Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconYears Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

[year] by [U.S. state] articles?[edit]

I notice there are no year articles for U.S. states, like 2023 in Texas. Is this because of a consensus decision, or just because no one has had the time to make them? I was thinking about starting writing year articles for Texas. Michael7604 (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If enough relevant information exists in reliable sources, then I don't see any reason why you couldn't (that's really the rule for creating any article or list). If anything, U.S. state by year articles might help offload some of the bloat in the United States articles. Just make sure that it's more than just a collection of random news stories. They should be about things that have some level of notability in their own right, like places and events that have their own articles. And keep in mind that there are a lot of year in location articles, and most of them get virtually no attention. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Thebiguglyalien, this is a great idea, this would fix a lot of problems with in year in the United States articles. 4me689 (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Village pump discussion[edit]

There's a discussion relating to year articles at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Years articles and timelines: Combined or split?. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notable Deaths in xxxx articles (concept pitch)[edit]

I have an idea for Notable Deaths in xxxx articles, it'll just be like the death sections that were formerly on the year articles, but it's on its own separate page and has looser notability rules, the initial consensus of RFC: split births & deaths from year articles only said to remove the death sections of the articles but never said where they should go, currently it just goes to the normal deaths in xxxx articles, where every single person who died who had Wikipedia articles are listed, not just the notable people. my idea is to make a separate article for the notable people death list, example: have deaths in 2023 for every person that have died & have that be unchanged and then have Notable Deaths in 2023 for notable people. someone already made a draft for the notable deaths of 2023 which I updated adding more sources and fixing the pictures. I know some people are going to oppose this based on the bludgeoning by Jim Michael and the scrubby and for years the section was stonewalled by a select few people, but since then Jim Michael has gone inactive and has been t-banned on year articles and the scrubby has semi-retired, and the after mention pitch for loosening the nobility of who's going to be on the article will make it so less conflicts happen, I'm just going to pitch this idea and see what feedback it gets and if it's positive we can go forward with this idea I'll wait for any feedback for it, and if there was any sort of consensus against this thing before, I love to be given the link to it. 4me689 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deaths in 2023 is already meant to be limited to notable people. About 90% of the entries have articles, and nearly all have at least an {{ill}}. Certes (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Certes I'm talking about limit it to heads of government/state, Nobel Peace Prize winners, Academy Award winners, Grammy Award winners, and solo Olympic champions etc. so people like Bill Richardson and James L. Buckley wouldn't be included because they were only notable in the United States. people like Yevgeny Prigozhin, Tony Bennett, John Devitt, John B. Goodenough, Rachid Sfar, William Friedkin, and many more who had achievements like them would be included on notable deaths, alternatively we can have pictures on the Deaths in 2023 and all other Deaths in xxxx articles instead, also I do see a couple of them on the list that don't have articles and are just red links. 4me689 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4me689, before trying to suggest changes, I suggest familiarizing yourself with the main content policies: verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not. Your suggestion violates all of them to some extent. You should also read the notability guideline to see the requirements for notability on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pictures on deaths in 2023[edit]

I added some pictures at deaths in 2023, any thoughts???? 4me689 (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prior consensus was no photos would be included. Rusted AutoParts 23:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts where???? 4me689 (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus was forged here. Rusted AutoParts 23:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this is from May of 2011 (12 years ago), and this wasn't an RFC, and alot has changed about the year Pages since, it should be a good idea to do an RFC on this. 4me689 (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The core points opposing it still stand though. It's in your hands to launch an RFC if you really feel that passionate about pictures on the pages, but I still am not for it. Rusted AutoParts 23:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With so many entries every month, it is important to keep the page load time to a minimum. That is why we only use simple cites. Including photos will slow the load time and frustrate the reader. WWGB (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
in my opinion it's a great idea because it makes the page look better 4me689 (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4me689, for the last year and a half you've essentially been a WP:Single-purpose account for modifying the pictures in articles about years. A good number of editors have challenged your attempts to insert these images, and it got to the point where WP:ANI discussions were started about your actions. It's fine to have an area of Wikipedia you're interested in, but you need to be able to work with others. And right now, the others are saying that we don't need these images, whether they be portraits on death articles or collages on the main years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The over-riding problem (apart from even slower page-loading times!) would be: who gets a photo and who doesn't? Because if you include a photograph of each and every subject entry, the page will never load and will be ten miles deep in length. Including images was never practical for this list, and still isn't. Ref (chew)(do) 07:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I solemnly oppose it. Adding photos of one person or another would be a source of unbreathable discussions (like those that existed in the "Deaths" section in Year in Topic). It would be aesthetically prettier, but unfeasible. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guideline page[edit]

