Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years

Standalone lists – prose in year articles

Has there ever been a consensus for the format of years articles? Most of them follow some variation of the events-births-deaths format and are classified as stand-alone lists, but most of these are also underdeveloped. Then on the other hand, there's 1345 and 1346, the latter being a Good Article. Is it just up to the whim of any given editor that decides to change the format? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinging BorgQueen since you brought this up previously. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

As I've told you on your talk page, I see no definite reason as to why they have to be stand-alone lists. BorgQueen (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the longer I think about it, the more I feel inclined to agree. The list format feels restrictive. And since no other users are chiming in, it seems that most people don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly was consensus for the format of Year articles (as shown on the project page under "Example year"), and it shouldn't be changed without consensus. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years/Archive_4#Turning years articles into prose for one of the earliest discussions on the subject of prose sections. Deb (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd hardly consider a 3 against 3 discussion from 2006 as "consensus", especially considering there's a discussion later in that very same archive from 2008 where another user points out that they've done such an expansion successfully and two other users voiced their support for this expansion. It seems there was another such discussion here in 2008 where the change was overwhelmingly supported, but you sought to overturn this consensus. Similar discussions scattered throughout archives 6-10 indicate broad support for improving the year articles in this fashion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking about how this expansion might take place, and I've written a brief summary of global population/economic information on 2001. If more prose is added, I'm wondering if it would be better to do it by region (like in 1346) or by topic (arts, conflict, politics, religion, science, etc). I'm also noticing a slight buffer when I begin editing the article now, and I'm wondering how much more can be added before it becomes unreasonably long given the massive number of citations it requires. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile I've added two images to the article for starters, avoiding excessively dark topics. Tell me what you think. BorgQueen (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Btw I haven't noticed the buffer you're talking about. I'm editing on 5G so I suppose that might cause differences though. BorgQueen (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I like the image selection, but on my display the mass of sidebars pushes them down to April and May. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Made them left-aligned. How about now? BorgQueen (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

They're still in April and May, but now on the left side. Something about Mediawiki hates putting images wherever there's a sidebar. I think the only way images can be cleanly displayed on desktop would be if the "in various calendars" template was either removed or collapsed by default (unless I somehow changed some setting that makes it only appear like this for me?). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I've tried different browsers and on my display the sidebar always reaches down to the January section only. But perhaps if we flesh out the prose section the problem will be solved. BorgQueen (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry not to have noticed this sooner. Yes, we need more input from project members. Deb (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking back over the archives (and yes, I know that people can change their minds and I also know that the archives are not easy to search) I see that this has been raised multiple times in the past 15 years - and I've even participated in many of the discussions - but there never seems to have been a consensus for doing it. Deb (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yet in this thread, albeit a short one, there seems to be some support for 1345. I suppose they have been always a minority then. BorgQueen (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes - I suspect there will always be support from the people who come up with the idea, but I don't think it would be easy to do it in such a way as to achieve unanimity or even consensus about what should be included in the prose summary I don't even remember that discussion on 1345, but I think it would be much easier to do for the years before America was discovered... Deb (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Given a choice, I would want all Year pages, to have the same format. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay here, and ultimately my position is a hybrid of "I don't know what to think" and "ultimately I don't mind the change". Thebiguglyalien makes a good argument, and I wouldn't mind seeing more prose-focused year articles, but this is a fundamental change to how things have stayed on years since I was 10 years old. If Thebiguglyalien can finally make this a non-perennial proposal and garner the support for changing the format, I would be happy to help once consensus assembles. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Since it seems the conversation has tapered off, I'd like to summarize my thoughts: a simple list of chronological events is unhelpful for readers. There's a reason why Wikipedia has a standard of favoring WP:PROSE over lists whenever practical; it's more organized and it provides more context. From my perspective, most of the articles in this project's scope are indistinguishable from stubs, and they've been languishing as stubs for over two decades. Discussions about expanding year articles in the past have been broadly supportive of the idea. It's just a matter of doing it. I'll gladly discuss what the actual format and content of a "quality" year article should look like (I've already tried to open such a discussion to no avail), but I don't think we should refrain from expanding a list into an article simply because that's the way we've always done it, because we're afraid of content disputes, or because there would still be other things that aren't expanded. Those reasons could be used to challenge the expansion of virtually any article on Wikipedia. BorgQueen and I have been working on 2001 for the last two weeks, and I think the article speaks for itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Before you start changing the format of all Year articles, please at least attempt to get consensus. This is not going to be a GA as long as it conflicts with the standard format as described on the Project page. Deb (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus for such massive changes across the Year pages. Best you not attempt to implement. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible citation event

