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.

LONG lists of people in decade articles[edit]

In 1950s through 2000s, well-meaning editors have added long lists of people. There are no criteria for listing. The recent ones are potential violations of WP:BLP, and, as there is no source, there is no way of monitoring the articles for BLP violations. As an example, suppose there were a doctor (Burzynski) noted primarily for being a quack. He might object, and rightly so, for a claim that he is one of the more notable people in the decade. (There is little dispute that he is a quack, although our article only says he is considered a fraud, rather than a quack.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay-- lists should be of a only a limited scope because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
Someone should propose a particular set of criteria for listing and then we can refine it by discsssion-- and post it (hidden) in the decade articles and weed out people that do not fit. tahc chat 16:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Editors selected all the items and they selected the names. That's what editors do--and in this case they only provided links to full Wiki articles. Arthur Rubin says it's a BLP violation--which is nonsense, as Rubin's silly example demonstrates. (A link does not call anyone anything negative) The idea that a list of 100 important people should be replaced with an unsorted, uncritical list vastly longer that was not chosen by editors but produced mechanically is a violation of the wiki mission: which is for editor to select what is important and leave many thousands more out. Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
No one ever proposed that a list of 100 so people be replaced with an unsorted list, nor replaced with an uncritical list, nor replaced with any longer list. Do you think that some proposed any of those?
While editors should select important pages and leave out many other, what often happens is that editors see (or write) an article on someone that they personally care about, and then add links for that page to as many lists as they can find. I find that many editors want to add just a couple names, but very few editors want the hassle of removing the many unimportant names that make lists unmanageable. tahc chat 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, Arthur Rubin erased all the editor-selected names on 1960s and said: 14:46, 17 October 2016 (-18,555)‎ . . remove (mostly) arbitrary list of people; World Leaders _might_ be restored if it were a list of all leaders of all countries). Rubin wants to add thousands of useless mechanically generated names of ALL leaders in order to remove the hard work of Wiki editors. Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I noticed this some time ago. Some editors seem to think that decade articles should include everything form the corresponding year articles. This is ridiculous. Year articles should contain only notable international events and people. Other events and people belong in the relevant Year in Topic or Year in Country articles. It is so hard to get this through to some editors that I, for one, can't be bothered. The difficulty of course is defining what/who is sufficiently notable for inclusion. For many there is no argument that they should be included, for many others it is equally obvious that they should not. The vast majority fall somewhere in the middle. For the decade articles there should be an even higher level of importance for inclusion. I'd suggest something similar to WP:RY, but unless there are sufficient editors willing to establish and enforce any such criteria I doubt it would get us anywhere. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this is feasible or even a good idea, but I haven't seen it discussed anywhere, and so I thought I'd at least throw it out there: I’m wondering what people think about a standard for inclusion based on Wikiproject importance levels, e.g. in order to be included, an individual needs to be considered of high importance to at least one Wikiproject. I don't think people pay much attention to importance levels right now, and this sort of a proposal might be putting too much emphasis on something that's kind of irrelevant. I'm also not totally familiar with the whole world of Wikiprojects, and so I don't know how much sense it would make when there might be some very specialized Wikiprojects, but if that's the case, I imagine a more nuanced proposal could somehow take that into consideration. -- Irn (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There are at least a couple reasons that such system would be infeasible, or at least infeasible by itself. (1) Even within one Wikiproject, articles are not systematically rated-- not even close, and for most such Wikiproject, new articles are made all the time. (2) Even if all Wikiproject were of similar scope and importantce and even if all of their articles were rated systematically, many important topics have no related Wikiprojects to given them a rating. (3) The decade articles list events and most Wikipedia articles are not about events. They are about things like people and organization. While would want some events in Nelson Mandela's life listed, some events are more important than others. tahc chat 21:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with (1), but I don't see it as insurmountable; I think it can be dealt with. And for (2) and (3), I want to be clear that this discussion has been about people, not events, and that's my focus here, too: the list of names of people, not events. In that regard, I find it hard to believe that (2) applies to individuals, and (3) is irrelevant. -- Irn (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, on second thoughts, is a list of Deaths even appropriate for Decade articles? The most notable deaths (Kennedy, Hitler, Stalin, Queen Victoria etc) would be covered in the Events section. Surely links to the relevant Year articles would be sufficient? That would take out the endless arguing about who should, or should not, be included. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree-- the list of deaths is not needed for decade articles. This would cut out arguing about who should, or should not, be included.tahc chat 16:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Criteria for recurring events in decade pages[edit]

