![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
The RfC passed. Further changes to this project include:
Sorry. It was pointed to at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#Numbers 1 to 100, and is at almost all of
Talk:AD 1; it appears the last 2 (at least) 2 previous RfCs weren't noticed here, and
1 (number) was then moved over
1 against consensus, but it's almost impossible to unwind. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
05:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
After a discussion in November, with at most 3 editors agreeing (I believe there were only 2 agreeing), 0s and 0s BC were removed from List of decades. Although articles are not generally controlled by projects, that article was created and maintained by this project for— well, decades—and this project should have been consulted before changes in meaning are made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
We aren't getting much fresh input at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Multi-part RFC on Wikipedia:Recent years. Any user with an interest in articles on years may want to comment there. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Just raised an issue at 2017 on why we link to the birth year in the deaths list as far as I can see it provides nothing to the reader about the individual at best you will find a mention of the individual as being born which just link you back to the year they died. Zero value to the reader. I was told it is done because it is mentioned here. Anybody explain what benefit it gives the reader in case I am missing something, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:List of territorial governors in the 21st century#Merge from on a merge proposal for the many list of territorial governors in the 21st century. tahc chat 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This might be the start of a massive editing project, but what do people feel about diffusing the categories in Category:Deaths by year and Category:Births by year? Currently, many of these categories are unwieldy, containing thousands of biographical entries. Diffusing the categories by death place or birth place would make these categories more navigable. We could start with continents and work our way down to countries. Falling Gravity 04:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I would like to propose merging Category:Future timelines and Category:Years in the future, although I'm not sure what the target category should be. The only difference that should be there is that the latter has Category:2018 through Category:2099. I don't have time to enter all the crosslinks now to nominate them. I'll probably get back to it in a few days, if nobody wants to deal with it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
2098 has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2098. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I give up. With the arbitrary move of the year 911 to 911 AD (later partially corrected to AD 911), do we still want to maintain the templates? If nothing happens here in a month, I'm going to propose DELETING the yearbox templates, as they will have incorrect links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
For some time, 20th century has started:
An IP6 has changed it to
(and some variants)
I propose
comments, anyone? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Years.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Years, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, please note a discussion is open at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_26#Category:February_1010_events regarding merging ~2000 older events by month to the associated events by year pages. Please see the CfD discussion for more information. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 15:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. The inclusion of " Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)" is debated at Talk:2017#Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul, where I invite you to join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
For 1999, there's like an entry for almost every other day. In 2013, it's only a few entries per month. What happened? 8.40.151.110 ( talk) 00:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC discussion on which event that occurred in May/June 2017 to include or exclude ( Talk:2017#RfC: Events in May and June 2017). Join in discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
There are WP:SEAOFBLUE problems generated by {{ Year article header}}. See Template talk:Year article header#WP:SEAOFBLUE ?. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Category:273 disestablishments in Africa and many similar categories have been nominated for possible upmerging. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Category:70th millennium BC has been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. -- Kendrick7 talk 08:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Events by month categories have been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. -- Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
An editor, in a attempt to keep the Olympic assignment announcement in 2017, added similar entries in 2005, 2009, and 2013. WP:RY has questionable authority at this point, but I wonder if the announcements were considered "events" in previous years. I can probably check using WP:AWB when I get home, but AWB doesn't work on Android phones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin while you are still an admin, and even then, as an editor who should comply with WP:NPA, I would suggest you refrain from ad hominem attacks, such as calling my edits to add further Olympic announcements as absurd. As explained to you several times, the announcements were already noted in at least three other year articles before I consistently and accurately added well-worded and properly sourced edits. These are global news events that our readers would expect to see noted in an overview of a year's events. I look forward to your striking your personal attack and apologising. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
An RFC has been opened about categorization of events by past or current country, see the link here. Feel free to join the discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Could an admin semi-protect Category:17th-century establishments in New York - an IP keeps changing it in a way that breaks all the links, I've already reverted twice.... Le Deluge ( talk) 22:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Years
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 20:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've been taking the lead at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome in cleaning up the List of Roman consuls over the past couple of years & I have spent a lot of time researching the details. (I say this by way of introduction, & to show I know something about the matter.) Earlier today I looked closely at how consular dating is included in some of the relevant year pages for the first time, & noticed that there are some issues that need to be addressed, or at least handled in a consistent manner.
I'll note here that one of the authorities I've used to get the details straight, Alice Cooley The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy (Cambridge: University Press, 2012) begins her own table of consuls with 298 BC on the basis that there is no evidence of consular dating before that year.
What I'm seeking here are two things. The first is some kind of consensus about the first three points. This may mean simply omitting the mention of the consuls for years prior to 366 BC, or another date; it may mean agreeing to mentioning only two of the chief magistrates for those years when more than one were present; or simply agreeing leaving those years as they are; or something entirely different.
The second is that I'd like to update the relevant sections of all of these years to the more common shorter form of each consul's name. I'd be following the secondary & contemporary primary sources at all points -- thus using the more familiar forms thus minimizing surprise. But since making such a sweeping change is always surprising, & often leads to complaints, I wanted to announce my intention ahead of time. (And if the overwhelming consensus is not to make this kind of change, I'm more than happy to find somewhere else to edit. I have over 100 biographies of Roman consuls to write.)
Thoughts? Responses? -- llywrch ( talk) 19:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_29#Years_in_the_Holy_Roman_Empire and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_3#Years_and_decades_in_medieval_Norway which may of interest to this project. Tim! ( talk) 18:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone thought about doing Years in the British Empire and Years in the Commonwealth of Nations?