As you've probably noticed, the year articles are seriously deficient in citations. Would there be any interest in a friendly competition between users to add citations to reliable sources for events/births/deaths in year articles? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on prose in year articles

Should "Year" articles include prose sections? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. WP:PROSE should be favored over lists when possible, and there is no reason for year articles to be restricted to a standalone timeline format. To this point, the only argument that has been raised against such a change is the conservative mindset of "that's the way we've always done it", and this argument has been WP:STONEWALLING changes to these articles. BorgQueen and I have written a full article at 2001 in addition to the timeline, and it is far more encyclopedic than the standalone list format used in the past. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• No - I prefer the Year pages to not be so bloated. Would recommend as well that the said-additions to the 2001 page, be deleted. PS - Wish that both editors had gotten a consensus to make those changes to the 2001 page, first. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Per Thebiguglyalien. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• No - because we've had this discussion previously. Prose sections will always represent a particular view of the overall significance of certain events or movements and it is almost impossible to obtain consensus on what should or should not be mentioned in a summary of the year. Having said that, I'm not opposed to such a summary but it needs to go into a separate article. I tried this, years ago, and that article was deleted, by consensus. As with the collages, summaries should not be introduced into year articles without first having the content agreed on the Talk page, and Thebiguglyalien has as yet made no attempt to do this. Deb (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, the separate article you're referring to is 1345 (summary)? Because it appears the situation there was that you attempted to unilaterally fork an expansion of the 1345 article, and there was consensus to delete it because users broadly supported an expansion on the article itself. I'm clarifying this because it seems important details have been omitted that demonstrate broad consensus for the expansion of year articles in the past. Regarding the point about significance, that's an empty argument. It could be applied to restrict the expansion of any article on Wikipedia, including stand-alone timelines. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  No, I think that particular article was rebuilt by someone (who promised to do the necessary work but never did) after the debate was over. No one could agree where it belonged. When you say that I "attempted to unilaterally fork" the article, what you seem to be referring to is my attempt to bring it into line with every other Year article; I didn't attempt to delete the summary. It looks like 1345 was unsuccessfully nominated for GA a couple of times (as you are currently attempting to do for 2001; that doesn't bode well). What we definitely don't need is long unreferenced sections on what you think are the important bits of science, politics, etc, when there are already separate Year in Topic articles. Deb (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  You are not being truthful. Multiple users successfully expanded 1345 and 1346 (the latter being a successful Good Article), and the changes had broad consensus, with you often being the lone holdout in discussions. You attempted to move the article to 1345 (summary), and the move was reverted after several users chastised you for it. You are now saying that my contributions are "long unreferenced sections". I don't know what you expect to accomplish by lying about things that are easy to verify, but I'd hardly consider it to be productive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  No. The discussions were complex and spread over many talk pages. I've never even edited the Talk page for 1346. Things change over the decades, and citations still weren't mandatory in 2008, the period you are talking about. This Wikiproject didn't even exist until 2005, which is when the standard for year formats was created. I don't have a 100% comprehensive memory of everything I've ever written on a Talk page, but I do know that I've never opposed the creation of summaries as long as the person who wants them is prepared to do the work properly and as long as they are completely neutral and don't imply that (for example) the history of one continent is more important than any other. My concerns about the creation of very long rambling Year articles are entirely to do with readability. Deb (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thebiguglyalien could I also ask why you removed the section on "summary" from the project page? It had been there since 2008. Deb (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  You have opposed the creation of summaries when the person is prepared to do the work properly; you're doing so right now. I changed the project page because it's been a rough draft since 2008, and my attempts to improve this project were met with WP:SILENCE. I'm tiring of this trend where I attempt to create an organized system of improvement, no one replies for weeks, I make WP:BOLD changes for lack of better options, and then I'm questioned about why I didn't start a discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thebiguglyalien Please answer the question as to why you changed the Wikiproject page to remove something you claim to want, without even mentioning it. Deb (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  I reject the premise of your question. As I have explained several times, I made multiple attempts on this talk page to open discussions regarding changes to the project and the articles within its scope, in both general and specific terms. Editors declined to give meaningful input over a period of several weeks, so I began contributing on my own, and then after that in conjunction with the one other editor that expressed interest in collaboration. When my edits were challenged, I opened this RfC. You have repeatedly misrepresented the nature of consensus on this talk page to obstruct changes in a disruptive manner as described by WP:STONEWALLING. You have also misrepresented my own actions, continuing to say that have not sought consensus despite several attempts on my part to request assistance and collaboration from other editors.

