Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Video gamesin fiction section

This arises from a discussion at Talk:2011#Computer games. It seems several users agree with me that having a section for computer and video games set in the year in question is silly, arbitrary, and completely inconsistent with the guidelines covering the other sections as there is nothing inherently internationally notable about what year a video game is set in. I therefore suggest that such sections be eliminated form RY articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Addendum The more I think about it the whole "in fiction" section has the same problem. Why do these items get a free pass to being mentioned here just because they specified a year that part or all of them are set in? I propose we eliminate such sections entirely. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot imagine a paper encyclopaedia having such a section. The only reason it's here is that we are using computers as the medium, and so attract a sizable proportion of computer game aficionados. Given the effort we put into keeping other trivial info out of this article, the presence of this section is inexplicable. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, and somewhat agree with the OP's addendum. I would say video games are as valid a form of fiction as movies or television. I tend to think a paper encyclopedia would not have any "in fiction" section at all, except maybe an "in literature" section. And in that case they would be biased toward their medium (books). -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 00:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To be mentioned in the other sections it must be proven that an item has or will have international notability. All we require for this section is that subject say "this thing I made up is supposed to happen in 2011." What is internationally notable, or even notable at all, about that? In the future, when our readers look back at this article to try and understand what 2011 was all about, will it help that understanding at all for them to know that an episode of Future Shock or an installment of the Call of Duty video game franchise were based on completely fictionalized ideas of what 2011 might be like? I don't think so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I lean toward inclusion, provided that we have an article about the book, movie, or video game, and the setting isn't incidental. (For example, in FlashForward or Flashforward, the date of the endpoints of the "event" should be included, but not incidental dates of intermediate facts.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why? Or more specifically, in what way will this information help our readers understand what 2011 was like? Since it is fiction I don't see how it has a place in an article about reality, and as I've mentioned it also terribly inconsistent with the criterion to be included in any other section. Could you also explain why an exemption to these high standards should be granted to works of fiction? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not helpful in understanding what 2011 was like; it may be helpful in understanding how 2011 was perceived. (There seems to be some support for the assertion that a book or film released in YYYY referring to YYYY or YYYY+1 may not be notable. I realize this kills my example.)

And I lean toward inclusion on this matter, because, unlike the real world, whether a fictional work is internationally notable is more a matter of taste than of verifiable fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it's pretty clear, though, like with the book 1984. Wrad (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I should have said, "... is often more a matter of taste ...". :-) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• What about splitting it off into separate articles? As it's so far agreed that these entries don't add to the reader's understanding of the year in question, perhaps a sub-article, for example 2011 in fiction would be more appropriate, as the subject of the RY article is the reality of 2011? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes please. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also add, in response to the remark about 1984, that Orwell simply reversed 1948, the year he wrote book, as 1984 was "the distant future" at that time, similar to how in 1968 Clarke chose 2001 as a far off time for 2001: A Space Odyssey, another novel whose predictions are not reflected in the reality of the year it was named for. 1984 is certainly an important (and great) work of fiction, but it has little to do with the real year 1984. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. People can experience a "year" in fiction just as much as they can in real life, and that affects how they view the actual year. People often compare years in popular fiction to the actual state of things in the actual year. Their experiences with reading about a fictional year are just as "real" as the experience of the year itself, in the same sense that watching a play is a real experience, or walking through a park. Whether or not the author's choice for the year was haphazard, the reader does not know, so it has no or little effect on that experience. Wrad (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it/they should be deleted, in most cases it is only incidental trivia. If people want to create Year in fiction sub-articles that would solve the problem without too much backlash. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think inclusion of this sort of thing should only be done in very special cases, such as 1984, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or the 2012 craze--ideas about the future that have really taken hold on people's imaginations. This usually won't be the case for a video game. Wrad (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Careful! Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, unless we set up some rules. For instance, how about fiction with the year named in the title and which was at least nominated for a national or international award (for the work itself) can go in the main year article? -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 06:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly why I think splitting it off is a good idea. If we agree that the fact that a work of fiction is set in a particular year is almost never notable enough to be mentioned in the main article on that year, it makes sense to simply spin off that content into a sub-article and then it is easy to be generous about including anything that can be verified to be set in that year. That should satisfy both concerns rather neatly. I mean really, I loved 2001: A space Odyssey, both the book and the movie, but as far as accurately depicting the year 2001, not even close. The only piece of advanced technology in the story that we have actually developed in the intervening 43 years is the picture phone. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we do have precedent, in the split of 2012 in fiction from 2012 and 2012 phenomenon. It's OK with me to split them off, once consensus is obtained here and WP:RY is edited to reflect that consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it has been a few weeks with no new comments here, I think we have a sufficient consensus to change the wording. Right now it says "However, films, games, etc. that are set in a given year—regardless of their release dates, provided that the release and setting are not so close in time as to coincide only trivially—may be added to the "In fiction" section of the main article for that year." I'm thinking we change that to "Films, games, etc. that are set in a given year—regardless of their release dates, provided that the release and setting are not so close in time as to coincide only trivially—should be added to a separate "In fiction" article for that year." And then of course we should start spinning off said articles, I guess beginning with this year and working backwards. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Well, the change in policy is done, haven't done the actual work of spinning the articles off yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that was interesting. Did the last ten years. 2006/2007 had been previously deleted as unencyclopedic after this afd. 2004 and 2000 had no content to spin off so there are no "in fiction" articles for them until somebody does the research. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Major religious holidays" has turned into "Major holidays"

This article tells me that Recent years articles should contain a section called "Major religious holidays". In 2010 and 2011 the section has become "Major holidays", i.e. no "religious". That seems to have allowed days like New Years Day and Chinese New Year to sneak in. I know the former isn't a religious holiday, and I don't think the latter is either. Any problems with me cleaning this up?

