Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 15

RFC: Should a Collage of Images be added to all YEAR IN... pages?
A basic Yes or No question '''Should a 'Collage of images' be added to all YEAR in... pages?''' GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * No - as they don't add anything, but clutter & they squeeze the written intro to the left side of the pages. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * what about collages on decade articles, what's your opinion on that.  4me689  (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm against those being added, as well. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * and why are there collages on City articles  4me689  (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've no interest in city pages, only YEAR pages, in this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The decade ones have been up for years, would we really delete them now? The ganymedian (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * in my opinion, keep them, they've been up for over a decade.  4me689  (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "It's been around for a while" isn't a great argument for keeping something - for example, there have been several cases of vandalism remaining unreverted for several years.  Rema goxer  (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * yes - they add something visually appealing and really good it makes more people want to click on the article, also the written intro is already squashed to the left side via the infobox.  4me689  (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * yes I dislike having just plain blocky text on articles, as pictures add visual appeal and yes as 4me689 said, they catch the attention of human eyes much more than words do. I do wish that some folks would be more civil and nice when it comes to these discussions about collages, though; I dislike having hostility thrown at me. I am totally willing to have conversations about image selection, and that's why I put collage prompts in the talk pages of most recent main year articles. However, in order for me to repair and replace collages, I need to know specifically what images should be swapped out, rather than someone just deleting the whole collage and leaving a vague complaint that provides no help. Thank you, friends. The ganymedian (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Decide on a case by case basis. Not all years are equal, and some will benefit more than others. One size doesn't fit all. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do kind of agree with InvadingInvader, some YEAR in topic pages are not as developed as some others. so for sample, 2022 in the United States is fully develop and should have a collage in my opinion. but something like 2022 in Peru that is not fully develop can't really have pictures because of the fact that there's not many events on there.  4me689  (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed @4me689 The ganymedian (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. A collage should reflect they moments in a time period for a particular place. For decades, perhaps 1 per year might be appropriate. But if nothing significant happens, then no picture at all might be the right answer. Dhrm77 (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No: GoodDay summed it up well and I don't believe the collages add encyclopedic value to the pages. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No: The ones that have been added so far are pretty poor and mostly US-centric. There has never been anything to stop people adding images of events in the Events section, and the idea that these messes are "visually appealing and really good" (by one of the creators) makes me want to laugh. The images are so squashed that it's almost impossible to see what they are supposed to be, and individuals who are large enough to be identifiable have been made to look like Sontarans. Deb (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the condescending tone I am talking about. Would you like it if I insulted something you worked on? The ganymedian (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are insulting articles I've worked on by inserting these random selections of images. Deb (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No. These aren't articles, they're lists. They're intended for reference, not to be read from start to end. Collages can be welcome in articles, but in lists they're clutter that makes them harder to use. Maproom (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - for main year, year by country & decade articles. Make them collapsible so that people have the option to view or not view them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No GoodDay is right here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No. They are large and intrusive, especially with the wall of text that are the captions, in an article such as 1986 that already has Year nav, C20 year in topic and Year article header templates, squeezing the text to the left. Scolaire (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes Articles are more interesting and visually appealling with collages. Wjfox2005 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes as per the comments I made in the “collage vote” thread. TheScrubby (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, they serve as a good summary of the year article Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but I'm really only open to them in the 20th century and onward. PaulRKil (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No - to the RFC which states "Should a Collage of Images be added to all YEAR IN... page?" - and I am dead set against blanket agreement to making collages a mandatory requirement of "year in..." articles. I've made my stance clear on various pages I've been pinged - I have nothing against well-balanced collages, but nor do I think they're an essential part of the project.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you say that it would be better to phrase your answer as Decide on a case-by-case basis? InvadingInvader (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I support adding the photo collages to the respective years. (User:Austria Football 02) 15:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No: A list is a list and doesn't need to be jazzed up with a collage image. Pam  D  11:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No: Like I said previously, I believe collages on these year articles are a distraction from the page. Additionally, are there reliable sources that can identify the most important/impactful events of a year? Otherwise, I worry about this process being WP:OR, since inclusion in a collage implies a level of importance. I'm totally for adding images to important events within the relevant sections of these lists, if they fit (note the possible smaller width coming with the adoption of Vector 2022). If this RfC does go yes, I think we need to set some guidelines for this. To select ~8 images to act as representative of an entire year requires extensive community discussion. And to avoid one person's opinion from defining a page, and considering how the collages that have been added so far have been low-quality (images are stretched and low-res), I believe the adoption of a collage should only come after community discussion and not as WP:BOLD edits. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 20:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * yes I’ve already said what I think. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No: Picking an arbitrary number of images for a year is complete WP:OR. It also doesn't add anything to the article. --McSly (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes Per 4me689's rationale. However, only in principle: there doesn't need to be extensive work and discussion regarding collages for every small "year in article" getting nearly no views and for many of these there aren't good images. I made collages for 2020 in science and 2021 in science (which already were difficult to do and are somewhat suboptimal because there's simply a lack of CC BY images) but probably won't make one for 2022 in science, if somebody else would like to give it a go, please go ahead and if possible also post the .xcf (GIMP) file so people can easily change the collage. I think there should be more images in "Year in" articles in general (as long as they're due), and collages in principle (e.g. don't add a bad one for the sake of it) add sth to the article and are useful, as are charts. I think annual-review/year-summarizing statistics & related infographics would be more important but are even rarer (with sufficient brevity/quality) in the Commons. --Prototyperspective (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * yes - Absolutely. I think that’s good idea so yes. Kyu (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No there nothing but little mini images that are not accessible to the majority of viewers not on desktops and in most cases with no context just look at  the jumbled mess at 2020 in science. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You could add mouseover hover texts (or tap on mobile) to the images of the collage so it shows the reader some context, like "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" for one of the images.
