Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

RFC: Incumbent section of 'Year in place' articles.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus on options A or B; consensus strongly against C - David Gerard (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Concerning the Year in Wales, Year in Scotland (post-1707), Year in England (post-1707) & Year in Northern Ireland articles. Should we?

A) Show the head of state (monarch), under the 'Incumbents' section.
B) Don't show the head of state (monarch), under the 'Incumbents' section.
C) In the (Wales) year articles, should we be showing (or not showing) the prince (and princess) of Wales in the 'Incumbents' section? GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• A; no on C - doesn't actually matter to the Cymri. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• B; yes on C - I don't see a problem with including the Princes (and Princesses) of Wales in the Wales years. They are incumbent postholders, after all, despite their being ceremonial titles. I'm not aware of current Princes or Princesses of England or Scotland or Northern Ireland, hence the question doesn't arise for these countries. I've no opposition to including the (UK) monarch, she's the head of state, after all. Unless we include the UK prime minister too, there's no need to include the monarch. Seems like a royalist affectation otherwise. Sionk (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• A or B & no on C. Seeing as England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland are not independent countries. I've no problem with having or not having the British monarch listed. However (as I noted in the discussion below), the prince & princess of Wales do not belong in the incumbents section. They're are not Wales' monarch & consort. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• B and C: Yes. Deb (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• A; no on C. Sea Ane (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• B and C: Yes. --Craigysgafn (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• A or B, I don't mind; C definitely not (and even more definitely not for "Princess") - these are courtesy titles of almost no direct relevance to the country concerned. If we had a "Year in Devon" article would we include the Duke of Devonshire? - no. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• A; no on C: Wales is not a principality. For those voting yes on C, may I ask what about the Prince of Scotland? Peter Ormond 💬 22:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

