Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

1 to 100, continued

The RfC passed. Further changes to this project include:

  1. Changing the titling convention.
  2. Changing all specific instances of [[year]] to {{drep|year||y}} (at least for those which are potentially in the range AD 1–100. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
When you talk about "the RfC" please include at least one link to it. I don't recall where it was, the one time I saw it. Thank you.
Also, how did it every pass with "AD 100" over against "100 AD"? tahc chat 01:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

To rephrase, there appears to be consensus that the number article should eventually arrive at 1, but no consensus that it should be done now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

0s and 0s BC in List of decades

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)

If it really is the case that this project should have been consulted, that is probably something that should be clearly stated on the talk pages of those articles. Such a requirement sounds somewhat dubious to me though.
Regarding whether to include 0s and 0s BC in that list, the main problem is that those time periods are unambiguously not decades. Indirectly claiming that they are decades is both wrong and unsupported by reliable sources.Andreaseksted (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest

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)

Year of birth linked in deaths list

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)

Talk:List of territorial governors in the 21st century#Merge from

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)

Diffusing year categories for births and deaths

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. FallingGravity 04:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Since no one seems to be here I'm copying this to WP:Proposals. FallingGravity 04:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"Future timelines" and "Years in the future"

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)

Still haven't gotten around to it. — Arthuur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
bump — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Future Timelines looks redundant. Apart from the issue of WP:CRYSTAL, the vast majority of distant future years/decades/millennia seem to be full of nothing but astronomical events which would fail the notability test for a current or recent year, which, if removed, would make a lot of empty articles. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

2098

2098 has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2098. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that this requires rewriting {{dr-make}}, which I didn't bring up at AfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

911

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)

Lead in century articles

For some time, 20th century has started:

The 20th century was a century which began....

An IP6 has changed it to

The 20th century, which began...

(and some variants)

I propose

The 20th century was a century which began....

comments, anyone? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Your proposition sounds like the best option. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:03, 16 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:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

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)

CfD Notice - Merging old events by month to events by year

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)

Inclusion of "Great Mosque of al-Nuri (Mosul)" in 2017 under discussion

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)

Why do some recent years (e.g. 1999) have a lot more entries than others, e.g. 2013?

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)

2013 is covered by WP:Recent Years which has a stricter set of criteria than WP:YEARS. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC discussion on May/June events at Talk:2017

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)

WP:SEAOFBLUE at year articles

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)

Categories of ancient periods (up to 500 CE) by continent have been nominated for discussion

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 discussion

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. -- Kendrick7talk 08:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Events by month categories have been nominated for discussion

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)

Olympic site announcements

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)

Not an attempt, just fixing an oversight. ITN even has this global announcement as a recurring event meaning it gets posted (to the main page!) as long as the quality of the article is sufficient. Given the global coverage and global significance, it seems quite straightforward that it should be included. As for using AWB to check for its presence, it's not that hard. Just Google "2008 Beijing announcement", see when it happened, and look in that year's article. It's probably not there because the further back in RY time you go, the worse the articles get. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
How about adding the winter Olympic announcements, then. I still don't think they belong, but you might as well be consistent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, feel free to do that if you feel technically capable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Announcements are rarely significant events in and of themselves. The event itself is significant, sure, but the announcement of the location? What does that add? Year articles list the most important events of that year, and, barring anything out of the ordinary, routine announcements about future events are irrelevant. -- irn (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to get in another edit war the TRM, even though he is temporarily blocked, and even if there were a clear consensus against his edits. If someone else wants to revert his absurd edits adding announcements of Olympic city selections, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd disagree - the announcement is a big thing in itself - for instance the London 2012 announcement was accompanied by the crowd-gathering-in-Trafalgar Square which is equated with National Event in the UK. Plus national TV coverage etc, see eg here Le Deluge (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Receiving national attention or being a “National Event” is a much lower bar than this project uses for any inclusion criteria. It needs to be internationally significant. And receiving attention doesn't connote significance. Kim Kardashian usually comes up as a readily understood example for that. -- irn (talk) 16:52, 7 October 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)

