This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Years page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Years Project‑class

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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Since 18 November 2022, Thebiguglyalien has made significant changes to the agreed "Example Year" section, with the explanation "rewriting with brief summary based on current consensus", but as far as I can see no consensus was sought or obtained. Some of these changes were harmless; others were controversial. Unfortunately s/he has declined to explain why the section on "Summary of year" was removed. I can see no alternative but to restore that section to the way it was previously, at least until these changes have been discussed and consensus obtained. Deb (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such changes should be reverted, if those changes have 'no consensus'. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with this take in general. If it is too drastic of a change, seek some sort of consensus first. I have no doubt Thebiguglyalien is acting in good faith, but it would be nice to present your ideas first if it's incredibly consequential. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - I've restored the project page to where it was prior to the mass changes. Deb (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you explain why you deleted me from the list of active participants? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because you added yourself at the same time as you removed other important content and it got lost when I was obliged to restore the article. You can always put yourself back. Deb (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the inclusion bar for technological breakthroughs on main year articles? Is there a consensus on this? Considering that technological progress is exponential a standard on what is notable enough in regards to breakthroughs should be established in regards to upcoming years (as well as past years). FireInMe (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "official" criteria for what should be included, and I don't think such criteria would be possible. Just like anywhere on Wikipedia, the users writing the article determine what should and shouldn't be included by considering WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEIGHT, and the trickier cases are discussed on the article's talk page if necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defining criteria for this would be almost impossible, partly because we don't know what'll be invented in the future. The vast majority of things shouldn't be included. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that year articles are granular enough that any notable breakthroughs or inventions of the year should be included. If anything, science and technology is underrepresented on the main year articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The decade articles (particularly the most recent ones) are currently inconsistent, poorly formatted, and focus overwhelmingly on the English-speaking world. I'd like to begin working on one and smooth it out section-by-section, but this is a fairly large task. Are any other users interested in collaborating on a decade article? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, but I'm getting more interested in old ones like, those in the 17th century. Recent ones are just so... depressing (to me personally). Lol. BorgQueen (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it doesn't help that the first things we think to add are wars, disasters, and crimes. And most of the day-to-day suffering of the past wasn't documented as well, even though there was more of it. These are actually the sort of things I think should be in year articles. What was life like in a given year or decade, in addition to big events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest we more-so codify this: Decades lean more towards trends, years lean more towards specific events? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is probably the best way to do it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias regarding years articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First proposed criteria

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.

Reasoning

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

That's fair. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Why is this practice best for main year articles? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

How about in cases where the field isn't important? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

It's a certain exclusion for sure under my criteria. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yes. MarioJump83 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[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]

Americentrism is a major problem on WP in general. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Second proposed criteria

Taking into account the feedback from the first one proposed, I'd like to further amend the criteria 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Main year articles aren't too short. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

There are nowhere near enough regulars improving main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we recruit some then? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

Now that you say it, this seems like an obvious solution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[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]

Let's start a separate thread on this...too long of a tangent InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. I don't see any easy solution. Deb (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

Births & Deaths sections

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]

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]

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]

How about Al Gore? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I agree that Gore & Cheney should be in main year articles. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Enforcement and ownership

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]

@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]

Opening a new discussion on updates to the project page, as my previous post was ignored and has now been archived. The WikiProject page is significantly outdated and needs to be updated to be functional:

• The similar projects list contains several inactive projects and contains a note from 2008. I had removed these items, but they were restored. I had also added WikiProject:Lists, which seems relevant to me, but it has been deleted from the list.
• The example year section is an unfinished draft from 2004. I had replaced it with a more accurate list of things that are currently included in year articles, but the unfinished draft has been restored.
• The old surveys section has is an irrelevant item from 2005. I removed it, but it has been restored.
• How we assess articles on WikiProject Years is unclear. The assessment and review section provides outdated information. I attempted to rewrite it, but this has been reverted.
• The article alerts section is long and interrupts the flow of the page. I moved it to the bottom of the page, but it has been moved back up.
• The templates section is poorly formatted, lists outdated template instructions, and omits important templates. I had fixed all of these problems and subsequently added other useful templates, but the broken list has been restored.
• The decades section serves no purpose. I had deleted it, but it has been restored.
• The year index articles (list of years, list of years by topic, and list of decades, centuries, and millennia) should appear on the project page. I had added them, but they have been deleted.
• This edit made clearly inappropriate changes, such as deleting my username from the list of participants, moving inactive participants to the active section, and deleting my DYK credit, but I have reverted these three specific aspects.