To answer that question, the title "Prince of Scotland", though it exists for historic reasons, is seldom if ever used, whereas the title "Prince of Wales" is the correct and most common way of referring to Charles. Deb (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Similary, the title of Prince of Wales "exists for historic reasons". It is used as a courtesy title, only used as a "common way of referring" to the heir apparent. And there has never really been a "PRINCE" of Wales, since Dafydd ap Gruffydd in 1285. Peter Ormond 💬 17:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• A, no on C. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• No on C, soft yes on B. The Prince/Princess of Wales isn't particularly relevant to Wales; it doesn't make much sense to list them as an incumbent with all that implies. To a certain extent, I would extend that to the monarch in regards to the four countries; while the monarch does hold significant powers, they are concentrated on the national level, and are not particularly relevant to the countries themselves. However, the matter isn't as clear cut as the Prince/Princess of Wales is. BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• A; no on C. I think the Prince of Wales is paradoxiclaly more relevant to the Duchy of Cornwall than to WalesDeathlibrarian (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Late last night & very early this morning. I inserted the British monarch into the (1700 to 2021) Year in Wales articles 'incumbent' sections, while deleting the prince (princess) of Wales. I did this on the basis, that the prince of Wales does not reign over Wales & his wife is thus not the consort. I didn't expect to get any resistance on those articles, but I did today (by two editors) & so thus the opening of this RFC. I also noticed that the British monarch (and no other royalty) was in the incumbent sections of the Year in Scotland articles & the Year in England articles. The British monarch is also in the incumbent section of the Year in Northern Ireland articles, too (which I inserted months ago, I think) & with no opposition. Anyways, I was & am baffled by the objections to my changes at the Welsh Year articles. Had I known ahead, I would've brought the matter to discussion first, rather then go ahead & make the over 300 edits :( GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting your mass changes. The format of the Year in Wales articles was discussed and agreed many years ago and has changed little apart from the addition of the Year in Wales header template. The Year in Wales articles began to be introduced in 2006, and at the time there were no equivalent articles for Scotland, England or Northern Ireland; the first of these appeared in about 2010 in order to emulate the Year in Wales articles. You seem to be under the impression that Wales and the other home nations of the UK are identical in status and nature. That is a misconception. There is absolutely no reason for the articles to have the same format, but all broadly follow the format for Year in Topic articles (which are all slightly different). The Year in Wales articles were specifically intended to record events in Wales and directly relevant to Wales. There is no reason for the monarch to be included in the "Incumbents" section, which is simply for recording those who hold particular positions directly relevant to Wales, for example the Archdruid and the Archbishop of Wales. I would suggest, if you want consistency, that you create an infobox for inclusion on all four of the "Year in [home country]" articles making it clear that they are constituent countries of the UK and nominally ruled by the Queen and the UK government, which would clarify matters for the casual reader. PS. Please don't suggest adding Boris Johnson to the Incumbents section on the grounds that he is PM of the UK, or you'll create further bad feeling. Deb (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The addition of the British prime minister isn't required. GoodDay (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I voted to keep the monarch in the list, but am beginning now to think that is an ugly compromise. After all, if we list the monarch we should also list the UK prime minister, who also governs over Wales, though not exclusively. Deb's suggestion of explaining the UK hierarchy in an Infobox is a better solution. "Incumbents" says 'post holders' to me. The Prince of Wales is an incumbent (ceremonial) post holder specific to Wales, as is the Arch Druid for that matter. Sionk (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The UK PM is relevant only for reserved and excepted matters. Other powers are devolved to the Senedd, which nominates a First Minister of Wales. See also First Minister of Scotland and of NI. Certes (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind folks, this RFC will also decide whether or not the British monarch should be in the English, Scottish & Northern Irish Year articles' incumbents section. It's not only about the Welsh Year articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Better notify the relevant projects then. Deb (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I already did that, when I opened this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Sionk says above, "The Prince of Wales is an incumbent (ceremonial) post holder specific to Wales, as is the Arch Druid for that matter." Sorry. I can't agree. The Archdruid is a genuine post with specific duties having relevance for Wales. The title "Prince of Wales" is just a historical anomaly, and simply indicates the heir-apparent to the British throne who has no actual responsibilities. (Which is why I can't take the word "post" seriously.) It is a (relatively) harmless pretence to suppose that the title holder has some special sigificance for Wales, so I'm not opposed to including this information, though it wouldn't grieve me to see it omitted. But for heaven's sake, please don't include the name of the monarch. --Craigysgafn (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarify: But you still want the prince (princess) of Wales in the incumbent section of the Welsh Year articles? GoodDay (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Question: when the Senedd passes a bill, who is it that formally makes it an Act of the Senedd by signing it into law? I am pretty certain that it is (almost?) always Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, for so long as she remains alive. Occasionally it might be Charles, but that would not be as Prince of Wales but in his capacity as Regent during the temporary incapacity of the Sovereign. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That's true, but you're suggesting that the "Incumbents" section relates to legislation. What makes you think that's the case? Deb (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The incumbents section: Should inclue to the 'head of state' (British monarch) over the constituent country, as well as the local 'head of government' (first minister) & indeed the local legislature. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? What's the rationale for this selective inclusion of 'incumbents'. Why the UK monarch but not the UK prime minister, for example. I'm curious to know. Sionk (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, the British monarch appoints the first minister of Wales & first minister of Scotland. I'm not certain about the first minister of Northern Ireland. I do know however, that the British prime minister doesn't appoint any of those officials. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

In theory, the British monarch appoints those ministers. In practice, they're political appointments: the ruling party or coalition makes a nomination for the monarch to endorse. Certes (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the name of the "Incumbents" sections need renaming or clarifying. Perhaps "Head of State (UK)", "Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland government", "Other incumbents" would be better? If we're basing it on who-appoints-who, well, the UK prime minister definitely appoints the Secretary of State ...so why draw the line with the monarch but not the UK prime minister? It all seems quite random with no particular rationale. Sionk (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The British monarch appoints the Secretary of State, on the advice of the British prime minister. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The monarch is listed at the infoboxes of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so why shouldn't that be mentioned at the Years articles? Peter Ormond 💬 22:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The monarch is listed at the infoboxes of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so why does it need to be mentioned at the Years articles? Deb (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, Deb! In fact, by today, the English monarchy are only puppets, figure heads, hereditary anomalies, with absolutely no power other that over the minds of old Etonian, lager-drinking, tatoo-worshipering right wing nationalists. They are there to remind us of our place. They achieved power by their sword, viciousness, cruelty and are an insult to the average Welsh, Scottish, Cornish and Irish person. We don't need this insulting and political bias on Wikipedia thank you, GoodDay! In the name of decolonisation, common sense and democracy, let's leave them out altogether. Cell Danwydd (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The English monarchy ended in 1707, along with the Scottish monarchy. They merged to become the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

