further part in this discussion. Editors who are more senior that I are better equipped to make the arguments for or against references. I will be watching, but will not participate. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion that I anticipate will follow. Mantes ( talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Once it's 2011 in all time zones in the world, will the 2010 article see "is" being changed to "was"? Continental738 ( talk) 00:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
And how come sometime in 2006, previous year articles have been using "was" and future years using "will be"? I remember looking at year articles prior to 2006 that had "is" regarless of whether it was a past year, ongoing year, or future year. Continental738 ( talk) 17:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I would like to ask for less criteria in the WP:RY article, a minimal amount for inclusion on natural disasters/terrorist attacks and important business events to be eligible for inclusion. If the less criteria and minimal amount on natural disasters/terrorist attacks came into effect, this would prevent most arguments on the year articles about earthquake inclusion, terrorist attacks and other inclusions.
As for the less criteria bit, I mean that more items would be eligible for inclusion on the year articles, like the UK Riots and the U.S. Debt ceiling crisis and credit rating downgrade or EU/IMF bailouts...
For the minimal amount for inclusion on natural disasters I mean a standardised number for natural disasters like:
and others...
Important business effects. If one business event would make markets fall for over 3 days non-stop OR in fear of an event make markets fall for over a day, then I think that should be added.
This 'central guideline' for all the Recent Year articles was written by a relatively small amount of users (42). This amount, according to me must be around 100 and have editors from different areas. By having 42 editors on this Recent Years project, some editors may not agree with these guidelines and to overrule that there has to be a consensus which leads to bitter arguments...
Please add, at least some of my ideas to this guideline.
– Plarem ( User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 19:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I know that there is a fear that too many rules and restrictions will be applied to recent years. Like I said above, moving some natural disasters to a separate article is good idea, however there is too much bias and emotional attachments to natural disasters. It is difficult for many to attain to Wikipedia's neutral policy. The content of a generic year page involves sifting through events, and choosing which ones in particular are the "most important" or are "most relevant." It is sometimes risky business choosing which ones are indeed the most significant, as arguments can be made for any large scale event. Neutrality is extremely difficult in this case. If a generic year page did not exist, and only pages such as "(year) in politics", "(year) in natural disasters" were available, internet altercations could be avoided. Debates can be valuable, but regarding year articles, they are too excessive and unproductive.
Obviously deleting every generic year page is unrealistic, so in order to limit debate or disagreements, I think that it is appropriate to set at least a few sensitive guidelines, at least for natural disasters. Plarem, using specific number of deaths for specific types of disasters could help, but may be a bit too closed ended. I will reaffirm that using between 100-300 deaths for all disasters could be useful, and not as random. In many cases, the level of impact is usually(not always) intrinsic to number of casualties in any given disaster. Using 200+ deaths as qualifying criteria, will yield surprising few disasters per year. -- Trilobite12 ( talk) 17:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
It appears that many(including myself), are having difficulty choosing which natural disasters can have a place in a yearly article. True, some natural disaster may not have a direct or an immediate effect on the world, however I think it is fair to consider their scale. I am aware of the world relevance standard, but honestly I think one should look at international notability instead. In Haiti for example, score died in an earthquake, however it did not really affect any other nation or state outside its borders. Of course I believe it needs to be mentioned(and is an extreme example), but it falls into the international notability category. Events that involve death, are especially sensitive, and thus need a little more sensitivity. While the content must remain neutral, it is exceedinglydifficult to remain completely neutral.
In [ discussion], was proposed that for natural disasters to qualify for inclusion, 100 or more deaths would have to be involved. These types of disasters are not terribly frequent, and most of the 7 that happened this year were for the record books.
Thoughts? -- Trilobite12 ( talk) 14:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The reason why I included those fact was to demonstrate that when natural disaster's death toll reaches 100, there is in many cases a huge impact. But true, it is a deviation from the criteria. Nonetheless, 100 deaths seems to be a good qualifying figure.
