![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
This arises from a discussion at Talk:2011#Computer games. It seems several users agree with me that having a section for computer and video games set in the year in question is silly, arbitrary, and completely inconsistent with the guidelines covering the other sections as there is nothing inherently internationally notable about what year a video game is set in. I therefore suggest that such sections be eliminated form RY articles. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Addendum The more I think about it the whole "in fiction" section has the same problem. Why do these items get a free pass to being mentioned here just because they specified a year that part or all of them are set in? I propose we eliminate such sections entirely. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This article tells me that Recent years articles should contain a section called "Major religious holidays". In 2010 and 2011 the section has become "Major holidays", i.e. no "religious". That seems to have allowed days like New Years Day and Chinese New Year to sneak in. I know the former isn't a religious holiday, and I don't think the latter is either. Any problems with me cleaning this up?
For anyone who thinks this discussion seems familiar, I did raise it, in a different way because I was unaware of this guideline, at Talk:2011#American usage of Holiday - Wrong for other readers. It would still be nice if we could take into account the fact that the word "holiday" is used very differently inside and outside the USA. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The vast majority of editing activity on Recent years articles is the innocent addition and correct removal of content which doesn't satisfy these guidelines.
THIS is the article containing the guidelines. They are not mentioned in the actual year articles. Hence the innocent addition of masses of inappropriate content. The editors making those additions are clearly unlikely to look here. Why don't we distil these guidelines to a simple sentence or two and, with a reference to this article, add that content to the beginning of every Recent year article?
The section that tends to disallow changes in government doesn't appear to explain why or give an example of what is correct and what is not. Could there be an additional sentence or two explaining why this is not allowed, since I am scratching my head as to why some very notable elections or leadership changes are not represented in the articles.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 19:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Not everyone is going to agree on what "significant" means. That's why we depend on consensus. The case for significance has to be made for each addition. I personally disagree strongly with Derby on Obama. That inauguration was of incredible international significance. News sources constantly talked about how he was the first black leader of a G8 nation. That is a big deal. Wrad ( talk) 21:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Doubtless. Wrad ( talk) 22:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This is getting a bit silly. The decision has to be made on a case by case basis. Slippery slope arguments are not appropriate, and neither are arguments that "x was included, so y should be too." Take it one at a time. The burden of proof for significance lies with the person who wants to add the info. Wrad ( talk) 01:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Before any edits are made, get all PMs / Presidents articles checked out. there is a list on the 2010 article talk page (1999-2010) of leaders elected etc. Talk:2010 that means adding nothing yet, without a full investigation to all leaders. -- MelbourneStar☆ ( talk) 01:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC) OK, but Obamas already back in, but thats probably the biggest no-brainer of them all.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 01:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasnt the one who suggested to review all elections. Until they are all reviewed, don't add them in. -- MelbourneStar☆ ( talk) 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll state again, Just incase you may of forgotten: "Don't add elections etc. If it comes under the investigation, until the investigation is finished" - Pres. Barack Obama, comes under that investigation. I don't know why you can't wait? At the end of the day i'll make sure that Barack Obama is mentioned there, even if it's the last thing I do. Please be patient. -- MelbourneStar☆ ( talk) 02:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh Trust me On this one Hilo48...I have read that 100 times. There are most definately many here who act as if they own the article. Though I do think you aswell as others may be a little over due, so maybe you should take a read of it. -- MelbourneStar☆ ( talk) 03:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment – "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country." The election of President Obama does not represent a significant change in the country and therefore should not be included in the recent year article. In addition, can we move the bickering to individual talk pages and focus on the issue at hand. The banter adds nothing to the original discussion and only serves to cloud the issue. My best to all. ttonyb ( talk) 05:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if you bothered to take a read of this discussion, you would know that there have been many different elections added that have rare this or first that... Actually maybe you should, as a suggestion, read the discussion (instead of being bold and presumtious)...then have your say. No, better yet read this: National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election). Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources...I may rush sometimes, but where does it bar out the usage...of well any election past or present? The use of the word "Usually" is an interesting word as a synonm for the word is "Sometimes". You dont need to change the policy, as it basically shows us that it does include rare this first that, because in some countries that is a significant change. Thank You.-- MelbourneStar☆ ( talk) 10:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Well that is your opinion. Mine still stands. -- MelbourneStar☆ ( talk) 11:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This is getting comical. I don't see what is unclear about any of my remarks, I am baffled as to why you think I should be blocked for them, and I was already tired of over-analyzing each of my remarks and feeling obligated to repeat and rephrase them. So, no I won't be doing any further analysis. As for your block threat, you seem either unwilling or unable to explain it so I am left with little choice but to ignore it until such time as you can clarify your reasoning. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I think including the dominical letter is a useful piece of information. I'm trying it on a small number of years (1999 through 2013) to let people see it as opposed to having to pass through to the particular year the calendar starts with to get it, i.e. you have to go to Common year starting on Friday to find its letter (C). If it doesn't work well it's a small change to reset. I'll see how it works. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) ( talk) 11:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to see if there can be a way to use template syntax to "compute" some of the information and thus basically standardize the first paragraph of a year.