The last time I opened a discussion about the WikiProject page, no one replied to it. I am hoping this one is more productive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't really use the project page too much. Mostly, I work on recent main year articles, recent years in the US, and a few other pages. So I don't know what to think. I would encourage you to use the Ping tool to alert other editors; as long as you're not canvassing, feel free to ping everyone active on WPYEARS. In case you forget, you can use the @ symbol and type in a username, or type [[User:Example|Example]]. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the above Proposed reforms for main year article inclusion thread, @Jim Michael 2, @Thebiguglyalien and myself began discussing on how to recruit newer members...given the possibility on how long of a tangent that can be, I'm spinning the discussion off into its own thread. All three of us generally agree that we need more regular editors on WPYEARS, and while we split on methods and the role of the project in ways, the core mission of increasing recruitment is something we all share. I'd like for us to start brainstorming what wee can do to get more people on board what is arguably one of the most vital WikiProjects since it ties into nearly everything else on the site. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably the easiest solution. I've started watching 2022/2023 to assist. I know @GoodDay has commented in the past, but I don't know if they have an interest in helping. Nemov (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we've mentioned a post on the community portal and bringing in WP:WikiProject Current events to focus on 2022 and 2023. I've also made an effort bring the underdeveloped country in year articles to the attention of WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, but I don't know how much that will do on its own. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we may need to partition part of our focus on 2022/2023 to WikiProject current events, but I don't see that feasibly happening personally until we have a more universally-agreed upon and less controversial criteria. Maybe bring them in to comment? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content to help keep the birth/death sections moderated. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before we try to bring in more users, I think we need to know what we're actually working toward. I propose we create a few examples of "model" year articles and get them promoted as WP:Featured content. This ties back in with the criteria issue, it would give us a guide on how to improve year articles going forward, and it would bring more attention to the year articles simply by having them present in this process. I think our top priority should be getting a few examples of featured content passed as a proof of concept and then get more users to propagate that work to the thousands of other year articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If your idea of a 'model' article is the ones where you added lengthy prose summaries without obtaining consensus, or perhaps the layout you tried to impose by making changes to the guidelines without obtaining consensus, I don't think that's the best option. Perhaps if we all work together to agree any changes to the guidelines that may be needed, that would have a better chance of succeeding. Deb (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When do you plan on working together to do so? What is your plan to make this collaboration happen? I've asked you and the broader community to provide input to these changes roughly half a dozen times, including the discussion directly above this one. I have yet to hear any input from you on how we can actually turn these articles into featured content. I've only heard "no consensus" and "discuss first". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a community. Working together involves making a serious attempt to get consensus for any major changes. Deb (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you have been ignoring discussions I open and then challenging edits I make purely based on the fact that no one has replied to the discussions I open. I am again going to suggest that you carefully read WP:STONEWALLING in its entirety, as this is an example of disruptive behavior. This is the final time that I am asking you to stop. I am still open to hearing a policy-based objection to my edits or additional voices to provide input on what these articles and the wikiproject page should look like. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think if y'all want to start discussions, first post it here, but don't be afraid to use the ping tool. Whenever I have discussions that just stagnate without participation and are too consequential for BOLD edits, don't be afraid to ping or maybe start an RFC. I'm all for bold edits myself in general, but not if we're changing the standard for an entire series of actively-maintained articles. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get the years to be featured content. I don't particularly care what that looks like or what format is used. I just want them to be good. But I'm limited on options when no one else wants to improve them and a small contingent of users actively challenge any change without providing input on how they should be improved. What am I supposed to do in this situation? If anyone can provide any example of what a featured year should look like, I will follow it to a T. But there are too few users interested in that discussion and too many that use no consensus to obstruct progress. What is my next step if I want to get a year article featured, preferably with the help of other users in this project? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The long-standing consensus is for years to be lists while decades are for prose. I think near-full prose for these articles' purpose is best used to summarize a longer period of time than a year, but a lead-focused prose kept brief would do well. Examples of events which I believe deserve prose in the lead for main year articles are the 2008 financial crisis, 9/11 and the war on terror, the 2022 Ukraine invasion, COVID, and the fall of the Soviet Union, and for domestic year articles some examples could be the abortion fiasco in the United States, the 2022 UK political crisis, and the development of Guyana's oil and gas industry by American companies (especially ExxonMobil). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to dive deeper into this, but I feel like it would be a tangent (again). But take 2002 for example. I've made sure everything in the article is cited, and you've written a lead. Is it basically as good as it can get? Does it meet the featured list criteria? Are celebrity births/deaths such a WP:MAJORASPECT of the subject "2002" that they should make up the majority of an article about it? And per WP:SUMMARY, shouldn't the article include a brief overview of 2002 in sports, 2002 in art, 2002 in science, etc? These are the sort of things I would want to look into and feel are being neglected in favor of inclusion RfCs and petty disputes about images. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that's been lingering in me for a while. I would like to know from other editors whether it is necessary to move deaths into their own article, and while personally neutral, I can come up with arguments both in favor and against what would be an extremely systematic change to year articles.

