This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Time This template is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles Years This template 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

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)Reply[reply]

I'm adding Business and Economics to this, as part of the Business and Economics WikiProject. --Acooley 14:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm removing it until some articles are created. This shouldn't be a list of every possible topic, just the ones we currently have. If you're keen to start this off, simply create a timeline and stubs for at least each year from 2000 to 2006. Warofdreams talk 03:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Basically, rather than linking to 2007 in Luxembourg and all the others, link to Category:2007 by country. Grandmasterka 05:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree. Much more flexible than a template full of red links. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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))Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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))Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

"2009 in Sri Lanka" should be replaced with "{ {PAGENAME} } in Sri Lanka" (without the spaces). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.89.149 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to have been done. --BozMo talk 20:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Is it time to add 20yy in fiction to the template? ((Also noted in WT:YEARS.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Terrorist acts should clearly be included as a topic in this template. But, should it be under"Other" or "Politics"? There is also an issue with changes of name and format from year to year. Earlier years are List of terrorist incidents in 2010, while List of terrorist incidents, 2016 is a parent list for individual incidents by month articles. One thing at a time...DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

120.29.65.170 (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template violates WP:MOSSIS by placing the Commons link box in the lead section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, van soneone please fix problem with Czech Republic in list? Thanks :) Patriccck (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also please put in photo to the another section. Thank you! Patriccck (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi. I am using this template on a categiory page. how is this template used? I already figured out that i can idnicate the year by writing it as a parameter, i.e. ((C21 year in topic|2019)) . if I want to suppress the second info box, i.e. the info box labeled "2019 in various calendars," is there a parameter or some method to do so???

when you reply, please ping me, i.e. by writing ((Reply to|sm8900)) in your reply. Thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lebanon has its own page for 2019 in Lebanon and many other years, and should be added to country list. Joseph Ruoc (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Joseph Ruoc (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to have the year in handball link, as I can find only one of these articles that exists, 2012 in handball. Before I do it I just want to make sure nobody thinks it's necessary. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Science and technology area, please add "Climate change" in a manner that would link to the first in a new series of articles including 2020 in climate change. Thanks! —RCraig09 (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RCraig09,  Done Also added it to Template:Science year nav that's included in 2020 in science and Template:C21 year in topic current events that I added to Portal:Current events. Furthermore, I linked to it from 2020 in the environment and environmental sciences. Thanks for creating this article (series)! Prototyperspective (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prototyperspective A thousand declarations of gratitude! I was and am afraid to mess up wikicode that was new to me. I haven't figured out a way to introduce links in the "2020 by topic" ((C21 year in topic)) template near the top of 2020. Is that possible and appropriate? I'm just not following how these templates operate, sorry. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have noticed while many calendars have the date written in their own script (alongside English), the Bengali calendar does not. I would also like to add the Bengali script to the Bengali calendar in "2021 in various calendars" section. However, I am not being able to. I am a Bengali, so I can say the year would be: ১৪২৮ , in the Bengali script. If someone can, please add it.

- ১৪২৮

I would like to add the links to the 20yy in nation articles for the countries of Monaco, Vatican City, San Marino, and Liechtenstein.

