Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years

Page contents not supported in other languages.
WikiProject Years (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Proposed reforms for main year article inclusion[edit]

First proposed criteria[edit]

Hi guys. From what I'm seeing, it does appear that some main year articles, especially recent ones, tend to be a bit smaller and tend to exclude some otherwise notable events solely because they primarily occurred in a single country despite international reactions. I'd like to propose a new, slightly updated criteria, to implement on main-year articles:

General changes

  1. Any material which would presently be included with the current criteria (or immediately past criteria if my suggestion is implemented) would stay
  2. Establishing that niche doesn't always mean not notable. This was partially established in Talk:2022's RFC for the inclusion of the FTX collapse, but I'd prefer to codify this.
  3. Substance and influence, see below

Substance and Influence
This also comes with a proposed redefinition of international notability, which I split into two parts: Substance and Influence.

  • Substance consists of what actually happened during and after an event, or for deaths, what people actually did and their achievements.
  • Influence consists of how large of a following a person attracted during their life, and the following should be from across the English-speaking world at the very least.

For inclusion, an event or person needs good amounts of both substance and influence, though not necessarily balanced. The person shouldn't be famous for their death (Gabby Petito or Mahsa Amini), but if the person meets a bit of substance and had a large and undisputably wide following, or if their creation was substantially notable, they should be included. Examples of people who would be included are Apple CEO Tim Cook, Nintendo developer Shigeru Miyamoto, Wonder Woman Director Patty Jenkins, Baseball Player Ichiro Suzuki, etc. Being domestic also shouldn't be a restriction on inclusion here as their are some events which either have international influence for starting a movement, are key to a nation's history, or both; some examples of these events are landmark and widely-watched decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson in the US (as noted on the article, protests were seen in some European countries albeit less significant than American ones), the Tiananmen Square Massacre, events as historically significant as Kristallnacht in Nazi Germany, the legalizations of same sex marriage in countries and other landmark laws being passed, and anything else which is domestic in scope but internationally watched or reacted to substantially to a similar measure of that seen in Dobbs v. Jackson. Some are already on main year articles while others are not.


The main point of these new guidelines is to prevent the exclusion of events which are seen as significant in history but excluded because of a lack of sole effect internationally, as well as to counter some systematic bias against only "elite international events". I understand that I use mostly western and American examples, though it's not meant to only include America. It's not meant to open the floodgates for every domestic event in every place, but it is important to recognize that some domestic events are internationally notable, and some domestic figures made international progress. The only other solution we have to bringing awareness to these articles is to market the sh*t out of Year In Country articles; even 2022 in the US only had 31K views compared to the main year's 465K views, per page information links. We can't leave out who readers generally want to see if they have even some substance.