 * The collages should become accessible on mobile, even if they aren't in the form of already accessible one-image-collages like the linked example, that would be a code task. If they aren't now, I don't see how that's an argument contra collages in general.
 * Prototyperspective (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No - The pages are fine. Blakelyelijahl (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , have you even seen the collages yet, there one the 2022 article.  4me689  (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No: The close of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 13 applies, mutatis mutandis: "there is consensus to remove portrait galleries from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. The main reasons given for this decision are that, lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people. This also applies to articles about other than ethnic groups, such as nationalities, because the discussion has shown that the same arguments apply to these groups as well." That consensus has been incorporated into the Manual of Style at MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES and we should also have MOS:NOYEARGALLERIES, MOS:NODECADEGALLERIES, etc. NebY (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , years and ethnic groups are completely two different things, why are you applying a consensus from a completely different discussion to here, this doesn't make sense.  4me689  (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The close applies, mutatis mutandis, not the consensus, thus
 * lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who or what should be featured in the gallery
 * this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict
 * a few images are not an adequate visual representation of an entire year
 * this also applies to articles about entire years, decades, etc, not just "year in ..." articles, because the discussion has shown that the same arguments apply to these articles as well
 * NebY (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Latin legalese aside, it's much easier for articles that have literal lists of events for us to create an encyclopedic gallery, such as by choosing the events that generated the most coverage by independent RS and then choosing images that represent those events. I don't think there's a parallel rationale here to the one that holds up to the NOETHNICGALLERIES closure (or, at least, a parallel rationale that holds up to any level of scrutiny). —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In general, yes, I think so. However, there will be cases where we legitimately don't have enough free images to make a sufficiently high-quality gallery, so I do think that there should be some level of case-by-case consideration, albeit one that generally begins by presuming that an image gallery is appropriate. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No - User:NebY sums it up pretty well. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
GoodDay, the methods you are using to resolve the debate on collages are flawed. In a similar fashion to how we as a community have decided in WP:OSE that one can't universally apply a standard to all articles and expect to have a good result, some years do better with collages and others don't. If a year was notable, like 1991, 1945, 2020, or 1776, include a collage. But some years aren't that notable in their events; 2007 really only saw the iPhone in terms of globally influential events while 2008 saw the financial crisis, Obama's election, Kosovo shenanigans, and a landmark Olympics. The way you phrased the question constrains editors into making their answers susceptible to being warped into "no collages at all", which does not accurately represent consensus. Additionally, 2022 in the United States, the year article on which you wished to delete the collage in the first place, the collage has been sitting up on the sit for a while, and with no major actions being taken by the frequent editors on that article, consensus to keep the collage is a safe assumption to make. I understand you've been on this wiki for a while, but disrupting implied consensus for what has been a widely-accepted standard with little debate is just a bad move which shifts focus away from improving the content of the article to debates like this when implied consensus exists. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody is forced to answer 'yes' or 'no'. They can respond in the 'survey' any way they please. My major concern, is that these 'college images' were boldly added without seeking a consensus for them, first. By opening this topic up to as many editors as possible, we can get a clearer picture on 'what' a chunk of the community prefers, in these YEAR pages. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , is this only for year in topic pages, or does this expand to every year page including main year articles.  4me689  (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All Year in... pages. If editors want to separate them into 'with college images' & 'without college images'? That's their choice. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "All Year in" seems pretty vague to me, will main year articles be affected by whatever consensus comes from this discussion.  4me689  (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Examples: 2022, 2017 in Canada, 2022 in the United States, 2015 in Portugal, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , just asking, can I go to the 2022 article talk page and do a request for comment there.  4me689  (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This RFC covers that page, too. So best you don't open up what 'could' be seen as a competing RFC there. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * PS- You don't have to ping me, as I have this WikiProject on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * you know there's already a consensus above to add collages to main year articles in the collage vote section in this talk page.  4me689  (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. The "vote" has only been in progress for a few days and there has been canvassing. Deb (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Slow down a bit. That preceding discussion-in-question, has now been superseded by this RFC. The preceding discussion-in-question isn't/wasn't opened to a bigger audience. A unilateral declaration of consensus, is very premature. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not seeking consensus first, I will give you that. I only started editing wikipedia last month, and it naively did not occur to me that I needed consensus, as I was under the impression that anyone could add anything, per the mission of Wikipedia. My approach in the past week or so has been to post prompts in all the main year article talk pages so that people could leave input about image selection and reach consensus on swap-outs there. I have a list of repairs that will be made to existing collages thanks to these inputs. In my experience it takes much too long for people to give their opinion on something, let alone ping every single person that has contributed to every article since the beginning of this website. Thank you for your understanding. @GoodDay The ganymedian (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * in my opinion every Main year articles should have a collage what are your thoughts  4me689  (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @4me689 I concur. However, as the years go back before maybe 1970, there won't be as many notable events to fill in 8 images so maybe less pictures for earlier years. But in principle yes I agree with having collages on main year articles. The ganymedian (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t know where you get that impression from, but I fully disagree with that assessment. Especially given that that 1960s were among the most tumultuous decades of the 20th Century (excluding of course the decades where the two World Wars took place). I don’t think there’d be any issue with finding events for years pre-1970 for the collages, so long as we keep it international and don’t resort to bias for any particular country. TheScrubby (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a good point, actually. Have you voiced your opinion on this whole collage matter yet? @TheScrubby The ganymedian (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, let's get more people to this discussion
 * Pinging every on the last discussion to give there opinion on this discussion,, , , , , and  4me689  (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You really shouldn't be pinging anybody (anymore), as it could be construed as canvassing for support. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * here's the reason you should take to account on why you should add collages to main year articles.