Of course,the Years in The Gambia needs to have 2018 in The Gambia added. - ( 101.98.104.241 ( talk) 12:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC))
As WP:RY is dead, I'd like to discuss criteria for inclusion in year articles:
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/criteria in a few hours, once I get it set up. This should be open for all proposals, including those which any rational person could see is non-constructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Shyamsunder: I noticed you have been removing (dis)establishment categories from the history tree in several countries, for example in this edit. Why do you think it does not belong in history? Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to seek the view of this project members on whether you consider the Century and Decade related articles, e.g. 18th Century, 1990s etc as proper articles or lists? I recommended to add about 30 such articles as Level-4 Vital Articles under the Topic Adding History by Timeline here. But seems the prevailing view is that these are lists rather than articles and hence should not be considered vital. In my opinion listing these articles as vital articles would draw attention and enthusiam to this topics and help improve their content and importance wise they definitely qualify to be considered among the top 10,000 vital articles at Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Feel free to share your views here or in that page. Arman ( Talk) 14:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 08:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The article '216 BC' begins with the sentence "Year 216 BC was the year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar." This makes no sense to me or to a PhD in history who I asked. I suspect the same problem may exist on all the years BC? I noticed 217 said "a year"; either way it makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Category:Years in the French First Republic has been nominated for merging. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to discuss the usefulness of millennium categories here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Table_of_years_on_century_category_pages. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if this where I would submit this (1981 talk page has no sub link)
Under Jan 26 1981 on the 1981 page ( /info/en/?search=1981 )there's this entry:
January 26 - The Transmanian Times magazine features an 18-year old man named Joey Menning, who walked outside seeing 12 women died during the crisis by 26 serial killers who were later arrested by the police.
Outside of the fact it makes no sense...I can find no source/reference for "Transmanian Times" or "Joey Menning" in this context. I'm crying troll (and a not particularly funny one at that.)
Nefaereti77 ( talk) 13:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Nefaereti 8/24/18
See Template_talk:Infobox_country#Lost_categorization. Any help to re-add the removed categories is welcome. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I've come across a couple of obvious conflicting claims: Shark being fist to surface at the North Pole in '59, Seadragon in '60, & a claim for the first color TV in both 1953 & 1954. So, is anybody policing the claims made year against year? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
FYI. Discussion on deleting the year 1700 from List of years in philosophy here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1700_in_philosophy#1700_in_philosophy. Feel free to comment. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 20:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Should these "List of years in xxxx" articles go all the way back to the 1600s? Please comment at Talk:List of years in Bulgaria#Request for Comment. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 18:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:21st century#2100. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Please join this category discussion to remove the continent layer for years and decades categories in the High and Late Middle Ages: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Years_and_decades_in_continent_categories:_High_and_Late_Middle_Ages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, all. I've noticed some strange new categories that seem to duplicate existing ones.
I put them all up for CfD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_19. I think this project pertains to these categories and I would love some more input. Best, BenKuykendall ( talk) 08:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Some year articles have had a section entitled "New English words" added to them. These sections usually contain non-notable neologisms, in contrast with the rest of the page. I don't think the year articles are the right place for this information. Thoughts?
You can see some examples at 2016#New English words and 2015#New English words. Pinging SheriffIsInTown, who added the sections mostly on 4 May 2018. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
i think that 0s is starts january 1 and ends december 31 9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4426326a ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Garchomp2017 asserts that, for example, a person born in 1992 and died in 2008, can only have an image in 1992#Births if he has an image in 2018#Deaths. I see no reasonable justification based on policy, guidelines, or custon; nor any previous discussion here. I think it unreasonable. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Well I want Wikipedia to be balanced. Like yeah, some people can have their images here but if it takes too much room, then it just creates a bit of a problem and I could replace someone’s image for Miller in the 2018 article but I’m not completely sure if there was a discussion about it. Gar ( talk) 21:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see and participate in the discussion at Category talk:1900s establishments in Congress Poland. – Fayenatic London 20:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I was briefly confused by the "Year in fiction" categories, such as Category:1983 in fiction, until I brought up the category and saw it's intended to be used when the fiction is set during that year. Would it not be more intuitive to use Category:Fiction set in 1983, as is used in cases such as Category:Films set in 1983? The problem as I see it is that this would be a rather massive renaming/redirecting effort. I've opened some hefty CfRs myself, but I think this would be daunting to anyone. So I guess the questions are whether a) such a renaming effort is sensible, and b) how it could best be accomplished? DonIago ( talk) 14:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I have opened an MfD discussion for month/year subpages of Portal:Current events at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Current events/November 1994. Contributions to the discussion welcomed. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 23:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a big issue with almost all of the articles for individual years during the Roman era: all of them say "At the time, it was known as the Year of the Consulship of A and B (or, less frequently, year # Ab urbe condita)." This is highly Eurocentric and problematic for a global encyclopedia—only a small population of the globe would have referred to the dates in this way, and indeed many people within Rome's domain would not have known or cared who was consul during a given year. The consuls during that year should be moved to the relevant geographical section below ("Europe" or "Rome"), and the AUC date removed from the introductory text, as it is in the "In various calendars" box below.
Please arrange for this to be fixed as soon as possible. It is a big problem. 96.89.185.125 ( talk) 14:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I made a couple changes to the main year format, to match the way it seems to have been standardized. If I made a mistake, please discuss.
Also, is the real format here or at Wikipedia:Timeline standards? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Epoch (date reference)#RFC:Undiscussed page move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm usually not a super active editor but a month ago after noticing the detail with the lead section summaries (what went on worldwide in a few paragraphs) and summary sections (what went on specifically in Europe, Asia, etc. for a lot of paragraphs) of 1345, 1346, 1347 and 1929 and seeing that those pages have had those sections for a very long time, I figured that it was going along with the rules to have those exist but nobody's gotten around to making them for all the year pages. 1346 itself also had a Wikipedia:Good_articles certification. I decided to write a lead section summary in the header for 2001 before writing a more detailed summary section below later. I was undone for not having sources, fair enough; the previously-listed year pages don't have sources in their lead but they have summary sections where sources are available and I hadn't written that yet. I re-added the lead section summary, this time sourced, yesterday, and was planning to write a detailed section today, but I was undone because: "Don't need summary, the incidents are described in the "events" section. Please add references to the incidents there". Despite the fact that that's also the case with the 4 year pages previously listed. I read up on the manual of style for years and other things and from what I've seen there is no consensus on whether or not lead section summaries and summary sections should exist at all? In Wikipedia:Timeline standards, the "intro section" segment seems to say lead section summaries shouldn't be there, just simply describing where the year fits onto the timeline and any designations it has, so I'm wondering why, again, the previous 4 year pages haven't been edited. In 2015, User:Maestroso_simplo in Talk:1929 asked if that summary section should be removed but didn't get a response. I tried to see next if the summary sections were allowed, and Wikipedia:Timeline standards' "Sections" segment is completely blank. Oh my. Obviously, I would really like to edit 2001 and other year pages to make these improvements because a detailed summary can lead to a much greater understanding of what happened in a year than just a list of events that happened on singular days, but I'm just not sure what the rules and standards are. I'd be happy to work on Wikipedia:Timeline standards' rules for year pages myself but again, I'm not an active editor and I don't know Wikipedia well enough to know if I'm allowed to. — Battle Salmon (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I see the statement: "It has not yet been decided what else will be included on the year pages. Many currently have sections for awards, fiction, external links etc." I believe we long ago decided not to include fiction sections: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years/Archive_11#Fiction_2. Deb ( talk) 17:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought we have a quasi-consensus to remove the Year-in-topic navbox if the year is more than 10 years in the future. I'm having trouble implementing it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
So I think this is where I should point this out. I've been going through the year articles for my own project, and I've noticed in the births sections for years in the 20th century, someone has gone through and added a lot more people born between June 21 and July 21 or so. This is pretty much consistent throughout the century; that period has approximately three times more births included than any other year.