We as an encyclopedia are supposed to put our readers first, not our own criteria first. We are supposed to be the encyclopedia the world goes to when they want to find out who famous passed away, or what famous thing happened. We aren't the authority with the responsibility to tell people what they see; we're supposed to let the people, the readers, be OUR bosses. We surely have raids by fans, but maybe they're saying something if they all want something. By being exclusively at the presently-high international level of notability, we exclude many people who actually matter, even if not well known. We additionally exclude people who are well known across the world, just because they didn't win an Oscar. We are not looking at the impact enough for events and people; we have tunnel vision which only lets us see trophy cases. We're likely the most exclusive when it comes to notability, and we have endless discussions about including one or two people. Each talk page spirals into endless argument, itself even longer than the article when combining all archives; plenty of these skirmishes have turned into candidates for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. As a result of exclusivity and the constant result of exclusion, our articles are pretty small and don't encompass everything important. I personally don't want to see arguments like "it's domestic so keep it off the main year despite anything 'notable' that happened" again; it's a straw man argument at this point which we have most sadly accepted. Our standards have to change. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support I completely agree. Deletionism has its place, but when it becomes a major focus, it hurts the articles more than it helps. Is there even a codified guideline that main year entries have to be international? With that said, I'll also say that we should "market the sh*t out of Year In Country articles". I don't believe they'll ever be prominent enough to truly supplement the main year articles, but I think they can be useful resources if they're actually written (my thoughts about that are linked in the discussion immediately above this one). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I agree. I think that some things shouldn't be listed such as celebrity weddings, or a completed renovation of a mall. But, deaths and events with a significant IMPACT should be included. I'm open to any suggests on how such impact should be weighted, but main year pages have been too exclusionary, and I think that needs to change. FireInMe (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Main year articles shouldn't become fan, trivia or pop culture-led. International media coverage doesn't prove international notability - it merely indicates that a person/event is of interest to people in other countries. Anne Heche's death was one of last year's most publicised, nationally & internationally. Based on that, she should be in the lead as well as the Events & Deaths sections of 2022, and there should be a long article called Death of Anne Heche. If Kim Kardashian & Gene Hackman were to die on the same day, her death would receive a great deal more media coverage (nationally & internationally) than his, even if both deaths were from natural causes.
People & events being excluded due to being domestic is usual & isn't strawmanning. Protests are commonplace & some primarily domestic protests have much smaller protests outside their country by diaspora & sympathisers. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be opposed to the creation of Anne Heche's death article. This isn't like Marilyn Monroe's. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not saying that such an article should be created. I'm saying that if we were to be led by media coverage, we would. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being the creator of or best at something popular isn't enough, especially when that thing is trivial or a small intersection.
Changes in domestic laws shouldn't be in main year articles, even when they receive international media coverage because they're about controversial topics such as abortion & various LGBT issues such as LGBT people and military service, same-sex adoption, same-sex marriage. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I realize there's been some continuous discussion as of late, but it seems that the current system is working. It's always going to come down to personal opinion on some of these issues, but the current process appears be working well. Nemov (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the criteria are the best & most suitable we've worked out. Adding many domestic, local &/or trivial events & people to main year articles would reduce their quality, as would having quotas. There are many year by country articles for that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose I'm no inclusionist, but my biggest gripes regarding this issue is there are no essay form of the main year articles's criteria, as in WP:ITN/C. I clearly see that the lack of official criteria is the reason why disputes regarding this always come up, due to lack of an "official" bar to begin with, leading to where people constantly setting up which events should be included and which one should not, leading to exclusionism that beats even the purpose of being anti-Americentrism/Anglocentrism, which is the center of disputes back in last year. A creation of pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/Criteria (WP:YEARS/C) would be a part of the solution.
Regardless, I am on the belief that main year articles shouldn't be pop culture or domestic events-led and instead focus on the important world-affecting issues like past articles prior to 2017. Articles of recent years like 2019 and 2020 has been getting VERY large (300 KB), and would even trouble to load without good phones or laptops because of infusion of unnecessary domestic events to the pages. This is why a constant cutdown is neccessary, but I'm also in belief that main year articles has become too exclusionary, especially when it comes with the deaths. This is why I began to see new and unregistered users coming on talk pages requesting that people they know should be added to the articles, and expect them to come up more & more should we not do anything about it to resolve the issue as people don't really care about sub-articles like 2022 in the United States. Deaths, unlike domestic events, would not fill up articles as much as domestic events do. In that way, I would not completely agree with InvadingInvader on this one, but at least a reform is needed. MarioJump83 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We already have dozens of people in the Births & Deaths sections; I don't see why adding more would be an improvement. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I'm not sure why births and deaths need to be on the main year articles at all. Maybe something like Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II warrants inclusion as an event, but the death lists feel like relics of when the articles were first created two decades ago that would never stand up to scrutiny if they were proposed today. Not to mention we have more complete death lists at the year in country articles and the deaths in years articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Births & Deaths sections of main year articles are for people who have substantial international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's going to be a very difficult line to draw. This discussion regarding the inclusion of Ken Block feels like arbitrary gatekeeping; e.g., who is more "worthy" of inclusion versus who is more widely known. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We measure international notability by achievements rather than how well-known they are. Anne Heche is more well-known than the large majority of people listed in main year articles, but she's not in 1969 or 2022. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is why instead of bearing through discussion after discussion after discussion, which often does lead to no consensus, I'm moving to change the system at the fundamental level. "We don't to this" could become an invalid argument. Jim, answer WHY we do this, not with WHAT we do. The fact of the matter is that we're too exclusive and we need to open our minds to others endeavors of notability, even if it means not enforcing "internationalness" as much. Answer with WHY, not WHAT. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We restrict to substantial international notability because that's what's best for main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is this practice best for main year articles? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it opposes the deluge of domestic, local, trivial & pop culture stuff that fans flood main year articles with. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could I ask you to propose your own criteria based on what you believe should be included? I'm hoping we can unite around a criteria which we mostly agree upon. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the current criteria are the best we've had. They're not defined precisely & many attempts to do that have failed. You want to greatly loosen them to include (primarily) domestic events & figures, which is what we've been fighting against for years. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Jim Michael 2. I came across this discussion via an RfC on inclusion or exclusion of a person in a deaths list. Your comment references the “current criteria”, which interests me because I think setting standards is a more productive conversation to be having than debating inclusion/exclusion of any particular person. Do you have links to where I can get up to speed on what those criteria are? Thanks. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The criteria have been decided through various discussions, so they're spread across talk pages of many articles, mostly here & on those of 21st c main year articles. They haven't been defined precisely, and attempts to refine the criteria have failed, especially in regard to sportspeople & entertainers. We therefore still very often discuss the eligibility of people to be in the Deaths sections of main year articles. There have already been many such discussions on Talk:2023, despite being less than 5% into this year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the basics, regarding events it should be as restrictive at it is right now, not less restrictive. Regarding deaths, I would lower the bar to at least where they contributed significantly to the field they are involved, and if it is niche, there is some cultural recognition worldwide, as in they are significant force to reckon with. In that case, I would have included Jonghyun, Vivienne Westwood, Barbara Walters, and Kazuki Takahashi, but not people like Anne Heche (may have been voiced several internationally popular cartoons, but not as a main cast), Ken Block (motorsports are not cultural force to reckon with across the globe), or Sudharmono (see TheScrubby's comment) into the main year articles. Regarding athletes, I would include several figures like Bill Russell, but not someone like Hank Aaron. If you know what I meant, I would include athletes that are very influential/high-achieving in their sport that has international reach, like basketball, which is popular in Europe, Africa, and growing in Asia (outside Philippines) & Latin America. Baseball is limited to South Korea, parts of Latin America, and Japan. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about in cases where the field isn't important? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Importance kind of seems to be arbitrarily limited these days. Limiting importance to only geography, religion, politics, Emmy winners seems to be too exclusive. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We include many fields, but not all are important enough. Are you saying we should represent all fields, even small intersections & those which aren't important? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a certain exclusion for sure under my criteria. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't been able to contribute much to recent discussions due to being incredibly busy IRL, though for now I'll add that in no way should we become less restrictive - when it's been made clear for some time now (pointed out by @Deb:, among others) that the main yearly articles have easily been exceeding the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article. Substantial international notability is the bar for inclusion here (not international media coverage, as per Jim Michael's comments here and the consensus around here for almost two years now), and prior to 2021 we had severe issues where minor, domestic figures (predominately from the United States) were being included with little to no scrutiny while equivalent figures from other countries would be swiftly excluded. The breaking point was the Walter Mondale/Deputy heads of government-state discussions, particularly when one user attempted to justify the inclusion of Mondale based on a precedent where John B. Anderson was included for years without question - a third party politician with no international notability whose equivalent figures internationally would never in a million years have been included. Likewise, minor members of the American Congress were also included without scrutiny. We now have a firm political criteria that has served us well for some time now, and has ensured that such outrageous inclusions cannot happen again. Having said that, beyond the political criteria we've had issues with coming up with a firm consensus for other fields, especially in entertainment and sports. There's certainly room for improvement, and I agree that the current system isn't perfect, though I don't think the answer should ever be a return to how things were prior to 2021. TheScrubby (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia's article size guideline does not apply to lists. Your criteria exclude clearly notable people that readers would expect to see. Of course, I maintain that having a list of deaths at all in the main year articles is unnecessary and borders on WP:TRIVIA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can a list of the deaths of the most notable people of each year be trivia? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why I believe the criteria we have should be official, so we can be firm on where entertainers and sports should stand. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've tried many times to define the criteria specifically, but have failed, especially regarding entertainers & sportspeople. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should have a wide-ranging RFC on this one sooner after this proposal to make sure it is not a failure next time. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. I am afraid I have to oppose these proposals. I could agree with some of the detail, but much of it seems (unintentionally) designed to support systemic bias, e.g. "the following should be from across the English-speaking world at the very least". In my view, there is no way Dobbs v Jackson could be compared with the Tiananmen Square massacre in terms of its international impact and renown. The statement that "some main year articles, especially recent ones, tend to be a bit smaller" is definitely untrue. What's actually happening is that minor figures and events, not to mention unreferenced entries, are constantly being added to older articles so that they get longer and longer, and there aren't enough of us to keep this under control. I see many new entries from new contributors who want to "put something on Wikipedia" but don't have the time or inclination to write an article or even read the guidelines. Whilst it's true that lists don't get counted officially as readable prose, the length of articles obviously affects their readability and the time it takes to load the page. There isn't really any such thing as "clearly notable people that readers would expect to see". There are only a handful of people who fall into this category. For example, we include Nobel Prize winners in the Births and Deaths section, even though most people have never heard of the huge majority of them, because it represents the pinnacle of international recognition. On the other hand, being a "famous" musician doesn't and shouldn't automatically qualify an individual for inclusion, because so many of these are ephemeral and not known to international audiences. Deb (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree - main year articles are too long, with fans constantly adding (often unreferenced) domestic, local, pop culture & trivial events/people to them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jim and I with that part on deaths in general...not every entertainer has to be included, nor should people only famous because of their deaths like America's Gabby Petito. We can agree on limiting fandom in general, but we shouldn't completely ignore it.
The other, should I say more radical solution, is to reserve main year articles to be event-exclusive with all of the deaths and births listed as internationally notable on main year article being candidates for photos on Deaths in Year XXXX (and respective Births pages). I don't feel prepared to put that forth though given it's huge impact if it were to attain consensus, and this thread is best continued in a separate discussion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Most common complaint I've heard on International Year articles, is that they're American-centric. GoodDay (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Americentrism is a major problem on WP in general. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an illustration of this, we recently acquired the Wikipedia board game. We had to discard many of the question cards because they dealt with topics such as baseball and US TV. There was not an equivalent number of cards geared towards British culture and none at all geared to Australian culture (just as an example). For someone who has been contributing as long as I have, it was an embarrassment that the game's inventors couldn't do better. Deb (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that given we are an English encyclopedia, we're always going to be some sort of inherently biased towards English speaking countries and have less countries' entries except if it's a Tiananmen Square or Arab Spring case. I can understand the complaints about American-centric articles, but I'm concerned that can also lead to notable figures within fields being excluded as well on the sole basis that they came from America and did a lot of their work in America. Barbara Walters is the most glaring case of this as of recent, and I'm pretty sure that if WikiProject Women got involved in the discussion on inclusion of Walters, we'd be flooded. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had certainly heard of Barbara Walters and would not have opposed her inclusion, even though she is primarily known in the US. There is actually an element of systemic bias against women, because it's assumed that professions in which women are a small minority (scientists, composers, etc) are the only ones that really matter. On the other hand, to set lower standards for women than for men would go too far the other way. Deb (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this take...the hard part is balancing between both notability and representation, as going with one or the other way too much would spur a shouting match. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even though I conceded the argument over Barbra Walters over on that page, I still think it's very unfair to exclude important Americans like Walter Cronkite and Barbra Walters (it's basically like removing Sir David Frost from a Wiki page, very little difference between the three individuals in my opinion). I am also opposed to not making Wikipedia a pop culture/trivia sort of page alongside it being an actual encyclopedia. I use Wikipedia for the trivial information just as much as trying to find new concepts and its base function as an encyclopedia. It's what makes Wikipedia stand out from the boring old textbook encyclopedia. By removing that, you're draining Wikipedia of it's cultural resonance and friendliness to non-pure information people like I and seemingly many others are. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's also worth considering that in a given year, culture is far more important to understanding the year than random one-off disasters or most individual deaths. The articles as they stand say very little about the actual year they claim to summarize. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a problem regarding Americentrism on articles as well. It would have been tagged if we keep this going. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second proposed criterion[edit]