• In favor of separating deaths would make year articles more focused on actual events. More prose could be included while keeping main years at an optimal article size, and most people don't really care too much about a vast majority of deaths; the only ones from last year with generally lasting impacts or thoughts were Elizabeth II, Shinzo Abe, Benedict XVI, and Pelé, and if you squint at it, maybe Olivia Newton-John and Angela Lansbury. Since deaths themselves have also caused lots of discussions, separation of deaths will cause reductions in both the quantity and intensity of content disputes, allowing us to focus more of our energy on improving articles rather than wasting our time on debating.
• Keeping deaths on main year articles would uphold longstanding tradition on year articles. Especially for some years, many internationally notable people passed away, and their deaths should be just as prominent as many of the events on main year articles. These people at least came seriously close to changing the world, and their exclusion would be an insult to not only their fans but also the world at large. We've done this for a while. Why change?

There are some WP:NOHARM arguments I can come up for both separation and retainment.

I would additionally suggest that if separation becomes the plan, most people presently listed on main year deaths pages become photos on death lists instead. Since that article would naturally be bigger and contain much more room for deaths, the most notable people should get photos and not just mentions. I would also suggest linking the death lists. Both would only apply, however, if consensus is to separate from main year articles, which I will restate I am taking a neutral position on for now. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths should certainly be a part of the year articles. I do believe though that many of the figures included are desperately irrelevant, and we should minimise the number of people mentioned. Also, Gorbachev was a highly notable and important passing in 2022. A huge loss for history. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support reorganization of deaths, as I believe I've said previously. We already have articles such as Deaths in December 2022 that serve this purpose. Births and deaths currently make up the majority of many year articles, which is far more space than they should take per WP:PROPORTION and WP:SUMMARY. Appeal to tradition is not a valid argument on Wikipedia (or in life, really). I think that at least for modern years, deaths should be removed from year articles, and all citations/images should be moved to those pages. Deaths that qualify as events (such as Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II or Assassination of Shinzo Abe) should instead be included in the list of events on their respective days. I'd also add that the births section seems irrelevant, as the birth of someone who will be famous in the future is not relevant to what happened in a given year. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Births & deaths should stay on main year articles. They shouldn't be removed due to there being deaths lists elsewhere on WP. The deaths on main year articles are of people who have substantial international notability, which is different to the deaths lists elsewhere. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed alternative measure of deaths