 * 1. it makes the Articles visually appealing making more people want to read, you guys are prioritizing adding more words to articles than helping thus making it look like a sea words which means it'll be harder to read, everyone should care about the visuals too or else the page would be unappealing making them not want to support the site.
 * 2. like what said, it makes the pages look less bot-like, the more bot-like it looks the more lazy it looks
 * 3. it makes the Articles more original and it makes people recognize it more.
 * the fact is I love collages and I will support their inclusion all the way through.  4me689  (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We're well aware of your position. No need to repeat it. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * and, you know visuals catch the attention of human eyes much more than words do. you really don't care about the visual you only care about adding more infotmation, removing the collage make the articles look awful, I don't know how you even blur the line between what is list and article. i think 2022 is article.  4me689  (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a question do you prefer to have a sea of text which is boring to read and look at, or something visualizing and make it more fun to read????
 * the decade articles has had collages for over 10 years, they are iconic, I can't imagine the pages without them, not only that they're great to look at, but presents what the decade was all about. it shows you the most defining moments of the decade. think about a time when you did not see all the decade articles have a collage, I can guess that you can't. I mean what would replace them both on years and decades pages, what other purpose does collages have if they're not on decade articles, and what about images in the death section. what do you think of those, dear God hopefully those don't go away. some of you guys obviously just want plain old text with nothing to read it makes the Wikipedia articles look unfinished, this is just my argument, if you remove them a lot of people are going to get mad, and this is just me speaking. I'm pretty sure Jimmy Wales did not make a Wikipedia Commons just so it will be only used it info boxes. just know this is just my argument. and I wonder what picture should only be on year & decade articles.  4me689  (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the more good-looking the article is the more better is to read. in my opinion the 2022 article has looked the best it ever has been, and have you even seen the 2022 article.  4me689  (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

has experience in Year pages, so his views are welcomed here. PS - From this point onward. Let's not ping editors to this RFC. They'll find it on their own. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I understand the difference between articles and lists. I read articles, sometimes from beginning to end, for information, understanding, and entertainment. Collages are often helpful there. I would never read a year page like that, I would use it to check "which date did (something) happen?". In such a page, collages are a distraction. I understand that you like creating collages. That's great; but make them for articles, where they're helpful, not for lists, please. Maproom (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They're list articles. Many people will read the whole of the Events section in order to find out what the major international events of the year were. Make the collages collapsible, then readers can choose whether or not to view them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * that is a great idea, a collapsible collage is a good idea, will you agree to collages if there collapsible.  4me689  (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Only if the collage starts off collapsed when the page is opened. My order of preference (for year pages) is (1) no collage, (2) collapsed-by-default collage, (3) visible collage (whether or not collapsible). Maproom (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the way this RFC has been phrased. This is not an either/or scenario in that we should not be discussing if collages should be added, or should not be added, as that leaves no room in-between. The discussion should be simpler - should collages be prohibited from year articles. If not, then it's optional, not mandatory to include them. The current discussion implies that a "Yes" decision makes a collage compulsory, and before I vote, I'd like to know from the nom (GoodDay) whether that is their intent - because although I'm not against inclusion of collages, I am against making it a requirement rather than an option. I see the same concern is voiced above, but it hasn't really been answered. Clarity is needed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No means delete them all, while Yes means you can have them if you want. The former is compulsory, while the latter is not. GoodDay (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It would have been a better survey to ask whether Should year articles have collages? and offer Yes, No, or Decide on a case by case basis. Answers would be more accurately representative of editors' actual opinions, as only two choices would constrain them and inflate the options' totals inaccurately. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with and, people are being forced to pick one of two options when it's inaccurate. Also we need to get more people to respond on the survey, that is including  , Chaheel Riens, and , this is not just a chat ground this is a survey, can you guys go up and make your decision in the survey section.  4me689  (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was explicitly responding to your argument - please remain civil. I also strongly encourage you to read the canvassing policy; you have been warned about this several times. As per GoodDay above:
 * From this point onward. Let's not ping editors to this RFC. They'll find it on their own.