Taking into account the feedback from the first one proposed, I'd like to further amend the criterion which attempts to further strike a middle ground. As such, an event which should be included and designated as "internationally notable" should be either

  1. Internationally affecting multiple countries to a significant degree
  2. Definingly important for a majorly-important part of the world.

Under this criteria, solely using media coverage and Google Trends alone cannot be a justification, though it can be used to support an entry in conjunction with otherwise proved notability. Elements which can help to prove the above can be

  1. Media coverage, preferably from different regions of the world. Source from both the east and the west.
  2. Reactions from world leaders
  3. Fulfillment of the previous criteria
  4. Effect or occasionally anticipated effect (only if anticipated by reliable sources) on the global economy, global cultures, or global attention/movements.

To include a death, it must be generally internationally recognized. Elements of a figure which should denote automatic or near-automatic inclusion should be

  1. Breaking a glass ceiling in a landmark way
  2. Being or creating an internationally recognized core component of popular culture or a widely followed subculture
  3. Holding or being in strong contest for non-trivial records (think more along the lines of winning the most Oscars or BAFTAs rather than winning the most Golden Raspberries)
  4. Politically significant world leaders or politicians whose influence extended considerably beyond their home country, or in European cases, the European Union. Heads of state and government should be automatic inclusion.,

Elements of a figure which could be considered but not hands-down inclusion consist of

  1. International recognition and coverage prior to the death
  2. For entertainers, awards. Recommended to consider the MacPEGOT awards, BAFTAs, BRITs, Cannes Film Festival Palme D'Ors, and AACTAs.
  3. For sportspeople, use prizes and championships to determine notability, though do also consider coverage but with less weight. Limit mostly to the most internationally played sports. Cricket, Association Football, Basketball, Golf, and Tennis (both normal and ping-pong). American Football, Lacrosse, Rugby, Gaelic football and Australian rules football should generally be avoided except if a strong consensus is in favor of inclusion, and treat both Baseball and Ice Hockey as more occasional inclusions due to their more limited scope in internationality.
  4. For world leaders, heads of state and government should be an automatic inclusion.

Finally, include as part of the criteria that there may be cases where the criteria isn't perfectly met but a figure or event may otherwise be internationally notable or worthy of inclusion on main year articles. In these events, inclusion is justified assuming a consensus is formed to include, but this "open consensus" option should be used sparingly.

I am additionally not opposed against favoring women and non-Americans to help end a perceived white male bias when it comes to listing deaths, if such bias is found to exist.