  I have indicated multiple times, both in general and to you specifically, that I am willing to discuss and collaborate in changes to the project, but after a month, only one other user made any attempt to do so. The year articles are some of the least developed of the English Wikipedia, and I would like to see an active project contributing to them. This becomes difficult if most users are not interested in content creation or project maintenance, and it becomes impossible when other users actively obstruct these things. I have asked for input on content and project management, and I am still open to hearing such input. But that cannot happen if users insist on freezing the project as it existed in 2008. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is a very active project. It so happens that you have chosen to introduce large amounts of your own prose into articles which traditionally don't have long prose sections, though some do have manageable short summaries. You've also removed the section of the project page that refers to summaries, and you won't or can't explain why you did this. If you look back to the 1345 discussion, you'll see that it ended with myself and User:Wrad in agreement, not with me "stonewalling" as you suggest, and that s/he then obtained consensus to include a section on summaries in the project page - which you've now removed. Deb (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed you had 'no consensus' to make that change. Therefore you should undo it. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Per Thebiguglyalien. BorgQueen (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• Yes (but big caveat in final paragraph).(Summoned by bot) I do understand why there are two perspectives on this: on the one hand, we have the clear and robust presumption, resting on long-standing community consensus, that a prose approach is considered preferable wherever feasible, as more flexible to the need of providing proper context and a more fulsome understanding of a topic to the reader. On the other, there is the concern that given the number of incidents and topics aligning with many years, it may prove unwieldy to decided what the core topics need mentioning in lead or other prose section, and that arbitrary choices might be made. But I think that latter perspective has two major caveats (even beyond the obvious fact that it is not a well-established priority supported by policy like WP:PROSE):

First, we have a process for making those calls on what are the more notable topics: it's called WP:WEIGHT, and there's no reason why it can't be applied here to resolve what should go into any summary prose section, as we'd do with the lead and other summary sections in other articles. Yes, it might get a little complicated comparing all the apples to oranges to bananas, and it will probably lead to more nitpicking and ancillary discussions, but sometimes that's just the price we pay for adopting an approach to an editorial issue that improves content in a particular area: it ends up being more work. And that's fine. And the second factor is that this is not a zero-sum choice: no one is proposing removing the timelines, so maintaining both approaches in an article allows for a useful contextualizing summary while also having the majority of the article present in chronological and more strictly objective order.

So in the final analysis I see no compelling reason to avoid having a useful summary that cannot just pick out major events the reader might reasonably wanted highlighted, but also the opportunity to provide greater historical context to the year overall, where that is appropriate. Obviously some year articles will benefit from getting a proper summary section much sooner than others, but afterall, there's WP:NORUSH to make everything uniform: if this approach is beneficial to a given article, it can and should be allowed on those individual articles per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Which does raise an important caveat for this RfC, which is that it is being hosted at the wrong place if the OP wanted a firm consensus they can carry into individual articles: per WP:PROPOSAL and WP:Advice page, binding consensus decisions can only occur in appropriate forums, such as policy or MoS talk pages. Any consensus formed here will have only the status of an advice page and cannot be invoked as community "consensus" in disputes for individual articles, and per ArbCom rulings, it will likely be considered WP:Disruptive if anyone tries to do that. So whatever the consensus here, I'd recommend taking the issue to the appropriate policy talk page if you want a firm consensus rule, rather than just an advice page. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes - with a small concern. A small section of prose at the beginning of the article detailing the year would be a good thing, as long as there's a source for what is considered important. Individual editors or even page consensus about what is important seems to be sliding towards OR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in general. We're not WikiData where we have collections of relevant information just plopped down in a list; we're Wikipedia where we have both data-like structures and prose. When it comes to what's in it, the prose section should be in the lead and encompass the year at large, the most notable events, and ongoing collections of events/trends. For example, for 2022 in the United States, the prose section at the lead covers Dobbs v. Jackson, Donald Trump's ongoing legal consequences, mass shootings, gas prices, and the Federal Reserve's interest rates. This is a good example for a prose section. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a good example for a Year in Topic page. However, long summaries on Year pages are likely to turn into a summary of events in the US if we are not careful and if the content isn't agreed on the Talk page first. Deb (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with this take. Keep it concise, and have the prose section be mostly general global trends or stuff like Ukraine/COVID. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Years

