Template talk:Year article header

Problems with this template
First problem: A sentence should not start with a numeral. Second problem: "Note that the Julian day for 1900 is 12 calendar days difference, which continued to be used from 1582 until the complete conversion of the Gregorian calendar was entirely done in 1929." This is HORRIBLE phrasing. --Khajidha (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe the extensive discussions of the conversion from the Julian to Gregorian calendar are WP:UNDUE in the lede to each year article. Another serious problem, for more recent years, is the term "Julian day." A date on the Julian calendar is not a Julian day. I propose a revision. Instead of:
 * "Note that the Julian day for 1900 is 12 calendar days difference, which continued to be used from 1582 until the complete conversion of the Gregorian calendar was entirely done in 1929."

I recommend:
 * (new paragraph:)A date in the Julian calendar in 1900 was 12 days later than the same date in the Gregorian calendar.

Period. Full stop. After all, the "conversion" to Gregorian had already occurred in most of the world's civic calendars long before 1929, while the Julian calendar continues to be used for religious observances in some major Christian churches. So instead of a misleading discussion, let's keep it simple. Other text in the template should be revised and simplified as well, including abolishing all references to the years 1582 or 1929. — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 18:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Full agreement. --Khajidha (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

New Year's Eve
Use of this template does not allow for information about whether a year is current in specific countries on New Year's Eve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverrushton (talk • contribs) 19:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try to see if I can do that in the sandbox.  17:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:SEAOFBLUE ?
points out that this template generates serious violations of WP:SEAOFBLUE; in 2017, it seems to expand to:

, I don't want to try to fix it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * common year common year starting on Sunday
 * Please don't make such reports on my behalf. Either you believe there's a problem or you don't.  This cross-Wikipedia misbehaviour is becoming a serious problem  .  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I said here, "points out". Anyone with adequate understanding of English would understand that I agree.  I'm just giving you credit when you point out a problem but may be unaware of the appropriate venue for solution.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop dragging me into discussions. You should know better.  I don't want credit, especially from an edit warring, pointy admin like you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, it also violates MOS:BOLDAVOID by linking the bolded Roman numeral. It shouldn't do that. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Unintentional line break
This template currently seems to be generating an unintentional line break right after the Roman numeral. See, for instance, 2019. This issue affects a number of high-visibility articles, so I think it ought to be addressed promptly.

On a related note, you recently changed this page to be template-protected. Is that necessary? This template seems like it could use a bunch of improvements, and preventing the vast majority of extended-confirmed editors like myself from editing it directly will slow them down. Sdkb (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I protected it for template editors because of this RFC, which prohibits the use of extended-confirmed protection on high-risk templates. I originally upgraded the protection from semi due to this edit. Graham 87 01:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Graham87, following up, now that you're allowed to use EC on high-risk templates, would you consider changing this to that? It has roughly 500 transclusions. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Graham 87 02:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 December 2019
Change  to , replacing the line break just before the second   with a space. This will fix the unintentional line breaking issue. Sdkb (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The easiest way to get these changes made by a template editor who may never have seen the template before is to copy the template's current code to the sandbox, make the changes that you want to make within the sandbox, demonstrate your changes using the testcases page, and then post here. Sorry to make you jump through hoops, but template damage is no fun for anyone. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Linking to Roman numerals
It doesn't sit super well with me that every calendar year article we have goes straight to Roman numerals as its first link. I thought about using Template:Abbr, but I'm not quite sure how to format it best. Any thoughts? Sdkb (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It would seem better to move this link to the end of the template. tahc chat 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Starting on [day of week]
Is it really necessary to have this in the lead? That 2013 started on a Tuesday seems barely noteworthy enough to be worthy of inclusion in the body, let alone right at the top of the lead. Can we remove it? This will also help address this template's WP:SEAOFBLUE problem. Sdkb (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Short description
This template adds a short description, typically equal to the year number which already appears in the article title. That behaviour was useful when we needed to reach two million SDs to get rid of the Wikidata SDs, but is it still helpful? Articles which use this template also tend to use Year nav, which provides the SD "Calendar year". That seems more helpful, as it informs a reader that (for example) 1900 is about a year rather than an integer or a film, which an SD of "1900" doesn't. Certes (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Localized use
There is a phrase in the text that reads,. Unless localized use is a term of art unfamiliar to me, would this not be better worded as ? Thanks! — Spike  Toronto  22:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Improved flow for years with same century/millenium number
Hi all! Just a heads up, I've made this edit so that years like 2013 say the 13th year of the 3rd millennium and the 21st century rather than the 13th year of the 3rd millennium, the 13th year of the 21st century. It worked fine in the testcases, but please let me know if there are any issues in the wild. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)