 * and
 * You really shouldn't be pinging anybody (anymore), as it could be construed as canvassing for support.  Rema goxer  (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll stop, as long as you guys don't take this too seriously  4me689  (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, will you please stop re-adding the college images to the 2022 in the United States page. Let the RFC run its course. PS - You wouldn't like it, if I went around 'deleting' the college images from the International Year pages, right? GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ...what exactly do you mean by "too seriously"?  Rema goxer  (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant just don't take further auction. I just don't want to get banned you know. I'm sorry for pinging way too much. And let's just get back on topic, ok.  4me689  (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

, I've asked you at your talkpage & I'm asking you here. Please stop re-adding the Collage images box to the 2022 in the United States page, while this RFC is in progress. When the RFC tag expires? I'll make a formal closure request. IF the decision 'here', is to include the Collages? then you can re-add. It's not for you to declare what the consensus is 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @GoodDay Just because you aren't satisfied with a discussion on Talk:2022 in the United States (where you're the only one opposing a collage on that talk page's discussion) doesn't mean you have merit to escalate this into a bigger discussion, nor do you have too much merit to accuse @4me689 of canvassing when one could reasonably accuse you of doing the exact same thing by opening up this RFC. We were unanimous in a collage for 2022 in the United States on the original discussion which featured many of that article's frequent editors (as well as one from the main 2022 article), and you were the sole party which opposed it. Based on how many "yes" votes there were on this RDC, and based on the near-unanimous consent that was the talk page for 2022 in the United States, I made the bold but reasonable move to assume consensus and add the collage back.
 * From personal experience, I've been in content disputes on Talk:2022 before, and instead of canvassing or unnecessarily opening upon a larger RFC, nor phrase such RFC in a way which potentially could mislead editors and not make available to them all the possible options, I chose to refute arguments and debate instead of canvassing. You should have done the same and refuted instead of escalated. I won't restore the collage until after the RFC here closes, but the RFC in the first place when an established consensus was on Talk:2022 in the United States seems more to me like an attempt to WP:WIN more than anything. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you stop re-adding it, until this RFC is formally closed & decision rendered. Certainly, that's not too much to ask. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem right to open up an RFC when there was Unanimous consensus, minus you, at the time of writing this, on Talk:2022 in the United States. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The more input on such matters, the better. If the result is in your favour, you'll have a stronger consensus, to back it. An RFC consensus is more solid, then any local consensus. GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The consensus on Talk:2022 in the United States was already strong enough. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We disagree. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, goodDay, when does this rfc expires.  4me689  (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Tag will expire around Nov 12 (as RFC last a month), then I'll request closure from a neutral party. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * also what is the current consensus  4me689  (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The neutral party will determined that, when the time comes. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not discuss this on Talk:2022 in the US? Escalating this really seems more and more like a power play and isn't necessary when the frequent editors of 2022 in the United States have created enough of a discussion? InvadingInvader (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As Deb pointed out days ago. That wasn't a consensus, but merely a 'few' editors participating in a short discussion. What are you getting so worried about? The result 'here' may end in your favour. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What I'm worried about is that we're escalating discussions unnecessarily when the consensus agreed to by mostly frequent editors of the article was to include a collage. I am against ownership behavior, but between the following two evils, it's easier to deem "good" a large majority of frequent editors on an article all concurring in opinion and engaging in WP:OWN rather than one person who objects and has not frequently edited an article to engage in WP:OWN. It's all the more damning for the latter if consensus was established through acceptance via inaction or prior discussion. To some, opening an RFC on something that already has an established consensus through discussion or inaction, especially near-unanimous consensus on a localized article, is borderline disruptive editing (which I personally don't necessarily think it is, but it's very easy to jump to that conclusion). I condemn how a single collage had to be escalated from a minor discussion on a localized article into an overarching discussion which unnecessarily expands the scope, and by the day, it seems just like a failed attempt by a losing side to win a discussion.