For 'British monarchy' read 'English monarchy', for as Gwynfor once said: “Britishness… is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish.” Cell Danwydd (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The 1707 Acts of Union, 1800 Act of Union etc, have said otherwise. But of course, we're getting off topic :) GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Similarly, per your logic, the prime minister or the first minister is listed at the infoboxes of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so why does it need to be mentioned at the Years articles? Peter Ormond 💬 03:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Odd discussion. Despite having been arrested (but not convicted) for ABH against the current fake incumbent as Prince of Wales, I have included them in similar articles I have written on CY Wiki eg 1864 yng Nghymru, because, like it or not, they hold titles relevant to Wales. The boss of the UK, or the Empire isn't specifically relevant to "Wales" in 18xx etc, so isn't needed. That turns the article from being one about Wales to be a generic UK article, which already exists, and is linked to in the "see also" section of the info box in English! 1864 in the United Kingdom AlwynapHuw (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wowsers. Almost a whole month gone by, since opening this RFC. Well, when the Template is removed (which will be soon)? I'll put in a request for closure. Seeing the backlog over there, it might take a while for a decision to be handed down, so be patient. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sent in the request. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2021 (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.

@David Gerard: I've implemented the consensus concerning Option C. However, myself & @Deb: are in slight disagreement with how to implement the no consensus on Options A & B, particularly concerning the Welsh Year articles.

I think he & I do agree to not delete (per no consensus) the British monarchs from the English, Scottish & Northern Irish Year articles, per status-quo.

I will accept his deleting the British monarchs from the Welsh Year articles (per no consensus), due to its status-quo of 'not' having them.

Note- I plan, in the coming hours or days, to open up a follow-up RFC on 'add/delete' British monarchs to/from all the English/Welsh/Northern Irish/Scottish Year articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@AlwynapHuw:, recommend you read the above closed RFC, concerning the prince/princess of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History § Women's rights by year article(s)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History § Women's rights by year article(s). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The naming of years here only considers Europe

In most articles about years between about 700 BC and 550 AD it says that the year was known as the "year of the consulship of [two people]" or something Ab Urbe Condita, but this was only used in the Roman or Byzantine empires and it is incorrect to say that that is what the year was known as everywhere. It ignores the many other calendars used outside of the Roman or Byzantine empires. Aalaa324 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. I just opened one year in that range - 312 - and I notice that the lead says At the time, it was known as the Year of the Consulship of Constantinus and Licinianus (or, less frequently, year 1065 Ab urbe condita). The denomination 312 for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years. As you note, all of that is only true for a small part of the world, but the lead presents it as if it were simply the universal truth. This seems like a clear example of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS at play. Correcting it will be a lot of work because it applies to so many articles, but it doesn't seem like it should be that complicated. One solution would be to just move that entire part to a section called "Europe" or something along those lines. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC opened, in relation to this WikiProject

An RFC related to the 'Place in Year' articles, has been opened. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

New year header template up for deletion

Template:New year header (and Template:New decade header) has been proposed for deletion. It is used every New Year's Day on the articles for the involved years, automatically keeping the articles are accurate as the year changes in each time zone. More input is needed at the deletion discussion. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobel Prizes

Nobels shouldn't have their own section; they should be in a single entry in Events. Jim Michael (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

But they are not all announced at the same time, are they? Deb (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest

We usually don't include music events, so why do we include Eurovision? It's popular, but not important. Jim Michael (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the point about it is that it's of international notability. At the last count, there were about 40 countries competing - including Australia - and many of them see the result, or their country's performance, as quite significant. It's come a long way from its early days. Deb (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Years in fiction

Didn't year pages used to carry such a section? e.g. Soylent Green takes place in 2022. Mporter (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Decade articles do. The 2010s article does at least (see 2010s#Literature). The 2020s article doesn't yet, but that might be a good thing to add. It's weird that we have a Wikiproject for the 2010s and we have a Wikiproject for "years" generically but we don't have a WikiProject for decades more generally (i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Decades doesn't exist yet). Someone should fix that. -- RobLa (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be a task force of this project? Decade summaries are basically edited highlights of the year articles. Certes (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

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

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

and turns it into something like

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

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

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

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

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

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

Section edit links in decade articles

Editors who watch this page may be interested in WP:VPT#160s. In some decade articles, "Births" and "Deaths" section [edit] links redirect to Module:For nowiki. Certes (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Year categories for upcoming products