Hi, I created this guideline page for WikiProject Years (Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Guidelines), because this section is too long. This will guide to an essay similar to Wikipedia:Manual of Style and other WikiProjects. MirrorPlanet (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC: Making things official with regard to inclusion on main year pages[edit]

Hey guys; I still personally interpret the current years inclusion guidelines as a bit in a state of limbo. I think that we should make something official at least, whether that be continuing giving priority to the Due Weight guideline, going back to the old International Notability standards, whatever. I want to avoid a situation where it seems like I'm enforcing a consensus that never existed, so I would prefer to get one here we can solidify. As such, I have proposed a few options below, which I've also opened up as an RFC so that a wider consensus can be developed. I'll be pinging some of the most recent editors from years articles as well:

Which of the following ideas should be the guiding one for inclusion in "Main Year articles", like 2023 and 1992?

  • Option A – Each event has its own consensus, as guided by WP:DUE and coverage
  • Option B – Only events that significantly affect multiple countries. International Notability, exclude all "domestic" events.
  • Option C – Option B plus notable domestic events.
  • Option D – Use the inclusion criteria as described in the essay WP:Recent years.

InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Option A, solidify the Due Weight policy as the main guideline for inclusion. I've written an essay about why the International Notability guidelines as previously proposed are a less than suboptimal set of standards that excluded way too many otherwise notable events (see User:InvadingInvader/Against international notability). I trust that consensus for each event based on coverage will be sufficient, and the inclusion of notable business mergers should also be considered. I would alternatively support Option C as a middle ground if compromise is needed. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option A. My approach to these articles has consistently been that best practices have already been developed a long time ago and codified under content P&G. For one reason or another, these particular articles have been very late in adopting these best practices. In discussion at the village pump and at Talk:2001 and Talk:2002, consensus seems to be that the best practice for determining due weight is to look at year in review sources and similar general sources. I've been applying that principle in the prosification of 2001 and 2002, but I have yet to see a consensus on how due weight should be applied to timelines (something that timelines on Wikipedia in general could benefit from). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Due weight in timelines could be a future RFC InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option A, this is obviously the best way to go with, we have due weight policies for a reason, there is a reason International nobility is no longer a thing, because in my opinion it shouldn't be a thing cuz it was an awful idea pressed on by Jim Michael & the scrubby. of course due weight policies does have their limits, year pages are not a timeline for any wars like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, nor there are all news sites, there supposed to give highlights of the year to readers, not a timeline by timeline of the year. of course we can always go with the pros option as need be, in fact I would support every year article 2000 present having Pros:4me689 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option A. I agree with the reasoning others have given. Consensus via WP:DUE weight + coverage seems like the best way to go about this. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option A. I agree that Option A is the best choice. It seems to me that the Recent Years essay has inclusion criteria which look very much like international notability. Donner60 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option A is the only one that has a chance of working. "in my opinion it shouldn't be a thing cuz it was an awful idea" is not an argument; it's a statement of opinion by a US contributor. International notability should still be a consideration when debating whether to include something, otherwise Year pages could end up being very US-centric again. Deb (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option A, remembering that the subject of these articles is the year, meaning the best and most relevant sources are those that discuss the year as their subject. This typically means year-in-review articles, although these are usually in short supply so we might also be able to use any source that demonstrates the weight of a particular event in that year. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option A. We should aim to follow established WP:PAG on the WP:YEARS pages. Carter00000 (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option A, and all the good reasons are stated above. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Do we consider Main Year articles to sit as summaries at the top of a hierarchy of articles? E.g. 1973 at the top, with a summary-style Music section that breaks out into 1973 in music. If so, do we think the same inclusion principles as voted on here should also apply to those subsidiary articles? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think we can. As there will be far fewer entries in most Year in Topic articles, there is mostly no real need to weed them out like that. However, some of the Year in Music articles have needed to be separated into music and music charts; that's the only example I can think of where it's an issue. Deb (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I personally think we can still have year in topic articles, just not as many articles total. A majority of the year in topic articles do seem to be for smaller countries like Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands. I proposed condensing some articles into Year in Southeast Asia, though the merger ultimately failed. We could even create newer ones, like XXXX in Politics, for notable domestic political events and debates which garnered international attention like (at least for recent examples) scandals and controversy surrounding Suella Braverman , Canadian-Indian relations, the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, Israeli judicial reforms, the Chinese defense minister Qin Gang and his disappearance shenanigans, etc. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think summary style subtopics are the way to go, especially if the year articles do end up becoming actual summaries of the year like broad topic articles are expected to be. Year in politics is one of the areas I was thinking about focusing on and doing some level of standardization after more work is done on the main year articles.
    I'm on the fence about mergers. On one hand, there's only so much happening in tiny island nations with a few thousand people, and it would make organization and completion so much easier. On the other, small countries can still have reasonably complete lists of events; I made 2021 in Botswana last year to prove this. I also think small country year articles are a possible tool to combat systemic bias. Just look at how many red links cropped up in that one article. Maybe decide mergers on a case by case basis? I'd probably support merging the Caribbean nations or some of the Pacific Island nations into one set of lists and then have things like 2023 in Tuvalu be redirects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I like what Thebiguglyalien has done so far with 2001, providing a prose summary of years' various topics instead of events. I'm presently working on a prosified version of 2022 in the United States in my sandbox; as of writing I'm a bit over halfway done with politics and starting on sports. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @InvadingInvader: As we know, regarding this style guide what I created (WP:YEARS/Style guide) as part of WikiProject's scope. MirrorPlanet (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That should be ratified by a consensus. It's a good proposal for a list-based year, but there is a growing movement to make more year articles prosified, mostly led by TheBigUglyAlien. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • This discussion seems to be unanimous for option A, should WP:SNOW be applied on this discussion, because it's looking like it's very unanimous and may need to be closed, of course there may be a chance that someone may put 1 of the other three options, it's been about 3 days since the RFC was opened, should we go ahead and submit this to the closure board or should we keep this discussion going until the 30 days of the RFC has expired. I would say we should close this discussion unless someone puts one of the other three options, I don't know anybody else is agreeing on this any thoughts???. 4me689 (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Note: I forgot to add this, @InvadingInvader any thoughts???? 4me689 (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, please. It's rare to see so many identical !votes from such a range of editors, and (imho) we should celebrate that with a quick close. Last1in (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How should year timelines be sourced?[edit]

Unless something significant changes, consensus shows that WP:DUE does in fact apply to year articles. But there's a related question that needs discussion. What should the sourcing look like? Right now, most items in year timelines are cited to a news article. The problem is that this often entails handpicking events and then finding sources for them. This is dangerously close to original research and basically lets editors decide for themselves what the defining moments of a year were. Individual news article sources just prove that the thing happened, but they don't help with context or weight the same way retrospective summary sources do.

The ideal solution that's been discussed is to use "year in review" sources or similar, and I've had some success using them. The problem is that they don't work well with timelines, because many of them don't provide the exact dates for events. So how do we reconcile this? Do we just say anything with a newspaper article has a case for inclusion? Do we cite everything to both an overview source and a specific news source? I bring this up because I'm encountering the problem at 2001, where the article portion is mostly cited to overview sources which provide for general coverage, but the timeline portion is just a random collection of events with minimal regard for how much weight these events are given by sources. I'd love to hear if anyone else has any thoughts on this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]