I have noticed on the list of countries that while other smaller countries like Andorra, Luxembourg, and Antarctica (not even a country) are included on the template, other fully recognized countries like Monaco, Vatican City, San Marino, and Liechtenstein are not? I find this especially surprising for the countries of Monaco, San Marino, and Liechtenstein, seeing that they are member states of the United Nations. Even Vatican City is a UN permanent observer state, and they are only that to stay neutral in world affairs, not because they are not recognized. I would be happy to create and keep up with some of these countries articles, but it would be difficult for them to be seen if they are not included on the template. I am asking for permission to add these countries to the template because I believe they deserve to be there. Thanks! --Johnson524 (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added on May 3! --Johnson524 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The country links on this template take up a huge amount of space, and many appear red on most articles. I'd like to reduce the massive block of links by replacing the list with a category link. Johnson524, I'd like to restore my revision from your no consensus revert so that the template is cleaner and doesn't extend well into the bodies of articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Thebiguglyalien: I'm not reverting your edit because there was no consensus; there wasn't even a discussion, and this was a large part of the template that was deleted, which highly viewed. This template is without a doubt long. I have done some minor work in the past to try to shorten the template and am open to any new suggestions, but by linking to a category instead of openly displaying these articles, you risk them falling into obscurity by hiding them on the main place that they are displayed (that is, at least, how I learned about "Year in Country" articles). Instead, how would you feel about hiding red links on the template for articles that have not been created? This would not only shorten the template on many of the pages this template is used, but would also not hide any good existing content. I'm looking forward to hearing what you think, cheers! Johnson524 (Talk!) 04:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there an option for "only show this link if it exists"? If so, I think that would be a great solution. Personally, I think the long list of calendars is the real culprit here, but I don't know how else that could be presented without losing information. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Wow, that was a speedy response! 😁 Yes, the code for showing a link for if it exists or not exists, and looks something like this:
((#ifexist: page title | value if exists | value if doesn't exist ))

I only learned about this from the template Year in Europe, but have never used it personally, so I'll have to get familiar with it. If you agree with this solution though, I'm all set too! Johnson524 (Talk!) 04:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I think that should be applied to all of the "body" links (but not the headers like "arts" or "science and technology" of course). And I looked at a few of the other year articles, and it looks like the problem is mostly exclusive to this template; pages like 1930 or 1625 don't have the same issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: I'm glad to hear this isn't a larger issue. It's nice to know that this code won't have to be applied throughout all of C21 and C20 year in topic and so on. I can get to it sometime this week if that's ok with you, but if you want it done quicker you're welcome to do it. Johnson524 (Talk!) 05:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Ok, so I've completed filling in the ifexist code for one of the smaller sections on the template, but I've run into an issue with the dashes. The code, which on the template looks like:

((#ifexist : PAGE | [[PAGE]]|))

This code basically says that if the article exists, it is put in brackets, and if it does not, the red link is hidden because I put nothing in that space. The problem is, where do I put the dashes? If I put it outside of the ifexist code, and some articles don't exist, the template could look something like:

PAGE - - - PAGE - PAGE - PAGE - -

So that's a no-go. So instead, I put the dash inside the ifexist template at the end, which fixes the problem even when the section is littered with red links, unless the last article in the section does not exist, in that case the template would look like:

PAGE - PAGE - PAGE - PAGE -

Which isn't as bad as option one, but doesn't look the best either. Because there is no way to tell which article will be the last one with an page made; short of putting an ifexist code on every dash (which wouldn't work because you can only have at a maximum 500 ifexists per template), I don't know how to fix this. This message is definitely a lot to digest, and if you don't have an answer, that's cool, but I wanted to tell you the problem first before I went ahead with implementing this code for the entire template. Other than this though, the code works fine. Cheers! Johnson524 (Talk!) 19:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see what the issue is, but I'm not sure what the solution is. Hopefully there will be a point where all of these articles exist. I'm wondering if the answer might just be a different format, like a collapsible sidebar or a navbox.