It is absurd to include announcements of past Olympic games with more emphasis than the actual games. One could make a case for announcements of future games, especially when there is not enough information to list the games. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. As you are fully aware, at least three examples of the announcements already existed in articles which you know and have been editing for years with no problem from you at all. Then, when I make fully referenced and consistent edits, you declare them to be absurd, not simply that you disagree with them, nor that you are prepared to fix the problem you perceive yourself. You simply make an ad hominem attack declaring my edits to be absurd. As we can see at the ongoing Arbcom case, the community has lost its confidence in you, and calling other established editors helpful contributions absurd won't help that improve in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin I'd like you, very politely, to remove your "absurd" claim. If you don't necessarily agree with a set of very well referenced and consistent (with other older "Years" article) edits, then please do so in less inflammatory language. I note your desysop is imminent, I think any continuation of such behaviour will result in a site ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC

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)

IP reverting

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)

Ymblanter did this for a short period, but the page was reverted after that. I have now protected it for longer. – Fayenatic London 23:40, 3 December 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)

Most of these are now fixed. The remaining one is the link to Danubian Plain within Timeline of Ancient Romania, which is beyond me. – Fayenatic London 23:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - this sort of example is exactly why we need specialists to help with this process.— Rod talk 08:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The use of Roman consuls

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.

  1. While it's commonly agreed that consular dating was used into the 6th century (the last consul held office in AD 534), when its use started is an open question. Now ancient historians (such as Livy) would indicate the names of the consuls of each year, & I've seen references dated by consuls to events as far back as the fourth century, yet the earliest use of a consular date that I've seen is in a document quoted by Polybius (writing in the mid-2nd century BC), dated to 509 BC, & said document offers a pair of consuls for that year no one else does -- Lucius Junius Brutus & Marcus Horatius. And this fact has caused no end of arguments by the experts. I mention this because there is disagreement amongst the experts & sources what the names of the earliest consuls were. (I've noted many of these in the list article linked above.)
  2. Further to complicate matters, when referring to the earliest dates the ancient Romans would occasionally mention only one of the two consuls. Which has also led to disagreements & arguments amongst the experts.
  3. Then there is the matter that, from the mid-5th century down to 367 BC the Romans would replace their consuls with Consular Tribunes. I have no idea how the ancient Romans handled the dates of their years during this period. (e.g., did they use the names of all of the consular tribunes to date a document? Some of them? Only the most senior?) Fortunately, while occasionally the supreme head of the Roman state was the Dictator, the Romans never dated their years by them, avoiding one potential problem.

    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.

  4. Now for the matter that led me here to start this conversation. In the small group of years I examined, it appears that how these eponymous consuls are referred to does not follow how the ancient Romans referred to them. IMHO, this means the information is not correct. What appears to have happened is that someone assumed that referring to them by their cognomina was the usual practice, when the Romans -- like all human societies -- were less consistent. IIRC, during the Republic when a document was dated either their tria nomina was used, or their gentilicum or family name. Looking at Tacitus, I see when he began a section of his Annales he would usually refer to the consuls at the beginning of the year by their praenomina & their family name -- although sometimes he combined their praenomina & cognomina. By the second century, the average senator would possess a name that had more than the traditional three parts, & often was a monstrous construction of family names taken from not only both his father's & mother's families, but also from friends & acquaintances who left him legacies in their wills; their names became very complex. As a result, many of these senators would also be known by a shorter name drawn from one or two of the more important elements in their names. This shorter name was far more often than not the one that their contemporaries used in naming a given year. (And these shorter names have been determined in reliable secondary sources.)

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)

Birth and death templates

  1. Use of {{BD ToC}} should be in our documentation of year format.
  2. Please weigh in at Template talk:Births and deaths ToC#End of year? for comments about its documation.
  3. Also check in at Template talk:Births and deaths ToC#Events; as the vertical ToC is missing for events, we should add a horizontal ToC. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Why add links to two non-existent discussions? Please add an introduction to your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Arthur made a small mistake. It was obvious, and so I fixed it. -- irn (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the former sysop "Arthur" who can't even add links to Wikipedia without needing someone else to help him? This is the former shamefully desysopped admin "Rubin" who continues to make unverifiable personal attacks? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
This is TRM who continues to make disruptive personal attacks. (Would someone remove or hat this inappropriate discussion.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Far from it, Rubin makes unverifiable personal attacks all the time. I'm just asking here for him to be competent enough to raise a discussion, which it appears he is not able to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

CFD notice

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)

Years in the British Empire and Years in the Commonwealth of Nations.