In order to reduce the amount of discussion and debate needed, I'm proposing that deaths still be included, but severely cut down from where they are today. Our current criteria for deaths is arbitrarily set, and some decisions just baffle too many people (most notably the inclusion of Coltrane and the exclusion of Bill Russell in 2022, whose results both caused a noticeable amount of attention and controversy). The majority of our efforts are wasted on discussing, not improving. So for here, I would propose that deaths be severely limited and potentially have quotas. Keep them to the deaths which not only have extreme international notability but extreme international recognizability, placing a gallery of 4-5 figures with their death dates in parentheses besides their name. We can sort them like this, using the year 2022 and the World Leaders section as an example:
World Leaders ^{(use 3rd level headers in article, bold text for this example)}

• 
  Pope Benedict XVI (December 31)
• 
  Mikhail Gorbachev (August 30)
• 
  Elizabeth II (September 8)
• 
  Jiang Zemin (November 30)
• 
  Shinzo Abe (July 8)

I hope we're able to reach a solution which enables us to keep notable deaths while reducing the amount of times we have to go to discussions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging recent discussion participants (@Thebiguglyalien, @TheScrubby, @Jim Michael 2, @Deb, @Sir Jack Hopkins, @Nemov, @GoodDay, @MarioJump83, and @FireInMe) for their thoughts. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 07:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this plan because it would make the articles less good. I've been reading & editing these articles for years & you're pushing for bigger changes to main year articles than anyone else I've seen. Russell has very little international notability & the vast majority of people who aren't from the US or fans of his sport haven't heard of him. The only reason I've heard of him is that he was added to 2022. Had that not happened, I'd still not have heard of him. We've wrongly made an exception for Coltrane. He was a good actor who deserved his domestic awards & I've been a fan of him & especially Cracker for years, but he's a domestic figure who merely has fans in many other countries. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you further explain why you think that these proposed changes would be "less good" and not seemingly scrutinize me for being bold and proposing changes? We already have death pages here. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It'd remove most of those in the Deaths sections, which are for those who have substantial international notability. The lists of all deaths don't indicate who's internationally notable. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I propose that as an alternative, we put photos in the Deaths in Year X articles for people who have substantial international notability. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to tradition is not a valid argument and should not be considered when determining consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm just not seeing the issue here. There's always going to be some level of debate about certain people. It doesn't seem arbitrary to me after monitoring this for six weeks. The international notability standard isn't fool proof and there can be some debate about who meets the criteria, but that's fine. I support Coltrane's inclusion and I love Bill Russel, but he was a famous basketball player before basketball became a more international sport. Also, how do you put quotas on deaths? I don't feel like my time is being wasted. Nemov (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally a readers first Wikipedian...the primary concerns I see with the content of deaths these days are lack of relatability (especially among Millennials and Generation Z), the frequency and occasional high intensity of discussions regarding less than 200 characters or a single photo, and (continuing on my first reason) the acceptance of now-somewhat controversial methods of inclusion. While it's helpful to mention notable people, we already have articles for deaths. I'm a supporter of some cross listing between articles, but we have too much.

Jim often brings up fans often adding one or two people to year articles and us often having to revert edits, but that frequently deters new editors if anything. It's not that we should see people adding their fans as not "enemies" (which I'm afraid some people have done and thereby borderline demonized fandom) but take these as signals that we should consider implementing some changes. This circles back to Readers First; we're the most popular source of knowledge on the internet and we pride ourselves on the freedom of anyone being able to contribute, but we discourage the masses from participating if we just revert. It's disappointing, and I remember seeing my edits reverted when I edited Wikipedia as a 14-year old middle schooler. The hostility which I see slammed upon me whenever I promote new ideas by the regular few reinvigorates those feelings and forces me to empathize with all the other people of all ages just trying to mention a person who they believe is notable. If we're getting a lot of those people adding the same person but we just dismiss all of them as fans arbitrarily without further consideration beyond criteria, we're not putting readers first. Not only that, but ignoring the next generation and their thoughts in the name of pursuing "pure internationalism" leads to Wikipedians becoming not contributors but gatekeepers, further promoting ownership behavior. This would be a bit more acceptable on Britannica or Citizendium where we would be writing for a more purely-academic audience, but Wikipedia is a much more diverse place than the library at Oxford. Our year articles should reflect our diversity and not only be limited to awards ceremonies winners and world leaders.