Looking beyond the countries section, I think there just needs to be more standardization in what articles exist and what's linked to in the template. Some cleanup there could shorten the template and reduce the red links. I did a little bit recently, but there's more. For example, there are links that don't correspond to yearly articles like "sovereign state leaders" which links to the whole century and "transportation technology" which links to a timeline. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How would you feel about making the long list of calendars a collapsible section? Since they are not articles, it wouldn't be hiding anyone's work, and would still be there for those (few people more than likely) who want to see it? Johnson524 (Talk!) 21:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if that would work on mobile (which is where it's arguably the most obstructive). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I didn't think about that. I hate to put the discussion on pause but I'm out of ideas now 😅 Johnson524 (Talk!) 22:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If anyone is still watching this template, the length is still an issue, and attempts to raise it at WT:YEARS are proving unhelpful. Is there any reason why this doesn't use Template:sidebar with collapsible lists, and is there any reason why we need to keep the massively long list of calendars? Pinging Johnson524 since we were discussing this previously. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Yeah, I still watch the template 🙂 So I'm not sure where or with who I discussed this with because it was a while ago, but the main concern I heard against making the entire list collapsible is that many people will not see the articles in it, which at least for me, was the only way I learned that 'year' in 'country' articles existed, which I fell in love with when I first start editing Wikipedia for some reason. The second reason which kind of ties in with the first is that on mobile, where templates cannot be opened and closed, the articles in the template won't be less likely to be seen, they will not be seen at all.

Opposed to all of that though: I do agree with your proposal that the template should be collapsible, at least to some extent. My counterclaim to the former is that the template is so long at this point, people on mobile have to scroll down the whole thing to get to the article, thus they are not reading it anyways, so there's not a problem there I think. Because of this, I say we could at very least start off by collapsing the list of ways to say the year, which is only helpful to a very select few users anyways, and gauge reaction. From there, I guess we could experiment in collapsing the list of 'year' in 'country' and 'topic' articles, but for some reason I'm still a little hesitant on that. Hope this was helpful, and I'm glad you're still interested in the template. Cheers! Johnson524 02:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just tested it: only the calendar portion of the sidebar shows up on mobile. So for mobile users, a year article is the opening paragraph, then a big wall of calendars, and then the rest of the article. The more time that goes on, the more I feel that the calendars should be removed. It seems like the sort of thing that the year in country articles are for. For example, when I wrote 2021 in China, I made sure to include that it was the year of the Ox and of metal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Interesting thought, I hadn't really considered removing them all together. I'd love to ask for others opinions, but I think the watchlist for this template is just you and me lol. I do believe that the way the template displays the list of years now is not ideal and should be shortened, but as a precaution, maybe ask on Talk:2023 whether this is a good idea or not. I don't blame you if you're done going to talk pages and having fruitless discussions though (as previously mentioned), so if you wanted to, I wouldn't be opposed to you being WP:BOLD and removing it all together right now, and if someone is THAT against it, they can come here and argue their case. That's my two cents, cheers! Johnson524 03:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Along with the 2023 in various calendars template, I really think this template takes up way too much space in each article about a calendar year. Why not be able to select a "show" button under e.g. "By place" and only then will all the different countries be displayed. Similar to how the Donald Trump template works. See Template:Donald Trump series Is it intentional that this is not currently the case?--Marginataen (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Marginataen, and thank you for messaging on the talk page before making any big edit 🙂 The short answer for your question 'is there a reason this template intentionally not collapsed' is yes, the longer answer can be seen in the last four messages in my conversation above with Thebiguglyalien. I feel like if I try to summarize these points, I'll probably miss something crucial, so if you don't mind reading those messages for some context, I'd appreciate it. All in all though, I'm not opposed to the proposal. Hope this answered your question, cheers! Johnson524 01:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It needs to be collapsible. I like how the Template:Socialism sidebar is made. Would something similar with years be possible, Johnson524?