I haven't gone back through to remove less notable individuals, because:
1. Who am I to judge notability of an individual? I mean, I could make the calls and probably be right with a majority opinion in most instances, but at least in some cases, consensus would be needed. So I'm bringing it up here.
2. Who's to say that rather than remove people from the list, we shouldn't bring all of the births up to the same standard? What should the line be? There are omissions in the births, but everyone has their own biases about who should and should not be included. Again, consensus would be good here.
However, I do think that whatever the decision is, it should be consistent. There shouldn't be three times as many people in one month than any other month. Whether that means reducing births between June 21-July 21 or increasing everywhere else, or some of both is up for debate. And maybe the conclusion is to keep the status quo. But I'm bringing this to your attention because I think it ought to be addressed.
Thank you. Ryan Reeder ( talk) 06:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor has requested that {{subst:linked|Talk:911 (disambiguation)}} be moved to {{subst:#if:|{{subst:linked|{{{2}}}}}|another page}}{{subst:#switch: project |user | USER = . Since you had some involvement with 'Talk:911 (disambiguation)', you |#default = , which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You}} are invited to participate in [[{{subst:#if:|{{subst:#if:|#{{{section}}}|}}|{{subst:#if:|Talk:911 (disambiguation)#{{{section}}}|{{subst:TALKPAGENAME:Talk:911 (disambiguation)}}}}}}|the move discussion]]. not me but somebody else © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 19:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a tendency for annual or semiannual solar eclipses and semiannual (or more often) lunar eclipses to be considered significant events. I don't think it's appropriate, unless there is something particularly interesting about the eclipses. Perhaps in "year in science" (as we don't have "year in astronomy" pages), but not in the actual year articles.
I'll tag 1980 through 2100 (if 2100 is still up as an article, rather than a redirect). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. Has there ever been discussion on whether or not we should tag year articles that lack references as {{
unreferenced}}
? It seems to me that current practice is not to expect that each line in a year article has a reference for its inclusion. Instead it seems like we accept that year articles are interesting navigational aids and the material (i.e. date of birth, date of death, date of event) will be referenced at the linked article. I searched around a bit but can't find past discussion of this. There are currently
at least 600 year articles tagged as unreferenced. Not sure that those tags are doing any good. Thoughts?
Ajpolino (
talk)
22:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:999 (disambiguation)#Requested move 28 July 2019 for a discussion of interest to this project (in regard 999). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:404#Requested move 3 August 2019 for a discussion of interest to this project (in regard the year 404). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm hoping you can help, until recently, the results for snooker and pool events have lived at 2019 in sports. However, I recently did a split to 2019 in cue sports - Due to the ridiculous size of the main article.
As I've done the split, I'd like to see how good I can make the new article (and, if at all possible, WP:FL). However, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to manage the season's split. Pool and billiards don't really have a season, so they are fine, but the snooker season is overlapping (2018-19), as it does on all "X in sports" articles. I don't want to just include the events for 2019, as this would cut off results from the 2018 in sports article, and it does make more sense to have a full season on the article.
I'd also like to find out how I can make a lede suitible for FL, if this was possible. Does anyone have experience doing this for a sports article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment on the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC about articles on three digit numbers Wug· a·po·des 22:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:2000s is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:2000s until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 01:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
As there seem to be modifications as to where the article on the year nn is to be located, may I suggest we put together a {{ year}} template to be used wherever a link to the year is used, at least in year navigation templates. This is in addition to fixing the subtemplate at {{ drep}}. Possibly {{ year}} could call {{ drep}}, once we get it fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
Year article|911}}
. That, of course is the easy bit. If everything goes through {{
drep}} then we may be able to get away with replacing its repeated code {{#ifexpr:{{{1}}} > 0 and {{{1}}} <= 100 | AD {{{1}}} | {{{1}}} }}
by something more complex, ideally a call to {{Year article}} so we don't have to spam the same idiom all over the template. Other templates such as {{
Events by year for decade}} have logic to treat AD 1–10 specially by passing "a" for "Add AD" to drep, but they may not need further changes.
Certes (
talk)
15:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:Decades and years/yearlink also needs a patch. In January 2017
JFG radically
radically simplified that code thanks to the {{
dr}} template. {{
Drep}} makes the links, unless {{
dr-make}} passes in a parameter {{{3}}}
that overrides the {{
drep}} conversions – this code is repeated in {{
drep}} a dozen times: {{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{{3}}}|
– so there is a muddy boundary between {{
dr-make}} and {{
drep}}. Does this need to be so complex?
wbm1058 (
talk)
12:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears that in every instance that {{
dr-make}} passes a parameter {{{3}}}
, that parameter has text appended to the year, which makes the link unambiguous, such as "0s (decade)", "0s", "century" or "millennium". So there is no need to concern with these because only the bare number has potential ambiguity.
wbm1058 (
talk)
23:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Wugapodes has fixed {{ Drep}} so all years 1–1000 are addressed as "AD n". We still need to fix {{ Events by year for decade}} and {{ Births and deaths by year for decade}} because 910s and 990s try to transclude excerpts from the dabs. I hoped this was as simple as changing <=10 to <=100 throughout. This works for Events but not for Births and deaths, where something more subtle is needed. Please can someone help? I would look into it further but I'm about to go offline for a week so this isn't a good time for me to make a dodgy change to a widely used template. Certes ( talk) 18:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:1970s is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:1970s until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes ( talk) 18:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
{{ Births and deaths by year for decade}} now handles exceptionally titled articles such as AD 911 (see 910s#Births). Should we deploy the template more widely by adding it to articles such as 100s (decade) which currently have empty birth and death sections? Certes ( talk) 18:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm proposing merging 2090– 2099 into 2090s; probably years from 2040 on should be merged, and possibly 2030, but let's start at the far end. Discussion at Talk:2090s#Individual years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I happened to look at 990s BC, which to my surprised has Template:BC-year-stub at the bottom. A quick click revealed there are 255 year pages that have been rated as stubs in this era, & at least a thousand more year articles. Which leads to the question "How can a year article be a stub?" I raised some of the issues here, but I'm repeating this question here for more visibility. I suspect this is the product of some over-eager editor who wants to tag every article. So is there any reason to keep this template, let alone this & related categories? -- llywrch ( talk) 21:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated Upside down year article for speedy deletion under WP:A7 with the justification that this topic is not notable, and thus does not belong in an encyclopedia.
