Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years

Inactive Editors

Am I allowed to remove all editors who are currently inactive to a separate category?

Thanks, Matty.007 17:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Best Picture Oscar 1989

I noticed that the Oscar award for Best Picture was incorrect for 1989 (it was Driving Miss Daisy, not Rainman, according to the Academy's website. I don't know whether this affects other years as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.250.14 (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but isn't this more appropriate at Talk:1989, rather than for the project as a whole?

On second thought, it is a matter for this forum. Rain Man was awarded the "best picture" award in 1989. Driving Miss Daisy was awarded the "best picture" aware for 1989, in 1990. Hence, Rain Man should be listed in 1989, but possibly in 1988 in film. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Decadebox, etc. subpages

Could someone remind me where the range of year/decade/century/millennia which have articles are stored in the subbox. It was never updated for the decades 2100s through 2190s, and now someone is creating years 2060 through 2069. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean this:

Millennium:	3rd millennium
Centuries:	20th century 21st century 22nd century
Decades:	2040s 2050s 2060s 2070s 2080s
Years:	2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072

DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I found it. Its {{dr-make}}, but I can't find documentation of what things need to be changed. I think I fixed the ranges, but I may be wrong, and I'm almost sure that some of the decade BC check for, for example, 100s BC (decade), is incorrect. Considering the number of instances of this template, I don't want to "play" with it. Perhaps if some critical values were included on the talk page so that one could verify that the ranges were correct.... I'll try that tomorrow. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Critical values fixed (see table on template talk page), but we need to do something about, for example, 100–109. See Template talk:dr-make for some details. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Could somebody check me on whether I've handled the "(decade)" cases correctly by replacing:

1. {{dr-make}} with {{dr-make/sandbox 2}}, and
2. {{drep}} with {{drep/sandbox}}

? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If I don't hear anything, I my further testing doesn't reveal any problems, I'll make the replacement in about 30 hours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Making replacement now. I've been distracted. Please note the addition of the d flag in {{drep}} to insert "(decade)" after "BC". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

MOS

Recently, I noticed that the years (individual years) seem to be going against MOS. Namely WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK for the specific reason that singular events or unrelated dates are linked. These irrelevant links often present no meaningful use to the reader and are covered in MOS. January and 1940s are examples of how it should be, but pick almost any individual year and you have this bizarre series of days and years being linked. Since the change is backed by MOS and Arthur Rubin did express concern; I'm bringing it here for greater response. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, the change is not backed by the MOS. I have no objection to the summary formats for 1940s and January, but WP:YEARS (for year articles) and WP:DOY (for articles such as January 5) have specific guidelines, which are explicitly not overridden by WP:DATELINK and WP:YEARLINK. You can propose changes in the MOS, with notice to both projects, or in both projects, but the present state of, at least those articles not modified by bots or well-meaning editors, is to link items to the left of the en-dash, year of death (in birth entries in year articles), and year of birth (in death entries in year articles). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What about WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I feel that it is very relevant to the topic at hand. You also don't point me to these specific guidelines of which are in fact in dispute with the MOS. Let's analyze 1789 as the listed example. Let's pick one: the entry for "July 1 – The comic ballet La fille mal gardée choreographed by Jean Dauberval is first presented under the title Le ballet de la paille at the Grand Théâtre de Bordeaux, in Bordeaux, France." (emphasis for discussion) Follow the link to July 1, is the entry present or germane? No, it is entirely absent. Does July 1 have any relevancy other then that was the date this event occurred? No. This is not like the March 15 incident or 7/11. In each article we see many useless terms that share little to no relevancy, i.e. "July 19 – John Martin, English painter (d. 1854)". Ohconfucius did make a response to the similar effect, but the wording of both YEARLINK and DATELINK say they have to be "intrinsically chronological articles" for it to apply. I'm taking the exact definition of the word intrinsically as "Of or relating to the essential nature, inherent". Which means that January should link to individual articles on the individual days. Years should link to chronological related articles, near, decades and centuries as they do in the template box. It is a twisting of the policy to link the year of births and deaths to an individual on a "Year" article that is already prohibited on the actual article of the individual. Benjamin Lundy's article does not have "January 4 1789 dash August 22 1839", so why see fit to do it on year articles? It doesn't make any sense. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not my place to judge consensus; I'm not good at it. But the global consensus is that WP:YEARLINK and WP:DATELINK do not apply to "intrinsically chronological articles", leaving it up to local consensus or individual article consensus. I don't know why January doesn't link to the individual date articles in the holidays section, but it doesn't seem to. Where would the appropriate local consensus be determined? We don't have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Months, and I'm not sure where an appropriate central location to discuss the diverse formats of the Events/Holidays sections.