Marginataen (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marginataen: Ok, I'll be bold and see what I can do. If I don't get to it by the end of the day, please remind me. Cheers! Johnson524 15:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marginataen, @Thebiguglyalien: The deed is done. What do you both think? Was it too much? I am more than open to reverting back from here, but I felt nothing was going to happen without doing something big. Cheers! Johnson524 17:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PLEASE, undo those changes. They've (for example) removed links "Year in country" pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoodDay, I'm more than happy to, but I'm having a little trouble understanding your concern? Sorry Johnson524 02:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You didn't get a consensus for those changes & for example look at 2023. Where's the link for 2023 in Canada, 2023 in the United States?, etc. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoodDay: It is a collapsible template, so if you uncollapse the "By place" section of it, all of those links are all still there. Nothing was removed in the edit, just reformatted like the discussions above (which have been ongoing since March!) have been discussed, so FWIW there was a consensus to shorten the template. You're the first person to say you're against the changes though, so I can revert them for the time being, but both Thebiguglyalien and Marginataen have asked for a shorter template, and that's what I still want to do. As opposed to how it looks now, what is something different that I can do to prevent the template from going deep into the bodies of articles? As a far more experienced editor than myself, I really would appreciate your feedback to make this template better 🙂 Cheers! Johnson524 02:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, I just found it. Maybe if the section was changed from By place to By sovereign state, it might help. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoodDay  Done: Are you happy with how the template looks now, or is there anything else you would like to see changed? Cheers! Johnson524 02:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much better. PS - If taking up less space is the goal. Then maybe delete the clock. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoodDay: Honestly, I only included the clock to prevent the template from falling to obscurity on the side of 'year' articles. Compared to how the template used to look, this is already a lot shorter, and I thought the pop of color would help the template stand out a little more 😅 Thank you again for your feedback, cheers! Johnson524 02:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoodDay: Do you agree, or do you still want the clock gone, because I personally am a bit fond of it... Johnson524 02:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The clock is an eye sore, IMHO. But, I would suggest bringing this topic over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years, for broader input. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoodDay: That's probably not necessary for an image, but I can do that if you want. Going back to the 2023 page: don't you think the template now kind of disappears on the side of the page without some kind of image there? Johnson524 02:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bring the discussion over to the WP:YEARS page. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoodDay: I was writing there as you sent this lol Johnson524 02:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a consensus for removing this clock from the navigation template per WP:NAVIMAGES. See this previous edit, this is merely decorative. 49.150.12.134 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Johnson524 23:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Year in various calendars disappeared from all years from 2001 onwards, while still existing from all years before 2001. I've taken the liberty to add it again in this template. HolaQuetzalcoatl (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HolaQuetzalcoatl, @Cinnamon colbert, @GeoffreyT2000: If you're still interested (and if not that's totally cool and you can just ignore this ping), I'm making a centralized discussion here on whether the list of various calendars should or shouldn't be added back to the template. For context, the "Replace countries with category link" and "Collapsible?" conversations above go in-depth on the process started almost a year ago in March 2023 to shorten the template in some considerable way.

But nobody has time to read all of that, so the TL;DR as that Thebiguglyalien originally suggested the template needs to be shortened to reduce the massive block of links that take up a huge amount of space. A reasonable concern, as the template at the time extended into I believe February in the 2023 article, which is huge amount of space for one template to take up. It was also brought up at this time that the long list of calendars is the real culprit here, but I don't know how else that could be presented without losing information: and no solution was thought of to solve this across multiple Template and WikiProject talk pages. Along with the fact the template was so long that mobile users would have to scroll for a while past a list of calendar variations that, while useful, is not helpful to the vast majority of viewers, I decided to WP:BOLDLY but regretfully remove the calendar variations to get the template down to a manageable, reader friendly size.

Do any of you disagree with this course of action? If so, I'd love to hear any feedback you may have or other ways to improve the template. In the end, my goal is to make this highly viewed template the best it can be, so any suggestions of improvement are welcomed 🙂 Cheers! Johnson524 07:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found it interesting and occasionally useful, but I agree that it was very unwieldy on mobile. I would suggest putting it in a dropdown menu so that it exists but doesn't take up unnecessary space. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 06:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Occidental Phantasmagoria: Do you know how to do that? I couldn't seem to find a way to make it collapsible, but I think that's still because I'm learning the nitty gritty of template editing. Cheers! Johnson524 06:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've never tried, but ((navbox)) should work. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 06:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]