My proposed solution is to spare us of endless debates keep it to obviously notable and preferably well-known people only so we don't have to always debate every afternoon on whether Person X deserves to be in a main year article. By hatnoting deaths into their respective articles while only mentioning the ones which would snowball clause as agreement (and providing photos), we not only avoid endless debates over a single line of text and maybe a photo but we also forward readers over to a list of all the people who passed away in a given year. When these readers know that we have these other articles that exist, combined with the idea that anyone can edit, we have a new generation of editors contributing not only to years and deaths lists as they happen but also to so many other places on our wiki. I brought up quotas in the original proposal as a suggested limit to only keep deaths and births at the most obviously notable, but I'm open to hearing more ideas. I just wish that we'd be generally more constructive in approaching newer ideas instead of striking down everything with appeal to tradition or "I don't like it". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we allowed editors to add people based on popularity, voting etc., main year articles would be swamped with insufficiently notable people but scientists, academics etc. who've made important contributions to their fields would be excluded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I'm proposing we just get rid of deaths entirely and limit it only to the most obviously well-known and notable people. Gorbi, Pope Benedict, Pele, etc. You'd get your way on Coltrane and 90% of the other deaths and exclude them. If Deaths stay, we should be listening to our readers. It doesn't help that for entertainers, many are also beginning to question the need for awards like BAFTAs and Oscars in the first place. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you on here arguing for removing the vast majority of deaths, but at the same time saying on Talk:2022 that the criteria for deaths is too restrictive as you push for Barbara Walters to be included? Pushing those contradictory positions at the same time destroys your credibility & makes it very difficult to assume good faith. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments on Talk:2022 I make are in the perspective of not removing deaths. Arguments under this thread I make are relative to the proposal. If deaths were to stay, we should be more lenient. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which would you prefer? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal of removing former US vice presidents/first ladies/second ladies from the 'death' sections, was oppose by at least two editors. Such opposition would likely have occurred, with my plan to remove the same from the 'birth sections'. Decide what you all will, as I can't do the actual deletions, if I'm only going to meet resistance. Maybe - the solution is to delete all International Year pages & just have Year in Country pages. I know that'll never happen, but at least on the country specific year pages, the inclusion criteria bar is lower. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, reducing hostility towards new ideas should be the first order of business. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We only oppose removing Gore & Cheney. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was enough, to make me walk away from making anymore deletions. Since I don't accept any opposition, this entire topic will need to be work out among yourselves. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually part of me likes that idea. There is no such thing as something being purely international except for maybe the United Nations, and even then the UN's main offices are all in the Western World. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm willing to support any measure that reduces the undue focus that suggests "which famous people died" is the most important aspect when reading about the encyclopedic facts of a given year. Having the deaths section at all borders on WP:TRIVIA. If people stop arguing about inclusion and actually improve the articles for a change, that would be an added bonus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deletion of the birth/death sections from all the International Year pages. Best to just have them on their respective country year pages, if at all. Their deletions, would remove the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine with me if there are those who cannot abide by the current system in place. I'm still not sure why we're nuking this, but I can live with this if it reduces the bickering. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest apologies for the delayed response. First of all, you are right about how much time is devoted to resolving disputes, and you are right to push for change because Wikipedia, at the moment, is a brilliant but imperfect invention littered with flaws.

The criteria for inclusion should similar to what you requested; heads of state, internationally acclaimed athletes, e.g. Pele, and actors, e.g. Morgan Freeman, and similarly known people from other fields, e.g. Stephen King. The pictures in the deaths section should be how you requested, as they are in this article.