 * Discussion had seemingly stagnated at the time that I restored the collage, and based on how many yes/decide on a case-by-case basis votes were here and the near-unanimous consensus on Talk:2022 in the United States, it was an assumption supported by an educated guess. Not all assumptions are bad, especially those made on educated guesses. I would recommend that this discussion closes not in November but rather by the end of the month based on the amount of Yes votes and case-by-case votes. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until November 12, 2022, when the RFC tag expires. At that moment, I'll put in a request for closure. You're starting to bludgeon the discussion, at this point. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with, this rfc is redundant, you should have put a rfc over the old discussion instead of making a new section. I recommend getting all the people who responded in the collage vote section to respond in this rfc as well.  4me689  (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the survey, several editors disagree with both of you. I'm not withdrawing the RFC, so stop complaining. As for the editors in the previous 'short discussion'? they'll find there own way here. Contacting them would be a form of canvassing. In the meantime, I recommend you 'both' concentrate on persuading the 'eight' (so far) editors (nine, including me) who want the collage images boxes deleted, to change our minds. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please try to avoid rhetoric which seems to treat me like a child or places you in a position of authority over me. I understand this is likely not what you intended, but some of it does come off as that way.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 00:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Canvassing
& others. Noting that 4me689 has recently contacted editors (who may favour his position), from the previous 'short discussion'. This could be construed as a breach of canvassing. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Advising, , , , , , , , , , , , &  (editors who've already participated in this RFC). GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm frequently bombarded with notifications from him/her. It's getting tiresome. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I would second this...I'd like to focus on other areas of Wikipedia personally without being asked to comment on year-related discussions. I think from how I see it though, it's a bit ambiguous on whether to say if 4me689 has already received his/her final warning and canvassed in violation or ignorance of it or whether he or she should receive a final warning.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 20:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I fear that appears to again be canvassing for support, over at 's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you stop accusing me of canvassing and just let the result come in.  4me689  (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You get accused of it, because you won't stop doing it. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Closure request
I've put in a request for closure, at the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful. We got a "non decision" & so the argument continues. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not all bad. It means that the people inclined to bickering will stay here on this talk page while the contributors are working on improving the articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think hair-splitting would be best. Allow the colleges on the "International Year" pages. But delete them from the "Year in Place" pages. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends. Some year in articles (i.e. 2022 in the United States) already have a clear consensus on inclusion; it's since been restored.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 22:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't like seeing 'one' page differentiated from the rest of the "Year in the United States" pages. Anyways, perhaps a compromise will take hold. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Compromise
Using 2022 in the United States as an example. I believe we can have collages within "Year in Place" pages, with the same size. It would be best if the collages in the "International Year" pages, were downsized to the example in the "2022 in the US" page. I think limiting all collages to 'six' images (see 2002 in the USA example), would be helpful, too. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reduced the collage images from size 430px, down to 300px. I think perhaps we may be able to all find that acceptable. What say all of you, who participated in the 'now closed, as no consensus' RFC? GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  &


 * Personally, I don't see why we can't just place the images throughout the article like you see on just about every other article on Wikipedia. But more importantly, I think this is verging on Lamest edit wars territory and can't imagine why this is taking such a disproportionate amount of the WikiProject's energy. Maybe we should hold a vote on collages but limit voting only to users that have actually brought a year article to GA status (which is literally just User:Wrad). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think arbitrarily limiting a discussion to certain editors is the answer here. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 02:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Slightly reducing the collages in size does not solve the issues with collages. Notably, unless there are sources we can work from, these collages are WP:OR, since inclusion in a collage implies a level of importance. Also, collages need a significant amount of community input to avoid certain viewpoints from being overrepresented, and this requires lots of energy from this WP and other editors that could be spent in arguably more productive ways to improve the article content. I believe the proper compromise is just placing these images throughout the article, which I believe has broad consensus. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 02:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think really even making yet another RFC is the best use of time. It's just a lame edit war being escalated for no reason. I suggested decide on a case by case basis earlier; let's discuss every collage on its own because some will obviously be better than others and there is no one size fits all absolute ruling scenario. Getting back to the point however, that GoodDay strikes a good balance between a collage that is not destructive and one that allows for a visual representation of years. I would Support this take as a general guideline for colleges in the future.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 06:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The reduction in size does resolve some of the squashed text issues on mobile, but it then makes the collage quite small. The simple issue is you can't have an image large enough to be easily seen without it also squashing the text in a quote broken way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * At least on 2022 in the United States, it looks good enough for me on both the iOS App and the mobile website (using Safari on an iPhone 14 Pro).  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 20:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I've unhid the collages on the International pages, accept for 1986, 2001 & 2004, which didn't have one & 1998, which has a faulty one. It seems they were added to the Year pages, beginning with 1985. If anyone disagrees? obviously they are at liberty to re-hide or outright delete these collages. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible citation event
As you've probably noticed, the year articles are seriously deficient in citations. Would there be any interest in a friendly competition between users to add citations to reliable sources for events/births/deaths in year articles? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Standalone lists – prose in year articles
