Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

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. Now granted, there are some disasters that are clearly indisputably world relevant(Tohoku eartquake), but for others, significance is much less clear. 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]

This guideline is not complying with a subsidary of (all hail) the Manual of Style, (all hail) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.

From WP:RY:

==Events==
===January===

• January 1 – Past event.
• January 1 – Same as above (S/A). (Wikilink all dates that begin an event/birth/death entry, even where those dates repeat. Wikilink the central names or concepts in descriptions of events, assuming those names or concepts have articles on Wikipedia. If the event per se has an article, its entry does not have to be—but certainly may be—cited again on the year article. If the event does not have its own article but is deemed sufficient for inclusion, it must be externally sourced in the year article, especially if it refers to living people.)
• January 2 – S/A
• etc.

===February===
===etc.===
==Predicted and scheduled events==
===March===

• March 1 – Future event. (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and should not be making predictions of its own about the future. It should not make statistical extrapolations of unclear or unverifiable significance. The purpose of this section is to indicate the contents of current schedules or predictions of events that reliable, external sources have deemed potentially important.)
• March 2 – S/A
• etc.

===April===
===etc.===
==Births==
===January===

• January 1 – [[Name]], Nationality and very brief description (Do not Wikilink anything other than the date of birth and name. External sources are presumed to exist in the subject's own article, but may be duplicated in the year article to ensure that the latter article passes WP:BLP.)
  
• January 2 – S/A
• etc.

===February===
===etc.===
==Deaths==
===January===

• January 1 – [[Name]], Nationality and very brief description, (born [[YOB]]) (Do not Wikilink anything other than the date of death, name, and year of birth. External sources are presumed to exist in the subject's own article, and their duplication on the year article is not strictly required.)
  
• January 2 – S/A
• etc.

I have boldfaced what is not complying with.

From WP:OVERLINK:

What generally should not be linked

An article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value.^ref Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article,

• Avoid linking plain English words.
• Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions.
• Avoid linking units of measurement that aren't obscure. If a metric and a non-metric unit are provided, as in 18 °C (64 °F), there is no need to link either unit because almost all readers will understand at least one of the units.
• Avoid linking dates (see below).
• As a rule of thumb (see below), link on first reference only.
• Do not link to a page that redirects to the page the link is on.

I have boldfaced what is not complying with.

I'd like to see this changed to follow with the (all hail) Manual of Style. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 21:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Consubstantial" is generally defined as "of the same substance." Are you sure that is what you mean to say? In any event RY articles appear to be ignoring that rule. I generally agree with OVERLINK but in this case I don't see the harm in exempting these few articles from it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I mean not complying with in the evening and it just did not come to me...– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, I forgot about WP:IAR and that the date articles are historical... I am sorry for any inconvenience caused... – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an error when the WP:LINKING was changed to report that dates were to be unlinked. The RfC specifically exempted "timeline articles" "inherently chronological articles". That includes year, day-of-year, and possibly year-in-topic articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A dispute has arisen here regarding that application on these guidelines, specifically the guidelines regarding date linkage, to "sub-articles" that commence with the relevant year (such as, in the case in question, 2011 in the United States). It is claimed that as 2011 is the "parent article" of the article in question such article is also covered by these guidelines. I consider that if the date linkage guidelines, or any other part of these guidelines, were intended to apply to such articles, these guidelines would state so, which they do not. Accordingly, the general guidelines opposing such linkage (per MOS:UNLINKDATES and WP:UNLINKDATES) apply to the articles in question. In fact, most of the pages in the "Year in country" series do not link dates, and to apply date linkage to these pages (not to mention the numerous other topics listed in the topics box of each year), would, in my opinion, lead to thousands of articles containing a plethora of unnecessary links. Davshul (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase in your statement above is "... in my opinion ...". Your activites over the last week to damage many year in country sub-articles by de-linking their dates within them only goes to show how short-sighted you are. Here is the example ... on March 6, 1933, the world article 1933 lists the death of Anton Cermak, a Chicago, Illinois mayor who was assisinated --- further, there is an article March 6 which also shows his death. According to the current criteria for notability (Wikipedia Recent years), neither would be included if they occured in 2011 --- neither in 2011 or in March 6. And yet, 1933 in the United States contains no death information at all --- further, there is no wiki page for March 6 in the United States. Some day a bot will create all this information as wiki pages, like this bot should today if it existed, and create what you blindly believe is i quote "lead to thousands of articles containing a plethora of unnecessary links" --- I state catagorically that you have no idea what an encyclopedia is. All you are doing is removing content that ultimaletly will exist. Some day the article 1933 in the United States will show all the deaths that occured then (as today it shows none) --- further, someday there will be an article titled March 6 in the United States (or even June 13 in Canada) both articles will be filled with the appropriate information of hundreds of births, deaths, and events from various years on those dates. You are a destroyer of content --- heaven help you for your book burning activites, since this is actually all you are really doing--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i see the same fight against your vandalism is going on by the major editor over at 2011 in Canada --- clearly niether of us who are the major editors of these articles believe that your activities of de-linking dates is anything but vandalism--70.162.171.210 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i have been informed that the word "vandal" is too harsh --- i will withdraw it but not anything else said.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism, but it is clearly against the guidelines to remove the links. Date links are allowed in timeline articles, and are encouraged, specifically, in "year in country" articles. It's not in WP:LINKING, where it should be, but it was in the RfC which established the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm for keeping the links, personally Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Years and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Please provide a neutral pointer at other relevant country WikiProjects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at similar articles with a different year (e.g. 2010 in Canada, 2009 in the United States), and all their dates are unlinked. There weren't discussions about linking/unlinking the dates on their talk pages either. Personally, I would stand by my original decision and unlink the dates, or the whole lot of links would be a nightmare to navigate comfortably, though I would still classify the linking as good faith rather than vandalism. And 70.162.171.210, I know you are passionate about your viewpoint, but accusing other editor of "book-burning" and "vandalism" doesn't help the discussion one bit. It only antagonises fellow editors instead of making actual productive work. See Wikipedia:NOT VANDALISM and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Shuipzv3 (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Please check the logs. 2010 in Canada and 2009 in the United States were partially unlinked last week, although I'm not sure they were fully linked before. 2011 in the United States and 2011 in Canada were unlinked last week. See fait accompli. It should be pointed out, as well, that 1980 (or possibly 1990) and earlier were unlinked by an unauthorized bot before anyone complained; I'm not sure the links have been restored. Nonetheless, there is no credible assertion in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines that the "month-and-day" headings should be unlinked in year articles; the only real reason that they haven't been restored is that it's a difficult bot to write. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can some one edit it to what years are recent? Some people might get confused. GuzzyG (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem which has never been resolved. My feeling is that any year which has been edited "live" should be considered a Recent Year. This would mean 2002 onwards. Wiki started late 2001 but there's probably not enough to count it under that criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a large number of future entries of the form

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia articles in many languages may merely show that the media in many countries reported it, not proving that the event is internationally notable. The building collapse which will soon be forgotten outside Bangladesh is an example of this. The international media report it promininently because of the death toll, but it has no effect on the rest of the world, apart from costs, delays etc. incurred to international companies whose clothes the factory produced. Jim Michael (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]