Additional problems with this article include:
I have also indicated the above on the article's Talk page. I am posting here because the Talk page indicates the article is of interest to your project. tsilb ( talk) 05:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Why are lists of events written in the present tense, in an encyclopedia, which is basically a historical account?
For example: in lists of events, I often see the items listed in the present tense:
instead of:
I think this has been addressed, but not recently. Can someone either please direct me to a recent discussion or perhaps we should revisit the issue? Thank you. — GoldRingChip 17:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
2020 is already being populated with domestic events without any international significance and maybe events that might happen, user has reverted my tidy up so I have had to resort to proposing deletion of the crap on the talk page. Other opinions welcome. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Almost all year articles use mdy, as does the "template" at WP:YEARS. Decade articles are a mixed bag. WildEric19 has been converting the lead of some decade articles to dmy; I've been reverting unless the body is mostly dmy. Should we attempt to standardize on mdy or dmy? If so, we would need to tag the decade articles, which I do not want to do without some agreement that it's a good idea to standardise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:Mousterian#Clean up era "succession" mess.
This started as a one-article issue report, but looking around I see that the problem is pretty common (in short: conflicting "preceding/following era" links in infoboxes, navboxes, leads, and article bodies).
It needs a site-wide solution (perhaps a cross-wikiproject guideline or at least a WP:PROJPAGE with some advice in it).
Yes, this is slightly off-topic for WikiProject Years, but I figure anyone focused on dates in Wikipedia is probably interested in this sort of thing.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
10:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I have created the following items to help this project.
etc etc
Articles:
just letting you know. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 03:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Problem: I'm in the wikipedia article the historian Ban Zhao, where it reads "45 – c. 116 CE" I have no idea what CE stands for, it is the first time CE is used, so I want to link to that and also make it easy to situate the era she lived in, so I want to link to that year 45 and 116. So how do I link to that? Just put every single word/number/abbreviation between square brackets? Can you add a link to how to do that in the article on Project Years? Thy -- SvenAERTS ( talk) 14:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.
we welcome your input. thanks!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 20:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion related to today's moves of decade articles such as 14th decade? Certes ( talk) 16:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
According to the " General Chronology article in the Catholic Encyclopedia anno Domini dating spread throughout Europe beginning in 1000 and finally came into general use in Spain in the mid-14th century. In mid-14th century Europe, the region where the notation was established, the institution effectively in charge of the notation was the Roman Catholic Church. So it stands to reason the Roman Catholic Church, and branches that have split off since the 14th century, are still in charge of it.
So if you want an authoritative statement about this notation, just get the Roman Catholic Church and all the protestant churches to issue a joint statement on whatever the point in question is. I do not recognize any other statement as authoritative. In particular, statements by Wikipedia editors or learned mathematicians are no more authoritative than popular usage.
Of course, since there is no authoritative statement on the question of notation for decades, Wikipedia is free to adopt any reasonable choice for it's own purposes, but there should be no statement in Wikipedia's voice that one choice is correct and the other reasonable choices are wrong. Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm proposing merging the year articles 20nm into 20n0s, for n = 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and m = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. I haven't set up the tags, yet, but, basically, most of the entries are not certain as to dates, and there is little to be said about them which cannot be automatically generated. As this isn't deletion, the existing entries can be recovered when it becomes appropriate to restore them. Arguments can be made against 2040s, but the rest of them seem rather thin, if solar eclipses are taken out, which seems to be recommended, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
There is an RfC on whether future Australian bushfire season article template start and end dates should use the official season or the beginning and end of significant fires. Please comment here -- Pete ( talk) 19:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
With more year articles being moved from their base names, many pages such as Category:142 establishments and Category:1000 disestablishments now link to disambiguation pages rather than years. Should we change {{ Estcat}} and {{ Discat}} to include AD when the year is <= 1000, rather than <= 100 as at present? That would fix the links but would have two other effects: the letters AD would display in the category description for years 101 to 1000, and links for years still at the base name would go through existing redirects such as AD 987. The change simply requires adding a 0 to two templates but I'd prefer not to make it without consensus.