Has there ever been a consensus for the format of years articles? Most of them follow some variation of the events-births-deaths format and are classified as stand-alone lists, but most of these are also underdeveloped. Then on the other hand, there's 1345 and 1346, the latter being a Good Article. Is it just up to the whim of any given editor that decides to change the format? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging since you brought this up previously. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've told you on your talk page, I see no definite reason as to why they have to be stand-alone lists. BorgQueen (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the longer I think about it, the more I feel inclined to agree. The list format feels restrictive. And since no other users are chiming in, it seems that most people don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there certainly was consensus for the format of Year articles (as shown on the project page under "Example year"), and it shouldn't be changed without consensus. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years/Archive_4 for one of the earliest discussions on the subject of prose sections. Deb (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd hardly consider a 3 against 3 discussion from 2006 as "consensus", especially considering there's a discussion later in that very same archive from 2008 where another user points out that they've done such an expansion successfully and two other users voiced their support for this expansion. It seems there was another such discussion here in 2008 where the change was overwhelmingly supported, but you sought to overturn this consensus. Similar discussions scattered throughout archives 6-10 indicate broad support for improving the year articles in this fashion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking about how this expansion might take place, and I've written a brief summary of global population/economic information on 2001. If more prose is added, I'm wondering if it would be better to do it by region (like in 1346) or by topic (arts, conflict, politics, religion, science, etc). I'm also noticing a slight buffer when I begin editing the article now, and I'm wondering how much more can be added before it becomes unreasonably long given the massive number of citations it requires. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile I've added two images to the article for starters, avoiding excessively dark topics. Tell me what you think. BorgQueen (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw I haven't noticed the buffer you're talking about. I'm editing on 5G so I suppose that might cause differences though. BorgQueen (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the image selection, but on my display the mass of sidebars pushes them down to April and May. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Made them left-aligned. How about now? BorgQueen (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They're still in April and May, but now on the left side. Something about Mediawiki hates putting images wherever there's a sidebar. I think the only way images can be cleanly displayed on desktop would be if the "in various calendars" template was either removed or collapsed by default (unless I somehow changed some setting that makes it only appear like this for me?). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried different browsers and on my display the sidebar always reaches down to the January section only. But perhaps if we flesh out the prose section the problem will be solved. BorgQueen (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to have noticed this sooner. Yes, we need more input from project members. Deb (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking back over the archives (and yes, I know that people can change their minds and I also know that the archives are not easy to search) I see that this has been raised multiple times in the past 15 years - and I've even participated in many of the discussions - but there never seems to have been a consensus for doing it. Deb (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet in this thread, albeit a short one, there seems to be some support for 1345. I suppose they have been always a minority then. BorgQueen (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - I suspect there will always be support from the people who come up with the idea, but I don't think it would be easy to do it in such a way as to achieve unanimity or even consensus about what should be included in the prose summary I don't even remember that discussion on 1345, but I think it would be much easier to do for the years before America was discovered... Deb (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Given a choice, I would want all Year pages, to have the same format. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with GoodDay here, and ultimately my position is a hybrid of "I don't know what to think" and "ultimately I don't mind the change". Thebiguglyalien makes a good argument, and I wouldn't mind seeing more prose-focused year articles, but this is a fundamental change to how things have stayed on years since I was 10 years old. If Thebiguglyalien can finally make this a non-perennial proposal and garner the support for changing the format, I would be happy to help once consensus assembles.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Since it seems the conversation has tapered off, I'd like to summarize my thoughts: a simple list of chronological events is unhelpful for readers. There's a reason why Wikipedia has a standard of favoring WP:PROSE over lists whenever practical; it's more organized and it provides more context. From my perspective, most of the articles in this project's scope are indistinguishable from stubs, and they've been languishing as stubs for over two decades. Discussions about expanding year articles in the past have been broadly supportive of the idea. It's just a matter of doing it. I'll gladly discuss what the actual format and content of a "quality" year article should look like (I've already tried to open such a discussion to no avail), but I don't think we should refrain from expanding a list into an article simply because that's the way we've always done it, because we're afraid of content disputes, or because there would still be other things that aren't expanded. Those reasons could be used to challenge the expansion of virtually any article on Wikipedia. and I have been working on 2001 for the last two weeks, and I think the article speaks for itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Before you start changing the format of all Year articles, please at least attempt to get consensus. This is not going to be a GA as long as it conflicts with the standard format as described on the Project page. Deb (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have a consensus for such massive changes across the Year pages. Best you not attempt to implement. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Decade articles
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Could I suggest we more-so codify this: Decades lean more towards trends, years lean more towards specific events?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 06:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is probably the best way to do it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Years
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)
 * Such changes should be reverted, if those changes have 'no consensus'. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 04:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Done - I've restored the project page to where it was prior to the mass changes. Deb (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you deleted me from the list of active participants? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

WikiProject page
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)


 * 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 Example .  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 21:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

How to recruit new "regular WikiProject Years editors"
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.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 19:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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?  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 20:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm content to help keep the birth/death sections moderated. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 19:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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).  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 21:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

Technological innovations on main year articles
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

RfC on prose in year articles