I'm thinking it could be something like {{AutomaticYearHeader|2006}}. This name is intentionally badly chosen so I can get some feedback on what would be a good name; it may be because of what can or can't be done with templates that one for the previous century or millennia might be needed and a new one starting in 2000 would be needed.
With this template doing automatic calculation and text insertion you'd get something like:
** START OF EXAMPLE***
2006 (
MMVI) was a
Common year that
started on a Sunday (
dominical letter A) in the
Gregorian calendar. It was the 2006th year of the
Common Era or
Anno Domini designation, the 6th year of the
3rd millennium and of the
21st century, and the 7th of the
2000s decade.
2006 was designated the:
** END OF EXAMPLE**
It might have to have something to indicate if it has a designation. I'm open to what parameters it should have. Might have to do the 'starts on Sunday' and 'Dominical letter' items manually; be simpler to include them than to try to calculate them, and Zeller's Congruence (to get the day of the week for a specific date, e.g. January 1) is a hairy calculation.
This would allow all the year headers to have the same format and not miss anything. Some of this may not be calculatable. It would give an advantage that all pages using it would have consistent format and if something new is to be put on them it requires only one page - the template - be changed. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) ( talk) 11:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
2004 is a leap year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar.
Hi. My observation has been that major events in astronomy such as conjunctions and bright comet appearances are generally visible from a large area for multiple days and thus pass the basic three-continent rule by default especially when widespread news reporting on the event is available after it actually takes place. However some admins have recently been removing such events from the recent year pages under the rationale that they are not notable. Please see the discussions at User talk:HiLo48#2011 Quadrangle and User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ#2011 in astronomy and make further comments for discussion here. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I would actually personally prefer more astronomy entries to the plethora of years mentioned in computer games. To me the latter is mostly garbage. At least the astronomical events are real. But they do have to be described in language that almost all readers can deal with. I still don't know what a "quadrangle conjunction" is, and I'm a bit of an enthusiast. HiLo48 ( talk) 19:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears that infoboxes, such as the Other Calendars infobox, are not collapsible. This box takes up a lot of space in Recent Year articles, in fact it makes a real mess of the page. Should it be moved (down, left), removed or is there something else that can be done with it? Suggestions??? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 21:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This question has arisen several times in recent debates about adding various news items to RY articles. How about adding something like this to the inclusion criteria:
International notability is by itself not enough to establish international relevance. International relevance - i.e. the importance of an event to a country/nation other than the country/nation in which it occured is demonstrated by citing a reliable source from this second country or a non-involved one that recognizes the influence. However, predictions about the future turn of events are not sufficient to establish influence. The event can of course be added at a later time if it turns out that predictions were correct (again, supported by reliable sources).
Feel free to rewrite it if any part is unclear. — Yerpo Eh? 07:49, 21 April 2011 (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 think it would be fundamental to the navigation of recent years pages if we had an amalgamation of all the templates at the top (excluding WikiProject, in the media, etc. templates). My proposed template looks like this: {{ RY}}
My template encompasses some of the problems that the recent years pages have experienced -- such as, many editors requesting/adding events that occur on the "In The News" section on the main page. As well as, not quite knowing the inclusion criteria for RY, so, this new template should allow editors to familiarize themselves with the processes and criteria for RY. And of course, like the rest of the templates, this should be placed at the very top of talk page for higher visibility. Whenaxis about | talk 23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
{{RY}}
template when necessary. Whenaxis
about |
talk 00:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Just above, I see a statement that RY starts at 2002 or so. Has anything changed since then, such that 2nd millennium BC is now considered a recent year? [1] Franamax ( talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe to make RY articles more complete instead of just listing events, we can have a summary of major events in the introductory section of the article.