Since 18 November 2022, Thebiguglyalien has made significant changes to the agreed "Example Year" section, with the explanation "rewriting with brief summary based on current consensus", but as far as I can see no consensus was sought or obtained. Some of these changes were harmless; others were controversial. Unfortunately s/he has declined to explain why the section on "Summary of year" was removed. I can see no alternative but to restore that section to the way it was previously, at least until these changes have been discussed and consensus obtained. Deb (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Such changes should be reverted, if those changes have 'no consensus'. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I can agree with this take in general. If it is too drastic of a change, seek some sort of consensus first. I have no doubt Thebiguglyalien is acting in good faith, but it would be nice to present your ideas first if it's incredibly consequential. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Done - I've restored the project page to where it was prior to the mass changes. Deb (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Could you explain why you deleted me from the list of active participants? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Technological innovations on main year articles

What is the inclusion bar for technological breakthroughs on main year articles? Is there a consensus on this? Considering that technological progress is exponential a standard on what is notable enough in regards to breakthroughs should be established in regards to upcoming years (as well as past years). FireInMe (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There are no "official" criteria for what should be included, and I don't think such criteria would be possible. Just like anywhere on Wikipedia, the users writing the article determine what should and shouldn't be included by considering WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEIGHT, and the trickier cases are discussed on the article's talk page if necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Defining criteria for this would be almost impossible, partly because we don't know what'll be invented in the future. The vast majority of things shouldn't be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Decade articles

The decade articles (particularly the most recent ones) are currently inconsistent, poorly formatted, and focus overwhelmingly on the English-speaking world. I'd like to begin working on one and smooth it out section-by-section, but this is a fairly large task. Are any other users interested in collaborating on a decade article? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I'm getting more interested in old ones like, those in the 17th century. Recent ones are just so... depressing (to me personally). Lol. BorgQueen (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't help that the first things we think to add are wars, disasters, and crimes. And most of the day-to-day suffering of the past wasn't documented as well, even though there was more of it. These are actually the sort of things I think should be in year articles. What was life like in a given year or decade, in addition to big events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Could I suggest we more-so codify this: Decades lean more towards trends, years lean more towards specific events? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably the best way to do it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on WikiProject Countering systemic bias

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias regarding years articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed reforms for main year article inclusion

Hi guys. From what I'm seeing, it does appear that some main year articles, especially recent ones, tend to be a bit smaller and tend to exclude some otherwise notable events solely because they primarily occurred in a single country despite international reactions. I'd like to propose a new, slightly updated criteria, to implement on main-year articles:

General changes

1. Any material which would presently be included with the current criteria (or immediately past criteria if my suggestion is implemented) would stay
2. Establishing that niche doesn't always mean not notable. This was partially established in Talk:2022's RFC for the inclusion of the FTX collapse, but I'd prefer to codify this.
3. Substance and influence, see below

Substance and Influence
This also comes with a proposed redefinition of international notability, which I split into two parts: Substance and Influence.

• Substance consists of what actually happened during and after an event, or for deaths, what people actually did and their achievements.
• Influence consists of how large of a following a person attracted during their life, and the following should be from across the English-speaking world at the very least.

For inclusion, an event or person needs good amounts of both substance and influence, though not necessarily balanced. The person shouldn't be famous for their death (Gabby Petito or Mahsa Amini), but if the person meets a bit of substance and had a large and undisputably wide following, or if their creation was substantially notable, they should be included. Examples of people who would be included are Apple CEO Tim Cook, Nintendo developer Shigeru Miyamoto, Wonder Woman Director Patty Jenkins, Baseball Player Ichiro Suzuki, etc. Being domestic also shouldn't be a restriction on inclusion here as their are some events which either have international influence for starting a movement, are key to a nation's history, or both; some examples of these events are landmark and widely-watched decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson in the US (as noted on the article, protests were seen in some European countries albeit less significant than American ones), the Tiananmen Square Massacre, events as historically significant as Kristallnacht in Nazi Germany, the legalizations of same sex marriage in countries and other landmark laws being passed, and anything else which is domestic in scope but internationally watched or reacted to substantially to a similar measure of that seen in Dobbs v. Jackson. Some are already on main year articles while others are not.