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))

A modest proposal (not ready for an RfC)

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)

I don't really understand what you're saying at all, other than "any proposal should be considered acceptable", which is clearly already accepted as this is a Wiki and we follow consensus. Do you have anything to add to this, or is this just a non-comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. I meant any proposal should be considered acceptable for discussion, not any entry should be considered acceptable for inclusion unless consensus against inclusion is established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing (dis)establishment categories from history tree

@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)

Hello I had istead put the Category:Events in Nepal into histoy of Nepal category however if you feel strongly please feel free to reverse. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Shyamsunder: I do not think Events needs to be removed, but History needs to be added back. Do you recollect which other countries are involved in this? I see a few countries in my watchlist but do not know if that is all. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Category:Events is in history category so I thinnk all child categories like events in Nepal should also be in related history category like History of Nepal.Category:Events by topic has all establishments and disestabliments categories .Thanks.Shyamsunder (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Shyamsunder: Thanks, I hadn't noticed that Events is in the History tree. Isn't that a bit odd though?, since Events categories also contain ongoing events, so they are not primarily about history. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Century and Decade - Articles or lists?

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)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

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.

Background

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.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

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)

216 BC

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)

CfD nomination of Category:Years in the French First Republic

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)

Millennium categories

Feel free to discuss the usefulness of millennium categories here. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Table of years on category pages

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Table_of_years_on_century_category_pages. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

can find no reference for this anywhere...possible troll?

Not sure if this where I would submit this (1981 talk page has no sub link)

Under Jan 26 1981 on the 1981 page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

Lost categorization of States and territories by year of (dis)establishment

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)

Years in conflict?

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)

Notice -- deletion of article

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)

List of years in xxxx articles

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

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)

2100

See Talk:21st century#2100. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Years and decades in continent categories: High and Late Middle Ages

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)

Duplicate year categories

Hey, all. I've noticed some strange new categories that seem to duplicate existing ones.

Category:Current events by country
Category:2018-related timelines for current events
Category:2018 timelines by country

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)

"New English words" sections

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)

My plan was to add "New English words" section to all year articles going backwards. I know I introduced something new to these articles. I thought there is nothing wrong with introducing something new. This tracks the development of the language over the years / centuries and is good encyclopedic information to record. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
SheriffIsInTown, yeah, I agree that it's encyclopedic information and that it's likely a good idea to have these listed somewhere. I wonder if it may be a better idea to have the information somewhere else, such as in an article with just those new words? Enterprisey (talk!) 07:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

0s

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)

Consensus seems to be that 0s is not exactly a decade, but runs from January 1, 1 through December 31, 9. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
However, regardless of whether 0s and 0s BC are in List of decades, they should definitely be in Category:Decades. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Birth/Death images

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)

The argument seems to me parallel to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 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)

Balanced? Like a pair of bookends, but not even as balanced as fair and balanced news. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Chronology categories for Congress Poland

Please see and participate in the discussion at Category talk:1900s establishments in Congress Poland. – Fayenatic London 20:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Category: Year in fiction

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)

MfD discussion of old dates

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)

Roman consuls—Eurocentrism

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)

perhaps you can provide a RS with a perspective from China or Brazil to help this goal. Rjensen (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I would, but I don't know anything about the calendars of China or Brazil or any other part of the world's during this era. I'm just saying that saying, ""At the time, it was known as..." without any qualifiers is incorrect, and specific information about how certain cultures construed dates should be in the geographical sections below. That is where any information about China and Brazil ought to go too.96.89.185.125 (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Main year "template"

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)

Move "Epoch (reference date)" to "Epoch (date reference)"?

Please see Talk:Epoch (date reference)#RFC:Undiscussed page move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 03:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on summary sections?