2011 saw a pivotal change to the World's government through the Arab Spring, as well, 2011 saw continued unmitigated environmental catastrophes such as the 9.1 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan. The continuing war on terrorism hit a turning point when it was announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed and the United States announced an end to the Iraq War. Socio-economic changes also occurred when the Occupy movement began with the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Whenaxis about | talk 23:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I was reverted once in the past for an edit similar to one I made today (today I modified the description of Wisława Szymborska, in her 2012 death entry, from "Polish Nobel poet" to "Polish poet and Nobel Prize laureate"), so I'm curious as to whether there might be a preferable phrasing for Nobel Prize winners' entries. Options (using Szymborska as an example) include "Polish Nobel poet" (this one, which I changed, sounds kind of sparse to me--comparable to something like "Oscar actor" or "Grammy singer"); "Polish Nobel Prize-winning poet" (sounds better, but in some cases could be ambiguous or misleading, e.g., a "Nobel Prize-winning author" who received the prize for peace rather than, as one might suspect, for literature/as an author), "Polish poet and Nobel laureate" (sounds comfortable to my ears but still uses "Nobel" as shorthand for "Nobel Prize"), or "Polish poet and Nobel Prize laureate" (my personal favourite so far, although maybe "Prize" should be left implicit, not unlike the omitted "award" in "Grammy winner" or the absent "statuete" in "Oscar winner"). Cosmic Latte ( talk) 22:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just noticed that much of the non-notable material previously deleted from this article, and prompting the creation of this project, has been added back in. Is anyone else interested in tidying it up, again? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 21:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a large number of future entries of the form
I don't think they should be there, for at least three reasons.
Any more comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
According to this page, the inclusion criteria for deaths is the same as for births — ten non-English Wikipedia articles. The inclusion criteria that's actually enforced at 2012 (and presumably other year articles) is slighty stricter — ten non-English Wikipedia articles at the time of death. I'm assuming there's a general consensus for this, and it strikes me as a sensible requirement, but it should really be made explicit on this page. DoctorKubla ( talk) 15:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It has been suggested that I bring the following comment and proposal here.
However, the linked page, " 20th century", indicates that this century started 1/1/1901. The page for the 1900s deals with this matter: "The period from 1900 to 1999, almost synonymous with the 20th century (1901–2000)".
Is the following amendment, to the second sentence acceptable, along with the equivalent for the other decades? "The second decade of the 20th century, however, started in 1911." Though perhaps a better alternative to this difficult issue would be simply to delete the confusing sentence. I have seen reference to a past consensus on this matter, but there is no citable evidence to support the opinion that the decades of the 1900s are the same as the decades of the 20th century. It is possible that the confusion here arose because some believe that the 20th century began 1/1/1900, I don't know? Rwood128 ( talk) 17:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It therefore appears that the consensus in fact agreed that the sentences like "It was the second decade of the 20th century" should be deleted, but that this wasn't done. I will wait a week or so before acting. Thanks for sorting things out. Rwood128 ( talk) 12:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Recent years pages are vacant of information that made these pages helpful. At some point these pages were purged of information making them almost unusable. Furthermore, it seems like few people are declaring ownership as to what qualifies as notable and removing entries as if they were vandalism. They make no attempt to try to mitigate the removal into a discussion on the respective talk page.