If no one is responding may I just add that to the recent years article myself? -- Trilobite12 ( talk) 17:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus because there is no discussion. If no one wishes to discuss this, then I could assume that everyone is OK with this proposition. -- Trilobite12 ( talk) 22:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
My feeling is that different minimums for different types of disaster would be the best way to go (although getting consensus would be even more difficult). DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 00:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The current structure should be used to evaluate natural disasters. Any event not qualifying for the main year article according to those standards should be in a separate "Natural Disasters in (year)" article. |
So natural disasters are evaluated the same way as before? If so, I can understand why. However as I have read over the discussions regarding disasters, I found that it is difficult for Wikipedians to remain neutral. Someone will react negatively at the inclusion or exclusion of an event, because one may have an emotional attachment to that event(especially disasters). Moving natural disasters that do not quite meet the criteria to separate page is objectively a fine idea. There is no doubt in mind that many will revile the move, however. Recent Years pages differ from most other Wikipedia articles, in that editors and contributors need to sieve through information, and decide which information is the "most important" Even for topics that are highly controversial, like the [Creation–evolution controversy]], remaining neutral while editing is much easier. Virtually all that is needed is the background, issues, view points, and arguments made by either side (That of course, is highly condensed) And with non controversial is remarkably easier to remain neutral. As for Recent Years, it is far more difficult. Having some more rules would help. My reason for including that list of 2011 disasters, was to demonstrate that using 100 deaths as qualifying criteria, would not cause the article to bloat. Even if in an given year, there are 10 of such disasters(each year nine or ten 100+ deaths disasters occur), they would not dominate the space in the article. If anyone is willing to move the number up to 200, that is fine by me. -- Trilobite12 ( talk) 17:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The suggestion that I have would not apply to every single topic in Recent Years, and really is not incredibly as taut as you suggest. It is most practical to use the a specific guideline in this case because the recent articles are unlike most other Wikipedia articles
For example: An article on the prehistoric creature RWQ, for example, involves integrating what the mainstream scientific community believes to be correct about RWQ. Obviously there is plenty of disagreement amongst paleontologists regarding its behavior, and their exact physiological characteristics. For an article to remain neutral, it must incorporate the conflict amongst scientist, while still affirming that mainstream researchers believe x is true. That is the key however, the researchers say that x is true, not the article. The articles does not aver that x is an absolute, simply because there is disagreement. If say, only one credible scientist thinks that x is false, whereas the rest have found common ground, that one scientist's view must still be represented within the article. If say the general public disagrees with x, then their views also should also be included. While general direction of the article on RWQ, should be derived from what the majority paleontologists think(because they have the benefit of evidence), disagreement is still incorporated. Wikipedia is not absolute
What I getting at here, is that Wikipedia does not argue(unless speaking for its own rules and codes of conduct), it represents. In the context of the year articles, it only represents how a relatively small group think about a certain event. in If an event is included withing a recent year article, then it gives that impression that its title to "relevance to world", is absolute and there is no room for debate. This is unlike most articles, where editors can use mainstream thought and scientific consensus. While these individuals(I hope), have the intentions of being objective, it is incredibly difficult to pinpoint what effects some events may have on the rest of the world. The inclusion of an event is executed as an absolute measure, however under the a criteria that is loose ended(world relevance).
It is particularly difficult to assign natural disasters the title "world relevant", because there are much too many elements to consider. There is no field of research that studies which disasters are the most significant, because significance in this case is much too subjective. Now granted, there are some disasters that are clearly indisputably world relevant(Tohoku eartquake), but for others, significance is much less clear. It is has been made clear through past discussions, that too many people are attached to certain major events/disasters, and can nearly always find reason for them to be included.
Factoring in all of this, there is reason to have at least some parameters for natural disasters. This is not to restrict certain information, rather the opposite. The vast majority of the time, proposals for natural disasters are shot down. Also we cannot trust that folks remain completely neutral in discussion. At least for natural disasters there should be some solid figure for inclusion.
(If we are truly to be objective, then would it be just to remove the the Haitian earthquake from the 2010 article? I mean, it has no world impact after all, so why should it be there?) -- Trilobite12 ( talk) 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
This guideline is not complying with a subsidary of (all hail) the Manual of Style, (all hail) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.
From WP:RY:
==Events==
===January===
===February===
===etc.===
==Predicted and scheduled events==
===March===
===April===
===etc.===
==Births==
===January===
===February===
===etc.===
==Deaths==
===January===
I have boldfaced what is not complying with.
From WP:OVERLINK:
An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value.ref Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article,
I have boldfaced what is not complying with.
I'd like to see this changed to follow with the (all hail) Manual of Style. – Plarem ( User talk contribs) 21:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen here regarding that application on these guidelines, specifically the guidelines regarding date linkage, to "sub-articles" that commence with the relevant year (such as, in the case in question, 2011 in the United States). It is claimed that as 2011 is the "parent article" of the article in question such article is also covered by these guidelines. I consider that if the date linkage guidelines, or any other part of these guidelines, were intended to apply to such articles, these guidelines would state so, which they do not. Accordingly, the general guidelines opposing such linkage (per MOS:UNLINKDATES and WP:UNLINKDATES) apply to the articles in question. In fact, most of the pages in the "Year in country" series do not link dates, and to apply date linkage to these pages (not to mention the numerous other topics listed in the topics box of each year), would, in my opinion, lead to thousands of articles containing a plethora of unnecessary links. Davshul ( talk) 11:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Can some one edit it to what years are recent? Some people might get confused. GuzzyG ( talk) 13:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)