For anyone who thinks this discussion seems familiar, I did raise it, in a different way because I was unaware of this guideline, at Talk:2011#American usage of Holiday - Wrong for other readers. It would still be nice if we could take into account the fact that the word "holiday" is used very differently inside and outside the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There's something I'm not quite getting here. I understand that Americans use "holiday" to mean any day of celebration or commemoration of an event, and most other English speakers use it to mean "a vacation" but what I'm not clear on is what word they do use to indicate such a day if it is not "holiday." Beeblebrox (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

By looking at the Holiday#Australia.2C_Canada.2C_UK it seems it is often "public holiday." Why not use that as speakers of both American and British English can easily understand what it means. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Where I am, in Australia, Mothers Day is just Mothers Day. Valentines Day is just Valentines Day. Neither is ever described as a holiday. There is no simple, single descriptor for such days. We don't seem to need one. And having a very explicit, single meaning for holiday - a day when I don't have to go to work - is fairly useful. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My concept of what constitutes a major holiday, for the purposes of Year articles, is a day which is designated a holiday (i.e. a day on which banks and most businesses are closed) in a multitude of countries. Days which are commemorated but not designated holidays as such (e.g. Valentines Day, Mothers Day) and national holidays specific to a single country (e.g. Thanksgiving) or holidays which are celebrated by specific religious groups but not designated national holidays (e.g. Beltane), should not count. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine as a point of future discussion, but right now we have two articles in a long series which breach the guidelines about how they should be structured. If no-one has any objections in the next day or so, I will correct these articles to follow those guidelines. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I get where you are going with this now. Valentine's Day is a good example of something that Americans would define as a holiday, yet we do not close the banks, schools, etc for it, just exchange cards and gifts with your significant other or drink too much if you don't have one. Columbus Day is a bit stickier. It has been observed in The U.S. along with parts of Central and South America and Spain, but due to changes in the public perception of Columbus over recent decades it has fallen out of favor or been renamed in many of those places, includng several U.S. states with larger populations of Indigenous peoples. Federal institutions in the U.S.such as the post office are still closed, but banks, schools, local government offices, etc are mostly open. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Add guidelines to the articles?

The vast majority of editing activity on Recent years articles is the innocent addition and correct removal of content which doesn't satisfy these guidelines.

THIS is the article containing the guidelines. They are not mentioned in the actual year articles. Hence the innocent addition of masses of inappropriate content. The editors making those additions are clearly unlikely to look here. Why don't we distil these guidelines to a simple sentence or two and, with a reference to this article, add that content to the beginning of every Recent year article?

What if we crafted an edit notice instead of actually posting the criteria in the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds good. Are you an expert in such matters? (I guess I'm hinting that you could be they guy to do it ;-) ) HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the best solution to me. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For whatever reason only admins can create them. There is a formal request process, but we can skip that since I'm here already. We just need some proposed text, I'll knock something together, once it is created anyone can edit it. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I knocked something together, you can see it at Template:Editnotices/Page/2011. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Politics section

The section that tends to disallow changes in government doesn't appear to explain why or give an example of what is correct and what is not. Could there be an additional sentence or two explaining why this is not allowed, since I am scratching my head as to why some very notable elections or leadership changes are not represented in the articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country". This seems fairly straightforward to me. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

But thats a bit ambiguous. What does it mean by "significant"? It may seem straightforward to you, but perhaps some examples would help alleviate some of the mystery.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume it left slightly vague so that there is discussion of possible exemptions. For instance, if an expected, scheduled election led to a very unusual result, like a woman being the head of state of an Arab country or a Chinese man being elected Prime Minister of France, that would probably merit an exemption. Another white guy being elected to head a European country, not a momentous event. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Changing from Labour to Conservative or Democrat to Republican is not significant, such changes happen regularly in most democracies. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Or a black man being elected President of the United States, like has already been removed.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

He is not the first "black" man to be elected the leader of a country. Being elected the leader of the United States is notable in the United States, not the rest of the world. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone is going to agree on what "significant" means. That's why we depend on consensus. The case for significance has to be made for each addition. I personally disagree strongly with Derby on Obama. That inauguration was of incredible international significance. News sources constantly talked about how he was the first black leader of a G8 nation. That is a big deal. Wrad (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I too can concede on the British reversion, but the Obama one does give me pause. Thats why I asked for clarification here.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not American, but I also believe that Obama should be there. Electing a black President in America was inconceivable for most of my life. But a change of government at an election between Labor and Liberal in my country, Australia, is not globally significant. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

True. try to look at it as if it happened in another of the G8. Say the child of Senegalese immigrants became President of France, or a Chechen became President of Russia? Don't you think the rest of the world would sit up and take notice of that? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Doubtless. Wrad (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget everytime the first of all the other "races" (for want of a better term although it's not actually valid), sexual identities (female, transsexual, transgender) and sexual persuasions (homosexual, bisexual, asexual) get elected in every country in the world either. Or at least, just the USA. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The gender thing is now a small issue in most countries, including the USA. Obviously female VPs are acceptable, so it's just a natural progression to have a female President one day. The barrier is gone. As it did in Australia as soon as females became state Premiers. Openly gay folk and the like may be a different issue in the USA, but even that's more possible now. Obama's election weakened the barriers for everyone who is a member of a group of whom it has been said in the past past that a member could never be President. So, Obama should be there, but very few elected others. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As it happens the only reason I had to, reluctantly, waste my time removing all (or at least most) of the elections from all years going back to 1999 was due to the argument here that Julia Gillard become Prime Minister of Australia was important. I fully expected that a discussion such as the one here would eventuate, as I expected that my hard-line objectivity wouldn't find much support. One can but try. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Politics and hard-line objectivity rarely go together. ;-) (I was amused yesterday to hear Jeff Kennett calling for a statue of Joan Kirner to be erected in Melbourne's western suburbs. But Jeff has never been exactly mainstream) HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My position would be that the election/appointment/however they get into office of world leaders would be included. Its not like it happens every day. I was surprised to see the first revision of the UK PM, but I was floored when I noticed that Obama's inauguration was removed and then re-removed.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "world leaders"? The leaders of all nations, or just those nations that are powerful? Where would you draw the line? Would everyone else agree? HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Any that would be considered a leader of a nation recognized by at least, oh lets say, the UN.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Which narrows it down to a couple of hundred, of whom how many are democracies? And how many elections are held each year? 40? 50? And they're all equally internationally important? There's a reason that articles such as Electoral calendar 2011 (along with all the other Year in Topic articles) were created! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not as "hard-line" on this as Derby..., but I don't think it's sensible to include every nation's leader elected in the normal way. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)Well I don't think that 40-50 extra edits a year on this page is gonna slow it down, if its that many. As we recently learned, some presidents stay in office 30 years or more. So the question becomes then, if they all can't play then no one can play, or as my teacher use to say, if you don't have enough gum for everyone in class thenyou shouldn't be chewing gum in class.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)"

