Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that many(including myself), are having difficulty choosing which natural disasters can have a place in a yearly article. True, some natural disaster may not have a direct or an immediate effect on the world, however I think it is fair to consider their scale. I am aware of the world relevance standard, but honestly I think one should look at international notability instead. In Haiti for example, score died in an earthquake, however it did not really affect any other nation or state outside its borders. Of course I believe it needs to be mentioned(and is an extreme example), but it falls into the international notability category. Events that involve death, are especially sensitive, and thus need a little more sensitivity. While the content must remain neutral, it is exceedinglydifficult to remain completely neutral.

In [discussion], was proposed that for natural disasters to qualify for inclusion, 100 or more deaths would have to be involved. These types of disasters are not terribly frequent, and most of the 7 that happened this year were for the record books.

1. Japan Earthquake(300 billion USD)-300000 Homeless, and Costliest in recorded history-International Aid
2. Christchurch Earthquake(13 billion USD)-10000 Homeless Costliest in New Zealand's History, and second deadliest-International Aid
3. April US tornado outbreak(10 billion USD)-14000 Homeless Largest and costliest tornado ever outbreak recorded-Some International Aid
4. China Floods (5 billion USD)-500000 Evacuated, large numbers homeless
5. Joplin MO Tornado (3 billion USD)-10000 Homeless? Costiest Single Tornado
6. Rio de Janeiro flooding(1 Billion USD)-23000 HomelessPerhaps worst weather disaster in Brazil's History
7. Burma earthquake(100 million USD- Several hundred homeless

Thoughts? --Trilobite12 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the criteria is the number of deaths then the cost and the numbers of those made homeless is irrelevant. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I included those fact was to demonstrate that when natural disaster's death toll reaches 100, there is in many cases a huge impact. But true, it is a deviation from the criteria. Nonetheless, 100 deaths seems to be a good qualifying figure.

If no one is responding may I just add that to the recent years article myself? --Trilobite12 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the inclusion of this until there is sufficient consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus because there is no discussion. If no one wishes to discuss this, then I could assume that everyone is OK with this proposition. --Trilobite12 (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you couldn't, but that approach might finally drag me in here ;-) Although it seems brutish, I think we need to rule a line at a point in the "number of deaths" scale, perhaps at 100. Financial costs should not be criterion. They don't work as a fair comparison for the whole world, and are pretty meaningless to most people when they hit the billion mark. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulties with setting a blanket standard of 100 for all natural disasters are that:

1. Some types of disaster exceed this level numersous times every year.
2. Some types of disaster happen so frequently, even within single countries, that the sheer frequency makes them insufficiently notable.
3. Some types of disaster can exceed 10000. Can similar diasaters of barely over 100 (1% of others) be considered similarly notable?
4. Some man-made disasters (e.g. mass shootings) have never reached 100 deaths. Should another limit be set for these?

My feeling is that different minimums for different types of disaster would be the best way to go (although getting consensus would be even more difficult). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's put the man-made disasters aside for now. By most definitions they don't fit under "natural disasters" and this is hard enough anyway. I'd still recommend having an absolute minimum (open to discussion on the number - 100 is my current preference) and perhaps a list of those "disasters" for which you would like higher minimums. Still pretty ugly, but we need some rules. What would be your exceptions with higher limits? HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My proposition would be having different minimums for different types of disaster. Also, my other proposition would be that the minimum would range from 200-300 deaths. (For different disasters)I would put it in around those numbers because for some disasters, the amount of people dead is very different than for another disaster...(Sorry if I sound a bit brutal, but we have to do it like this or we would have more bitter arguments on the year articles...) – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 20:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

115 or 145 are too random to be useful. Figures of 100, 200, 250 or 500 would be more appropriate. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then if 115-145 are too random, I change my proposal to 200-300 deaths for different types of disaster. – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs) 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose this entire concept. The existing structure is sufficient, adding all these new rules will just make it more confusing. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why, just a few new rules to the guideline to prevent some arguments on the Recent Year talk pages... – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs) 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because i don't believe they will prevent those arguments. See WP:CREEP. The more rules you have, the more they get ignored. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal

• This would avoid creating a byzantine maze of rules just for this one subject area that would probably be ignored anyway. If an item is added, it can be removed with an edit summary note that the entry was either moved to or already exists at the spin-off article. There are enough such disasters in any given year to easily support these new articles, and we don't have to worry about the main article becoming bloated if there happens to be an extraordinarily dangerous year. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something I proposed sometime ago (iirc). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of natural disasters may help users gain some perspective on the relative scale. Of the ten deadliest disasters of the last 100 years, number ten is the 1948 Ashgabat earthquake, which killed an estimated 120,000 people. The deadliest disaster ever recorded, the 1931 China floods killed somewhere between one and two and a half million people. The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami killed between 15,000 and 20,000 people. A disaster and a tragedy to be certain, but when put in a historical perspective the death toll is actually relatively low. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So natural disasters are evaluated the same way as before? If so, I can understand why. However as I have read over the discussions regarding disasters, I found that it is difficult for Wikipedians to remain neutral. Someone will react negatively at the inclusion or exclusion of an event, because one may have an emotional attachment to that event(especially disasters). Moving natural disasters that do not quite meet the criteria to separate page is objectively a fine idea. There is no doubt in mind that many will revile the move, however. Recent Years pages differ from most other Wikipedia articles, in that editors and contributors need to sieve through information, and decide which information is the "most important" Even for topics that are highly controversial, like the [Creation–evolution controversy]], remaining neutral while editing is much easier. Virtually all that is needed is the background, issues, view points, and arguments made by either side (That of course, is highly condensed) And with non controversial is remarkably easier to remain neutral. As for Recent Years, it is far more difficult. Having some more rules would help. My reason for including that list of 2011 disasters, was to demonstrate that using 100 deaths as qualifying criteria, would not cause the article to bloat. Even if in an given year, there are 10 of such disasters(each year nine or ten 100+ deaths disasters occur), they would not dominate the space in the article. If anyone is willing to move the number up to 200, that is fine by me. --Trilobite12 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of deaths is not a good metric to use for determining international impact. The Haitian earthquake last year had no real impact outside of Haiti despite the high death toll. A big part of the reason for the widespread destruction in Haiti was the fact that it was already one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere and had no building codes.Not the case in Japan, which is one of the wealthiest nations on Earth and had been preparing for decades for such a disaster, only to find it was even bigger than they had prepared for.The Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear incident this year has caused other nations such as Germany to reconsider their own nuclear programs, and led people in coastal areas around the world to consider what would happen if tsunami on such a scale were to impact their area.Two horrible disasters that killed thousands of people, but very different on terms of international impact. I don't believe an elaborate set of hard-coded rules will be followed by the type of users that are constantly posting every little thing to the current year article, as it is obvious they are already ignoring the guidelines we already have. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask for less criteria in the WP:RY article, a minimal amount for inclusion on natural disasters/terrorist attacks and important business events to be eligible for inclusion. If the less criteria and minimal amount on natural disasters/terrorist attacks came into effect, this would prevent most arguments on the year articles about earthquake inclusion, terrorist attacks and other inclusions.

As for the less criteria bit, I mean that more items would be eligible for inclusion on the year articles, like the UK Riots and the U.S. Debt ceiling crisis and credit rating downgrade or EU/IMF bailouts...

For the minimal amount for inclusion on natural disasters I mean a standardised number for natural disasters like:

• Earthquake inclusion: 6.5 Richter scale/50,000 deaths/450 million USD(375 million EUR)of damage
• Tornado inclusion: 110 deaths/500 million USD(415 million EUR) of damage
• Terrorist attacks: 55 deaths by single shooter/70 deaths if responsible by one terrorist/120 deaths if organization responsible/100 million USD(65 million EUR) of damage
• Riots: 3 days/400 deaths/200 million USD (140 million EUR) of damage/If one event is responsible for over 1 day of rioting

and others...

Important business effects. If one business event would make markets fall for over 3 days non-stop OR in fear of an event make markets fall for over a day, then I think that should be added.