I've had a poke around and not seen any official guidance/discussion on adding eg Category:2023 films to an unreleased film (or other "product"). For my work on the Special:WantedCategories backlog I've always tended towards the view that WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia does not predict the future...Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident]]) meant that you shouldn't be categorising by date until a film had been actually released as the "year of release" was not a definite property of the film until it had been released. We've had many examples because of COVID-19 lately, but even before that it was far from unknown from films/software/albums to slip massively from announced release dates. As such, they are different to major sporting events like the Olympics where it was almost unheard of for them to change year - so I would regard 2020 sporting events as an exception to the rule, whereas for films etc it was just an intensification of something that was already common. We already have Category:Upcoming films which more accurately and more reliably describes such films than a release year category. Any thoughts? Should it be written into WP:Categorization that articles on upcoming products should not be categorised by year until after release? Le Deluge (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Merging "by period" and "by date" container categories, or not?

Please check this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Organization by significance/importance

I'm amazed this hasn't been brought up, but isn't it possible to create more succinct summaries of the more significant events/people of each year, in addition to the comprehensive version? The years of events/people as they currently exist are for all practical purposes useless simply because of their length. At the least there could be symbols next to the listed pages indicating which have pages of any significant or major length, instead of bloating the lists with links that are 99% stubs. (For an example of what I'm talking about, look at the events, births or deaths for any year.) 8.9.86.197 (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that 2 or 3 of the most significant events could easily be added to the lead of many year articles, if you feel something is significant enough to do so please edit the article boldly to that effect. "Succinct summaries of [the article]" sounds like a perfect description of what the leads are for!

Separately many of them could be improved by removing some of those 'stub' articles you mention.

JeffUK (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Essay on 'Template for Main Year Articles' with inclusion guidance

Some time ago I found an Essay on the suggested layout and content of 'Main Year Articles.' I'm sure it was linked to from this project but can't for the life of me remember how I got to it. It had a template with some discussion on what is normally included in each section.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about and/or have a link?

Thanks! JeffUK (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recent years? Certes (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@JeffUK and Certes: - For that WP-Recent years essay, I added a "Further" pointing to

Further information: WP:WikiProject Years/criteria

At WP-Years/criteria essay, I added

For Wikipedia's essay that is a collection of advice about year articles, see WP:Recent years.

Might be helpful if those two essays are merged, or moved into WP Years home page? JoeNMLC (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Year leads

108.46.183.100 seems to be systematically rewriting the leads of year articles. Are these changes an improvement? Certes (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No, this is pure redundancy. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The obvious WP:SPA's unconstructive changes, should be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinions. Is there a rollbacker here willing to revert? That should be faster and more accurate than my hammering the Undo button. Certes (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

To avoid an accusation of edit warring, I wouldn't undertake any of this until the user is blocked. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

They've moved on to adding wikilinks, possibly after reading my polite warning, so probably won't need to be blocked. The question of whether we should undo their work remains. Certes (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Also concerning, is the IP's apparent refusal to interact (communicate) with members of the community. The cold shoulder approach, can be off putting to editors. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

They've resumed adding the boilerplate text to 50 more year articles. I've left another message, but they are making mobile web edits, so the lack of response may be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. There are precedents for blocking IPs (and registered editors) who don't answer because the IT fails to show them the questions, but it's a last resort. Certes (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The disruption continues. I've issued a final warning to User talk:108.46.183.100, but it might show consensus more clearly if someone else takes the next step. (Alternatively, if no one is willing, perhaps the edits should stand.) Certes (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

We have another bot-like IP, 114.79.21.154, adding year navigation in number articles. The two may be related. Certes (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

That IP geolocates to Indonesia while the former one geolocates to the US. I've just come across the first IP on my watchlist. I've blocked it and have mass-rollbacked its edits. Graham87 04:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the block and rollback, Graham. 114's edits were a one-off mistake, which I've reverted, and I agree the timing is a coincidence. Certes (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Graham87: Does 2600:1004:B016:9601:A565:61BF:5811:7F85 look familiar? Certes (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

They're the same sorts of edits but the IP geolocates to California, not New York (see the geolocate feature on the contribs page). I've blocked and reverted anyhow. Graham87 02:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. I didn't think to check location, as I'm more interested in the changes than who did them. We may be dealing with someone who moves around or has access via multiple locations, such as a Californian who edits at work via a NY company's head office connection. (The Indonesian is obviously a different person.) Certes (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Now in North Carolina, but just the one edit which I've reverted. Certes (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not willing to block that IP yet ... but I'll see what they do. Graham87 15:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems like one individual hoping from IP to IP. GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Graham for blocking another incarnation in 108.21.79.125‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS). These IPs, along with a few now inactive such as 79.126.160.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), quack like blocked user Are U Super Cereal. Certes (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(link will display the full calendar)

Posting here on the advice of Certes and Primefac from this thread.