I hope that this new consensus can help win more people over into loosening our criteria a bit to enable more inclusion while keeping things focused. The goal of main year pages should not be to achieve pure internationalism but rather to provide globally balanced historical record of notable events and figures. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This would still lengthen main year articles & increase the number of domestic events/people.
We shouldn't have quotas. The reason for men greatly outnumbering women in the Births & Deaths sections is that some major fields have far more men in them, including politics, science, sport & filmmaking.
You mention glass ceilings. What if the person only breaks that in their own country, such as being the first person from a demographic to achieve something there, despite it having been achieved by others of the same demographic in other countries?
I disagree with including people who represent subcultures, unless the person has substantial international notability. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This would still lengthen main year articles & increase the number of domestic events/people. – Good. Arbitrarily limiting the year articles is the reason why only one out of the thousands of year articles has been recognized as good content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's more likely to be because too many insignificant people and events have been added, making the articles more difficult to navigate. Deb (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the table of contents can make the article a lot easier to jump between, especially for 3rd level headings on desktop and on the mobile app. The only people who really can't navigate as easily are those using the mobile website, but we do advertise our mobile app quite a bit as a more convenient way to read. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Main year articles aren't too short. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say they are, even if marginally. If we loosen the criteria as proposed in the second, we keep main years notable while simultaneously enabling the inclusion of notable events and figures we should have but dismiss for the sole reason of being domestic. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being domestic shouldn't be a disqualifier. So many people are notable on an international level even though their actions only directly affected their own country. Take MLK and Malcom X. They acted almost entirely within the US. But they are internationally notable. Being domestic has also been an extremely flawed excuse for excluding some of the most notable events in the year...I remember you used domesticism for arguing against the inclusion of Shinzo Abe's assassination in Events. Again for FTX. That's why I argue that domesticism has turned into sort of a straw man argument which should require people to expand beyond just "being domestic".
WP:DUE states that positions with a substantial minority should still be mentioned. While we would all agree on excluding the current president of Delray Beach Market if he happened to pass away, WP:DUE would dictate that many of the world's most prominent subcultures, such as anime and cryptocurrency, warrant inclusion. It doesn't have to be a photo, but it's imperative that it at least be a mention. Arguments for exclusion of a notable global subculture are akin to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm not sure if you gave me a reason in this debate so far which doesn't tie back to either WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:NOBODYREADSIT, arguments we prefer to avoid so much that we have freakin' wikilink shortcuts to them.
I never specifically advocate for quotas and I presently remain neutral, in case further clarification is needed. I stated that I was not opposed, not an advocating supporter. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would strongly oppose favoring any demographic group or immutable characteristic. Entries in a list should be proportional to how well known they are. If most well known politicians are men, then most of the politicians listed in a year article will be men. If American entertainers have more international appeal than those of other countries, then most entertainers listed in a year article with be American. With that said, I think this discussion is becoming exactly what is holding back the year articles: we're once again arguing about inclusion criteria instead of actually improving them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are nowhere near enough regulars improving main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why don't we recruit some then? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been thinking that we should post a notice for the project on the community portal bulletin board. That might bring a few new faces here. My only concern is that we really need to shift the project's focus away from the 2022 and 2023 related articles before doing so, otherwise we'll only compound our problems rather than get people to improve the articles that need it the most. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe consider jointly designating responsibility for the two most recent year articles to both the Current Events WikiProject and WikiProject Years, so we have more resources to focus on other years? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that you say it, this seems like an obvious solution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the people who edit main year articles simply want to add one person, event, type of thing etc. The difficulty isn't attracting people to main year articles, it's how to find people who'll edit them regularly & frequently. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's start a separate thread on this...too long of a tangent InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely correct. I don't see any easy solution. Deb (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retain the political criteria as is, while in terms of international sports I think baseball, rugby, ice hockey and basketball should be in one category in between the other two categories mentioned. As for entertainment, definitely agree with inclusion of figures who won the highest awards for their language sphere (Oscars, Palme D’Ors, etc.), but not more parochial awards such as the Emmys or even BAFTAs not awarded to actors from outside the UK. TheScrubby (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Emmys are the highest award in American television, and the Oscars/Palme D'Ors/BAFTAs are parochial to film. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Emmys are domestic, which is why Americans such as Anne Heche winning them doesn't grant them inclusion in main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, you said it yourself, the Emmys are for American television. We likewise wouldn’t include domestic awards like the Logies - we had a similar discussion regarding all this back in November, when there was a discussion over whether BAFTA recipients ought to be automatically included. TheScrubby (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we all agree that an entertainer winning awards that are only from their own country doesn't grant them inclusion on main year articles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not always. I listed awards as "Elements of a figure which could be considered but not hands-down inclusion". Focusing exclusively on awards is a very bad idea for main year articles, as there are plenty of people who have achieved international fame or broke the glass ceiling without winning a formal award. We're talking about factors which can be used, and pure internationalism ends up removing too many notable figures from our pages. (Walters is perhaps the most glaring recent example of this) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this. Awards should not be part of a requirement, they should be a factor taken into consideration. If a set of criteria excludes Walters, then we probably shouldn't use those criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're talking about only a famous actress who didn't even have substantial notability in the US, like Anne Heche, then I'd vote to exclude the person. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With regard to sports, I agree with Scrubby on a three-tiered system. I propose:
Tier 1: Association Football, Cricket, Golf, and Tennis. Include figures if at least globally known within the sport's culture.
Tier 2: Baseball, Ice Hockey, rugby, and Basketball. Include figures if globally known beyond the sport, and include most of the sport's world ambassadors or most widely-successful promoters
Tier 3: National footballs (Gaelic, American, Australian rules), Lacrosse, Field Hockey, and everything else. Generally exclude unless there's that once in a lifetime person, equivalent to Pelé and Messi for Association Football, or Lemieux and Gretzky for Hockey.
Add or move sports between inclusion tiers through consensus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@InvadingInvader: I’m in complete agreement with a tier system like this for sports inclusion - with Olympic non-team gold medalists added to Tier 1. Would also like to put this to a vote of sorts - either here or on the Talk:2023 page, to confirm consensus on this. I would also assume that the inclusion of sporting events on the main yearly pages (such as the FIFA World Cup) would also be included along these tier lines. TheScrubby (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Births & Deaths sections[edit]