If we were to include all the non-notable elections then we would theoretically also have to include all the non-notable sports events, entertainment events (Oscars, Grammys, Eurovision etc) and any number of other equally non-notable entries that recent years were porne to overloaded with. These guidelines were designed specifically to prevent that. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We include those where enough reliable sources, preferably outside the country the country where it happened, tell us that it is a notable event. Obama's election fits. Not many others do. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then put Obama back in. Should we go through each and every single ruler for every single country for what Derby said he removed all the way back to 1989?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes we should. By the end of this I will be seeing Julia Gillard back in the 2010 article. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly. The decision has to be made on a case by case basis. Slippery slope arguments are not appropriate, and neither are arguments that "x was included, so y should be too." Take it one at a time. The burden of proof for significance lies with the person who wants to add the info. Wrad (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That whats being said. Lets go through each one and make sure that it was removed correctly.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I realize that's what's being said, but what's being said is, frankly, quite silly and isn't solving anything. People are just becoming more entrenched. This absolutely must be done on a case by case basis, with evidence presented for each individual case. There is not requirement that if one thing changes, all else must change. Wrad (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Before any edits are made, get all PMs / Presidents articles checked out. there is a list on the 2010 article talk page (1999-2010) of leaders elected etc. Talk:2010 that means adding nothing yet, without a full investigation to all leaders. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC) OK, but Obamas already back in, but thats probably the biggest no-brainer of them all.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, because a President of the USA should be judged by the color of (his) skin, (not) by the content of (his) character? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted that edit, But DONT WORRY...It will be added right back in once this investigation is over. If anything, that will be the first added back into the article once the investigation ceases. Visit the talk page of 2010, to see all the leaders I have found over 1999-2010 that have now been removed by Derby. It is under the section titled "Prime Minister Julia Gillard". -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No investigation is needed to put Obama back in. His significance has nothing to do with Australian PMs. Again, this has to be done on a case by case basis. If you want somebody put in, present the evidence on the relevant year article and establish a consensus, then change it. We don't need any mass judgments here. Wrad (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, I think we had enough consensus here for that.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Not going to keep some elections, and forget others. Case by Case, then we add the info. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's highly inappropriate for you to hijack Obama until you get what you want. See WP:POINT. Would someone else please restore the Obama info? I'm tired of playing games here. Wrad (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasnt the one who suggested to review all elections. Until they are all reviewed, don't add them in. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Melbourne, if you read carefully, the person who agrees with you that all PMs should be reviewed also agrees with me that you were wrong to remove Obama. Wrad (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll state again, Just incase you may of forgotten: "Don't add elections etc. If it comes under the investigation, until the investigation is finished" - Pres. Barack Obama, comes under that investigation. I don't know why you can't wait? At the end of the day i'll make sure that Barack Obama is mentioned there, even if it's the last thing I do. Please be patient. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Quoting yourself doesn't do anything to increase your supposed authority to make such a sweeping decision against a consensus on this page. You have established yourself as judge, jury and executioner here. No such investigation was agreed on. Wrad (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Another tip MelbourneStar1. You can make a lot of enemies here by acting as if you own an article. Do please click on that link. It's a goodie. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh Trust me On this one Hilo48...I have read that 100 times. There are most definately many here who act as if they own the article. Though I do think you aswell as others may be a little over due, so maybe you should take a read of it. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment – "National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country." The election of President Obama does not represent a significant change in the country and therefore should not be included in the recent year article. In addition, can we move the bickering to individual talk pages and focus on the issue at hand. The banter adds nothing to the original discussion and only serves to cloud the issue. My best to all. ttonyb (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously someone has not read the above discussion...-- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously that "someone" is you. (To paraphrase a commercial.) Although I think Tony generally believes in trimming links too much, there is no consensus to change WP:RY to include elections notable only because of the gender or race of the elected. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if you bothered to take a read of this discussion, you would know that there have been many different elections added that have rare this or first that... Actually maybe you should, as a suggestion, read the discussion (instead of being bold and presumtious)...then have your say. No, better yet read this: National elections are not usually included unless they represent a significant change in the country (e.g., a nation's first election). Some elections gain international significance for other reasons and this can be demonstrated through several international news sources...I may rush sometimes, but where does it bar out the usage...of well any election past or present? The use of the word "Usually" is an interesting word as a synonm for the word is "Sometimes". You dont need to change the policy, as it basically shows us that it does include rare this first that, because in some countries that is a significant change. Thank You.-- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Usually" is not a synonym for "sometimes". In the context of Wikipedia, "usually" means "unless a separate justification can be provided for a contrary statement". And I don't think the first female PM would be significant except in an Islamic country. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that is your opinion. Mine still stands. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As has been noted recently, Wikipedia is mainly edited by males. If there were more women around I imagine a consensus on this issue would be quite clear by now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll play dumb. Which way, and why? HiLo48 (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Women are likely to see it as very significant when a woman becomes the leader of a country that had previously been ruled solely by males. Not just the women in that country, but any woman anywhere who is concerned about equality. Pick one at random and ask them, you'll see. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's a rather broad assumption. You're assuming that every woman has a) heard of Australia b) cares about Australia c) cares about politics; and d) thinks that another woman becoming leader of any country other than their own is going to impact their life in any way. I'm not sure what the hit rate for that would be, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 100%. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I made no such assumptions. I said that many socially aware women around the world would find it noteworthy that a woman became head of state in a previously male-dominated country. The point of all Wikipedia articles is to inform the readers of things they didn't know. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Women are likely to" sounds like a generalisation to me. And there's also a difference between "any woman anywhere who is concerned about equality" and "many socially aware women". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm rapidly growing tired of picking apart every syllable of my previous statements, but you clearly cherry-picked half of that remark, misrepresenting it when you repeated it. Since the full remark is still visible just above here I don't know why you thought that would fool anyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If I weren't already involved, you would be blocked for that comment. Although I don't always agree with Derby, I do agree with him, both as to what should be in these articles, and his (probable) interpretation of your remarks. I don't see a possible interpretation of your remarks which is consistent with Wikipedia policies. If you want to explain further, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I stated I felt a remark I made was mis-represented by being partially quoted. I'm not clear on why you would object to that so strongly as to suggest I be blocked for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you, then, please explain what you mean, in a way that it is a possible argument relevant to inclusion of the material you're asking to include. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This is getting comical. I don't see what is unclear about any of my remarks, I am baffled as to why you think I should be blocked for them, and I was already tired of over-analyzing each of my remarks and feeling obligated to repeat and rephrase them. So, no I won't be doing any further analysis. As for your block threat, you seem either unwilling or unable to explain it so I am left with little choice but to ignore it until such time as you can clarify your reasoning. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also note again that these guidelines are by no means set in stone, they were established by a relatively small number of users in 2009. In fact a change was just made a few days ago, as you can see at the top of the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Add dominical letter

I think including the dominical letter is a useful piece of information. I'm trying it on a small number of years (1999 through 2013) to let people see it as opposed to having to pass through to the particular year the calendar starts with to get it, i.e. you have to go to Common year starting on Friday to find its letter (C). If it doesn't work well it's a small change to reset. I'll see how it works. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, having reviewed the article on the Dominical letter I don't think this a particularly vital piece of information that need be mentioned in the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a real use for the letter in the recent years articles. ttonyb (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a real use, either. (For what it's worth, the leap year dominical letters have more options than indicated in the article, and we really shouldn't select an option.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Adds nothing to article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Top Header Template

I'm going to see if there can be a way to use template syntax to "compute" some of the information and thus basically standardize the first paragraph of a year.