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)

@Battle Salmon: IMO, the summary requires a single source to avoid original research and synthesis, and must be paraphrased to avoid copyright violation. I don't think it can be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin: If that is that case, and I'd be fine with that, then I still feel like there's some type of double standard as the other pages that have multiple sources (not just general, for example, sources like "1929 major events", but sources like "the Decline of the Third Republic" and "Prisoner of the Vatican") continue to exist with frequent edits, as well as a "collaboration" linking from this WikiProject itself. I don't know exactly what should happen, but I feel like the timeline standards page needs clarification, the 4 other pages need to remove most of their content, or my edits to 2001 should have gotten removed for things like "no original research" instead of conflict of sections. — Battle Salmon (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Content

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)

Template:C21 year in topic

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)

@Arthur Rubin: what have you tried so far?
E.g. the article 2033 includes {{C21 year in topic}}. You could use a tool such as WP:JWB to remove it quite quickly.
Or we could edit the template to show null if the article year > current year + 10. Is there sufficient consensus for that? – Fayenatic London 21:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the {{Year in various calendars}} template was folded into {{C21 year in topic}}. So the JWB solution would be to REPLACE "C21..." by "Year in various calendars " in more distant years. I don't see a quasi-consensus for that. We could separate them again, and put the reduced C21 under a conditional statement in the year articles. I'm on my smartphone, so cannot easily trace the history of that template merger. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I tried to put a {{#if}} conditional in {{C21 year in topic}}, to test for the year being more than 20 years in the future, but it didn't work. There may be some unbalanced {}.... 02:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability of Cancer births (June 21-July 21)

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)

It's clear to me that, in recent years, there are entirely too many birth listings (say 1990 through 1999). But I don't think establishing a consensus here would help. It would need to have an advertised central RfC, to override the misinterpreted previous RfC on WP:RY (2001 to present). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I don't know that there's necessarily too many from the last century or so; there is some proximity bias, of course, since we're all familiar with people born in the 20th century, but generally not so much from prior centuries. And there certainly have been more notable people in the last 100 years with the rise of professional sports, movies and TV and recorded music, not to mention the expansion of autonomous self-governing states, all of which contribute to greater numbers of notable 20th-century born individuals. In fact, I suspect that there are many notable individuals who are not listed in the births list.
But take one year to illustrate what I'm talking about in this case, for example, 1935--no particular reason, just a year in the 20th century. The Category:1935 births page lists approximately 8,160 individuals; it might not be completely accurate because of recent changes, manual entry, or human/bot error. But most of these are not particularly notable; perhaps notable enough for a Wikipedia article, whatever that bar is, but for someone trying to go through and determine who were the notable people born in 1935, there's really too many to look at. So we have the births list in the 1935 page, done up nicely, arranged by birthdate, with some pictures supposedly of the most notable individuals. There isn't a count there, but my estimate is that it has about 535 individuals listed. Now, my point is that about 130 of those are individuals born between June 21 and July 21--about 25%. The year 1935 isn't an anomaly, many or most years in the 20th century have about 25% of their listings born between June 21 and July 21. And it's been filled with not necessarily notable people. The listings for those born between July 18 and July 21 include Vasile Alexandru, Hall Whitley, David Parry-Evans, Valér Švec, Jeanne Arth, and Larry Hayes. These individuals might have achieved more notability than myself and 99%+ of people in the world, but their articles are basically stubs. They seem to be part of the #501-#10,000 group of people that belong on Wikipedia but not part of the #1-#500 people that belong on the notable births list. And this seems to be just a problem with those born between June 21 and July 21.
So I don't know--you seem to say that maybe I should bring this up elsewhere--where would that be? Maybe, since I noticed the problem, I'll just go through the lists one of these days and remove those whose articles are basically stubs or little more. Thanks. Ryan Reeder (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

RM on 911

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)

Eclipses

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)

I agree; I would only include them on the "month" pages. They are superfluous in Year and DOTY articles. Deb (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Should we tag year articles as unreferenced

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)

Ajpolino, Recently, it has been established that WP:DOY articles are not exempt from referencing requirements, and there isn't actually even a project guideline that year articles are exempt, although it's been assumed. The year article template omits references, but 2019#Deaths is slowly being referenced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Year articles are ... articles. They have no exemption from WP:V or WP:RS. Every single year article is probably in the position right now to be tagged with {{ref improve}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Certainly a lot of Year in Topic articles are already tagged; they never used to be, but then references weren't considered necessary for any articles when this project began. Deb (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd just add that I don't think Year in Topic articles should have entries removed for being unreferenced (unless they are demonstrably false), at least not at the moment, because it's going to take a long while for facts to be checked and references added.