There is consensus, contrary to logic, that years of birth and death in biography articles do not link to the relevant years. That's no reason why logical linkages shouldn't occur when not forbidden by guidelines arrived at by consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Examples like "January 4 1789 dash August 22 1839" are not intrinsically related, nor is doing them in any individual year. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that a decision by a few editors cannot overturn the larger consensus and that has and was decided as "intrinsically chronological articles" are acceptable. There is nothing key to listing individual days and years for a listed person birth and death; the majority of which are not even covered appropriately. That is why their removal is justified. I rather not make a big mess of this; but YEARS is fitting the walled garden approach with this. I'd really like other opinions as well; because this matters greatly to this project. Though in complete fairness; I am flabbergasted at the inconsistent, redundant and some what silly approaches that are currently advanced. Could we reach some sort of compromise if I provide this Wikipedia Project a few GAs and advance new standards along with the existing MOS? I'm more than willing to lead by example here. I'd be willing to let you specify a number and work to meet such a lofty goal if it means advancing Wikipedia's coverage while dealing with this dispute.

I really have no intention of endless bickering; so I'm going to throw the ball in your court. Negotiating is one thing, but I prefer not to spend the next three months carrying on a LAME worthy dispute when the both of us have plenty of better things to do. Agreed? I know that this may seem like an error to take this stance, because I am throwing out the sure-fire way to get me off your back for a good amount of time. Though I suppose it could seem that I am playing a bit dirty as well; because the easy road to my favorable resolution nets my time and effort to improve this Wikiproject - something I have no expressed interest in doing otherwise. Mull it over a bit; as the chief active member, I don't want to put you in a bind - but it is probably the most honest and fair assessment of what I wish to do with my time on Wikipedia. I've had enough drama for a year or two with the last issue. I'm not going to entrench in another. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see other opinions, as well. However, I do object to your "contrary to MOS" statement. The current arrangement is not contrary to MOS; the MOS is explicitly silent on the issue. That leaves it up to this project (and probably WP:DOY, and possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Time, which has even fewer people active than this one).

As an aside, I opposed WP:OVERLINKING, but I enforce it when I notice violations. If consensus is obtained to remove the standardized links to other chronological articles, I'll help to enforce it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation of MOS, because the definition of intrinsic certainly does not apply to its usage in the article. Very well; I'll take that as if you do not want me to attempt GA or FA articles to test that theory or advance my own interpretation prior. Not going to grandstand here while I toss out ideas and attempt to find some middle ground - I'd be willing to put 5-10 GAs or 3 FAs worth of work behind it. Full articles with complete prose, maps, and all. Each page representing 40-80 hours worth of research. And if it doesn't fly, then you just re-add the links as you will. I wanted your thoughts on my proposal... but I can't force you to reply. I'll watch this page a little more before slipping back into other areas. Not going to stick in an area where help isn't wanted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I find the whole linking/unlinking debate (I mean in general, not this present discussion) a bit tedious. I have had the frustration of linking or delinking whole Year articles in what was the apparent MOS:DATE at the time only for a bot to come through and revert and have then done the opposite on the next article and had the same thing happen. Personally, again, I think all dates in Year articles and sub-articles should be unlinked; if a user wants to go to a year it is fairly simple to type in 4 numbers or less; and how often is someone going to want to go to a specific date (which is also not THAT difficult to type anyway)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerbyCountyinNZ (talk • contribs) 10:28, July 4, 2013

Okay. Does anyone want me to throw together a FA to test it then? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Silence still? We may disagree about MOS, but I don't want push back saying "things weren't" discussed before making changes people do not like. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Its been a week since the last other editor input on this. If no one wants to debate this issue then I will re-institute the changes as the "intrinsic" matter is unchallenged. There is no practical or relevant use to linking individual dates on Birth/death listing on year for the same exact reasons that they are not relevant on the biographical articles. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing RfC

There is an ongoing RfC here that will impact this project and how events are listed on the Year pages. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

67 BC

The reference to Ostia being sacked is incorrect. As noted in the 68 BC entry, the event occurred the prior fall. I attempted to make the change but received a "Error contacting the Parsoid server" message. Perhaps someone else can make the change.

Hippodras (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)