Reasoning

The main point of these new guidelines is to prevent the exclusion of events which are seen as significant in history but excluded because of a lack of sole effect internationally, as well as to counter some systematic bias against only "elite international events". I understand that I use mostly western and American examples, though it's not meant to only include America. It's not meant to open the floodgates for every domestic event in every place, but it is important to recognize that some domestic events are internationally notable, and some domestic figures made international progress. The only other solution we have to bringing awareness to these articles is to market the sh*t out of Year In Country articles; even 2022 in the US only had 31K views compared to the main year's 465K views, per page information links. We can't leave out who readers generally want to see if they have even some substance.

We as an encyclopedia are supposed to put our readers first, not our own criteria first. We are supposed to be the encyclopedia the world goes to when they want to find out who famous passed away, or what famous thing happened. We aren't the authority with the responsibility to tell people what they see; we're supposed to let the people, the readers, be OUR bosses. We surely have raids by fans, but maybe they're saying something if they all want something. By being exclusively at the presently-high international level of notability, we exclude many people who actually matter, even if not well known. We additionally exclude people who are well known across the world, just because they didn't win an Oscar. We are not looking at the impact enough for events and people; we have tunnel vision which only lets us see trophy cases. We're likely the most exclusive when it comes to notability, and we have endless discussions about including one or two people. Each talk page spirals into endless argument, itself even longer than the article when combining all archives; plenty of these skirmishes have turned into candidates for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. As a result of exclusivity and the constant result of exclusion, our articles are pretty small and don't encompass everything important. I personally don't want to see arguments like "it's domestic so keep it off the main year despite anything 'notable' that happened" again; it's a straw man argument at this point which we have most sadly accepted. Our standards have to change. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Support I completely agree. Deletionism has its place, but when it becomes a major focus, it hurts the articles more than it helps. Is there even a codified guideline that main year entries have to be international? With that said, I'll also say that we should "market the sh*t out of Year In Country articles". I don't believe they'll ever be prominent enough to truly supplement the main year articles, but I think they can be useful resources if they're actually written (my thoughts about that are linked in the discussion immediately above this one). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Support I agree. I think that some things shouldn't be listed such as celebrity weddings, or a completed renovation of a mall. But, deaths and events with a significant IMPACT should be included. I'm open to any suggests on how such impact should be weighted, but main year pages have been too exclusionary, and I think that needs to change. FireInMe (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Main year articles shouldn't become fan, trivia or pop culture-led. International media coverage doesn't prove international notability - it merely indicates that a person/event is of interest to people in other countries. Anne Heche's death was one of last year's most publicised, nationally & internationally. Based on that, she should be in the lead as well as the Events & Deaths sections of 2022, and there should be a long article called Death of Anne Heche. If Kim Kardashian & Gene Hackman were to die on the same day, her death would receive a great deal more media coverage (nationally & internationally) than his, even if both deaths were from natural causes.

People & events being excluded due to being domestic is usual & isn't strawmanning. Protests are commonplace & some primarily domestic protests have much smaller protests outside their country by diaspora & sympathisers. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I would be opposed to the creation of Anne Heche's death article. This isn't like Marilyn Monroe's. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that such an article should be created. I'm saying that if we were to be led by media coverage, we would. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Being the creator of or best at something popular isn't enough, especially when that thing is trivial or a small intersection.

Changes in domestic laws shouldn't be in main year articles, even when they receive international media coverage because they're about controversial topics such as abortion & various LGBT issues such as LGBT people and military service, same-sex adoption, same-sex marriage. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I realize there's been some continuous discussion as of late, but it seems that the current system is working. It's always going to come down to personal opinion on some of these issues, but the current process appears be working well. Nemov (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the criteria are the best & most suitable we've worked out. Adding many domestic, local &/or trivial events & people to main year articles would reduce their quality, as would having quotas. There are many year by country articles for that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose I'm no inclusionist, but my biggest gripes regarding this issue is there are no essay form of the main year articles's criteria, as in WP:ITN/C. I clearly see that the lack of official criteria is the reason why disputes regarding this always come up, due to lack of an "official" bar to begin with, leading to where people constantly setting up which events should be included and which one should not, leading to exclusionism that beats even the purpose of being anti-Americentrism/Anglocentrism, which is the center of disputes back in last year. A creation of pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Criteria (WP:YEARS/C) would be a part of the solution.