I'm thinking it could be something like {{AutomaticYearHeader|2006}}. This name is intentionally badly chosen so I can get some feedback on what would be a good name; it may be because of what can or can't be done with templates that one for the previous century or millennia might be needed and a new one starting in 2000 would be needed.

With this template doing automatic calculation and text insertion you'd get something like:

** START OF EXAMPLE***
2006 (MMVI) was a Common year that started on a Sunday (dominical letter A) in the Gregorian calendar. It was the 2006th year of the Common Era or Anno Domini designation, the 6th year of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century, and the 7th of the 2000s decade.

2006 was designated the:
** END OF EXAMPLE**

It might have to have something to indicate if it has a designation. I'm open to what parameters it should have. Might have to do the 'starts on Sunday' and 'Dominical letter' items manually; be simpler to include them than to try to calculate them, and Zeller's Congruence (to get the day of the week for a specific date, e.g. January 1) is a hairy calculation.

This would allow all the year headers to have the same format and not miss anything. Some of this may not be calculatable. It would give an advantage that all pages using it would have consistent format and if something new is to be put on them it requires only one page - the template - be changed. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll drop the part on designations because they change as the year goes from future to present to past; it would be confusing. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This should be taken up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years rather than here. I note that the relevant line in the example header there is:

2004 is a leap year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar.

No mention of Common Era, Anno Domini, millenium, century or decade. Which is all perfectly fine with me! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria - astronomy events

Hi. My observation has been that major events in astronomy such as conjunctions and bright comet appearances are generally visible from a large area for multiple days and thus pass the basic three-continent rule by default especially when widespread news reporting on the event is available after it actually takes place. However some admins have recently been removing such events from the recent year pages under the rationale that they are not notable. Please see the discussions at User talk:HiLo48#2011 Quadrangle and User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ#2011 in astronomy and make further comments for discussion here. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The removal I did had little to do with inclusion criteria. It was accompanied by a quite detailed edit summary, saying "Reverted. Pretty obscure. Do you want to explain "quadrangle conjunction" in layman's language. Neither Wikilink explained it." The word quadrangle in particular wasn't clear to me. It was Wikilinked, but not helpfully. I think events in this article need to be described pretty much in layman's language. And I was hoping that AstroHurricane001 would pay some attention to my Edit summary. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not an admin (that should probably come with a "lol"). Secondly, widespread news reporting is not necessarily an indication of notability, many events that get widespread news coverage are not particularly important. Thirdly, it pays to wait until an event has occurred to establish its importance, many editors have included events in which they have particular interest and therefore regard as important which have turned out to be less than significant to the greater population than they imagined. Fourthly, entirely predictable events tend to be less notable due to their predictability; annual sports or entertainment events, anniversaries and elections fall into the same category and are included in Year in Topic pages rather than main Year articles for that reason. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that we have no "2011 in astronomy", nor any articles for precedent. Also, I did see that long edit summary, but before re-adding the entry the entire mention of celestial events in all future months was removed entirely. It would help making the RY guidelines less obscure for these items. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy perhaps they would be interested in creating Year in astronomy]] articles? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do we only need astronomy articles starting this year, when they have been never previously created? Where are the new guidelines stating astronomy entries are not notable? ~AH1^(TCU) 18:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would actually personally prefer more astronomy entries to the plethora of years mentioned in computer games. To me the latter is mostly garbage. At least the astronomical events are real. But they do have to be described in language that almost all readers can deal with. I still don't know what a "quadrangle conjunction" is, and I'm a bit of an enthusiast. HiLo48 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A conjunction is when two or more planets, or at least one planet and the Moon meet up near the same apparent location in the celestial sky. "Quadrangle" was a bit of neologism on my part, referring to the fact that four planets would be present in the same area, as the word can also mean "quadrilateral" (four-sided). ~AH1^(TCU) 19:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Other calendars infobox and space issues

It appears that infoboxes, such as the Other Calendars infobox, are not collapsible. This box takes up a lot of space in Recent Year articles, in fact it makes a real mess of the page. Should it be moved (down, left), removed or is there something else that can be done with it? Suggestions??? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What is "international relevance (importance)"?

This question has arisen several times in recent debates about adding various news items to RY articles. How about adding something like this to the inclusion criteria:

International notability is by itself not enough to establish international relevance. International relevance - i.e. the importance of an event to a country/nation other than the country/nation in which it occured is demonstrated by citing a reliable source from this second country or a non-involved one that recognizes the influence. However, predictions about the future turn of events are not sufficient to establish influence. The event can of course be added at a later time if it turns out that predictions were correct (again, supported by reliable sources).

Feel free to rewrite it if any part is unclear. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

New header template

I think it would be fundamental to the navigation of recent years pages if we had an amalgamation of all the templates at the top (excluding WikiProject, in the media, etc. templates). My proposed template looks like this: {{RY}}

My template encompasses some of the problems that the recent years pages have experienced -- such as, many editors requesting/adding events that occur on the "In The News" section on the main page. As well as, not quite knowing the inclusion criteria for RY, so, this new template should allow editors to familiarize themselves with the processes and criteria for RY. And of course, like the rest of the templates, this should be placed at the very top of talk page for higher visibility. Whenaxis about | talk 23:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks ideal to me! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I just put the template live. I'll be going around starting to tag the articles. So, if you want you can use the {{RY}} template when necessary. Whenaxis about | talk 00:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, for the discussion above this section. I would even think that recent years would be in a smaller group of pages being the current year, the previous year and the year forthcoming. Because typically, massive editing on RY pages cease about a year after the year has passed and begin about a year in advance. Just a side thought. Whenaxis about | talk 01:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked back as far as 2007 and the only year that didn't seem active was 2009. 2007 is actually full of non-notable material which clearly fails the Recent Year guideline so I'd go back to at least 2003 and also include 2013 (but right now I should get back to work...). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll be happy to know, I tagged from 1988 through to 2013. I will continue when I have some free time. Whenaxis about | talk 01:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent years revisited