I've removed the US vice presidents (who didn't later become US president) from the 'birth' sections of the International Year pages. Will likely do the same for the US Second Ladies/Gentlemen & US First Ladies. Considering doing the same for the 'death' sections, too. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the most part, yes. Aside from the ones who later became president, I can't think of one who themselves became internationally notable nor fit either the current or second proposed criteria InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having way too much US history trivia floating around in my head, I would suggest John C. Calhoun, who played a huge role in American politics leading up to the civil war— arguably more than the presidents of that era. Dick Cheney might qualify as well for his involvement in the war on terror. Maybe Aaron Burr? Not too many overall, most are forgotten after a few generations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about Al Gore? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least of the more recent VPs, retain Gore as he’s a Nobel recipient. Retain Cheney due to his aforementioned role in the War On Terror. Exclude Dan Quayle, Mike Pence, and Kamala Harris. TheScrubby (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd exclude Quayle but keep the others. Pence may be forgotten at a future date, but Harris will remain significant for being the first female VP and first black VP. Deb (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Out of these, I'd take Calhoun and Gore only. Harris is significant but while becoming the first female American Vice-President, African-American American Vice-President and Asian-American Vice-President is a reflection of her achievements in politics, it's a statistic, or record or however you want to put it. Calhoun was a central figure in American politics of the 1850s. Gore, I really can't say as it's too late at night for me to be bothered with looking up his page and reading it. My point is that the rest of the world really doesn't care who the Vice President is, just as American's don't care about Neville Bonner or Wally Lewis or any other manner of Australian figures. Let's make sure any inclusions really count. Regards, The Voivodeship King (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A politician, entertainer, sportsperson etc. being the first of their demographic in their country to achieve a particular thing is domestic, so it doesn't grant them a place on main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're practicing an ideology I nickname "domestic absolutism", which essentially qualifies or disqualifies an entry based solely on whether it is remotely domestic or the actions were domestic. MLK would be domestic, but we include him on the international article because his actions were far-reaching internationally even after his death. You're failing to take into account impact outside of direct intentional actions. Similar to what the Voivodeship King condemned above, we're including only on the statistic of their direct actions within a country, not their impact on history. You're simply not looking at the whole picture. Such dedication to exclusively counting the international statistic and the resulting failure to count impact led to the mind-boggling argument of excluding the assassination of Shinzo Abe when we discussed his entry, and is the primary reason in which I equate shouting "domestic" with providing little additional context to a straw man argument when debating entries. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The assassination of Shinzo Abe didn't have international effects. Its internationality was merely media coverage & condemnation of the killing by various people & orgs. Had he been Prime Minister of Japan at the time, &/or he'd been killed by an international terrorist group, then of course no-one would've disagreed with its inclusion in 2022. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Political assassinations of this caliber NEVER happen in Japan. Ignoring that, plus the victim being the most consequential prime minister of Japan since the Second World War, are an example of ignoring relative/comparative notability and relying on domestic absolutism. I remember comments in that discussion saying verbatim "You can't be serious, Jim". The continued practice of domestic absolutism is ultimately hurting the article and encouraging more RFCs for the most absurd cases, which there are many apparently, taking up valuable time. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't started or encouraged RfCs for any cases that could reasonably be described as absurd. The large majority of my edits to main year articles are in line with consensus. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with you not starting or encouraging RFCs for most cases, and I thank you for your service on your many edits, but I find you voting to exclude on a large majority of notable figures/events, even though many additions which have come to either RFCs, close to RFCs, or near WP:SNOW fulfillments have composed of you voting to exclude with domestic absolutism as your primary reason. The point of proposing a revised criteria is to eliminate the need to argue for domestic absolutism and to consider not only people and events who are notable internationally as defined by the previous criteria but also to include figures/event who may have acted or happened solely within one region of the world but had a broader impact across the world. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The vast majority of domestic events & people don't have a broad impact across the world. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't mean that they didn't do anything notable. Internationality is a good starting point, but every now and then there are going to be extremely controversial exclusions when exclusively international makes no sense to much of the world. It makes us seem like an oligarchy we don't have influence over, and I often do feel that WPYEARS is among the most authoritative of WikiProjects. There is no good reason to adhere to a criteria which excludes trailblazers in fields and wide-reaching events, as it most often invokes WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or saying "nobody cares" even when sources are provided. While consistency is something I generally advocate for, there comes a point where we have to include some exceptions to atone for what readers care about. After all, Wikipedia is for readers first. It's not our job to edit Wikipedia to make a point about who is notable and who is not; it's our job to put our readers' desire first. If we're getting stormed by fans who want to add people, maybe we should take a serious look at the person. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd further like to state that I haven't seen arguments against reforming the criteria to allow for some domestic figures which don't ultimately trace back to WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:USELESS. We're not talking about what we do now, we're talking about what we should do, and absolute internationalism with near-zero exceptions is too restrictive on notability and doesn't put our readers first even remotely as much as moving to a criteria which prefers internationalism but allows some domestic exceptions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have stated that I think this conversation is ultimately not needed. It's also being dominated by you and Jim to the point that it's drowning out any progress. I can't imagine outside editors wading through this conversation to attempt to understand this issue (if it exists) to comment on it. The entire concept here is so nebulous it's difficult to wrap a guideline around it. Which is why the status quo will likely prevail since it's working okay as it is. Nemov (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I haven't had much to add because InvadingInvader has basically covered it already. The status quo is too exclusive and leaves the year articles incomplete. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've already deleted all the US vice presidents (who didn't become US president) from the birth sections, of International Year pages. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gore as a Nobel Prize recipient hopefully has been retained as a firm exception to the rule. Arguably Cheney too, for his international impact. TheScrubby (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that Gore & Cheney should be in main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very well, if you're both going to oppose me on this? Then I'll leave what should & shouldn't be deleted, up to you both. I can't take part in this process @InvadingInvader:, if I'm going to face opposition. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're only opposing the removal or Gore & Cheney because of their international notability, not the other VPs. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can exactly see where you're coming from on this. I would argue that part of the reason that maybe people are discouraged from participating in WPYEARS is because that the project is too toxic. I feel like that many editors, while being civil, just say stuff along the lines of "we don't do this". It's more authoritative than constructive.
My personal opinion is that there are exceptions for everything in life, including WPYEARS. I think that internationality is a good starting point, but it should not be the absolute. Main year articles being generally international is okay, but exclusively international is a bad idea as it leads to the exclusion. I think that Gore can stay because of the Nobel prizes, but I'm less keen on Cheney, though. I'm likely biased because I was too young to follow politics until the middle of Obama's first term, but Cheney I only know for being the dad of Liz Cheney and his hawkish foreign policy. I would say that Lloyd Austin is a more notable American than Cheney even though his office wasn't as high-ranking, mostly due to him in Iraq. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm iffy on Cheney as well, but there was a film made about him that received many awards. His stature as VP was much higher than normal VPs. Nemov (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gore and Cheney make sense to keep. Someone mentioned Harris, but she hasn't done anything that would make her internationally notable. Nemov (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started an RFC about splitting births and deaths at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: split births & deaths from year articles. Levivich (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Enforcement and ownership[edit]