I think that would leave only Category:1000 establishments in Asia and Category:1000 establishments in Europe in error, but they require a template editor to fiddle with {{ EstcatContinent/core}}. The similar templates {{ DisestcatContinent}}, {{ Disestcatbycontinent}}, {{ DisestcatCountry}} and {{ Disestcatbycountry}} seem to have no problematic uses. Certes ( talk) 16:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussions at
Template_talk:Year_article_header#Linking_to_Roman_numerals and
Template_talk:Year_article_header#Starting_on_(day_of_week). {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
00:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Could some editors experienced in these decade articles please have a look at 2040s and its Talk page. An enthusiastic new editor wants to add some interesting(?) new content which they have summarised as "2043 will see the close of 6000 years of human history, according to the count of years in the Hebrew Old Testament." I wasn't sure it belonged, and told them to wait for comments from others on the Talk page. In over three weeks, nobody else has commented. (Are the 2040s too far away?) We really need some thoughts of other editors. Thanks. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The pages 21st century and 2020 in politics and government still link to the disambiguation page 2084. To stop those two articles from being listed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, the Decades and years template should be modified so that it knows to link to AD 2084 rather than the disambiguation page. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, you are probably not aware that this project has a page for reviewing articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Review. I'm doing a little cleanup of peer review related spaces and have proposed this for deletion - see my reasoning at the discussion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Review. Please feel free to contribute. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:38, 19 June 2020 (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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
The RfC passed. Further changes to this project include:
Sorry. It was pointed to at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 11#Numbers 1 to 100, and is at almost all of
Talk:AD 1; it appears the last 2 (at least) 2 previous RfCs weren't noticed here, and
1 (number) was then moved over
1 against consensus, but it's almost impossible to unwind. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
05:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
After a discussion in November, with at most 3 editors agreeing (I believe there were only 2 agreeing), 0s and 0s BC were removed from List of decades. Although articles are not generally controlled by projects, that article was created and maintained by this project for— well, decades—and this project should have been consulted before changes in meaning are made. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
We aren't getting much fresh input at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Multi-part RFC on Wikipedia:Recent years. Any user with an interest in articles on years may want to comment there. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Just raised an issue at 2017 on why we link to the birth year in the deaths list as far as I can see it provides nothing to the reader about the individual at best you will find a mention of the individual as being born which just link you back to the year they died. Zero value to the reader. I was told it is done because it is mentioned here. Anybody explain what benefit it gives the reader in case I am missing something, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:List of territorial governors in the 21st century#Merge from on a merge proposal for the many list of territorial governors in the 21st century. tahc chat 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This might be the start of a massive editing project, but what do people feel about diffusing the categories in Category:Deaths by year and Category:Births by year? Currently, many of these categories are unwieldy, containing thousands of biographical entries. Diffusing the categories by death place or birth place would make these categories more navigable. We could start with continents and work our way down to countries. Falling Gravity 04:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I would like to propose merging Category:Future timelines and Category:Years in the future, although I'm not sure what the target category should be. The only difference that should be there is that the latter has Category:2018 through Category:2099. I don't have time to enter all the crosslinks now to nominate them. I'll probably get back to it in a few days, if nobody wants to deal with it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
2098 has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2098. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I give up. With the arbitrary move of the year 911 to 911 AD (later partially corrected to AD 911), do we still want to maintain the templates? If nothing happens here in a month, I'm going to propose DELETING the yearbox templates, as they will have incorrect links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
For some time, 20th century has started:
An IP6 has changed it to
(and some variants)
I propose
comments, anyone? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Years.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Years, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, please note a discussion is open at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_26#Category:February_1010_events regarding merging ~2000 older events by month to the associated events by year pages. Please see the CfD discussion for more information. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 15:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. The inclusion of " Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)" is debated at Talk:2017#Al-Nuri Mosque in Mosul, where I invite you to join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
For 1999, there's like an entry for almost every other day. In 2013, it's only a few entries per month. What happened? 8.40.151.110 ( talk) 00:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC discussion on which event that occurred in May/June 2017 to include or exclude ( Talk:2017#RfC: Events in May and June 2017). Join in discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 06:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
There are WP:SEAOFBLUE problems generated by {{ Year article header}}. See Template talk:Year article header#WP:SEAOFBLUE ?. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Category:273 disestablishments in Africa and many similar categories have been nominated for possible upmerging. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Category:70th millennium BC has been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. -- Kendrick7 talk 08:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Events by month categories have been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. -- Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
An editor, in a attempt to keep the Olympic assignment announcement in 2017, added similar entries in 2005, 2009, and 2013. WP:RY has questionable authority at this point, but I wonder if the announcements were considered "events" in previous years. I can probably check using WP:AWB when I get home, but AWB doesn't work on Android phones. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin while you are still an admin, and even then, as an editor who should comply with WP:NPA, I would suggest you refrain from ad hominem attacks, such as calling my edits to add further Olympic announcements as absurd. As explained to you several times, the announcements were already noted in at least three other year articles before I consistently and accurately added well-worded and properly sourced edits. These are global news events that our readers would expect to see noted in an overview of a year's events. I look forward to your striking your personal attack and apologising. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
An RFC has been opened about categorization of events by past or current country, see the link here. Feel free to join the discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Could an admin semi-protect Category:17th-century establishments in New York - an IP keeps changing it in a way that breaks all the links, I've already reverted twice.... Le Deluge ( talk) 22:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Years
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 20:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've been taking the lead at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome in cleaning up the List of Roman consuls over the past couple of years & I have spent a lot of time researching the details. (I say this by way of introduction, & to show I know something about the matter.) Earlier today I looked closely at how consular dating is included in some of the relevant year pages for the first time, & noticed that there are some issues that need to be addressed, or at least handled in a consistent manner.
I'll note here that one of the authorities I've used to get the details straight, Alice Cooley The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy (Cambridge: University Press, 2012) begins her own table of consuls with 298 BC on the basis that there is no evidence of consular dating before that year.
What I'm seeking here are two things. The first is some kind of consensus about the first three points. This may mean simply omitting the mention of the consuls for years prior to 366 BC, or another date; it may mean agreeing to mentioning only two of the chief magistrates for those years when more than one were present; or simply agreeing leaving those years as they are; or something entirely different.
The second is that I'd like to update the relevant sections of all of these years to the more common shorter form of each consul's name. I'd be following the secondary & contemporary primary sources at all points -- thus using the more familiar forms thus minimizing surprise. But since making such a sweeping change is always surprising, & often leads to complaints, I wanted to announce my intention ahead of time. (And if the overwhelming consensus is not to make this kind of change, I'm more than happy to find somewhere else to edit. I have over 100 biographies of Roman consuls to write.)
Thoughts? Responses? -- llywrch ( talk) 19:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_29#Years_in_the_Holy_Roman_Empire and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_3#Years_and_decades_in_medieval_Norway which may of interest to this project. Tim! ( talk) 18:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone thought about doing Years in the British Empire and Years in the Commonwealth of Nations?
Of course,the Years in The Gambia needs to have 2018 in The Gambia added. - ( 101.98.104.241 ( talk) 12:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC))
As WP:RY is dead, I'd like to discuss criteria for inclusion in year articles:
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/criteria in a few hours, once I get it set up. This should be open for all proposals, including those which any rational person could see is non-constructive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Shyamsunder: I noticed you have been removing (dis)establishment categories from the history tree in several countries, for example in this edit. Why do you think it does not belong in history? Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to seek the view of this project members on whether you consider the Century and Decade related articles, e.g. 18th Century, 1990s etc as proper articles or lists? I recommended to add about 30 such articles as Level-4 Vital Articles under the Topic Adding History by Timeline here. But seems the prevailing view is that these are lists rather than articles and hence should not be considered vital. In my opinion listing these articles as vital articles would draw attention and enthusiam to this topics and help improve their content and importance wise they definitely qualify to be considered among the top 10,000 vital articles at Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Feel free to share your views here or in that page. Arman ( Talk) 14:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 08:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The article '216 BC' begins with the sentence "Year 216 BC was the year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar." This makes no sense to me or to a PhD in history who I asked. I suspect the same problem may exist on all the years BC? I noticed 217 said "a year"; either way it makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Category:Years in the French First Republic has been nominated for merging. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Place Clichy ( talk) 14:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to discuss the usefulness of millennium categories here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Table_of_years_on_century_category_pages. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if this where I would submit this (1981 talk page has no sub link)
Under Jan 26 1981 on the 1981 page ( /info/en/?search=1981 )there's this entry:
January 26 - The Transmanian Times magazine features an 18-year old man named Joey Menning, who walked outside seeing 12 women died during the crisis by 26 serial killers who were later arrested by the police.