Just above, I see a statement that RY starts at 2002 or so. Has anything changed since then, such that 2nd millennium BC is now considered a recent year? [1] Franamax (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tags for years earlier than 1990. We would have to check previous discussions here, WT:RY, and WT:YEARS to be sure where it should be; I'm sure consensus has moved it back to 2000, almost sure about 1995, and 1990 could possibly be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've not been involved in previous discussions, but I would somewhat object to anything before 2002 (per #Recent years just above), mostly because of the three-continent rule (due to more limited web-availability of sources before that date) and also because I've not myself seen a huge problem needing to be solved with the older year pages (or at least the ones on my watchlist). Obviously that's just my own opinion. Franamax (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll go revert any remaining of my edits up to 2002, as per my talk page. Sorry for the inconvenience, Whenaxis about | talk 21:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving RY articles

Maybe to make RY articles more complete instead of just listing events, we can have a summary of major events in the introductory section of the article.

2011 saw a pivotal change to the World's government through the Arab Spring, as well, 2011 saw continued unmitigated environmental catastrophes such as the 9.1 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan. The continuing war on terrorism hit a turning point when it was announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed and the United States announced an end to the Iraq War. Socio-economic changes also occurred when the Occupy movement began with the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Whenaxis about | talk 23:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, year articles should have a lede summarising the historically important events. Of course, the relative importance of events may change, some that seemed important at the time my turn out to be minor, and vica versa, after a few years. And POV and weasel words should be avoided. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions to make the above lead better? Because I look back at it and it reads like a news story. Whenaxis about | talk 23:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a drive-by comment as I'm here for a different reason, but yes, that box above reads pretty badly to me. "pivotal change in...government"? - not hardly, very little has actually changed; "war on terrorism"? - how US-centric can you get, that "war" is a USGov declaration and the Iraq campaign had absolutely zero to do with terrorism (or WMDs); and the "Occupy movement" worked great until it got cold outside. Sorry to be so negative, but it really does seem to be OR and SYNTHy to select these items for highlighting. Even the earthquake wasn't all that big moment-magnitude-wise, though it did happen to take out a nuclear plant within months of its planned shutdown date. Franamax (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As always, it's hard to please everybody. I was just using the above as an example, that if adjusted a little bit would make a good lead for 2011. I agree, that what I said was not my best, however, I'm Canadian and we're just so tainted by US-driven notions and statements that it's hard to decipher what is acceptable. In addition, as usual the media blows things up and makes it seem like it's worth the run for it, but really it isn't. Thanks for your thoughts, Whenaxis about | talk 21:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Fellow Canadian eh? I thought we all agreed we were going to keep that quiet until we can take over completely. :) Yes, "hard to please everybody" is the crux here, especially for recent events it's hard to sort out exactly what is truly significant. Perhaps a mash-up of various different "Year in review" articles from major media would work (my favourites as authoritative are The Economist and Nature, though even they have their slants). Or maybe a cutoff of affected XX million people, which would include the Japan quake and nuclear disaster, and the European financial crisis - but then again, would also include the release of the latest iPod. I dunno... Franamax (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As recent year articles go, there's enough argument about inclusion of events... and now it'll be even more tedious by thinking of a lead - with everyone's input flying around. *sighs* Whenaxis about | talk 22:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobel winner phrasing

I was reverted once in the past for an edit similar to one I made today (today I modified the description of Wisława Szymborska, in her 2012 death entry, from "Polish Nobel poet" to "Polish poet and Nobel Prize laureate"), so I'm curious as to whether there might be a preferable phrasing for Nobel Prize winners' entries. Options (using Szymborska as an example) include "Polish Nobel poet" (this one, which I changed, sounds kind of sparse to me--comparable to something like "Oscar actor" or "Grammy singer"); "Polish Nobel Prize-winning poet" (sounds better, but in some cases could be ambiguous or misleading, e.g., a "Nobel Prize-winning author" who received the prize for peace rather than, as one might suspect, for literature/as an author), "Polish poet and Nobel laureate" (sounds comfortable to my ears but still uses "Nobel" as shorthand for "Nobel Prize"), or "Polish poet and Nobel Prize laureate" (my personal favourite so far, although maybe "Prize" should be left implicit, not unlike the omitted "award" in "Grammy winner" or the absent "statuete" in "Oscar winner").Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I raised this a while ago, but there was no response. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support following the standardized pattern "nationality profession [optional extra factor contributing to notability]", in this case "Polish poet and Nobel Prize laureate". Neologisms like "Nobel poet" should not be encouraged. Favonian (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

prior example from the archive should be Danish Nobel physicist in chemistry if and only if Nobel is in a different specialty otherwise just Polish Nobel poet which implies (Nobel in literature)--68.231.15.56 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

2008

I've just noticed that much of the non-notable material previously deleted from this article, and prompting the creation of this project, has been added back in. Is anyone else interested in tidying it up, again? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Public domain

There are a large number of future entries of the form

• Assuming no further changes to United States copyright law, all works by Famous Person will enter the public domain.

I don't think they should be there, for at least three reasons.

1. "Assuming no further changes to or changes in interpretation of United States copyright law" is speculation, especially considering the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
2. It's US-centric; doesn't mention British copyright.
3. It's not particularly notable. A copyright will eventually expire.

Any more comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed most. Still all fail point 2 above, perhaps whould be moved to yyyy in the United States. Items not removed are:

1. Mickey Mouse, as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act is separately significant. Relevant because it's speculative under point 1 above, because the previous copyright was about to expire. Does meet point 3 because it's one of the first new expirations under the Act.
2. the Beatles, for no apparent reason. They're the Beatles. I wouldn't object if it were removed.
3. claims of the form all works of a certain type (e.g., sound recordings) made or published over a wide time interval, which have the same copyright expiration date. (only 2 or 3 examples). Still fails point 1 and 2 above, but now meets point 3. I wouldn't seriously object if they were removed, but I might object if they were removed without further discussion.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Death inclusion criteria

According to this page, the inclusion criteria for deaths is the same as for births — ten non-English Wikipedia articles. The inclusion criteria that's actually enforced at 2012 (and presumably other year articles) is slighty stricter — ten non-English Wikipedia articles at the time of death. I'm assuming there's a general consensus for this, and it strikes me as a sensible requirement, but it should really be made explicit on this page. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion on this which did not reach consensus to apply this. That a number of users are now applying this as a criteria would seem to indicate that this would now reach such a consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please link the previous discussion with no consensus? Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Recent years/Archive 1#Proposed amendment to Deaths criteria DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixing problem with the decades of the 20th century

It has been suggested that I bring the following comment and proposal here.