The lede of a lot of the year articles contains a qualifier after the first sentence that notes “(link will display the full calendar)”. I’ve started adding a {{unprintworthy inline}} container around it, as when printed or converted to other non-dynamic formats, the text looks ludicrous. I wondered if a bot might do this for me.

However, as pointed out at the Bot Requests page, it’s actually a phrase that goes against the manual of style and it’s very uncommon to qualify a link this way anywhere else in the ‘pedia.

A bulk removal of this line therefore might be a better use of a bot’s time, but only if there are no objections at this Wikiproject. Your thoughts are thus very welcome — probably here is better than at Bot Requests, but you be you. — Trey Maturin has spoken 21:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"5100" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 5100 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#5100 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Collages on main year articles

Can collages be added to main year articles, recently there has been discussion on talk page of the 2020 article and then transfer to the talk page on the 2022 article, the idea was originally brought up by user KoopaDaQuick, and the idea is to use the collages just like the ones on the decade articles on the main year articles themselves, I support this idea because the event sections can get really really cramped with photos, especially in the recent years where the years have been more dramatic. adding this to main year articles can make it look a lot better, and it will make it looked a lot nicer. 4me689 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Removal of "link will display the full calendar" in year articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Removal of "link will display the full calendar" in year articles. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Archived without much interest except for people not wanting it removed unless and until a replacement is found. — Trey Maturin has spoken 18:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Births and deaths TOC

The use of {{Births and deaths TOC}} and possibly adding a variant to Events sections is currently discussed at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Any sidebar template for Annual 12 months. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: - that discussion got archived here and I don't know if it can be "un-archived"? Elsewhere, I used Bump and Being worked on to prevent bot from moving to archive. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@JoeNMLC: The Teahouse is a place to get help, not hold long discussions. You can continue the discussion here. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Use of photomontages and other pictorial designs

I previously asked User:4me689 to discuss this matter here, but I see that s/he has gone ahead and added their own designs to a number of year pages. This needs further thought. Deb (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Year leads 2

Year lead edits are back on 100.2.177.233. Certes (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

...and 2600:4040:9B0D:EA00::0/64 (thanks to Brunton for reverting some). Certes (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

They seem to be continuing. Brunton (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Certes. Still ongoing. I noticed that last time it seems to have been dealt with by Graham87. Is it worth notifying them, or does that sort of thing need to be done via an appropriate noticeboard? Brunton (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll ping Graham87, who may be able either to deal with it or to advise us where to go. I don't think we're ready for AIV yet, as we haven't gone through the motions of repeating the four warnings for every new IP. Certes (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Certes and Brunton: Thanks for the note; all blocked and reverted. Notifying me is probably the best course of action in these cases. Graham87 13:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Prototyperspective (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

collage discussions

this message is here to tell everyone that there has been a discussion on collages at User talk:4me689/collage discussions 4me689 (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This message is here to tell everyone that no consensus has been reached on the inclusion of collages in Year articles (in fact, no attempt has been made to obtain consensus), and the problems so far encountered suggest that they should not be included until there is such a consensus. Deb (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

collage vote

we are doing a vote on mean your article collages

should we have collages on main year articles 4me689 (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

ping everyone has contributed to this talk section. @Certes:, @KoopaDaQuick:, @Jc3s5h:, @JoeNMLC: and @Graham87:. 4me689 (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing is not allowed. Deb (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Note - See below. I've opened up an RFC on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