Should "Year" articles include prose sections? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. WP:PROSE should be favored over lists when possible, and there is no reason for year articles to be restricted to a standalone timeline format. To this point, the only argument that has been raised against such a change is the conservative mindset of "that's the way we've always done it", and this argument has been WP:STONEWALLING changes to these articles. BorgQueen and I have written a full article at 2001 in addition to the timeline, and it is far more encyclopedic than the standalone list format used in the past. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No - I prefer the Year pages to not be so bloated. Would recommend as well that the said-additions to the 2001 page, be deleted. PS - Wish that both editors had gotten a consensus to make those changes to the 2001 page, first. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Per Thebiguglyalien. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No - because we've had this discussion previously. Prose sections will always represent a particular view of the overall significance of certain events or movements and it is almost impossible to obtain consensus on what should or should not be mentioned in a summary of the year. Having said that, I'm not opposed to such a summary but it needs to go into a separate article. I tried this, years ago, and that article was deleted, by consensus. As with the collages, summaries should not be introduced into year articles without first having the content agreed on the Talk page, and Thebiguglyalien has as yet made no attempt to do this. Deb (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the separate article you're referring to is 1345 (summary)? Because it appears the situation there was that you attempted to unilaterally fork an expansion of the 1345 article, and there was consensus to delete it because users broadly supported an expansion on the article itself. I'm clarifying this because it seems important details have been omitted that demonstrate broad consensus for the expansion of year articles in the past. Regarding the point about significance, that's an empty argument. It could be applied to restrict the expansion of any article on Wikipedia, including stand-alone timelines. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I think that particular article was rebuilt by someone (who promised to do the necessary work but never did) after the debate was over. No one could agree where it belonged. When you say that I "attempted to unilaterally fork" the article, what you seem to be referring to is my attempt to bring it into line with every other Year article; I didn't attempt to delete the summary. It looks like 1345 was unsuccessfully nominated for GA a couple of times (as you are currently attempting to do for 2001; that doesn't bode well). What we definitely don't need is long unreferenced sections on what you think are the important bits of science, politics, etc, when there are already separate Year in Topic articles. Deb (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not being truthful. Multiple users successfully expanded 1345 and 1346 (the latter being a successful Good Article), and the changes had broad consensus, with you often being the lone holdout in discussions. You attempted to move the article to 1345 (summary), and the move was reverted after several users chastised you for it. You are now saying that my contributions are "long unreferenced sections". I don't know what you expect to accomplish by lying about things that are easy to verify, but I'd hardly consider it to be productive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No. The discussions were complex and spread over many talk pages. I've never even edited the Talk page for 1346. Things change over the decades, and citations still weren't mandatory in 2008, the period you are talking about. This Wikiproject didn't even exist until 2005, which is when the standard for year formats was created. I don't have a 100% comprehensive memory of everything I've ever written on a Talk page, but I do know that I've never opposed the creation of summaries as long as the person who wants them is prepared to do the work properly and as long as they are completely neutral and don't imply that (for example) the history of one continent is more important than any other. My concerns about the creation of very long rambling Year articles are entirely to do with readability. Deb (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * could I also ask why you removed the section on "summary" from the project page? It had been there since 2008. Deb (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You have opposed the creation of summaries when the person is prepared to do the work properly; you're doing so right now. I changed the project page because it's been a rough draft since 2008, and my attempts to improve this project were met with WP:SILENCE. I'm tiring of this trend where I attempt to create an organized system of improvement, no one replies for weeks, I make WP:BOLD changes for lack of better options, and then I'm questioned about why I didn't start a discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question as to why you changed the Wikiproject page to remove something you claim to want, without even mentioning it. Deb (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I reject the premise of your question. As I have explained several times, I made multiple attempts on this talk page to open discussions regarding changes to the project and the articles within its scope, in both general and specific terms. Editors declined to give meaningful input over a period of several weeks, so I began contributing on my own, and then after that in conjunction with the one other editor that expressed interest in collaboration. When my edits were challenged, I opened this RfC. You have repeatedly misrepresented the nature of consensus on this talk page to obstruct changes in a disruptive manner as described by WP:STONEWALLING. You have also misrepresented my own actions, continuing to say that have not sought consensus despite several attempts on my part to request assistance and collaboration from other editors.
 * I have indicated multiple times, both in general and to you specifically, that I am willing to discuss and collaborate in changes to the project, but after a month, only one other user made any attempt to do so. The year articles are some of the least developed of the English Wikipedia, and I would like to see an active project contributing to them. This becomes difficult if most users are not interested in content creation or project maintenance, and it becomes impossible when other users actively obstruct these things. I have asked for input on content and project management, and I am still open to hearing such input. But that cannot happen if users insist on freezing the project as it existed in 2008. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a very active project. It so happens that you have chosen to introduce large amounts of your own prose into articles which traditionally don't have long prose sections, though some do have manageable short summaries. You've also removed the section of the project page that refers to summaries, and you won't or can't explain why you did this. If you look back to the 1345 discussion, you'll see that it ended with myself and User:Wrad in agreement, not with me "stonewalling" as you suggest, and that s/he then obtained consensus to include a section on summaries in the project page - which you've now removed. Deb (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed you had 'no consensus' to make that change. Therefore you should undo it. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Per Thebiguglyalien. BorgQueen (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes (but big caveat in final paragraph). I do understand why there are two perspectives on this: on the one hand, we have the clear and robust presumption, resting on long-standing community consensus, that a prose approach is considered preferable wherever feasible, as more flexible to the need of providing proper context and a more fulsome understanding of a topic to the reader. On the other, there is the concern that given the number of incidents and topics aligning with many years, it may prove unwieldy to decided what the core topics need mentioning in lead or other prose section, and that arbitrary choices might be made.  But I think that latter perspective has two major caveats (even beyond the obvious fact that it is not a well-established priority supported by policy like WP:PROSE):
 * First, we have a process for making those calls on what are the more notable topics: it's called WP:WEIGHT, and there's no reason why it can't be applied here to resolve what should go into any summary prose section, as we'd do with the lead and other summary sections in other articles. Yes, it might get a little complicated comparing all the apples to oranges to bananas, and it will probably lead to more nitpicking and ancillary discussions, but sometimes that's just the price we pay for adopting an approach to an editorial issue that improves content in a particular area: it ends up being more work. And that's fine.  And the second factor is that this is not a zero-sum choice: no one is proposing removing the timelines, so maintaining both approaches in an article allows for a useful contextualizing summary while also having the majority of the article present in chronological and more strictly objective order.