I want to add one important note to all of this: WikiProjects don't own articles any more than individual editors do. "Please clear this with WikiProject Z first." is even listed as one of the examples of WP:OWNERSHIP behavior. Decisions made on a WikiProject are in no way binding or enforceable, and they do not become policy or guidelines. We can decide on all the criteria we want on this page, but ultimately we don't get to enforce any of it if a dedicated group of users chooses to work on a year article without the involvement of this project. Anything decided on this talk page is a suggestion for editors to take into consideration, not a rule that can be enforced. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien you're not wrong...this is listed as an example of ownership behavior and has been on WP:OWN before this all started (thereby disproving the theory that Thebiguglyalien did some WP:POINT editing to WP policies/guidelines). However, Deb makes some very good points, most notably that we are a community. Sometimes we do need some consensus. So I'm honestly kind of stuck. While I remain neutral on this specific issue personally, I'd recommend that this be arbitrated since no further comments between the original thread and this one have occurred within a week. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you doing anything about arbitration? Deb (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've stop (for the most part) keeping track of what's going on about Year pages, as of late. Too much happening, all at once. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same, the Jim/Scrubby thing really poisoned whatever interest I had in helping with this topic. Nemov (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11th millennium BC draft feedback[edit]

It has been 5 days since I made the draft and I didn't get any feedback on it. The only thing I know is that the draft is in Class Start. I was wondering if anybody can give me feedback on the draft since I really want this to be an article someday. If it does get accepted, I will try to get the article to GA just like the 10th and 9th millennium BC. You can give me feedback on what I can improve, but I really want to know what the format should be for the page. I'm fine with the references part just in the Events section. When I get more information, I need to divide that section into a bunch of other sections like the 10th and 9th millennium BC. The question is what should the format be for that page since the 10th and 9th millennium BC formats are different.

Link to the draft: FerdinandLovesLegos (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It can take months for a draft to get feedback. There's a huge backlog. It turns out that in your case, 11th millennium BC is already a redirect. If you have enough sources to write an article, I think you'd be justified in just creating the article by editing that redirect. Category:11th millennium BC also lists everything about that time period that's currently written on Wikipedia, if that helps at all. Format isn't really something you need to worry about until there's a substantial amount of content written. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright. Thanks for letting me know. I will try to get more sources in the draft and will soon move the draft to the page once I think there is enough information. FerdinandLovesLegos (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien Sorry for pinging, but I did more changes to the 11th millennium BC draft and I think it's good enough for the page to become an article. I want to know if you agree since it looks like you have been in wikipedia for a long time and that you are more experienced of knowing what a good or bad page is. FerdinandLovesLegos (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's starting to look pretty good! The important thing is to make sure that there are enough sources out there that it's possible to write a longer article, similar to 10th millennium BC. Notice that the 10th millennium article has enough sources to cover a few different aspects (in this case geology, early humans, and climate). If this isn't possible for the 11th millennium, then it will eventually just get turned back into a redirect. I might take a closer look at it later to see if I have any more specific thoughts for it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright that is a completely understandable response. I'm planning to add much more information to the 11th millennium BC draft. I will comment here again once the draft gets up to 20 sources or more or when it tells me that the draft went from the Start Class to C-Class. FerdinandLovesLegos (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability of Racing Drivers[edit]

I'd like to begin a discussion on the notability of racing drivers for the births and deaths lists of year pages.

For Formula One, I'd like to propose inclusion for drivers with two race victories or more as the standard for inclusion. Given that in the earlier stages of Formula One, there were less races, points and ability for participation, a medium like victories doesn't differentiate as much as points. To give some modern examples for understanding, Charles Leclerc and Sergio Pérez would be included and Pierre Gasly, Nico Hülkenberg and Esteban Ocon excluded.

For American racing, only a miniscule group of drivers would qualify of the very highest level (Dale Earnhardt Sr. and Bill Vukovich, for example).

I'd be interested in some feedback on my thoughts here and also recommendations on other forms of racing, such as MotoGP, 24 Hours of Le Mans...

Thank you, The Voivodeship King (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Births and deaths have been removed per this discussion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splitting births and deaths from year articles[edit]

There is now a community consensus in favor of carrying out WP:SIZESPLITs for birth sections and death sections in year articles per the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: split births & deaths from year articles. This consensus appears to be conditional on the length of the article and on the placement of a link from each given year article to the new lists. To carry this out, I think the following should happen:

  • Birth sections in the articles 19012000 should be split to their own articles.
  • For articles 19011989, "Deaths in YEAR" articles are redirects and should be overwritten by splitting the deaths lists from the year articles.
  • For articles 19902023, deaths articles already exist. As such, the "deaths" section in each of these articles should be deleted outright. If applicable, any citations and images in these articles can be moved to the monthly death articles.

For the time being, I think we should limit any splits to the 20th century (for births) or the 20th and 21st centuries (for deaths), as we're unlikely to find a lot of sizesplits necessary outside of that. There are probably a few, but we can handle those if they come up. As the relevant titles and formatting are all standardized, I suspect that most of this can be done automatically, but someone more well-versed in semi-automated edits would need to weigh in on this. I'm posting this here for feedback and other thoughts, as this is the project that would be most directly affected by this change. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a bad idea. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently proposed mergers[edit]

In light of some recent drive-by editing by a certain user, I decided to propose some mergers of various pages about LGBTQ animated characters:

Also, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to participate in this discussion about the proposed merger of Animated series with LGBT characters: 2020s and List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present, which has been stale since Dec. 2022 Historyday01 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]