RM on 999

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)

RM on 404

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)

How to improve years list

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)

RfC of interest

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)

Nomination of Portal:2000s for deletion

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 America1000 01:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Year template

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)

I produced a prototype here. As there is already a template called Year which does something else, I suggest a syntax such as {{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)
Paging JFG and Wbm1058 who may be able to help enhance Template:Drep. Certes (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The page has now moved. We now have years 1–100 at AD 1 etc., 911 at 911 (year) and the rest of the common era at 101 etc. Certes (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not the only template that needs to be fixed. Unless we can quickly move 911 (year) to AD 911, {{Year in various calendars}} needs to extract (year) or {{M1 year in topic}} needs to take and pass parameters. The latter is probably a good idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I patched 911 (year). We still should patch those templates, in addition to the navigation templates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Except for inclusion in local watchlists, AD 911 will do as well as 911 (year). Seems a better choice for the target, as far as the project is concerned. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Question: Where should we discuss this? I would like to suggest breaking up {{dr-make}} into three components:
  1. Name of the article (called [1], for the moment)
  2. normal flags for the article (y/n as to whether it exists) + b if BC + ap under some circumstances (called [2])
  3. The normal display name of the article (called [3])
We then pass these into drep-light, which doesn't have to have the #ifexists-like code, as
Drep parameter 1 = [1]
Drep parameter 2 = [2] + dr-make parameter 3
Drep parameter 3 = dr-make parameter 4 default [3] with AD/BC stripped
But I don't think the discussion should be here.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This modification allows dr-make to produce [[3000s BC (decade)|3000s BC]] correctly, which would be desirable in some cases. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Oops; we now may need to have different [1] in different namespaces; main and category now may have different page names. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:40, 9 July 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)

Can't work now; I'll try and take a look over the weekend. — JFG talk 13:09, 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)

I'll take a look. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: Tak a look at this revision. It should work for all year pages, assuming there's a redirect from the systematic AD number scheme. Still needs some work, to make sure nothing breaks. I'll look at events, but presumably it's a similar solution. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I was trying to do something more generic and in particular keep the B&D template working for 1000s (decade) and later; I hadn't realised that 910s is exceptional in using it. Events should be fixable just by changing 10 to 100 globally. (Beware that the "year" variable is actually a decade so, for 910s, year=91.) Certes (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Please can you also look at {{Events by year for decade}} as used to transclude dab 404 (should be AD 404) into 400s (decade) etc? I think this one is as simple as changing 10 to 100 throughout but that does affect the display by prefixing all the years with AD, which someone may find objectionable. Thanks, Certes (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: thanks for the ping! I believe I've fixed it. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:1970s for deletion

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)

There is also an MfD for Portal:1930s. Certes (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
..and another MfD for Portal:1940s. Certes (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Births and deaths by year for decade

{{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)

Yes, it definitely would help to add this to most decades. Bot work or a lot of AWB? Split it between a few volunteers? — JFG talk 18:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
What range would we cover? The current blank sections aren't totally consistent but run from about 500 BC to AD 1500, about 200 decade articles, so small enough for AWB/JWB. Where someone has manually added births and deaths in a valid but inconsistent way, we may need more care than a bot could manage. For BC, the template would need a few tweaks: change the loops from 0..9 to -9..0 and distinguish 0s AD from 0s BC. Certes (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I've added BC handling in the sandbox. Decade -0 means 0s BC, i.e. 9–1 BC. I'll start rolling this out gradually, perhaps doing AD 100–199 first, unless anyone objects. @Wugapodes: did you have a clever way to suppress headers for blank sections, as for 18 BC in the sandbox when nobody died? Certes (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
An AWB task would probably be easiest but I'd be fine helping out manually (I have no clue how AWB works). I don't have a clever way off the top of my head, but there might be some templates that implement Lua logic that could help. On the other hand it might be a good long term goal to try and convert these templates to Lua, but that's a different discussion. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I've changed {{Transclude births}} and {{Transclude deaths}} to blank years when nothing seems to have happened, and edited 100s (decade) to 190s. I thought twice about 110s, which already had a decent birth list, and 130s, where I had to move a reference to 130, but I don't think I've made anything worse. I'll carry on in a few days unless I hear a reason not to. Certes (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I mean, I'd encourage you to sync up as many lists as possible. I really see no reason why we would want to have to maintain multiple separate lists that are supposed to contain the same info. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
+1, keep going. No time to help these days, sorry. — JFG talk 10:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I've converted articles 490s BC to 990s and it may not be productive to go much further. Continuing back, years such as 511 BC have no article, so editors would probably have recorded births and deaths only in the decade articles. Moving forwards, there are more and more entries for each year, and transcluding 20 sections would soon become excessively large. This may be a good point to stop. A couple of tips for anyone taking this task further: beware of footers such as categories and defaultsort getting transcluded with the Deaths section, and of people who were born or died in multiple years. Certes (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Great work, thanks. I agree that AD 1000 is an appropriate cutoff date. — JFG talk 13:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Individual years in the 2090s