Outside of the fact it makes no sense...I can find no source/reference for "Transmanian Times" or "Joey Menning" in this context. I'm crying troll (and a not particularly funny one at that.)
Nefaereti77 ( talk) 13:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Nefaereti 8/24/18
See Template_talk:Infobox_country#Lost_categorization. Any help to re-add the removed categories is welcome. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I've come across a couple of obvious conflicting claims: Shark being fist to surface at the North Pole in '59, Seadragon in '60, & a claim for the first color TV in both 1953 & 1954. So, is anybody policing the claims made year against year? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
FYI. Discussion on deleting the year 1700 from List of years in philosophy here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1700_in_philosophy#1700_in_philosophy. Feel free to comment. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 20:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Should these "List of years in xxxx" articles go all the way back to the 1600s? Please comment at Talk:List of years in Bulgaria#Request for Comment. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 18:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:21st century#2100. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Please join this category discussion to remove the continent layer for years and decades categories in the High and Late Middle Ages: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Years_and_decades_in_continent_categories:_High_and_Late_Middle_Ages. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, all. I've noticed some strange new categories that seem to duplicate existing ones.
I put them all up for CfD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_19. I think this project pertains to these categories and I would love some more input. Best, BenKuykendall ( talk) 08:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Some year articles have had a section entitled "New English words" added to them. These sections usually contain non-notable neologisms, in contrast with the rest of the page. I don't think the year articles are the right place for this information. Thoughts?
You can see some examples at 2016#New English words and 2015#New English words. Pinging SheriffIsInTown, who added the sections mostly on 4 May 2018. Enterprisey ( talk!) 06:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
i think that 0s is starts january 1 and ends december 31 9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4426326a ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Garchomp2017 asserts that, for example, a person born in 1992 and died in 2008, can only have an image in 1992#Births if he has an image in 2018#Deaths. I see no reasonable justification based on policy, guidelines, or custon; nor any previous discussion here. I think it unreasonable. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Well I want Wikipedia to be balanced. Like yeah, some people can have their images here but if it takes too much room, then it just creates a bit of a problem and I could replace someone’s image for Miller in the 2018 article but I’m not completely sure if there was a discussion about it. Gar ( talk) 21:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Please see and participate in the discussion at Category talk:1900s establishments in Congress Poland. – Fayenatic London 20:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I was briefly confused by the "Year in fiction" categories, such as Category:1983 in fiction, until I brought up the category and saw it's intended to be used when the fiction is set during that year. Would it not be more intuitive to use Category:Fiction set in 1983, as is used in cases such as Category:Films set in 1983? The problem as I see it is that this would be a rather massive renaming/redirecting effort. I've opened some hefty CfRs myself, but I think this would be daunting to anyone. So I guess the questions are whether a) such a renaming effort is sensible, and b) how it could best be accomplished? DonIago ( talk) 14:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I have opened an MfD discussion for month/year subpages of Portal:Current events at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Current events/November 1994. Contributions to the discussion welcomed. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 23:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a big issue with almost all of the articles for individual years during the Roman era: all of them say "At the time, it was known as the Year of the Consulship of A and B (or, less frequently, year # Ab urbe condita)." This is highly Eurocentric and problematic for a global encyclopedia—only a small population of the globe would have referred to the dates in this way, and indeed many people within Rome's domain would not have known or cared who was consul during a given year. The consuls during that year should be moved to the relevant geographical section below ("Europe" or "Rome"), and the AUC date removed from the introductory text, as it is in the "In various calendars" box below.
Please arrange for this to be fixed as soon as possible. It is a big problem. 96.89.185.125 ( talk) 14:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I made a couple changes to the main year format, to match the way it seems to have been standardized. If I made a mistake, please discuss.
Also, is the real format here or at Wikipedia:Timeline standards? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Epoch (date reference)#RFC:Undiscussed page move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm usually not a super active editor but a month ago after noticing the detail with the lead section summaries (what went on worldwide in a few paragraphs) and summary sections (what went on specifically in Europe, Asia, etc. for a lot of paragraphs) of 1345, 1346, 1347 and 1929 and seeing that those pages have had those sections for a very long time, I figured that it was going along with the rules to have those exist but nobody's gotten around to making them for all the year pages. 1346 itself also had a Wikipedia:Good_articles certification. I decided to write a lead section summary in the header for 2001 before writing a more detailed summary section below later. I was undone for not having sources, fair enough; the previously-listed year pages don't have sources in their lead but they have summary sections where sources are available and I hadn't written that yet. I re-added the lead section summary, this time sourced, yesterday, and was planning to write a detailed section today, but I was undone because: "Don't need summary, the incidents are described in the "events" section. Please add references to the incidents there". Despite the fact that that's also the case with the 4 year pages previously listed. I read up on the manual of style for years and other things and from what I've seen there is no consensus on whether or not lead section summaries and summary sections should exist at all? In Wikipedia:Timeline standards, the "intro section" segment seems to say lead section summaries shouldn't be there, just simply describing where the year fits onto the timeline and any designations it has, so I'm wondering why, again, the previous 4 year pages haven't been edited. In 2015, User:Maestroso_simplo in Talk:1929 asked if that summary section should be removed but didn't get a response. I tried to see next if the summary sections were allowed, and Wikipedia:Timeline standards' "Sections" segment is completely blank. Oh my. Obviously, I would really like to edit 2001 and other year pages to make these improvements because a detailed summary can lead to a much greater understanding of what happened in a year than just a list of events that happened on singular days, but I'm just not sure what the rules and standards are. I'd be happy to work on Wikipedia:Timeline standards' rules for year pages myself but again, I'm not an active editor and I don't know Wikipedia well enough to know if I'm allowed to. — Battle Salmon (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I see the statement: "It has not yet been decided what else will be included on the year pages. Many currently have sections for awards, fiction, external links etc." I believe we long ago decided not to include fiction sections: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years/Archive_11#Fiction_2. Deb ( talk) 17:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought we have a quasi-consensus to remove the Year-in-topic navbox if the year is more than 10 years in the future. I'm having trouble implementing it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
So I think this is where I should point this out. I've been going through the year articles for my own project, and I've noticed in the births sections for years in the 20th century, someone has gone through and added a lot more people born between June 21 and July 21 or so. This is pretty much consistent throughout the century; that period has approximately three times more births included than any other year.