 * So in the final analysis I see no compelling reason to avoid having a useful summary that cannot just pick out major events the reader might reasonably wanted highlighted, but also the opportunity to provide greater historical context to the year overall, where that is appropriate. Obviously some year articles will benefit from getting a proper summary section much sooner than others, but afterall, there's WP:NORUSH to make everything uniform: if this approach is beneficial to a given article, it can and should be allowed on those individual articles per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.  Which does raise an important caveat for this RfC, which is that it is being hosted at the wrong place if the OP wanted a firm consensus they can carry into individual articles: per WP:PROPOSAL and WP:Advice page, binding consensus decisions can only occur in appropriate forums, such as policy or MoS talk pages.  Any consensus formed here will have only the status of an advice page and cannot be invoked as community "consensus" in disputes for individual articles, and per ArbCom rulings, it will likely be considered WP:Disruptive if anyone tries to do that.  So whatever the consensus here, I'd recommend taking the issue to the appropriate policy talk page if you want a firm consensus rule, rather than just an advice page.  SnowRise let's rap 01:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - with a small concern. A small section of prose at the beginning of the article detailing the year would be a good thing, as long as there's a source for what is considered important. Individual editors or even page consensus about what is important seems to be sliding towards OR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, in general. We're not WikiData where we have collections of relevant information just plopped down in a list; we're Wikipedia where we have both data-like structures and prose. When it comes to what's in it, the prose section should be in the lead and encompass the year at large, the most notable events, and ongoing collections of events/trends. For example, for 2022 in the United States, the prose section at the lead covers Dobbs v. Jackson, Donald Trump's ongoing legal consequences, mass shootings, gas prices, and the Federal Reserve's interest rates. This is a good example for a prose section.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 18:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a good example for a Year in Topic page. However, long summaries on Year pages are likely to turn into a summary of events in the US if we are not careful and if the content isn't agreed on the Talk page first. Deb (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this take. Keep it concise, and have the prose section be mostly general global trends or stuff like Ukraine/COVID.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 04:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Per Thebiguglyalien. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Do most movies (especially Disney movies) deserve any mention on Main Year or even Year In Country articles?
Aside from maybe Snow White and Toy Story 1 due to their historical significance, I'm convinced that Disney movies listed in year articles don't deserve to be either on Main Year articles or even Year In Country articles. They're not that special, and it gives the impression that Disney is special, potentially a violation of WP:NPOV. I'd prefer to get a consensus on this though here, so I'm bringing it up before we decide to get them out of these articles.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 19:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to better coverage of culture, but I don't think movie releases belong as listed events in main year articles or year in country articles unless they're in some way unprecedented in film history. Snow White and Toy Story would both be good examples of exceptional releases in this case, as well as maybe A Visit to the Seaside, The Birth of a Nation, The Jazz Singer, etc. Maybe movies that had lasting cultural impact, had exceptionally high gross, or started megafranchises could be included, but even that might be too much. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there some examples you’ve spotted that are motivating the question?
 * I think the studio is irrelevant. A movie could potentially be of major significance for any number of reasons, and it wouldn’t be because it was or wasn’t a Disney movie. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1994's main year article sees Disney's Lion King, and 2001 in the United States lists Atlantis the Lost Empire. Other than Toy Story and Snow White, I don't see a reason for any Disney movie release being on either main year or year in country articles.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 20:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * These are examples of fans adding insufficiently notable entries to main year articles. A substantial proportion are entertainment-related. Articles such as 2023 in film, List of American films of 2023 are the place for them. People adding insufficiently notable things is the biggest problem with main year articles. Fans add films, TV shows, plays, poems, novels, bands, albums, singles, concerts, festivals, radio shows, video games, websites, newspapers, fashions, new words, memes, fads, domestic sports events & various other pop culture things to them all the time & we don't have enough editors to remove them all. Important annual film awards are important enough to include on year by country articles, including the Academy Awards on year in the US & the British Academy Film Awards on year in the UK. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree....unless a film itself is notable enough for being the first of something, or it caused an international fiasco (something like The Interview (2014 film), nope.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 01:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Help
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I think I get what you mean. Of course, common sense should apply in this case. CactiStaccingCrane 23:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, as Jim Michael has stated the priority is to include events/figures with substantial international notability, while we have Year In Country pages for domestic figures/events. This has been the standard since at least mid-2021. TheScrubby (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Consider adding sources for events which don't have them and giving your thoughts on discussions.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 14:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)