Regardless, I am on the belief that main year articles shouldn't be pop culture or domestic events-led and instead focus on the important world-affecting issues like past articles prior to 2017. Articles of recent years like 2019 and 2020 has been getting VERY large (300 KB), and would even trouble to load without good phones or laptops because of infusion of unnecessary domestic events to the pages. This is why a constant cutdown is neccessary, but I'm also in belief that main year articles has become too exclusionary, especially when it comes with the deaths. This is why I began to see new and unregistered users coming on talk pages requesting that people they know should be added to the articles, and expect them to come up more & more should we not do anything about it to resolve the issue as people don't really care about sub-articles like 2022 in the United States. Deaths, unlike domestic events, would not fill up articles as much as domestic events do. In that way, I would not completely agree with InvadingInvader on this one, but at least a reform is needed. MarioJump83 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We already have dozens of people in the Births & Deaths sections; I don't see why adding more would be an improvement. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure why births and deaths need to be on the main year articles at all. Maybe something like Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II warrants inclusion as an event, but the death lists feel like relics of when the articles were first created two decades ago that would never stand up to scrutiny if they were proposed today. Not to mention we have more complete death lists at the year in country articles and the deaths in years articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The Births & Deaths sections of main year articles are for people who have substantial international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That's going to be a very difficult line to draw. This discussion regarding the inclusion of Ken Block feels like arbitrary gatekeeping; e.g., who is more "worthy" of inclusion versus who is more widely known. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We measure international notability by achievements rather than how well-known they are. Anne Heche is more well-known than the large majority of people listed in main year articles, but she's not in 1969 or 2022. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Which is why instead of bearing through discussion after discussion after discussion, which often does lead to no consensus, I'm moving to change the system at the fundamental level. "We don't to this" could become an invalid argument. Jim, answer WHY we do this, not with WHAT we do. The fact of the matter is that we're too exclusive and we need to open our minds to others endeavors of notability, even if it means not enforcing "internationalness" as much. Answer with WHY, not WHAT. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We restrict to substantial international notability because that's what's best for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is this practice best for main year articles? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Because it opposes the deluge of domestic, local, trivial & pop culture stuff that fans flood main year articles with. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Could I ask you to propose your own criteria based on what you believe should be included? I'm hoping we can unite around a criteria which we mostly agree upon. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the current criteria are the best we've had. They're not defined precisely & many attempts to do that have failed. You want to greatly loosen them to include (primarily) domestic events & figures, which is what we've been fighting against for years. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

At the basics, regarding events it should be as restrictive at it is right now, not less restrictive. Regarding deaths, I would lower the bar to at least where they contributed significantly to the field they are involved, and if it is niche, there is some cultural recognition worldwide, as in they are significant force to reckon with. In that case, I would have included Jonghyun, Vivienne Westwood, Barbara Walters, and Kazuki Takahashi, but not people like Anne Heche (may have been voiced several internationally popular cartoons, but not as a main cast), Ken Block (motorsports are not cultural force to reckon with across the globe), or Sudharmono (see TheScrubby's comment) into the main year articles. Regarding athletes, I would include several figures like Bill Russell, but not someone like Hank Aaron. If you know what I meant, I would include athletes that are very influential/high-achieving in their sport that has international reach, like basketball, which is popular in Europe, Africa, and growing in Asia (outside Philippines) & Latin America. Baseball is limited to South Korea, parts of Latin America, and Japan. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