Each entry for the decades of the 20th century has an entry like the following: "The 1910s was a decade that began on January 1, 1910 and ended on December 31, 1919. It was the second decade of the 20th century."

However, the linked page, "20th century", indicates that this century started 1/1/1901. The page for the 1900s deals with this matter: "The period from 1900 to 1999, almost synonymous with the 20th century (1901–2000)".

Is the following amendment, to the second sentence acceptable, along with the equivalent for the other decades? "The second decade of the 20th century, however, started in 1911." Though perhaps a better alternative to this difficult issue would be simply to delete the confusing sentence. I have seen reference to a past consensus on this matter, but there is no citable evidence to support the opinion that the decades of the 1900s are the same as the decades of the 20th century. It is possible that the confusion here arose because some believe that the 20th century began 1/1/1900, I don't know? Rwood128 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The last discussion seems to be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 9#Last decade of century in 2010. Consensus there seemed to be that the "last decade of the nnth century" shouldn't be there. Perhaps we should go with that approach. There had been a previous discussion that the "facts" that the 1900s is the first decade of the 20th century, and the 1990s is the last (full) decade of the 20th century should be included, but the 2010 consensus seems otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That kind of amendment is not needed. Yes, you could in principle begin a decade from any year, say, 1965 or 1911. But since decades are not customarily counted that way, it would be pointless to highlight a decade starting in, say, 1911. --Jmk (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It therefore appears that the consensus in fact agreed that the sentences like "It was the second decade of the 20th century" should be deleted, but that this wasn't done. I will wait a week or so before acting. Thanks for sorting things out. Rwood128 (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Declaring whats notable

Recent years pages are vacant of information that made these pages helpful. At some point these pages were purged of information making them almost unusable. Furthermore, it seems like few people are declaring ownership as to what qualifies as notable and removing entries as if they were vandalism. They make no attempt to try to mitigate the removal into a discussion on the respective talk page.

For instance the Syrian conflict/civil war isn't even mentioned once in 2012 and I think significant incidents in it more than deserve an entry. For instance the incident where Syria shot down a Turkish recon jet which changed the diplomatic relations between Turkey and Syria. There were several other incidents as well.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This project was created because large quantities of trivia were being added to Recent Year pages making them far exceed the preferred maximum size for an article and despite the fact that there are appropriate sub-articles where such material can be included. The objective guidelines included here were created to prevent, or at least reduce the number of, endless subjective discussions of what is historically and internationally notable for inclusion. Much material is clearly not worthy of inclusion (but editors keep adding it anyway) while some is debatable and may be included or excluded depending on consensus (whether it is actually worthy or not).

As for the Syrian crisis it will obviously need to be mentioned in some way. But it started in 2011 and is mentioned there (though it needs rewriting) and there are too many incidients to list individually at this time. Unless it is resolved during 2012 it is probably best to leave it till the year is over. It is probably most appropriate to include it in the lede and/or under Ongoing Events. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately in my view the current product isn't superior to the previous. These pages can be deleted for being useless in their current state. In the past I was able to find significant events in a year just by using these pages. I am uninterested to find useless trivia (such as CD releases and etc), that much I can agree but many important incidents are currently being quickly dismissed. Prolonged conflicts aren't even mentioned. For instance downing of a Turkish jet by Syria is both historically and internationally notable. There have been other incidents in the Syrian conflict that had international significance.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks in section headings

The article body format example includes a wikilinked section heading, Nobel Prizes. Is this intended? Doesn't that go against MOS:HEAD? – Wdchk (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Holidays, religious or not...

I've noticed a few—questionable—holidays in 2012 and 2013. I'm not sure Thanksgiving Day (US and Canada, separately) meets our criteria, and I'm not sure Pioneer Day (LDS) is notable in that religion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how either qualifies as a religious holiday.DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanksgiving is arguably the second most important US holiday. Millions of people spend hundreds of dollars travelling 1000+ kilometers each year just to be with their families for it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Which makes it appropriate for Year in the United States articles, not parent Year articles. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the level of the holiday's significance in Canada, but would that make it okay? Since it happens a month earlier in Canada due to cold, would it make it okay if in addition to the US, it was celebrated by a tiny, several square mile country or non-US colony of a few thousand people? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There's another thing that's bothered me with the Holidays section for a while, and it's here in this thread. I doubt if Pioneer Day would meet the definition of a holiday in much of the English speaking world, where a holiday means prescribed time away from work or school. Day's like Ash Wednesday, Ramadan and Palm Sunday are not called holidays in my part of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, holiday came from holyday, it's about the day, so Commonwealth use to mean vacation is the one that's derivitive here. Is there a dialect-neutral term? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's always a problem when you use one country's meaning of words to define another country's. Where holiday means time away from work or school, vacation means travelling to somewhere away from home for recreational purposes, which isn't what you intended. But you're right about the derivation, of course. If Wikipedia really wants to be a global encyclopaedia, it needs a better word than the all-American holiday for that list's title. HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Years in past

So the question has been raised; - should the criteria of notability that have been set down in the guidelines apply to less recent years, or not. I would have thought that it should....right? Clearly, an event has to be notable on an international level for it to merit inclusion and there has to be a single consistent standard used. The reason I ask is that many of the earlier years have had the entire contents of the US specific article copied into the main article which creates a very disproportionate picture. The events typically, are the sort of thing mentioned on the main page, such as mild weather events, sports events, commemmorations, openings of schools/hospitals/theatres, minor political appointments, scandals and so on. So should that stuff be there, or should the guidelines here be extended to past years as well?Noodleki (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the guidelines should be extended to less recent years, with a suitable modification of some criteria. The further back you go the less likely that multiple appropriate citations can be found. There are certainly an enormous number of entries that would seem blatantly (except to some editors) lacking in any international notability. I think the main problem will be getting enough editors to follow up on this. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of the rules here would work for earlier years, and some wouldn't. I'm very wary of extending these guidelines as a whole to past years without keeping the nuances in mind. Wrad (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but you would agree that the basic principle of notability should still be applied to less recent years, such as the exclusion of, say, anniversary of a civil war battle?Noodleki (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that all anniversaries, at least, could be removed. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, almost. An anniversaries possibly should be kept if the celebration of the anniversary was independently internationally notable. (It could happen....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Scope of the years that should be included under this project