For instance the Syrian conflict/civil war isn't even mentioned once in 2012 and I think significant incidents in it more than deserve an entry. For instance the incident where Syria shot down a Turkish recon jet which changed the diplomatic relations between Turkey and Syria. There were several other incidents as well.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The article body format example includes a wikilinked section heading, Nobel Prizes. Is this intended? Doesn't that go against MOS:HEAD? – Wdchk ( talk) 12:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed a few—questionable—holidays in 2012 and 2013. I'm not sure Thanksgiving Day (US and Canada, separately) meets our criteria, and I'm not sure Pioneer Day (LDS) is notable in that religion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
There's another thing that's bothered me with the Holidays section for a while, and it's here in this thread. I doubt if Pioneer Day would meet the definition of a holiday in much of the English speaking world, where a holiday means prescribed time away from work or school. Day's like Ash Wednesday, Ramadan and Palm Sunday are not called holidays in my part of the world. HiLo48 ( talk) 09:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
So the question has been raised; - should the criteria of notability that have been set down in the guidelines apply to less recent years, or not. I would have thought that it should....right? Clearly, an event has to be notable on an international level for it to merit inclusion and there has to be a single consistent standard used. The reason I ask is that many of the earlier years have had the entire contents of the US specific article copied into the main article which creates a very disproportionate picture. The events typically, are the sort of thing mentioned on the main page, such as mild weather events, sports events, commemmorations, openings of schools/hospitals/theatres, minor political appointments, scandals and so on. So should that stuff be there, or should the guidelines here be extended to past years as well? Noodleki ( talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of this project when it was started in 2008 was to establish a set of criteria to limit the entries contained in year articles to those which were/are internationally and historically notable, the problem at that time being that they had been subject instant editing whereby anything and everything that happened, even of the most limited notability, was being added with NO regard to their importance/relevance. This applied most seriously to the more recent articles at that time (2006-08) but as wiki started in 2001 (very little had been added to 2001 before the end of the year) could equally be applied to all year articles from 2002 onward. In an ideal world it would be possible to bring the earlier articles (2002-2005) up to the standard applied to later year and then move the scope on every year with the expectation that the earlier articles wouldn't require much care to keep them in line. Unfortunately as can be seen by the current state of 2008 once the those interested in this project "move on" to later years articles can easily revert to their former state ( 2008 is now almost as bad as when I first started trying to clean it up!). So there appear to be 2 options for the scope of the project:
Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 05:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this needs revisiting, seeing as no consensus was reached previously and more and more "holidays" are being included/suggested. How about this for a criteria:
There should also be a separate article listing all (religious?) widely celebrated holidays (using whatever definitions seem appropriate).
Thoughts? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a specific guideline that applies to pages on those years? Can one add every event that happened in, say, 1921, given that it has an article about it on Wikipedia? Smtchahal ( talk) 06:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
We've just had a little exchange on a few recent year articles, with Easter Monday added as a religious holiday, then removed with the Edit summary "Easter Monday is not a religious holiday". Well, what is it? Our article Easter Monday tells us that it's a holiday in over 100 countries, and that it "is celebrated as a holiday in some largely Christian cultures, especially Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox cultures. Easter Monday in the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar is the second day of the octave of Easter Week and analogously in the Eastern Orthodox Church is the second day of Bright Week."
It's a holiday had because of the religious calendar. Looks like a religious holiday to me. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
As per the discussion above and at Rmv as per consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Easter I have removed the Holidays sections from the years 2006-2015 and from the Format section on the main page of this Project. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 20:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Every time there's a widely reported event, and somebody dares to express doubt of its significance on the year's talk page, he gets jumped by the recentist crowd who just clicked off CNN, and a handful of drama queens join the pack with their tune about ownership of recent year pages plus assorted conspiracy theories. Consequently, it's the emotions of (usually American) editors which enforce the final decision (i.e. if the event touches them, they come in greater numbers and are more persistent, creating a "consensus"). This, in my opinion, is a rather lousy criterion for creating lists of important events. So, disregarding my own sentiments about RY pages turning again into collections of trivia that will be utterly forgotten before the year is over, I propose extending criteria for inclusion of events to include a similar condition as the deaths section: coverage by dedicated articles in 9 other Wikipedias, excluding simple mentions in more general articles. To illustrate, both the recent Boston Marathon bombings and 2013 Savar building collapse would satisfy this criterion and get included, diffusing the pointless arguing and hopefully let everybody do more constructive things. Of course, post-hoc page creations would count, so an event could be included later. Opinions? — Yerpo Eh? 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to specify a timeline at WP:RY#Deaths: Perhaps, changing
to
The reason I want clarification is the matter of Abdul Fatah Younis in 2011#Deaths. At first, I thought that he didn't have an en.Wikipedia article at death, which would have made it difficult to determine whether he had 10 language Wikipedia articles. The date should be when the vast majority of conversion to Wikidata occurred. It's difficult to determine by hand whether a person had 10 Wikidata-language articles at death, requiring at least 5 clicks, but it is virtually impossible to find, before Wikidata, whether a person had 10 foreign language articles at death without having an en.Wikipedia article. Such people, according to the guidelines, probably should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel the guidelines for including people in the Deaths section prohibits people of notability from getting included because of the amount of non-English Wiki's they seem to have to need. Monty Oum was a well regarded animator whose work has achieved global attention. He was nominated for a Producers Guild of America award for his work, and his anime RWBY is now being dubbed for Japanese audiences, which is a feat in itself as normally anime get translated from Japanese. He's on 5 non-English wikis, which I feel is more than enough. Rusted AutoParts 21:54, 26 June 2015 (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 4 | Archive 5 |
This arises from a discussion at Talk:2011#Computer games. It seems several users agree with me that having a section for computer and video games set in the year in question is silly, arbitrary, and completely inconsistent with the guidelines covering the other sections as there is nothing inherently internationally notable about what year a video game is set in. I therefore suggest that such sections be eliminated form RY articles. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Addendum The more I think about it the whole "in fiction" section has the same problem. Why do these items get a free pass to being mentioned here just because they specified a year that part or all of them are set in? I propose we eliminate such sections entirely. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This article tells me that Recent years articles should contain a section called "Major religious holidays". In 2010 and 2011 the section has become "Major holidays", i.e. no "religious". That seems to have allowed days like New Years Day and Chinese New Year to sneak in. I know the former isn't a religious holiday, and I don't think the latter is either. Any problems with me cleaning this up?
