Wikipedia talk:WikiProject 2010s

Thank You

Hello. A few months ago I created several Formula One Esports Series pages. Soon, I had drifted from those projects. Now, I checked them, and I was shocked when I saw many changes. I want to thank all the people who helped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyD's234 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needing formatting help

I would like to ask if someone would be willing to help format the WikiProject page and help get a banner made for the WikiProject. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conglomerate Project

If my proposal WikiProject (WikiProject 2020s) gets accepted, can we possibly make WikiProject 21st Century (if there is a WikiProject 2000s)? 🌪CyclonicStormYutu🌪 (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Proposal probably won't get accepted, but the WikiProject 21st Century is a good idea. To be honest, this WikiProject was accepted more as a trail run for future decade WikiProjects, so we shouldn't propose any new ones for a while. Wait until at least 2022 to propose any new ones only because of this trial run one. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. 2020s is too close to Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events currently. Wait until at least 2023 (Better for 2024-25) before it should even be proposed again. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project page update

Hello, I just wanted to let everyone know there is now a userbox and barnstar available. I also added a light blueish-color layout to the page, and converted the "Scope" section as the lead because the lead was just too depressing; And I added an "Article alerts" section and now have the shortcut WP:2010s on display. Jerm (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Jerm! Elijahandskip (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of TC-Related articles

If you already couldn't tell by my username, I love TCs. We should probably assess more TC related articles ngl. 🌪CyclonicStormYutu🌪 (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

heheheh

Technically im the "first" person to join the project *joke btw* because I am the first user to use the template for users in the project. Just something funny for me to point out lol. 🌪CyclonicStormYutu🌪 (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on LGBT representation in children's television

I started a split discussion on the LGBT representation in children's television article, located at Talk:LGBT representation in children's television#Splitting proposal, proposing that parts of the "LGBT representation on Disney Channel" section about Disney animation be split out into another article titled "Disney and LGBT representation in animation". --Historyday01 (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for three episodes of Steven Universe

Recently, a user has nominated the articles The Answer (Steven Universe), Cry for Help (Steven Universe), and Mindful Education, claiming they are nominating it per WP:BRV, "especially in regards to off-wiki information between the creator of the article and Steven Universe, which I won't describe here but suffice to say could be considered a violation of WP:G5." I would like these discussions to get more attention, so they don't fall under the radar. To leave your comment, please go to:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindful Education

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cry for Help (Steven Universe)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Answer (Steven Universe)

These deletion discussions may be of interest to members of this project. Historyday01 (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name

This is a pretty odd (and nonstandard) name. Why not just Wikipedia:WikiProject 2010s? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Way more convenient. I'll ask other people if it is okay to move the page. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to ask if it's not controversial, just move the page. But WikiProject banners should be updated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm gonna move the project page now... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 20:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the 2010s

I am unclear about what articles fall into the scope of being related to the 2010s. Do you mean just the articles that discuss the 2010s as a decade, such as 2010s in political history, and if that is the case how does this project differ from WikiProject Years? This project would seem to be a complete overlap, and totally redundant, if that were the case. Or are you intending to capture every event, or other happening, occurring between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. Because if it is the latter, I can foresee you having a serious problem with being considered relevant by other editors. While assessing articles for quality and importance are admirable aims, how do you reconcile adding your WikiProject banner with WP:OVERBANNER, when other WikiProjects might be more relevant? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I would see it, capturing every event or happening would be impossible. The importance scale is relevant here:

Low importance for the WikiProject normally means the article isn't entirely based in the 2010s and isn't a major deal even outside of the 2010s. (Example is DLO Energy Resources Group (Pty) Ltd which was founded in 2011, but is a company continuing still today.) Mid importance for the WikiProject normally means it it wasn't a major deal, but probably was contained mostly inside the 2010s. Sporting events, battles, Natural disasters, and other one time events fall into this category. (Examples include: 2019 Bagram Airfield attack and Gymnastics at the 2018 Arctic Winter Games.) High importance for the WikiProject normally include major world events or other major events that happened in the 2010s or was still a major deal outside of the 2010s. (Examples include: COVID-19 pandemic, Notre-Dame de Paris fire, and most of the things listed on 2010s.) Top importance for the WikiProject only include massive events that were mostly contained inside the 2010s. (Examples include: Hurricane Sandy, 2011 Super Outbreak, War in Iraq (2013–2017), and Battle of Marawi.) Every article needs to be manually assessed, but hopefully this is a good guide to help with most articles."

Does that help? Or do you think it should be even narrower? Historyday01 (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: Unfortunately, using importance ratings doesn't really help. For example: the film Star Wars: The Force Awakens (released 2015) has been tagged as part of the WikiProject, while neither Star Wars: The Last Jedi (released 2017), nor Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (released 2019) have been tagged. All three articles are assessed as Good articles have a Top importance rating for WikiProject Star Wars yet WikiProject Film doesn't even use importance ratings. All these films would seem to be included as an article related to the 2010's and because they have a Top importance rating would seem to qualify. A number of other films have similarly been tagged by the same user, but without any importance assessment. An attempt to tag the article Splatoon (video game) with this WikiProject's banner was reverted within 5 minutes as being "... even less relevance ... than a 2010s portal link ..." Frankly, I tend to agree with that sentiment. I don't see individual events or even articles about individual years of event lists as being included in this WikiProject, although the latter would be covered by WikiProject Years. I think this WikiProject should be confined to articles like 2010s in film or top level articles about the individual years in the decade, such as articles about the years 2010 to 2019. However, it should not extend to the individual articles or events mentioned in those articles.

You rightly point out it would be impossible to capture every event or happening, and including every Wikipedia article about an event or happening in the decade, while not quite impossible, would certainly make for a very unwieldy WikiProject. So do not even try to include single events. I suggest a more limited inclusion criteria, only those articles that cover the whole decade on a particular topic, or at least whole years within the decade that cover the most significant matters of the year or decade. Articles about individual events or happenings should be excluded, unless the "event" spans the whole decade or a significant portion of it, such as the War in Iraq. The duration of any time period covered should be at least a year, and include at least one year in the decade. The COVID-19 pandemic would appear to be a borderline inclusion, that has its own WikiProject, so I do not see it as a something that is vital to be covered this project. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The WikiProject is and will be involved in thousands of articles." TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we not tag every single product, and particularly, every video game, that happened to be released between 2010 and 2020? Unless you can prove some sort of really strong relevance to considering it some sort of significant 2010 event, but frankly none of them have any sort of real temporal significance. This project has like 10 people signed onto it. Are you really going to work on improving the thousands of video games released in 2010s? This project, if it has any real relevance, should focus on improving historical events. -- ferret (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I was some sort of superhuman, yes. Also, I do agree that the scope should be more clearly defined. When I think of 2010s, I think of everything in that decade. But..... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

....I don't really see your point here. Sorry, the scope is really confusing and I have no idea how big a WikiProject is supposed to be :( TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then could kindly STOP adding the banner when opposition has been voiced, until such time the scope IS clearly defined? Edit warring on project banners is still edit warring, and still disruption. -- ferret (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay okay chill out (Redacted) I will stop tagging talk pages. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please do not harshly tell me to stop. (Redacted) TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Importance scale

The importance scale is quite confusing. I'm not sure why things that didn't fully take place in the 2010s are considered "low importance". I think we should rate based on how much that influenced the future (e.g. Letterpress (video game) (2012) would be low importance because it didn't really change the world.) Just spitballing here... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 20:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 MERS outbreak listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2012 MERS outbreak to be moved to MERS outbreak. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]