The purpose of this project when it was started in 2008 was to establish a set of criteria to limit the entries contained in year articles to those which were/are internationally and historically notable, the problem at that time being that they had been subject instant editing whereby anything and everything that happened, even of the most limited notability, was being added with NO regard to their importance/relevance. This applied most seriously to the more recent articles at that time (2006-08) but as wiki started in 2001 (very little had been added to 2001 before the end of the year) could equally be applied to all year articles from 2002 onward. In an ideal world it would be possible to bring the earlier articles (2002-2005) up to the standard applied to later year and then move the scope on every year with the expectation that the earlier articles wouldn't require much care to keep them in line. Unfortunately as can be seen by the current state of 2008 once the those interested in this project "move on" to later years articles can easily revert to their former state (2008 is now almost as bad as when I first started trying to clean it up!). So there appear to be 2 options for the scope of the project:

1. All Year articles from 2002 to infinity come under WP:RY (which means the word "Recent" will become redundant, if it's not already, for the earlier years)
2. Only the e.g. 10 years preceding the current year come under WP:RY. Earlier years will then come under he broad, and not particularly effective, scope of WP:YEARS.

Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A constant ten is more than enough. Such as 2001 to 2011, 2002 to 2012, 2003 to 2013, etc. Each range, of course, is actually eleven articles. No need to increase it to twelve. Apteva (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

One reason for WP:RY is to reduce recentism; but some of WP:RY extends to future years, as well. I think it should remain to be from 2002, at least until WP:YEARS provides quasi-objective criteria for inclusion of events in those years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Major religious holidays, again

I think this needs revisiting, seeing as no consensus was reached previously and more and more "holidays" are being included/suggested. How about this for a criteria:

• A major religious holiday is one which is designated an official holiday by the governments of at least 10 different countries.

There should also be a separate article listing all (religious?) widely celebrated holidays (using whatever definitions seem appropriate).

Thoughts? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather we just come up with a list of holidays we deem important, the ten country rule seems arbitrary. Also, wouldn't the ten country rule mean that Jewish holidays wouldn't qualify? Hot Stop 23:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"Designated an official holiday by the government" is problematic. Using the word "holiday", which itself has multiple meanings around the world, won't work. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What about other, non-recent years?

Is there a specific guideline that applies to pages on those years? Can one add every event that happened in, say, 1921, given that it has an article about it on Wikipedia? Smtchahal (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a (vague) guideline at WP:YEARS. And, no, just because an article exists in wikipedia does not necessarily make it sufficiently notable to be included in a Year article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Easter Monday a religious holiday?

We've just had a little exchange on a few recent year articles, with Easter Monday added as a religious holiday, then removed with the Edit summary "Easter Monday is not a religious holiday". Well, what is it? Our article Easter Monday tells us that it's a holiday in over 100 countries, and that it "is celebrated as a holiday in some largely Christian cultures, especially Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox cultures. Easter Monday in the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar is the second day of the octave of Easter Week and analogously in the Eastern Orthodox Church is the second day of Bright Week."

It's a holiday had because of the religious calendar. Looks like a religious holiday to me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Easter I have suggested that the section be removed. It appears to only be included in some Recent Years (under various titles). As such holidays are entirely predictable annual events I don't believe they are appropriate for any Year article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've also felt uncomfortable with the form "Major religious holidays" because of the diverse meanings of the word holiday around the world. When the list includes days that would never be called holidays in my country, it's quite disconcerting. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Holidays

As per the discussion above and at Rmv as per consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Easter I have removed the Holidays sections from the years 2006-2015 and from the Format section on the main page of this Project. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Extending criteria for importance of events

Every time there's a widely reported event, and somebody dares to express doubt of its significance on the year's talk page, he gets jumped by the recentist crowd who just clicked off CNN, and a handful of drama queens join the pack with their tune about ownership of recent year pages plus assorted conspiracy theories. Consequently, it's the emotions of (usually American) editors which enforce the final decision (i.e. if the event touches them, they come in greater numbers and are more persistent, creating a "consensus"). This, in my opinion, is a rather lousy criterion for creating lists of important events. So, disregarding my own sentiments about RY pages turning again into collections of trivia that will be utterly forgotten before the year is over, I propose extending criteria for inclusion of events to include a similar condition as the deaths section: coverage by dedicated articles in 9 other Wikipedias, excluding simple mentions in more general articles. To illustrate, both the recent Boston Marathon bombings and 2013 Savar building collapse would satisfy this criterion and get included, diffusing the pointless arguing and hopefully let everybody do more constructive things. Of course, post-hoc page creations would count, so an event could be included later. Opinions? — Yerpo ^Eh? 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles in many languages may merely show that the media in many countries reported it, rather than proving that the event is internationally notable. The building collapse which will soon be forgotten outside Bangladesh is an example of this. The international media report it promininently because of the death toll, but it has no effect on the rest of the world, apart from costs, delays etc. incurred to international companies whose clothes the factory produced. Jim Michael (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand full well that the new method would not reflect international importance anymore, but the current method of "consensus" building doesn't, either. Instead, the goal is to reduce stress and provide at least a semblance of objectivity. Of course the "9 articles" rule would merely supplement the existing procedure, for entries of dubious importance. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it events that should be included in RY articles must be internationally and historically notable. The problem is the definition of international and historic. We have just seen a case where the international impact of an event has been overstated, sometimes grossly. International involvement is a separate issue from impact and is easily determined by the nationalities of those involved. Whether involvement should override impact or other factors probably needs to be determined here but note that events with far more international involvement than the Boston Marathon bombings have previously been excluded and therefore should been included on the same basis. International notice of an event, which is independent of impact or involvement, is biased in favour of what is reported by media outlets and that in turn is biased in favour of the US media. Being the English wiki this is to be expected and unfortunately means that objective assessment is often outvoted by subjective opinions. I suspect using the non-English criteria would still be outvoted (usually by one-time visitors to the article), though maybe less frequently. In terms of historic I personally base this on the frequency and scale of the type of event. In the List of battles and other violent events by death toll#Terrorist attacks the BMB is almost at the bottom of a very long list which I suspect is missing a number of similar size non-American entries. The List of industrial disasters is sorted by category rather than death toll (and also appears to be random with at least one event with no deaths being included (guess which country!)). The Bangladesh building collapse is the largest entry under Manufacturing industry, which is too specific for comparison, but a quick scan through the entries indicates that it would clearly be in the top 10% of those list, probably the top 5%. The list is obviously incomplete, and biased, but does include entries spanning over 100 years.