How about in cases where the field isn't important? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Importance kind of seems to be arbitrarily limited these days. Limiting importance to only geography, religion, politics, Emmy winners seems to be too exclusive. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We include many fields, but not all are important enough. Are you saying we should represent all fields, even small intersections & those which aren't important? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a certain exclusion for sure under my criteria. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been able to contribute much to recent discussions due to being incredibly busy IRL, though for now I'll add that in no way should we become less restrictive - when it's been made clear for some time now (pointed out by @Deb:, among others) that the main yearly articles have easily been exceeding the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article. Substantial international notability is the bar for inclusion here (not international media coverage, as per Jim Michael's comments here and the consensus around here for almost two years now), and prior to 2021 we had severe issues where minor, domestic figures (predominately from the United States) were being included with little to no scrutiny while equivalent figures from other countries would be swiftly excluded. The breaking point was the Walter Mondale/Deputy heads of government-state discussions, particularly when one user attempted to justify the inclusion of Mondale based on a precedent where John B. Anderson was included for years without question - a third party politician with no international notability whose equivalent figures internationally would never in a million years have been included. Likewise, minor members of the American Congress were also included without scrutiny. We now have a firm political criteria that has served us well for some time now, and has ensured that such outrageous inclusions cannot happen again. Having said that, beyond the political criteria we've had issues with coming up with a firm consensus for other fields, especially in entertainment and sports. There's certainly room for improvement, and I agree that the current system isn't perfect, though I don't think the answer should ever be a return to how things were prior to 2021. TheScrubby (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article size guideline does not apply to lists. Your criteria exclude clearly notable people that readers would expect to see. Of course, I maintain that having a list of deaths at all in the main year articles is unnecessary and borders on WP:TRIVIA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

How can a list of the deaths of the most notable people of each year be trivia? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This is why I believe the criteria we have should be official, so we can be firm on where entertainers and sports should stand. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We've tried many times to define the criteria specifically, but have failed, especially regarding entertainers & sportspeople. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We should have a wide-ranging RFC on this one sooner after this proposal to make sure it is not a failure next time. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I am afraid I have to oppose these proposals. I could agree with some of the detail, but much of it seems (unintentionally) designed to support systemic bias, e.g. "the following should be from across the English-speaking world at the very least". In my view, there is no way Dobbs v Jackson could be compared with the Tiananmen Square massacre in terms of its international impact and renown. The statement that "some main year articles, especially recent ones, tend to be a bit smaller" is definitely untrue. What's actually happening is that minor figures and events, not to mention unreferenced entries, are constantly being added to older articles so that they get longer and longer, and there aren't enough of us to keep this under control. I see many new entries from new contributors who want to "put something on Wikipedia" but don't have the time or inclination to write an article or even read the guidelines. Whilst it's true that lists don't get counted officially as readable prose, the length of articles obviously affects their readability and the time it takes to load the page. There isn't really any such thing as "clearly notable people that readers would expect to see". There are only a handful of people who fall into this category. For example, we include Nobel Prize winners in the Births and Deaths section, even though most people have never heard of the huge majority of them, because it represents the pinnacle of international recognition. On the other hand, being a "famous" musician doesn't and shouldn't automatically qualify an individual for inclusion, because so many of these are ephemeral and not known to international audiences. Deb (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree - main year articles are too long, with fans constantly adding (often unreferenced) domestic, local, pop culture & trivial events/people to them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Jim and I with that part on deaths in general...not every entertainer has to be included, nor should people only famous because of their deaths like America's Gabby Petito. We can agree on limiting fandom in general, but we shouldn't completely ignore it.

The other, should I say more radical solution, is to reserve main year articles to be event-exclusive with all of the deaths and births listed as internationally notable on main year article being candidates for photos on Deaths in Year XXXX (and respective Births pages). I don't feel prepared to put that forth though given it's huge impact if it were to attain consensus, and this thread is best continued in a separate discussion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Most common complaint I've heard on International Year articles, is that they're American-centric. GoodDay (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Americentrism is a major problem on WP in general. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that given we are an English encyclopedia, we're always going to be some sort of inherently biased towards English speaking countries and have less countries' entries except if it's a Tiananmen Square or Arab Spring case. I can understand the complaints about American-centric articles, but I'm concerned that can also lead to notable figures within fields being excluded as well on the sole basis that they came from America and did a lot of their work in America. Barbara Walters is the most glaring case of this as of recent, and I'm pretty sure that if WikiProject Women got involved in the discussion on inclusion of Walters, we'd be flooded. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I had certainly heard of Barbara Walters and would not have opposed her inclusion, even though she is primarily known in the US. There is actually an element of systemic bias against women, because it's assumed that professions in which women are a small minority (scientists, composers, etc) are the only ones that really matter. On the other hand, to set lower standards for women than for men would go too far the other way. Deb (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I had a problem regarding Americentrism on articles as well. It would have been tagged if we keep this going. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)