Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Years (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Citations needed[edit]

There seems to be a tacit consensus that most entries do not require inline citations if the information is properly cited in the target article, but the policy WP:V seems to require that, at least where WP:BLP is relevant, that entries have inline citations. Can anyone point to where this consensus is memorialized, and whether WP:V overrides it? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Century categories[edit]

Fayenatic london has been replacing the {{YearsInCentury}} templates with {{cat pair}}. Does this have consensus? If it does, I won't object, but I don't see it, and I don't see why the YearsInCentury template should not be present. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing other cases where we have very large templates showing up on the first screen that really offer little in terms of navigation and force all of the content off of the first page of a category. My personal opinion is to shot on sight. So, I see someone removing this specific template to be doing something that actually helps the readers. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I only did this on categories for future centuries where all decade and year categories had been upmerged following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_28#Future_categories, so all the links within the century templates were not only red but permanently red, i.e. going to remain non-existent. The "cat pair" is therefore more friendly and more useful on Category:22nd century and following. Also, leaving the old templates there would tend to encourage people to re-create the categories that had just been deleted by consensus. Now that I have explained my edits, I hope this project will agree with them. – Fayenatic London 23:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, no objection. The 22nd century category may need to be updated in 40 years or so, but I'm probably not going to be actively editing Wikipedia then. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi, what may be the class of a typical Year article; start/stub or list ? There are examples of both in this project. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


1440s is now empty, though still linked from dates in 15th century BC. Should it be redirected to the century? PamD 08:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@PamD: You mean 1440s BC? I'm afraid it should remain, as part of a pattern, with both 1450s BC and 1430s BC having non-trivial entries. (Either that, or all of the 1400s BC should be merged into the 15th century BC, with the templates {{yearnav}} templates properly matched.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)