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)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

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)

Can year articles be stubs?

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)

Nomination for Speedy Deletion of Upside down year under WP:A7

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:

  1. WP:SOURCE There are no sources for most of the claims in this article.
  2. WP:V With no sources, let alone verifiable ones, most of these claims cannot be verified.
  3. WP:OR I suspect most of the content of this article was justified by WP:CK but are not common knowledge. While the subject is certainly one many school children discovered on their own, once they move on to secondary school, the subject likely never comes up again.

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)

Past or present tense

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:

  • March 4, 1903: Frank Smith breaks his leg
  • April 16, 1904: Danielle McCarthy writes the great American novel

instead of:

  • March 4, 1903: Frank Smith broke his leg
  • April 16, 1904: Danielle McCarthy wrote the great American novel

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)

I'm also sure I've read this somewhere but all I can find is:
Hope that helps, Certes (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Certes. Yes, it's called historical present. GoldRingChip asked me on my talkpage, and I couldn't put words on it. It's works well for timelines. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

2020

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)

WP:DATEVAR in decade articles

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)

Whichever method you guys want to go with I'll support it. I had no idea how dates worked, after seeing this revision by Arthur I assumed each decade article went by dmy and all the others were incorrectly dated. WildEric19 (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@WildEric19: No problem. I still want to bring the matter up here to determine a limited consensus before trying to determine a full consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Standardization of era "successions"?

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

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)

Some new items

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)

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)

@SvenAERTS:, CE as an abbreviation next to a date means Common Era. Years given as BCE (Before Common Era) and CE are direct equivalent to the same years given as BC and AD but there are substantial reasons many editors prefer BCE/CE and usage should be consistent within an article. If you want to link to the common era article from the text "CE", you need to use what's called a "piped link". It would look like this:[[Common era|CE]]. The "pipe" character is the vertical line and what goes before it is the target article and what goes after it is the text the reader will see. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
According to MOS:ERA, as a general rule CE or BCE should not be linked. There may be some exceptions, but I don't think the Ban Zhao article is one of them. Also according to MOS:YEARLINK, years in general should not be linked. They are both a type of MOS:OVERLINKING. I already made some comments today about this at the MOS talk page, just noting it here too. --IamNotU (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: @IamNotU: Maybe we can rephrase it in a positive way that will be met with a will to collaborate and comprehension: I think the effect of putting the years between square brackets, is what auto-makes the list of notable events that appear on the article about the year, right? If we put too many, the list will become very long. Maybe we should ask to make a script that asks to give an "importance ranking" when people put dates between square brackets, so that on the article that brings together all the events, one can select to only see events that have an "importance ranking" of 1, and in a specific region of the world, topic, and some other relevant parameters? Sincerely, SvenAERTS (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
SvenAERTS, there's no automated process that adds events to a year-article as a result of linking the year. Year articles are manually constructed like any other article. For example here is the edit adding Zhao to the 45 AD article: [1]. You can see an automatically-generated list of all articles that link to 45 AD by clicking "What links here" in the sidebar. That will take you here: [2], where you can see that no other regular historical article links to it. This is a Manual of Style issue, so if you want to propose changes to it, it might be best to do so on the MOS talk page, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject History needs people

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.