In short(!), I would like to think that using the 9 non-English entries for events as well as Deaths would help, but still think the current problem s will continue. Worth a try though. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a real problem when us pesky Americans decide to push our entries. If only others spent as much time pushing their items instead of knocking ours down. Snarkiness aside, the proposed change makes sense. Hot Stop (Talk) 02:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

International notability of an event is not based on its death toll - the Boston bombings would probably have been included even if no-one died.

A lone gunman's mass murder is not an international event, despite such events receiving a lot of media coverage in many countries. If something like the Sandy Hook massacre had occurred anywhere other than the US, there would not have been many people wanting it added.

The only argument being put forward for the Bangladesh building collapse being added is that many people died - despite that not being anything to do with the inclusion criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to advocate for a change in the policy which states that "High death counts do not necessarily merit inclusion into the article." Let's say one million people die in a single disaster in an isolated part of some country. The place is completely wiped out, so no aid is needed. It was isolated and contributed almost nothing to internal and international trade. Nobody famous was among the dead. According to the current policy, I don't think this hypothetical event would qualify for listing. And I would say that would be an error produced by policy. (Yes, I know, the policy uses the mink word "necessarily" and that the opening of the page says common sense rules, but in reality a lot of editors use policy to trump common sense -- or the definition of common sense as it pertains to a specific issue is itself up for grabs. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there should be something more definitive about the minimum criteria for the inclusion of disasters. Short of setting specific death tolls (which I've tried to get discussion on before, to no avail), how about any disaster in which the death toll would be in the top 10% of disasters of that type in the last 10 years? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In the very unlikely event of a disaster killing a million people, there would be a great deal of international aid. This is because even if a whole city were destroyed, aid would be required for the homeless/injured survivors and for rebuilding. That would be like a worse version of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Using 10% as the threshold would be difficult due to differing estimates and the fact that it could be added, only to be removed due to a disaster with a high death toll occurring later the same year, pushing the earlier disaster out of the 10%. Jim Michael (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Deaths, revisited

I think we need to specify a timeline at WP:RY#Deaths: Perhaps, changing

...with the addition that the number of non-English Wikipedia articles is taken at the time of the person's death.

to

...with the addition that the number of non-English Wikipedia articles is taken at the time of the person's death, or 2012-01-01, if later.

The reason I want clarification is the matter of Abdul Fatah Younis in 2011#Deaths. At first, I thought that he didn't have an en.Wikipedia article at death, which would have made it difficult to determine whether he had 10 language Wikipedia articles. The date should be when the vast majority of conversion to Wikidata occurred. It's difficult to determine by hand whether a person had 10 Wikidata-language articles at death, requiring at least 5 clicks, but it is virtually impossible to find, before Wikidata, whether a person had 10 foreign language articles at death without having an en.Wikipedia article. Such people, according to the guidelines, probably should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The wikidata conversion has been a pain in the **** in this respect. I don't see that the addition of a specific date will help. By actually checking the non-English articles for Younis the majority seem to have been created in early 2011 and were still stubs until his death which indicates that his notability stems in large part from his death rather than anything else. As with most such cases if he wasn't added within a short time after his death then he's probably not sufficiently notable. On a side note, the 10 wiki articles seemed a reasonable number at the time it was established but now seems increasingly insufficient, the prevalence/popularity of wikipedia meaning that Recentism makes it relatively easy for people of minor notability to pass the minimum criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, rather than 2012-01-01, we should use the date when the "at the time of death" rule became established? Back in 2002, with many fewer Wikipedias, even an extremely notable person might not have 9 other-language entries then. DerbyCountyinNZ's previous comment suggests that a percentage of the total number of Wikipedias at the time might be an appropriate level of interest. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to alter guidelines

I feel the guidelines for including people in the Deaths section prohibits people of notability from getting included because of the amount of non-English Wiki's they seem to have to need. Monty Oum was a well regarded animator whose work has achieved global attention. He was nominated for a Producers Guild of America award for his work, and his anime RWBY is now being dubbed for Japanese audiences, which is a feat in itself as normally anime get translated from Japanese. He's on 5 non-English wikis, which I feel is more than enough. Rusted AutoParts 21:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Rusted. See comments in prior two sections on this page. Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Rusted seems to be the second third editor to agree. That does not resemble a consensus to change the guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Propose an alternative which might get consensus. Even if there were a consensus to change the guideline, nothing will happen unless there is consensus for a specific change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The current criteria accepts the addition of plenty of people to the deaths section with minimal fuss, with a few exceptions added by consensus. That 2 disaffected users have had their additions rejected and then failed to gain consensus for an exemption to the criteria AND neither of whom can come up with a viable alternative which improves the quality of Recent Year articles (as opposed to merely allowing the individuals they want added) is no basis to modify the current criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't so much about improving the quality of the section, it's modifying the criteria for people of note who have passed away to be added. I know you're in a dash and genuinely don't care about this as both of you are already stating we failed to gain consensus ONLY A DAY AFTER I BEING UP MY STANCE, by the way. The proposal is clear: those who achieved notability on 5-10 Wikipedia sites meet the criteria for being added to the deaths section. This allows people who have achieved international attention to get included rather than excluded based on what can only be described as a technicality. Now the consensus starts. Rusted AutoParts 13:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's a proposal. I don't think anyone else will agree with it, but we'll see what happens. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose change. The current minimum requirement is sufficient. Those few cases which fail the minimum but deserve inclusion can be added as the result of consensus. 5 wiki articles will lead to a proliferation of non-notables. Wikipedia has now been going long enough that the proportion of those meeting the 10 wiki minimum has increased by approx 100% in the last 7 years and will continue to increase, particularly those subject to Recentism, such as Monty Oum, who, FWIW, wouldn't meet the 5 wiki minimum anyway as it looks like he only had 1 wiki article before his death. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

So I guess I could also do an additional proposal of adding Monty Oum as one of the few cases. Despite only gaining more notability in death, his achievements are still in itself what made him famous. PGA nominated, his anime going international. It also doesn't hurt that sites like Variety, People, New York Times and Time were aware of Oum enough to publish in memorials and obituaries. Rusted AutoParts 14:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I explained why I think Monty Oum is not suitable for making an exception at the 2015 talk page. Like DerbyCountyinNZ noted, the only thing that made him notable enough for non-English editors to bother writing about him is his unexpected death which probably made a few headlines within anime communities. So "famous" is nothing but WP:PEACOCK here. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)