This 'central guideline' for all the Recent Year articles was written by a relatively small amount of users (42). This amount, according to me must be around 100 and have editors from different areas. By having 42 editors on this Recent Years project, some editors may not agree with these guidelines and to overrule that there has to be a consensus which leads to bitter arguments...

Please add, at least some of my ideas to this guideline.

– Plarem (User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 19:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame you chose to start a new section rather than reading and participating in the discussion already underway immediately above. Some of us have already put some serious thought into this matter in that section, and I for one don't really feel like repeating myself. Please read all the points above, and try responding to what others think. HiLo48 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... – Plarem (User page | talk | contribs | sandbox) 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there is a fear that too many rules and restrictions will be applied to recent years. Like I said above, moving some natural disasters to a separate article is good idea, however there is too much bias and emotional attachments to natural disasters. It is difficult for many to attain to Wikipedia's neutral policy. The content of a generic year page involves sifting through events, and choosing which ones in particular are the "most important" or are "most relevant." It is sometimes risky business choosing which ones are indeed the most significant, as arguments can be made for any large scale event. Neutrality is extremely difficult in this case. If a generic year page did not exist, and only pages such as "(year) in politics", "(year) in natural disasters" were available, internet altercations could be avoided. Debates can be valuable, but regarding year articles, they are too excessive and unproductive.

Obviously deleting every generic year page is unrealistic, so in order to limit debate or disagreements, I think that it is appropriate to set at least a few sensitive guidelines, at least for natural disasters. Plarem, using specific number of deaths for specific types of disasters could help, but may be a bit too closed ended. I will reaffirm that using between 100-300 deaths for all disasters could be useful, and not as random. In many cases, the level of impact is usually(not always) intrinsic to number of casualties in any given disaster. Using 200+ deaths as qualifying criteria, will yield surprising few disasters per year. --Trilobite12 (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that I have would not apply to every single topic in Recent Years, and really is not incredibly as taut as you suggest. It is most practical to use the a specific guideline in this case because the recent articles are unlike most other Wikipedia articles

For example: An article on the prehistoric creature RWQ, for example, involves integrating what the mainstream scientific community believes to be correct about RWQ. Obviously there is plenty of disagreement amongst paleontologists regarding its behavior, and their exact physiological characteristics. For an article to remain neutral, it must incorporate the conflict amongst scientist, while still affirming that mainstream researchers believe x is true. That is the key however, the researchers say that x is true, not the article. The articles does not aver that x is an absolute, simply because there is disagreement. If say, only one credible scientist thinks that x is false, whereas the rest have found common ground, that one scientist's view must still be represented within the article. If say the general public disagrees with x, then their views also should also be included. While general direction of the article on RWQ, should be derived from what the

majority paleontologists think(because they have the benefit of evidence), disagreement is still incorporated. Wikipedia is not absolute 

What I getting at here, is that Wikipedia does not argue(unless speaking for its own rules and codes of conduct), it represents. In the context of the year articles, it only represents how a relatively small group think about a certain event. in If an event is included withing a recent year article, then it gives that impression that its title to "relevance to world", is absolute and there is no room for debate. This is unlike most articles, where editors can use mainstream thought and scientific consensus. While these individuals(I hope), have the intentions of being objective, it is incredibly difficult to pinpoint what effects some events may have on the rest of the world. The inclusion of an event is executed as an absolute measure, however under the a criteria that is loose ended(world relevance).

It is particularly difficult to assign natural disasters the title "world relevant." Because there are much too many elements to consider. There is no field of research that studies which disasters are the most significant, because significance in this case is much too subjective. It is has been made clear through past discussions, that too many people are attached to certain major events/disasters, and can nearly always find reason for them to be included.

Factoring in all of this, there is reason to have at least some parameters for natural disasters. This is not to restrict certain information, rather the opposite. The vast majority of the time, proposals for natural disasters are shot down. Also we cannot trust that folks remain completely neutral in discussion. At least for natural disasters there should be some solid figure for inclusion.

(If we are truly to be objective, then would it be just to remove the the Haitian earthquake from the 2010 article? I mean, it has no world impact after all, so why should it be there?) --Trilobite12 (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]