For anyone who thinks this discussion seems familiar, I did raise it, in a different way because I was unaware of this guideline, at Talk:2011#American usage of Holiday - Wrong for other readers. It would still be nice if we could take into account the fact that the word "holiday" is used very differently inside and outside the USA. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The vast majority of editing activity on Recent years articles is the innocent addition and correct removal of content which doesn't satisfy these guidelines.
THIS is the article containing the guidelines. They are not mentioned in the actual year articles. Hence the innocent addition of masses of inappropriate content. The editors making those additions are clearly unlikely to look here. Why don't we distil these guidelines to a simple sentence or two and, with a reference to this article, add that content to the beginning of every Recent year article?
The section that tends to disallow changes in government doesn't appear to explain why or give an example of what is correct and what is not. Could there be an additional sentence or two explaining why this is not allowed, since I am scratching my head as to why some very notable elections or leadership changes are not represented in the articles.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 19:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Not everyone is going to agree on what "significant" means. That's why we depend on consensus. The case for significance has to be made for each addition. I personally disagree strongly with Derby on Obama. That inauguration was of incredible international significance. News sources constantly talked about how he was the first black leader of a G8 nation. That is a big deal. Wrad ( talk) 21:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Doubtless. Wrad ( talk) 22:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This is getting a bit silly. The decision has to be made on a case by case basis. Slippery slope arguments are not appropriate, and neither are arguments that "x was included, so y should be too." Take it one at a time. The burden of proof for significance lies with the person who wants to add the info. Wrad ( talk) 01:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Before any edits are made, get all PMs / Presidents articles checked out. there is a list on the 2010 article talk page (1999-2010) of leaders elected etc. Talk:2010 that means adding nothing yet, without a full investigation to all leaders. -- MelbourneStar☆ ( talk) 01:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC) OK, but Obamas already back in, but thats probably the biggest no-brainer of them all.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 01:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasnt the one who suggested to review all elections. Until they are all reviewed, don't add them in. -- MelbourneStar☆ ( talk) 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll state again, Just incase you may of forgotten: "Don't add elections etc. If it comes under the investigation, until the investigation is finished" - Pres. Barack Obama, comes under that investigation. I don't know why you can't wait? At the end of the day i'll make sure that Barack Obama is mentioned there, even if it's the last thing I do. Please be patient. -- MelbourneStar☆ ( talk) 02:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh Trust me On this one Hilo48...I have read that 100 times. There are most definately many here who act as if they own the article. Though I do think you aswell as others may be a little over due, so maybe you should take a read of it. -- MelbourneStar☆ ( talk) 03:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment – "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country." The election of President Obama does not represent a significant change in the country and therefore should not be included in the recent year article. In addition, can we move the bickering to individual talk pages and focus on the issue at hand. The banter adds nothing to the original discussion and only serves to cloud the issue. My best to all. ttonyb ( talk) 05:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if you bothered to take a read of this discussion, you would know that there have been many different elections added that have rare this or first that... Actually maybe you should, as a suggestion, read the discussion (instead of being bold and presumtious)...then have your say. No, better yet read this: National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election). Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources...I may rush sometimes, but where does it bar out the usage...of well any election past or present? The use of the word "Usually" is an interesting word as a synonm for the word is "Sometimes". You dont need to change the policy, as it basically shows us that it does include rare this first that, because in some countries that is a significant change. Thank You.-- MelbourneStar☆ ( talk) 10:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Well that is your opinion. Mine still stands. -- MelbourneStar☆ ( talk) 11:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This is getting comical. I don't see what is unclear about any of my remarks, I am baffled as to why you think I should be blocked for them, and I was already tired of over-analyzing each of my remarks and feeling obligated to repeat and rephrase them. So, no I won't be doing any further analysis. As for your block threat, you seem either unwilling or unable to explain it so I am left with little choice but to ignore it until such time as you can clarify your reasoning. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I think including the dominical letter is a useful piece of information. I'm trying it on a small number of years (1999 through 2013) to let people see it as opposed to having to pass through to the particular year the calendar starts with to get it, i.e. you have to go to Common year starting on Friday to find its letter (C). If it doesn't work well it's a small change to reset. I'll see how it works. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) ( talk) 11:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to see if there can be a way to use template syntax to "compute" some of the information and thus basically standardize the first paragraph of a year.