I haven't gone back through to remove less notable individuals, because:
1. Who am I to judge notability of an individual? I mean, I could make the calls and probably be right with a majority opinion in most instances, but at least in some cases, consensus would be needed. So I'm bringing it up here.
2. Who's to say that rather than remove people from the list, we shouldn't bring all of the births up to the same standard? What should the line be? There are omissions in the births, but everyone has their own biases about who should and should not be included. Again, consensus would be good here.
However, I do think that whatever the decision is, it should be consistent. There shouldn't be three times as many people in one month than any other month. Whether that means reducing births between June 21-July 21 or increasing everywhere else, or some of both is up for debate. And maybe the conclusion is to keep the status quo. But I'm bringing this to your attention because I think it ought to be addressed.
Thank you. Ryan Reeder ( talk) 06:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor has requested that {{subst:linked|Talk:911 (disambiguation)}} be moved to {{subst:#if:|{{subst:linked|{{{2}}}}}|another page}}{{subst:#switch: project |user | USER = . Since you had some involvement with 'Talk:911 (disambiguation)', you |#default = , which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You}} are invited to participate in [[{{subst:#if:|{{subst:#if:|#{{{section}}}|}}|{{subst:#if:|Talk:911 (disambiguation)#{{{section}}}|{{subst:TALKPAGENAME:Talk:911 (disambiguation)}}}}}}|the move discussion]]. not me but somebody else © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 19:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a tendency for annual or semiannual solar eclipses and semiannual (or more often) lunar eclipses to be considered significant events. I don't think it's appropriate, unless there is something particularly interesting about the eclipses. Perhaps in "year in science" (as we don't have "year in astronomy" pages), but not in the actual year articles.
I'll tag 1980 through 2100 (if 2100 is still up as an article, rather than a redirect). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. Has there ever been discussion on whether or not we should tag year articles that lack references as {{
unreferenced}}
? It seems to me that current practice is not to expect that each line in a year article has a reference for its inclusion. Instead it seems like we accept that year articles are interesting navigational aids and the material (i.e. date of birth, date of death, date of event) will be referenced at the linked article. I searched around a bit but can't find past discussion of this. There are currently
at least 600 year articles tagged as unreferenced. Not sure that those tags are doing any good. Thoughts?
Ajpolino (
talk)
22:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:999 (disambiguation)#Requested move 28 July 2019 for a discussion of interest to this project (in regard 999). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:404#Requested move 3 August 2019 for a discussion of interest to this project (in regard the year 404). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm hoping you can help, until recently, the results for snooker and pool events have lived at 2019 in sports. However, I recently did a split to 2019 in cue sports - Due to the ridiculous size of the main article.
As I've done the split, I'd like to see how good I can make the new article (and, if at all possible, WP:FL). However, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to manage the season's split. Pool and billiards don't really have a season, so they are fine, but the snooker season is overlapping (2018-19), as it does on all "X in sports" articles. I don't want to just include the events for 2019, as this would cut off results from the 2018 in sports article, and it does make more sense to have a full season on the article.
I'd also like to find out how I can make a lede suitible for FL, if this was possible. Does anyone have experience doing this for a sports article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Editors are invited to comment on the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC about articles on three digit numbers Wug· a·po·des 22:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:2000s is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:2000s until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 01:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
As there seem to be modifications as to where the article on the year nn is to be located, may I suggest we put together a {{ year}} template to be used wherever a link to the year is used, at least in year navigation templates. This is in addition to fixing the subtemplate at {{ drep}}. Possibly {{ year}} could call {{ drep}}, once we get it fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
Year article|911}}
. That, of course is the easy bit. If everything goes through {{
drep}} then we may be able to get away with replacing its repeated code {{#ifexpr:{{{1}}} > 0 and {{{1}}} <= 100 | AD {{{1}}} | {{{1}}} }}
by something more complex, ideally a call to {{Year article}} so we don't have to spam the same idiom all over the template. Other templates such as {{
Events by year for decade}} have logic to treat AD 1–10 specially by passing "a" for "Add AD" to drep, but they may not need further changes.
Certes (
talk)
15:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Template:Decades and years/yearlink also needs a patch. In January 2017
JFG radically
radically simplified that code thanks to the {{
dr}} template. {{
Drep}} makes the links, unless {{
dr-make}} passes in a parameter {{{3}}}
that overrides the {{
drep}} conversions – this code is repeated in {{
drep}} a dozen times: {{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{{3}}}|
– so there is a muddy boundary between {{
dr-make}} and {{
drep}}. Does this need to be so complex?
wbm1058 (
talk)
12:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears that in every instance that {{
dr-make}} passes a parameter {{{3}}}
, that parameter has text appended to the year, which makes the link unambiguous, such as "0s (decade)", "0s", "century" or "millennium". So there is no need to concern with these because only the bare number has potential ambiguity.
wbm1058 (
talk)
23:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Wugapodes has fixed {{ Drep}} so all years 1–1000 are addressed as "AD n". We still need to fix {{ Events by year for decade}} and {{ Births and deaths by year for decade}} because 910s and 990s try to transclude excerpts from the dabs. I hoped this was as simple as changing <=10 to <=100 throughout. This works for Events but not for Births and deaths, where something more subtle is needed. Please can someone help? I would look into it further but I'm about to go offline for a week so this isn't a good time for me to make a dodgy change to a widely used template. Certes ( talk) 18:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:1970s is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:1970s until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes ( talk) 18:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
{{ Births and deaths by year for decade}} now handles exceptionally titled articles such as AD 911 (see 910s#Births). Should we deploy the template more widely by adding it to articles such as 100s (decade) which currently have empty birth and death sections? Certes ( talk) 18:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm proposing merging 2090– 2099 into 2090s; probably years from 2040 on should be merged, and possibly 2030, but let's start at the far end. Discussion at Talk:2090s#Individual years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I happened to look at 990s BC, which to my surprised has Template:BC-year-stub at the bottom. A quick click revealed there are 255 year pages that have been rated as stubs in this era, & at least a thousand more year articles. Which leads to the question "How can a year article be a stub?" I raised some of the issues here, but I'm repeating this question here for more visibility. I suspect this is the product of some over-eager editor who wants to tag every article. So is there any reason to keep this template, let alone this & related categories? -- llywrch ( talk) 21:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated Upside down year article for speedy deletion under WP:A7 with the justification that this topic is not notable, and thus does not belong in an encyclopedia.