yes

1. I absolutely support collages on main year articles it makes the pages more unique plus the event section could get clogged up with images. 4me689 (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Absolutely, as long as consensus is reached first. They don't need a ton of images, and we should all decide which events are even worth highlighting, but modern years have been eventful in and of themselves, and having a leading image for them to truly "represent" them helps give each article character instead of feeling like the same copy/pasted robot-made vibe that all the other year articles have. KoopaDaQuick (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
3. They're useful in summarising each year in visual form. The only problem with them is that some include events which are insufficiently notable due to being domestic or pop culture. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
4. I believe they make the articles more visually appealing and engaging. I'm not a "wannabe graphic artist", I'm adding to the collective information of the world. If I really wanted to be a graphic designer, I would have studied it in university and gotten a professional job in it. However, I do like making these collages in my own time, and I believe it can make articles less monotonous and less grey and dull. Humans love to see visuals, and I am no exception. I am perfectly willing to have conversations about the image selection, and don't really have a problem with changing some around if there is agreement and a good argument for it. That is why I posted prompts for collage discussions in the talk pages of every article 1979-2009, so that people could give their thoughts on images. I apologize for not getting wide-scale agreement beforehand, but now that this issue has come to light, I am willing to have talks about image selection for these collages. Thanks all.The ganymedian (talk)

   Sorry, but in what way are you "adding to the collective information of the world"? Deb (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

   A picture may not actually add information, but it makes reading an article a little less dry. Furthermore, because most people are visual learners, adding pictures makes an article more memorable. Dhrm77 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

5. At first I was very reluctant to have collages in the YiT, but I think it's a good way to summarize the year and give more aesthetics to the article, without the need for it to be a sheet of text only. It's a good idea, especially when looking for the consensus of the rest of the editors. Just because it has always been done one way doesn't mean it always has to be that way. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
6. Yes. It makes the pages more interesting. Wjfox2005 (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
7. Yes, but with a caveat - I think visual representation of the year is a fine thing, but if a tally of the images is taken and more than 25% (for example) represents a single country, then change needs to be made. Wikipedia is not America (or indeed any other individual country) and while American events may be felt around the world, that doesn't mean nothing else happens around the world. This was why I removed the 2001 collage. The fact that a vote has agreed collages can be used doesn't mean that they must be moved used, and there's no reason why a year must have one. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

   That is fair @Chaheel Riens The ganymedian (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

8. I support the concept, so long as they’re not dominated by images from one country and that they reflect that international nature of the main year pages. For instance, with 2021 I strongly believe that an image from the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, during which 250+ people were killed and tens of thousands of people were displaced, should replace the January 6 image (especially since we already have images of far more notable and significant coups with Myanmar and Sudan). Essentially, I fully endorse what’s been said by Chaheel Riens, among others. My reservations are more for the new sections listing the most prominent deaths of former leaders and (especially) entertainers, which I feel should also be discussed here and put to a vote. TheScrubby (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes

I support adding the photo collages to the respective years. (User:Austria Football 02) 17:54, 21 October 2022 (CEST)

@Austria Football 02:, this discussion has been superseded by another discussion down below put your opinion there at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey

no

1. No. We are not here to indulge wannabe graphic artists. Any collages that are included should be subject to the same rules as other entries, i.e. there must be consensus that the images included are the most significant of the year (not that we need anything to tell us that when we already have an events section to which images can be added). Deb (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
2. Would like to see the college image box deleted from the 2022 page & any other Year page. PS - I wish a consensus had been thought first, rather the boldly adding them to those pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
3. Big No. This collage doesn't add anything useful to the page, it is inherently pure WP:OR. It also seem to be a colossal time sink (although that part would not be a reason to have it or not). Delete them all.--McSly (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
4. Firstly, all the current collages should be removed as they are not only low-quality (images are stretched and low-quality) but they were not created by any method of community consensus. Also, can we please not establish collages for years/decades that are currently in progress? As for the idea of collages in general, my opinion has actually changed on this. I like images and think they are important for almost all articles, so I initially believed that images in the lead made sense for year articles. However, I have noticed that, in practice, a collage for such a vast topic as a year will lead to certain viewpoints and preferences being expressed over others. And like McSly said above, it is a colossal time sink. ~BappleBusiness^[talk] 05:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

McSly and BappleBusiness - can you clarify what you mean by "time sink"? Surely you are not advocating dictating to other editors how they spend their time contributing? As this is clearly an AGF attempt to improve the project something being a "time sink" is utterly irrelevent - which McSly even acknowledges. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Close it down

Per WP:VOTE & the fact that (see below) an RFC on this matter is in progress. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Assassination and attempts guidelines

Hello all,

Let me know if this is the right place for this. I have been cleaning up and making edits to the assassinations and attempts sections on many year articles. I wanted to go over a lot of things I have found aside from a lot of these entries lacking sources. I want to go over a few guidelines to determine who we include that I think cans serve us well, feel free to discuss.

