Template talk:C21 year in topic
|WikiProject History||(Rated Template-class)|
|WikiProject Years||(Rated Template-class)|
|WikiProject Time||(Rated Template-class)|
There's a 2005 in British television, but it's the only 21st century one of its kind right now (there's a few 20th ones including 1976 in British television). Should 'in British television' be added? BillyH 02:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm adding Business and Economics to this, as part of the Business and Economics WikiProject. --Acooley 14:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
"By place" topics
The country list seems somewhat arbitrary and open to bias. (Luxembourg? For real?) I propose we change it to a general category, like the births/deaths. What do others think? I'll try and do it myself soon if no-one objects. Grandmasterka 09:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's a list of countries for which we have articles by year. Someone has created articles on Luxembourg by year, so it is included; excluded countries do not currently have articles by year. I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing, but I can't imagine how a category would do a better job. Warofdreams talk 04:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that it is note-worthy what items will enter the public domain in a given year. It would be fairly helpful for research and reference. What exactly do ohers think? I believe that the page should be titled, List of works entering the public domain in "this year". (Tigerghost (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC))
- I'm not sure whether or not that would make for a series of articles which can be referenced and demonstrate notability, but the best test is to try writing one or more. If you create a series of articles, then a link can be added to this template. Warofdreams talk 21:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- The thing is, I don't know what objects will be entering the public domain in various countries in 1999, 2001, or 2009 per se. haha. I just thought that it would be good reference knowledge. I don't think I have the time or the patience to take on a task like that, most of my time is devoted to cleaning up the 1990s decade page by creating subpages for it (which needs a lot of work). (Tigerghost (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
- Ah, I see. We tend to remove links added to this template where few or no articles exist, as there is a long list of potentially interesting topics by year, so I wouldn't add the link. Who knows, your comment might prompt someone else to investigate such a list. Warofdreams talk 16:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Sri Lanka bug
call it association football then everybody's happy, in fact that's the name of the thingy it links to so it makes sense init —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan McBrazil Burger (talk • contribs) 15:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Use of this template in future years
I originally posted this on the Help Desk, but have not gotten any replies (WP:Help_desk/Archives/2015 July 24#Use of Template:C21 year in topic for future years). Anyway:
User:Googgoollman7777 has added Template:C21 year in topic to a fair number of pages set in the future. For example, 2020, 2042, 2065. This template is used to reasonable effect for past years (for example, 2013), but for the distant future dates, pretty much every link in the resulting nav/infobox is red. Note that 2020 actually has a few active links, on the order of 20 active links, and 100+ redlinks, but 2042 or 2065 have no active links. And of the active links on 2020, many are circular references to that same page (all the month links, for example). I'm pretty sure there's no purpose being served by big, bulky, nav/infoboxes with few if any active links.
Anyway, I'm here since this is an issue affecting multiple pages, and Template talk:C21 year in topic is a pretty sleepy page.
Is there some guideline on appropriate usage here? I'm tempted to remove all uses beyond the next year or two.
An alternative I've been considering is changing this template so that only active links are displayed. Something like Template:Exists could be used, but it doesn't address all the issues (what if an entire section in the nav/infobox is empty?). Rwessel (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Displaying only active links is problematic, as the article won't be refreshed when a new link becomes active. However, I wouldn't have any objection to the link block not being displayed for years more than a few years in the future. The proper venue is probably WT:YEARS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)