  • If you have any experience at all with standard WikiProject processes such as quality assessment, article help, asking questions, feel free to come by and get involved.
  • and if you have NO Experience, but just want to come by and get involved, feel free to do so!!!
  • Alternately, if you have any interest at all, feel free to reply right here, on this talk page. please ping me when you do so, by typing {{ping|sm8900}} in your reply.

we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Decade moves

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)

Mathmatically a decade shall be counted from a year 10a + 1 to the year 10b as a decade always ends after a multiple of ten years and years ending on the digit 9 are no multiples of ten, and the 1st decade can't be counted as the years 1-9 as that's only nine years. Therefore it is mathmatically not correct to count a decade as a period of years with the same shared tens; the fact that most people do so does not play any role. Centuries are always counted from a year 01 to the following year which is a multiple of 100. BHB95 (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@BHB95: Thank you for joining the discussion. Your views are certainly valid but other opinions exist too and there is no hurry to move pages immediately. I hope that other editors will give us their advice soon. Please stop moving pages and leave the articles at their current titles until that happens. Certes (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I shall need consensus to change name from XXs to Xth decade. A decade shall be counted from a year 10a + 1 to a year 10b. That's the correct way to count decades chronologically and mathmatically. BHB95 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I see BHB95 has been blocked. May I suggest the moves be reverted? That is, the pages be moved back and the redirects deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I reported the matter to ANI to prevent further undiscussed changes. I'll get on with undoing them. I was just waiting for someone with a clue to come along and confirm that reversion was the right course of action, so thanks to Arthur Rubin for doing so. Certes (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Certes, I don't expect there to be any consensus for the WP:FRINGE views presented by BHB95, and consensus there would need to be for the moves. It appears he made a change to the lead in each of the moved articles, as well, although he didn't move the information associated with (say) AD 10 from 2nd decade (10s) to 1st decade (0s). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm going through the contributions and reverting as necessary. I'm doing the page moves first, in case some change gets in my way and turns it into an admin job and because I'm more likely to get the next bits right if the pages have the right titles. Certes (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Certes: Let me know if you need help or if you would find the page mover right useful. Thanks for cleaning this up! — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks (and belated contgratulations), Wugapodes. I'm getting on OK for the moment as the target titles are simple redirects to the right articles, so I should be able to overwrite them without page mover unless I hit a complex case or mess something up and have to undo it. Certes (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Information about AD 10 etc. is transcluded. Moving it between decades would require doing something more complicated than copy-pasting, though I probably shouldn't spill the WP:BEANS here. Certes (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I think all is now restored to its previous state. Corrections welcome. The only change I can see is that we now have redirects such as 1st decade. Certes (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I think imprecise redirects are OK; it is the nature of redirects that the target of the redirect frequently does not have precisely the same meaning as the title of the redirect. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:22, 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)

Future decades

The merging is now complete per consensus here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 5 March 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)

{{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} links completed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why we need articles for years that are yet to come. I agree with this proposal. WildEric19 (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment: See Talk:2090s#Individual years for the discussion about the 2090s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Merger would cause minor technical problems but I think these can be overcome. Certes (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: What do you have in mind for technical problems? Empty categories? (We still have Category:2099 in science, so not entirely empty....) Wikidata-induced damage to inter-wiki linkage? Problems with {{year nav}} or {{decadebox}}? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The only problem I can think of is that we need to revisit my recent change to {{Year category}} but I think we have a solution for that on its talk page. Certes (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

RfC on bushfire seasons

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)

Two discussions for your attention at the lead template

 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)

2040s - Unusual proposed addition. Please comment.

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)

no problem, glad to reply. as per Hebrew calendar, the current Hebrew calendar year is 5780. So we have a lot more than 23 years before that number reaches 6000. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

2084

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)

See also WT:WikiProject Years/Archive 12#Year template. If we can't make this single anomaly go away, we probably need to enhance {{Decades and years/yearlink}}. Certes (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
One inelegant solution is to get {{drep}} to treat 2084 specially as if it were a first-millennium year such as AD 911. We may need to provide for other exceptions dribbling in later, as they did with three-digit years. Paging Wugapodes, who knows about such things. Certes (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

WP Years Review page proposed for deletion

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years/Archive_12&oldid=1223108952"