I'm thinking it could be something like {{AutomaticYearHeader|2006}}. This name is intentionally badly chosen so I can get some feedback on what would be a good name; it may be because of what can or can't be done with templates that one for the previous century or millennia might be needed and a new one starting in 2000 would be needed.
With this template doing automatic calculation and text insertion you'd get something like:
** START OF EXAMPLE***
2006 (
MMVI) was a
Common year that
started on a Sunday (
dominical letter A) in the
Gregorian calendar. It was the 2006th year of the
Common Era or
Anno Domini designation, the 6th year of the
3rd millennium and of the
21st century, and the 7th of the
2000s decade.
2006 was designated the:
** END OF EXAMPLE**
It might have to have something to indicate if it has a designation. I'm open to what parameters it should have. Might have to do the 'starts on Sunday' and 'Dominical letter' items manually; be simpler to include them than to try to calculate them, and Zeller's Congruence (to get the day of the week for a specific date, e.g. January 1) is a hairy calculation.
This would allow all the year headers to have the same format and not miss anything. Some of this may not be calculatable. It would give an advantage that all pages using it would have consistent format and if something new is to be put on them it requires only one page - the template - be changed. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) ( talk) 11:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
2004 is a leap year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar.
Hi. My observation has been that major events in astronomy such as conjunctions and bright comet appearances are generally visible from a large area for multiple days and thus pass the basic three-continent rule by default especially when widespread news reporting on the event is available after it actually takes place. However some admins have recently been removing such events from the recent year pages under the rationale that they are not notable. Please see the discussions at User talk:HiLo48#2011 Quadrangle and User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ#2011 in astronomy and make further comments for discussion here. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I would actually personally prefer more astronomy entries to the plethora of years mentioned in computer games. To me the latter is mostly garbage. At least the astronomical events are real. But they do have to be described in language that almost all readers can deal with. I still don't know what a "quadrangle conjunction" is, and I'm a bit of an enthusiast. HiLo48 ( talk) 19:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears that infoboxes, such as the Other Calendars infobox, are not collapsible. This box takes up a lot of space in Recent Year articles, in fact it makes a real mess of the page. Should it be moved (down, left), removed or is there something else that can be done with it? Suggestions??? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 21:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This question has arisen several times in recent debates about adding various news items to RY articles. How about adding something like this to the inclusion criteria:
International notability is by itself not enough to establish international relevance. International relevance - i.e. the importance of an event to a country/nation other than the country/nation in which it occured is demonstrated by citing a reliable source from this second country or a non-involved one that recognizes the influence. However, predictions about the future turn of events are not sufficient to establish influence. The event can of course be added at a later time if it turns out that predictions were correct (again, supported by reliable sources).
Feel free to rewrite it if any part is unclear. — Yerpo Eh? 07:49, 21 April 2011 (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 think it would be fundamental to the navigation of recent years pages if we had an amalgamation of all the templates at the top (excluding WikiProject, in the media, etc. templates). My proposed template looks like this: {{ RY}}
My template encompasses some of the problems that the recent years pages have experienced -- such as, many editors requesting/adding events that occur on the "In The News" section on the main page. As well as, not quite knowing the inclusion criteria for RY, so, this new template should allow editors to familiarize themselves with the processes and criteria for RY. And of course, like the rest of the templates, this should be placed at the very top of talk page for higher visibility. Whenaxis about | talk 23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
{{RY}}
template when necessary. Whenaxis
about |
talk 00:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Just above, I see a statement that RY starts at 2002 or so. Has anything changed since then, such that 2nd millennium BC is now considered a recent year? [1] Franamax ( talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe to make RY articles more complete instead of just listing events, we can have a summary of major events in the introductory section of the article.