  • I propose that we start with the criteria for listing "recurring" events on decade pages be the same as those for ""In the news" on the main page-- for recurring events.
  • For example, this means that a film (such as All That Jazz in 1970s would not be listed mearly because it gained the ill-defined "high critical praise" or because "the United States Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry" (as it does this for many films).
  • This criteria for listing for recurring events would still be too many... so we would also have to eliminate and modify many of the items listed at WP:In the news/Recurring items. For example, after pairing down the list we might all agree that the 1970s#Sports is fine in summarizing the (United States) World Series winners but should also summarize the Super Bowl winners in the same way, but not detail winners of Ultimate (frisbee). We might also agree to record a film that won "four Oscars" (as long as they were among the 4 to 6 most important Oscars; All That Jazz did not).
  • This would only cover recurring events, so we would need separate criteria for the many important non-recurring events on decade pages. tahc chat 21:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Two topics and already we have a clear split! My suggestions for films would be to list the Oscar Winning best pictures for each year and link to each year's ceremony. For the Super Bowl I wouldn't include it at all, it's a US event not an international one. Only significant International sports events should be included, the Olympics and the Football World Cup along with singular events such as the first sub-4 minute mile. I notice that unlike Year articles the Decade articles don't appear to have links to Decade in Topic or Decade in Country articles. At the risk of creating more work for those involved in this project it would seem that these articles would be the appropriate place for events/people that don't make it to the parent article. :) DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "..already we have a clear split", but I would mostly agree to your ideas... for example, dropping both the Super Bowl and World Series. Mentioning only the Oscar winners for best picture would be fine... for now. I would also agree mentioning fewer that all the Oscar winners for best picture, if we could agree which. Currently some films are also discussed do having the highest box office, and I would like to retain this even more than Oscar winners for best picture. A film can have an award but also have few people ever see it. Maybe include the top 6 grossing films, and the 6 most Oscar-awarded films of those that won an Oscar for best picture. tahc chat 16:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Reinstate the "Years in science" WikiProject[edit]

The Years in science WikiProject has been marked defunct for 6 years. I think there is benefit in having the project available as a place to discuss future evolution of the "YYYY in science" pages.

If you have thoughts, please join the discussion in the WikiProject Years in science talk page.

Metawade (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in the 10th century#re-focus[edit]

Please join the discussion on how to format the lists of leaders on this talk page. Thank you. tahc chat 16:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A Proposal[edit]

I believe that there should be image montages inside the year pages from 1950 to last year. This is similar to the decades, centuries, and millennia pages.— JJBers (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't. I consider it of minimal benefit, and there would be too much argument about what should be included. Perhaps a few individual picture for events, as we have for deaths. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, another idea down the drains,  Request withdrawn. Oh well, time to move on.— JJBers|talk 21:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

US Presidential inaugurations[edit]

We've got US Presidential inaugurations listed in the Year articles up to 2001. Perhaps we should relax WP:Recent Years & allow them in the 2005, 2009, 2013 & 2017 articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should remove them from all years. Seems a better choice. We might make an exception for the first inauguration held in January, and those (although I cannot think of any) where something actually happened. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleting them all is acceptable. They're more appropriate at the Year in the United States articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Very much agree. -- Irn (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Remove them from all years except 1789. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep all. They're historical events, marking the beginning of new US Presidential administrations--which are, in fact, world-notable. They certainly affect world events. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)