First and foremost each entry should be worded as following: PERSON, OFFICENAME of COUNTRYNAME, was ASSASINATED/SHOT/BOMBED BY (PERSON,GROUP,AND/OR METHOD) in LOCATION with additionally details if necessary. If the word assassinated, killed, etc. is used that word should link to the article about the event.

The assassinations section tends to include people whose biographies are three to four sentences or has no article at all. For example, the 2010s had nearly half the section filled with local officials in the Philippines. The assassinations and attempts of both incumbent and former world leaders, heads of state, heads of governments, etc. should always be included. This should also includes vice presidents and anyone considered to be first in any national line of succession. This also includes major leaders of international organizations and institutions such as major corporations, activists movements, religious groups, terrorist organizations, drug cartels, militia groups, etc. For non-national leaders, it is case by case in my point of view. Members of national legislatures and courts would likely be permissible if the event has its own wikipedia article. There are people who may not fit these categories but are otherwise notable. The attempted assassination of Malala Yousafzai, for example, warrants inclusion. Additionally, figures assassinated by countries themselves would be notable for inclusion. The Israeli and American governments killing top Iranian nuclear scientists or Russia killing/attempting to kill the nationals of other countries as in the case of the Skripals are significant enough for inclusion given the publicity of each event.

Additionally, I think that we need to establish criteria in regards to unsuccessful attempts. In my point of view, an attempt should be included if an active physical attempt to wound the person occurs such as someone opening fire on someone or charging toward them, etc. This does not need to necessarily include bodily injury. Someone turning themselves in to authorities saying they wanted to cause harm to a person without actually doing so would not be significant enough to add as anything short of an actual active attempt to physically harm someone is not an attempt and is instead a plot.

I'd love to get a consensus on this. Thanks! PaulRKil (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• I see assassinations as a bit of a problem. Some are undoubtedly major events, worthy of inclusion, e.g. John F. Kennedy, but I think these are a small minority. If the victim is in the Deaths section, there may or may not be a reason to include them in the Events section as well, but mostly it ends up something like: "X is shot by Y", with Y being someone obscure or even anonymous, and I don't see that as meriting inclusion. I realise that isn't an answer. I broadly agree with your comments on unsuccessful attempts. Deb (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for replying, it certainly does help! As far as justifying the existence of the section, I think it helps add context to their deaths. We could have a deaths section here where we also can add additional details on the circumstances of their deaths, but I feel it would become clogged with details. Otherwise, I think assassination events would bleed into other sections of the article ie major political events by region, so I think it is beneficial to make it be its own section. PaulRKil (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Should birth and death sections have citations?

It seems that the vast majority of birth and death sections don't have citations, even on most recent years that are highly active. But there are also a few years where they are cited, like 2019. Is it necessary for birth and death dates to be cited? Or is it sufficient that it links to a biography article that lists birth and death as part of the person's description? I tried to look through the list-related guidelines to see what the rules for list citation and formatting are, but there was not much information. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien They have to have citations. The consensus to enforce this rule for Date and Year articles was introduced mid-2018, but we are still trying to clear up the backlog and we have barely started on the Month and Year in Topic articles. Calling in User:Toddst1 in case he wants to comment. Deb (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree 100%. We've been sloppy and there are a ton of unverifiable DOBs which not only fail WP:V, but they violate WP:DOB, a very serious part of WP:BLP. There's a ton of clean-up to be done. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Requesting comments: New removed section on Global goals and reports in 2022

There is a request for comment at Talk:2022 § New removed section on Global goals and reports (Result:) that may interest members of this WikiProject.

Should section "Global goals and reports" (in any shape or form) about the state of developments regarding global goals in/as of a year be excluded from article 2022?

Please participate at the talk page. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: this is something for 2022 in science and most people has oppose this

(also you mind go and reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#Survey) 4me689 (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Separate Elections into their own section for "Year In Country" articles?