2011 saw a pivotal change to the World's government through the Arab Spring, as well, 2011 saw continued unmitigated environmental catastrophes such as the 9.1 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan. The continuing war on terrorism hit a turning point when it was announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed and the United States announced an end to the Iraq War. Socio-economic changes also occurred when the Occupy movement began with the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Whenaxis about | talk 23:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I was reverted once in the past for an edit similar to one I made today (today I modified the description of Wisława Szymborska, in her 2012 death entry, from "Polish Nobel poet" to "Polish poet and Nobel Prize laureate"), so I'm curious as to whether there might be a preferable phrasing for Nobel Prize winners' entries. Options (using Szymborska as an example) include "Polish Nobel poet" (this one, which I changed, sounds kind of sparse to me--comparable to something like "Oscar actor" or "Grammy singer"); "Polish Nobel Prize-winning poet" (sounds better, but in some cases could be ambiguous or misleading, e.g., a "Nobel Prize-winning author" who received the prize for peace rather than, as one might suspect, for literature/as an author), "Polish poet and Nobel laureate" (sounds comfortable to my ears but still uses "Nobel" as shorthand for "Nobel Prize"), or "Polish poet and Nobel Prize laureate" (my personal favourite so far, although maybe "Prize" should be left implicit, not unlike the omitted "award" in "Grammy winner" or the absent "statuete" in "Oscar winner"). Cosmic Latte ( talk) 22:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just noticed that much of the non-notable material previously deleted from this article, and prompting the creation of this project, has been added back in. Is anyone else interested in tidying it up, again? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 21:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a large number of future entries of the form
I don't think they should be there, for at least three reasons.
Any more comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
According to this page, the inclusion criteria for deaths is the same as for births — ten non-English Wikipedia articles. The inclusion criteria that's actually enforced at 2012 (and presumably other year articles) is slighty stricter — ten non-English Wikipedia articles at the time of death. I'm assuming there's a general consensus for this, and it strikes me as a sensible requirement, but it should really be made explicit on this page. DoctorKubla ( talk) 15:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It has been suggested that I bring the following comment and proposal here.
However, the linked page, " 20th century", indicates that this century started 1/1/1901. The page for the 1900s deals with this matter: "The period from 1900 to 1999, almost synonymous with the 20th century (1901–2000)".
Is the following amendment, to the second sentence acceptable, along with the equivalent for the other decades? "The second decade of the 20th century, however, started in 1911." Though perhaps a better alternative to this difficult issue would be simply to delete the confusing sentence. I have seen reference to a past consensus on this matter, but there is no citable evidence to support the opinion that the decades of the 1900s are the same as the decades of the 20th century. It is possible that the confusion here arose because some believe that the 20th century began 1/1/1900, I don't know? Rwood128 ( talk) 17:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
It therefore appears that the consensus in fact agreed that the sentences like "It was the second decade of the 20th century" should be deleted, but that this wasn't done. I will wait a week or so before acting. Thanks for sorting things out. Rwood128 ( talk) 12:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Recent years pages are vacant of information that made these pages helpful. At some point these pages were purged of information making them almost unusable. Furthermore, it seems like few people are declaring ownership as to what qualifies as notable and removing entries as if they were vandalism. They make no attempt to try to mitigate the removal into a discussion on the respective talk page.
