Talk:2024

This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles

Lists List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Years List‑class Top‑importance

	This article 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Eclipses

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any section for eclipses on the page you linked. The eclipse on April 8 is gonna be lit AF and should be added. 184.147.47.69 (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis 2

I think NASA is launching Artemis 2 in May 2024, is that event significant enough to be put on this page? InjectableBacon (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's been pushed back to November. But should definitely be included if/when the mission happens. It'll be the closest humans have come to the Moon since the early 1970s. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

I would like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020). The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest.

At the village pump, I've presented a proposal to establish a standard to use DMY in general for all articles about "generic" years. The discussion got kind of messy however, and I'll propaly restart it at some point. In the meantime, I would like it to create consensus about changing 2024 specifically as well as all other nine articles about the 2020s to the DMY format.--Marginataen (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pasting the same reply at all the 2020s talk page sections on this topic, with the exception of 2023. As of about a month ago, we had a situation in which all generic year articles had a consistent date format. Since both date styles are considered appropriate per the Manual of Style, it's unusual to see such solid consistency. Since I value consistency, I appreciated that rare situation.

As of last month, only 2023 was changed via local consensus to be different than the rest. If this proposal passes for this article, it would join a tiny minority of articles that do not match the overall consistent style. I oppose for that reason.

I would be fine with all generic year articles changing to consistently use a different style, and that is the proposal on the table at WP:VPR#Date format for year articles. Currently, it seems we're at the tail end of a pre-RfC discussion with plans to move forward with an RfC in the next week or so. I would much prefer to keep discussing the overarching change rather than have individual discussions at each year article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it is important to change 2024 as it is the year to come and will probably begin before we get to be done with that discussion about all articles. Marginataen (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a week with no but one invalid objection, I've changed the format. The objection is invalid because there is no established consensus on using the same format across articles but only within articles. That is exactly what I'll be trying to do in the comming weeks, but until then the argument there is none and the objection invalid. I will not repost this reply across articles, only here on 2024, so please response here.--Marginataen (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marginataen, you can't unilaterally declare my objection invalid. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATEVAR requires consensus to change from an established style. Marginataen, it is clear that you do not yet have consensus. Please self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't just do it. I explained to you why it's the case. Why do you think your objection is valid when consistency across year articles has never been agreed upon? That fact was pretty much the only thing we got out of latest RfC Marginataen (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't done any RfC, and we paused starting it on your request. There are many valid reasons to want a particular date format. MOS:DATEVAR does not comment on what rationales are valid or not, nor does any policy I'm aware of. You can disagree with my rationale, but deciding that it is invalid and then edit warring based on that decision is disruptive. Please self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh sorry, I quite obviously meant the discussion itself Marginataen (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that consistency was ever agreed upon. I'm just saying that it is desirable. You are free to think otherwise. As long as there is not consensus for your position, the article should remain at the status quo ante. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other have anything to say? Marginataen (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one answering a talk page discussion is not an argument is not an argument for not making a change. If it was so, all changes could simply he halted by no one engaging in a talk page discussion. Does it really matter that much to you? I will end up making af RfC about it anyway but it just important for 2024 as it will soon be the current year. Marginataen (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Does it really matter that much to you?" is a bit of a double-edged sword, isn't it? I care enough to state my viewpoint (a few times) and help craft an RfC question. If consensus develops against me, I'll be fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 AFC Asian Cup

The tournament will start on January 19, 2024. Shouldn't we add this? Aminabzz (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a regional sporting event. It is the same reason we don't add the superbowl or the NBA finals. PaulRKil (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does China's Patriotic Education Law merit an entry?

Personally I oppose this as an entry, as there is no article for this law, it appears to be a purely domestic event, and its topic (education) usually doesn't merit entries on articles about years--there's no article for [years] in education.

This was the entry:

China Patriotic Education Law will take effect

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. It appears to not even have an article so why would it ever be included. I'm starting to think we need to semi-protect the article. It seems every time we approach the new year that IP editors show up and put poorly sourced or outright bizarre entries. PaulRKil (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic law changes are commonplace & they're rarely important enough for main year articles. Junior, local, domestic & regional competitions are also often wrongly added. A host leaving a game show was added, before being removed. Things such as those, which are nowhere near important enough, are often added to main year articles. X2023X (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When does the article become present tense?

As of writing it is 8:35am UTC+2. I believe the first places to enter 2024 will cross over in 4 hours and 25 minutes from now. Will the 'January 1st' section become present/past tense when this happens? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter particularly much, a 24 hour window is quite small and any timezone error is insignificant. —Panamitsu (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calendars

this https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024 has a nice feature (a list of what year it is in different calendars) that is absent from the present article can we get some sort of cross reference ? or put in the intro this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_calendars which isn't quite as good thanks !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of Japan earthquake

Should we remove the Sea of Japan earthquake entry? I think we should. It only killed 20 people. DementiaGaming (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Include. 7.6 magnitude isn't a minor quake, and the casualty figure is now almost 50. There is widespread damage to properties. This was Japan's largest earthquake since 2015. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline exlcude while not minor, context is important. It hit a country that is well prepared to handle earthquakes of that magnitude and the result is much less damage and loss of life compared to the earthquakes of similar magnitude we saw hit in Haiti and Turkey. Similarly, we don't include every Category 4-5 hurricane that hits the United States and causes a lot of damage and inflicts deaths in the dozens because the US is largely prepared to handle such storms. By extension, we should also exclude the plane crash that occurred. PaulRKil (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European centric

Why is the euro final down for 14 July, but the Asian and Africa equivalents not mentioned. 80.192.242.40 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]