This is primarily based on the results for the 2022 US Midterm elections, but based on how both how many elections there are, as well as how many notable milestones for a country there are, I think it is likely useful to include separate sections for elections for year-in-country articles. Continuing with the US as an example, I believe that milestones, such as Trump being the first President without previous gov. or military experience in 2016, or Wes Moore being Maryland's first black governor, should also be covered, and the normal event space for many countries is too crowded to put all of this.

I've drafted an example on how this could be done at this permalink to my sandbox, using the recent US midterms as my basis. Let me know your thoughts, please! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

this is a great idea, love it. 4me689 (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

One-page calendar template, for any year

I have just published {{One page calendar}}, which renders for this year, as:

Calendar for year with 1 January on a Saturday

2022
Date					May	Aug	Feb	Jun	Sep	Apr	Jan
							Mar		Dec	Jul	Oct
							Nov
1	8	15	22	29	Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
2	9	16	23	30	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
3	10	17	24	31	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun	Mon
4	11	18	25		Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun	Mon	Tue
5	12	19	26		Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed
6	13	20	27		Fri	Sat	Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu
7	14	21	28		Sat	Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri

but can be used for any Gregorian year; see examples in the template's documentaton.

It can be styled, the caption and titles are configurable, and it is multi lingual, for use on other wikis).

Can we include it on year pages such as 2022, 2023, etc? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it could help for more advanced users, but I think that it's a little bit too "clunky" looking and has too much of a learning curve, potentially deterring newer readers away. It's a good idea, but I think it might need a bit of work on the visual side. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Visual design isn't my forte; have at it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

my opinion is a little bit like invading Invaders, @Pigsonthewing: if you can make it smaller and make it fit with the collage, then I'll be okay with supporting this thing

(also you mind go and reply at #Survey) 4me689 (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

At it again. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay I agree...this does REALLY seem like canvassing. And I'm seeing it in A LOT of 4me689's replies. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

An editor has opened an WP:ANI report on this situation. Hopefully, the problem will be solved. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Also see the accessibility-related thread about this template, where I've commented. I'm not going to comment on the collage survey for obvious reasons ... :-) Graham87 03:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Years update

I've updated some of the sections of the WikiProject page (Related projects, Assessment and review, Participants, Templates, and Example year) to reflect the current status of the project. What should be done with the to-do section? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Past vs present tense

Editors have raised the question about whether timeline entries should be in the past tense or in the historical present tense. Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards#Past vs Present tense again and discuss it there. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Current focus

What's the current focus of this project? Most of the year articles are in pretty bad shape, and given the huge number of years and topics, this project in particular looks like it needs a lot of work. Is there a general consensus on what the top priority is right now? The only thing I can gather is that 1929 has been the collaboration of the week for the last few hundred weeks. If there isn't a current focus, is there any interest in a more organized push to improve a certain set of years or topics? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

currently we're trying to add collages to main year articles to make them look better. I also have gone ahead and try to fix the death section on some of the main year articles, I also tested a new look for the Nobel Peace Prize section on the 2022 article. adding more collages, fixing the death sections, as well as other bits and changes to make them more readable and more better to look at, will put this project in a better shape. 4me689 (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently we're trying to be rid of collages right now, to clean up the Year pages. So I don't know why 4me689 is (his words) adding more of them. GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm hearing that there's no interest in actually improving or expanding the articles, just formatting disputes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It does seem like that sometimes, but many of us are doing something. Most debate centers around this year's article (2022) and whether events have "sufficient international notability" to be included. On 2022 in the United States (where I'm most active), we're monitoring and adding significant US events; as of now, we're sorting elections into their own section. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

My thought process is that there needs to be more of a push to improve articles for other years, and maybe a discussion about what topics should take priority. I think national timelines are a good start, but the United States is really the only one that's well developed. Outside of the main years and the US timelines, this project is basically just thousands of stubs and articles needing citations. I put together 2021 in China, but it took me a few days, and that's just one list. It's clearly going to take a lot of effort to expand the other lists, and I think some sort of nudge toward these other areas could be helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I would agree in general with this approach. We are debating too much when it comes to inclusion, and I personally think that Year in country articles need to be promoted and improved more if we want to meritfully have stricter inclusion standards on main year articles. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Adding collages to all Year pages, would be more acceptable if they were downsized. An example of an acceptable collage size would be at the 2022 in the United States page. You'll find that many of the objections to the additions of collages on these year pages, has been that they're simply 'too big'. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)