For instance the Syrian conflict/civil war isn't even mentioned once in 2012 and I think significant incidents in it more than deserve an entry. For instance the incident where Syria shot down a Turkish recon jet which changed the diplomatic relations between Turkey and Syria. There were several other incidents as well.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The article body format example includes a wikilinked section heading, Nobel Prizes. Is this intended? Doesn't that go against MOS:HEAD? – Wdchk ( talk) 12:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed a few—questionable—holidays in 2012 and 2013. I'm not sure Thanksgiving Day (US and Canada, separately) meets our criteria, and I'm not sure Pioneer Day (LDS) is notable in that religion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
There's another thing that's bothered me with the Holidays section for a while, and it's here in this thread. I doubt if Pioneer Day would meet the definition of a holiday in much of the English speaking world, where a holiday means prescribed time away from work or school. Day's like Ash Wednesday, Ramadan and Palm Sunday are not called holidays in my part of the world. HiLo48 ( talk) 09:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
So the question has been raised; - should the criteria of notability that have been set down in the guidelines apply to less recent years, or not. I would have thought that it should....right? Clearly, an event has to be notable on an international level for it to merit inclusion and there has to be a single consistent standard used. The reason I ask is that many of the earlier years have had the entire contents of the US specific article copied into the main article which creates a very disproportionate picture. The events typically, are the sort of thing mentioned on the main page, such as mild weather events, sports events, commemmorations, openings of schools/hospitals/theatres, minor political appointments, scandals and so on. So should that stuff be there, or should the guidelines here be extended to past years as well? Noodleki ( talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of this project when it was started in 2008 was to establish a set of criteria to limit the entries contained in year articles to those which were/are internationally and historically notable, the problem at that time being that they had been subject instant editing whereby anything and everything that happened, even of the most limited notability, was being added with NO regard to their importance/relevance. This applied most seriously to the more recent articles at that time (2006-08) but as wiki started in 2001 (very little had been added to 2001 before the end of the year) could equally be applied to all year articles from 2002 onward. In an ideal world it would be possible to bring the earlier articles (2002-2005) up to the standard applied to later year and then move the scope on every year with the expectation that the earlier articles wouldn't require much care to keep them in line. Unfortunately as can be seen by the current state of 2008 once the those interested in this project "move on" to later years articles can easily revert to their former state ( 2008 is now almost as bad as when I first started trying to clean it up!). So there appear to be 2 options for the scope of the project:
Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 05:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this needs revisiting, seeing as no consensus was reached previously and more and more "holidays" are being included/suggested. How about this for a criteria:
There should also be a separate article listing all (religious?) widely celebrated holidays (using whatever definitions seem appropriate).
Thoughts? DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there a specific guideline that applies to pages on those years? Can one add every event that happened in, say, 1921, given that it has an article about it on Wikipedia? Smtchahal ( talk) 06:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
We've just had a little exchange on a few recent year articles, with Easter Monday added as a religious holiday, then removed with the Edit summary "Easter Monday is not a religious holiday". Well, what is it? Our article Easter Monday tells us that it's a holiday in over 100 countries, and that it "is celebrated as a holiday in some largely Christian cultures, especially Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox cultures. Easter Monday in the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar is the second day of the octave of Easter Week and analogously in the Eastern Orthodox Church is the second day of Bright Week."
It's a holiday had because of the religious calendar. Looks like a religious holiday to me. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
As per the discussion above and at Rmv as per consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Easter I have removed the Holidays sections from the years 2006-2015 and from the Format section on the main page of this Project. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 20:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Every time there's a widely reported event, and somebody dares to express doubt of its significance on the year's talk page, he gets jumped by the recentist crowd who just clicked off CNN, and a handful of drama queens join the pack with their tune about ownership of recent year pages plus assorted conspiracy theories. Consequently, it's the emotions of (usually American) editors which enforce the final decision (i.e. if the event touches them, they come in greater numbers and are more persistent, creating a "consensus"). This, in my opinion, is a rather lousy criterion for creating lists of important events. So, disregarding my own sentiments about RY pages turning again into collections of trivia that will be utterly forgotten before the year is over, I propose extending criteria for inclusion of events to include a similar condition as the deaths section: coverage by dedicated articles in 9 other Wikipedias, excluding simple mentions in more general articles. To illustrate, both the recent Boston Marathon bombings and 2013 Savar building collapse would satisfy this criterion and get included, diffusing the pointless arguing and hopefully let everybody do more constructive things. Of course, post-hoc page creations would count, so an event could be included later. Opinions? — Yerpo Eh? 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to specify a timeline at WP:RY#Deaths: Perhaps, changing
to
The reason I want clarification is the matter of Abdul Fatah Younis in 2011#Deaths. At first, I thought that he didn't have an en.Wikipedia article at death, which would have made it difficult to determine whether he had 10 language Wikipedia articles. The date should be when the vast majority of conversion to Wikidata occurred. It's difficult to determine by hand whether a person had 10 Wikidata-language articles at death, requiring at least 5 clicks, but it is virtually impossible to find, before Wikidata, whether a person had 10 foreign language articles at death without having an en.Wikipedia article. Such people, according to the guidelines, probably should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel the guidelines for including people in the Deaths section prohibits people of notability from getting included because of the amount of non-English Wiki's they seem to have to need. Monty Oum was a well regarded animator whose work has achieved global attention. He was nominated for a Producers Guild of America award for his work, and his anime RWBY is now being dubbed for Japanese audiences, which is a feat in itself as normally anime get translated from Japanese. He's on 5 non-English wikis, which I feel is more than enough. Rusted AutoParts 21:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)