Additional problems with this article include:
I have also indicated the above on the article's Talk page. I am posting here because the Talk page indicates the article is of interest to your project. tsilb ( talk) 05:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Why are lists of events written in the present tense, in an encyclopedia, which is basically a historical account?
For example: in lists of events, I often see the items listed in the present tense:
instead of:
I think this has been addressed, but not recently. Can someone either please direct me to a recent discussion or perhaps we should revisit the issue? Thank you. — GoldRingChip 17:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
2020 is already being populated with domestic events without any international significance and maybe events that might happen, user has reverted my tidy up so I have had to resort to proposing deletion of the crap on the talk page. Other opinions welcome. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Almost all year articles use mdy, as does the "template" at WP:YEARS. Decade articles are a mixed bag. WildEric19 has been converting the lead of some decade articles to dmy; I've been reverting unless the body is mostly dmy. Should we attempt to standardize on mdy or dmy? If so, we would need to tag the decade articles, which I do not want to do without some agreement that it's a good idea to standardise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:Mousterian#Clean up era "succession" mess.
This started as a one-article issue report, but looking around I see that the problem is pretty common (in short: conflicting "preceding/following era" links in infoboxes, navboxes, leads, and article bodies).
It needs a site-wide solution (perhaps a cross-wikiproject guideline or at least a WP:PROJPAGE with some advice in it).
Yes, this is slightly off-topic for WikiProject Years, but I figure anyone focused on dates in Wikipedia is probably interested in this sort of thing.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
10:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I have created the following items to help this project.
etc etc
Articles:
just letting you know. thanks. -- Sm8900 ( talk) 03:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Problem: I'm in the wikipedia article the historian Ban Zhao, where it reads "45 – c. 116 CE" I have no idea what CE stands for, it is the first time CE is used, so I want to link to that and also make it easy to situate the era she lived in, so I want to link to that year 45 and 116. So how do I link to that? Just put every single word/number/abbreviation between square brackets? Can you add a link to how to do that in the article on Project Years? Thy -- SvenAERTS ( talk) 14:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I am the new coordinator for WikiProject History. we need people there!! right now the project seems to be semi-inactive. I am going to various WikiProjects whose topics overlap with ours, to request volunteers.
we welcome your input. thanks!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 20:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion related to today's moves of decade articles such as 14th decade? Certes ( talk) 16:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
According to the " General Chronology article in the Catholic Encyclopedia anno Domini dating spread throughout Europe beginning in 1000 and finally came into general use in Spain in the mid-14th century. In mid-14th century Europe, the region where the notation was established, the institution effectively in charge of the notation was the Roman Catholic Church. So it stands to reason the Roman Catholic Church, and branches that have split off since the 14th century, are still in charge of it.
So if you want an authoritative statement about this notation, just get the Roman Catholic Church and all the protestant churches to issue a joint statement on whatever the point in question is. I do not recognize any other statement as authoritative. In particular, statements by Wikipedia editors or learned mathematicians are no more authoritative than popular usage.
Of course, since there is no authoritative statement on the question of notation for decades, Wikipedia is free to adopt any reasonable choice for it's own purposes, but there should be no statement in Wikipedia's voice that one choice is correct and the other reasonable choices are wrong. Jc3s5h ( talk) 19:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm proposing merging the year articles 20nm into 20n0s, for n = 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and m = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. I haven't set up the tags, yet, but, basically, most of the entries are not certain as to dates, and there is little to be said about them which cannot be automatically generated. As this isn't deletion, the existing entries can be recovered when it becomes appropriate to restore them. Arguments can be made against 2040s, but the rest of them seem rather thin, if solar eclipses are taken out, which seems to be recommended, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
There is an RfC on whether future Australian bushfire season article template start and end dates should use the official season or the beginning and end of significant fires. Please comment here -- Pete ( talk) 19:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
With more year articles being moved from their base names, many pages such as Category:142 establishments and Category:1000 disestablishments now link to disambiguation pages rather than years. Should we change {{ Estcat}} and {{ Discat}} to include AD when the year is <= 1000, rather than <= 100 as at present? That would fix the links but would have two other effects: the letters AD would display in the category description for years 101 to 1000, and links for years still at the base name would go through existing redirects such as AD 987. The change simply requires adding a 0 to two templates but I'd prefer not to make it without consensus.
I think that would leave only Category:1000 establishments in Asia and Category:1000 establishments in Europe in error, but they require a template editor to fiddle with {{ EstcatContinent/core}}. The similar templates {{ DisestcatContinent}}, {{ Disestcatbycontinent}}, {{ DisestcatCountry}} and {{ Disestcatbycountry}} seem to have no problematic uses. Certes ( talk) 16:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussions at
Template_talk:Year_article_header#Linking_to_Roman_numerals and
Template_talk:Year_article_header#Starting_on_(day_of_week). {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
00:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Could some editors experienced in these decade articles please have a look at 2040s and its Talk page. An enthusiastic new editor wants to add some interesting(?) new content which they have summarised as "2043 will see the close of 6000 years of human history, according to the count of years in the Hebrew Old Testament." I wasn't sure it belonged, and told them to wait for comments from others on the Talk page. In over three weeks, nobody else has commented. (Are the 2040s too far away?) We really need some thoughts of other editors. Thanks. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The pages 21st century and 2020 in politics and government still link to the disambiguation page 2084. To stop those two articles from being listed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, the Decades and years template should be modified so that it knows to link to AD 2084 rather than the disambiguation page. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 20:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, you are probably not aware that this project has a page for reviewing articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Review. I'm doing a little cleanup of peer review related spaces and have proposed this for deletion - see my reasoning at the discussion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Review. Please feel free to contribute. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)