Best wishes. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally acclaimed is also a term that's subject to a great deal of debate over which people qualify. How international & how acclaimed? Is Shane Warne internationally acclaimed enough? How about scientists - who'd qualify? How would entertainers' acclaim be measured? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any significant changes to the Births & Deaths section. Yes there are a lot of debate over the inclusion of various figures, but I don’t see how there’s anything wrong with that (well, besides when users waste people’s time by bringing up figures that are obviously lacking international notability, and whose outcomes are foregone conclusions). There’s always room for improvement, but I don’t think the answer ought to be treating dandruff with decapitation at all. TheScrubby (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a reader of the 2022 page, a few problems jump out to me:

1. The page is very long.
2. We have two separate timelines: events and deaths (three on some earlier year pages that include births). This is a problem because as a reader, I would like to be able to scroll approximately halfway down the page, and find approximately June/July, or at least not have to hunt around for where the timeline (re-)starts.
3. Deaths occupy about half the article, which seems disproportionate.
4. There's a Nobel Prizes section (OK, seems random).

My opinion is that the primary purpose of the Year articles should be to summarize the year, and deaths are just one type of event that happens in a year. Therefore:

Proposal: Structure the article around a single unified timeline. Each day should list only the single most important/impactful/notable event of that day. Some days the single most important/impactful/notable event will be a death. For some days we will have to debate relative importance/impactfulness/notability, and perhaps consensus will be to allow two events in truly exceptional circumstances.

The advantage of this pattern is that it puts a natural cap on how much content can be included (365 items, give or take leap years and exceptional circumstances). I also think it's much easier to determine a "winner" for each day, than to evaluate the nebulous criteria of "international notability". To take the most recent RfC as an example: the answer would be an easy yes: include Barbara Walters because no other event is proposed for 30th December. If she had died a day later, the answer would have been an easy no: Pope_Benedict_XVI wins (maybe I'm assuming too much about the cultural alignment of editors for this example, but hopefully you might agree that these debates would be easier more often than they are hard).

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be better off deleting the birth/death sections from the International Year pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I am proposing, but allowing for a death to be reintroduced as an event in the main timeline. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure with this one. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose This should reduce bickering within the talk pages of recent years, but does this solve anything? Debates would still be happening, and much higher bar would not solve it. Not to mention people that knew them in the past (people with COI) would come to these talk pages. I'm seeing this already with the ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly said that Nobels are given far too much prominence by having their own section & that they should instead be a single entry in events.

Your plan includes including Walters, but you wouldn't if she'd died a day later because of Benedict or a day earlier because of Pelé. We can't have a quota & the importance of things doesn't depend on what else happened in the world on the same day. It's common for two internationally notable events/births/deaths to occur on the same day. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, but I would limit it only to notable funerals or deaths which have their own articles, such as the funerals of Queen Elizabeth, Gorbachev, Jiang Zemin, and for past years Ronald Reagan, Adolf Hitler, Pope John Paul, etc. The funeral itself can be the event. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If the death itself does not have its own article, then how notable is it really? Get rid of the deaths section and put the truly notable deaths in the main timeline as an event. Quotas can be a separate discussion. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not claiming that all the deaths are notable. We're saying that the people who died have significant international notability. Including only the people whose deaths have their own articles would mean that 2022 wouldn't mention the deaths of Sidney Poitier or Pelé. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with not including Sidney Poitier or Pelé. Their careers and notability were primarily established in previous years. They have no substantial connection to the world of 2022 other than having died in it. Contrast with Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II and Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI - the funerals were significant, international, notable events in their own right. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's always been standard for main year articles to include the births & deaths of people who have substantial international notability. The vast majority aren't going to be removed just because a tiny number of editors think it'd be an improvement. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't shoot me, I'm a new guy here. What should I do to improve the recent-ish year articles (e.g. 2008)? CactiStaccingCrane 17:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove domestic events as well as people who have little or no international notability. Add reliable sources to back up each entry. Deb does these things very well & we need far more people to do so. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing all domestic events is not an agreed upon standard. It's your personal preference, and one that you know is controversial. Telling users to do so comes off as WP:OWNERSHIP. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been standard for years and rightly so. Having domestic events on main year articles dilutes their quality & is against what main year articles are for. There are plenty of subarticles for people interested in particular countries & topics. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get what you mean. Of course, common sense should apply in this case. CactiStaccingCrane 23:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding sources for events which don't have them and giving your thoughts on discussions. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]