Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 19

2006's collage
I think that Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 could be replaced with the 2006 Lebanon War because the latter event is more international in scope and resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians and hundreds of military personnel on both sides, whereas the former only caused 154 deaths and is more localized. Additionally, the entry for the Lebanon War is over 300,000 bytes in length. Nagae Iku (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * We could do this as a final wrap-up for editing the original collages made by the original collage team. DementiaGaming (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you edit it, i think twitter should be replaced as it wasn't a major event of the year. And I think the Wii should be on the collage. And i don't understand why is Saddam Hussein on the 2005 collage. Gennicyro4 (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead image
Should we depreciate the use of year collage in the lead section, unlike this current year (e.g. 2023), and past years until 1947. MirrorPlanet (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've removed the RFC tag for now, given that there has seemingly been no WP:RFCBEFORE on this topic. This current section is blank, except for the intial question. Carter00000 (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think deprecation is necessary, any more than we need to deprecate any other flawed form of image layout. It's a few WP:SPAs that exist just to try to force these collages into the article. If they try to edit war the collages back in, then they can be reported at the appropriate noticeboard. Editors need to be reminded that images should be placed throughout the article based on spatial considerations, just like in any other article. The main obstacle is the overly long sidebar, but there seems to be no interest in a discussion about changing it, as seen above, so I might just rework it myself. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed some of photo collages from 1948, and 1950–1959, due to a lack of notable events. MirrorPlanet (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At least don't remove all the collages past 1980. They are good collages and don't deserve to be removed. DementiaGaming (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just like they did in 2001 and 2002, some collages were removed due to lack of consensuses. MirrorPlanet (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This thread has not been active for 10 days. As far as I understand, the proposal was to deprecate the use of lead collages altogether. I strongly oppose this. Individual collages made of years after i.e. 1900 may be deleted for a while like with 2001 and 2002 or 1950–1959 until a consensus is reached, but scraping them entirety, absolutely not. Marginataen (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , if you want the year articles to have collages, then you need to convince the entire community. Right now, there are several editors challenging whether they should exist at all. The onus is on you to prove that the community wants them. Otherwise anyone can remove them. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, at this point, I think they should be removed too. Ever since their creation in September of last year, there have been many conflicts on what to include. 1988, 2022, 1997 and other year's images were edited with absolutely zero consensus. 2012 was edited with the consensus of only the people who were editing them, and there are other discussions like 2021 and 2006 about how an image should be replaced. If only people let them be what they were originally, then they would not have to be removed. DementiaGaming (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The consensus has already been proven by the fact that every single article between 2022 and 1960 with the exceptions of 2001 and 2002 have a collage. On many of those pages, the collage was heavily discussed and improved upon by Wikipedians. Never did a consensus to remove them emerge. The same is the case of 2001 and 2002 where the initial collages were removed due to ongoing discussions on what to include, not opposition to collages in general. @Thebiguglyalien, @User:Deb @DementiaGaming have on the 2001 stated their criticism of collages but have by no means achieved consensus. They're the minority. It's by all means them who have the burden of proof after +50 articles where the community have approved of them.
 * Again, as laid out in my thread "New multiple image format" below, I find a great deal of the issues with collages to have been caused by the fact that they were created not using the multiple image template. This has led to the need to replace a whole collage just to replace one image. The selution to imaged edited with "zero consensus" is to add an invisible comment. telling people that any edit without prior talk page consensus will be immediately reverted. Marginataen (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how this works. WP:ONUS says The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. These have been disputed by many editors since long before you started editing them. The fact that people keep inappropriately adding them does not mean there's consensus or that the community has approved of them, it means they need to stop and get consensus. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to get things straight, this is a  discussion about abolishing collages in general and not about any single collage? Marginataen (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * By posting this, you have violated two of Wikipedia's rules: personally attacking us by basically telling us our opinion in 2001 does not matter in bold, and borderline guilty of WP:CANVASSING by inviting Deb into this argument to influence the outcome of it. I would prefer not to post this, but if these arguments are causing this much conflict, we have little option besides deleting them, which I do not support myself DementiaGaming (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Telling you that you held the burden of proof is not saying that your "opinion in 2001 does not matter". I could have written it a bit more diplomatically, sorry for that. On the 2001 article, Deb argued in favour of the collages' removal which I'm against. That was not at all to "influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Marginataen (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Another reason they should be removed is that people mostly try to keep them only because they look nice, but as you look under the surface, they're unnecessary and are presented with major flaws and POV problems. That's why we are challenging them, you can't just keep them because they look good. DementiaGaming (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but regarding the "zero consensus" point, your collages of 1969, 1967, 1961, and 1960 are also absolute zero consensus, although I think the events you chose are good. Nagae Iku (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I added those before I realized that these collages are unnecessary. I could remove them if you would like. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Now seven people have agreed to remove the collages. We were never the “minority”. It’s getting old, people editing these with little to no consensus, like 1989, 2012, 1997, etc DementiaGaming (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

My first choice would be delete all the collages from the Year pages. If that doesn't occur? then keep them at a standard (px) size, so they don't take up too much room at the top of the pages. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Propose to remove all collages from all WP:YEARS pages for the time being, given the apparent lack of consensus for their inclusion shown in this conversation. The collages can be added back to the pages if the discussion closes as there being consensus to include the collages. Carter00000 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should add this guideline to WP:WikiProject Years/Style guide. MirrorPlanet 🪞🪐 03:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand which guideline MirrorPlanet is referring to when writing "I think we should add this guideline to [the style guide]. However, I think it's a fabulous idea to formalise collages and the procedure for them. I don't think the problem has been the collages themselves rather than the fact that they were introduced without any policy behind them. Also they should all be changed to multiple image format. Also, it seems extreme to remove all collages when, to my understanding, there's not been controversy on the vast majority of articles. The disputed ones are as far as I know 1948, 1950–1959, 2001, 2002 and 2012. These are getting solved. I myself am currently working on the 2001 collage. Marginataen (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. DementiaGaming (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I also support their removal. and, you need to stop opening up all of these discussions about collages until you can show that this is something most people want. Several editors have voiced their opinion against the collages.  Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I should also support the removal of collages in decade, century and millennium articles. For example, the recent decade, century and millennium articles does not have one in the lead section, including 2030s, 21st century and 3rd millennium. MirrorPlanet 🪞🪐 10:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * MirrorPlanet: Of course thoese don't have collages as they haven't ended. The 2030s haven't even begun. That's completely uncomparable to articles about years and centuries in the past. Marginataen (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thebiguglyalien: How would you like the support to be measured? Some sort of vote? :) Marginataen (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, but if it comes to it, an RfC could be opened to get additional input. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe an RFC is inevitable, concerning whether or not to keep collages in Year pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that there is anything intrinsic in collages that makes them subject to controversy. The fact of the matter is that one guy single-handedly made and added +60 collages in the timespan of less than a year as far as I understand. When they are just made by one editor, others will naturally have other opinions. If collages are to be kept, each year from now one, they'll insted be made in a much more gradual and natural process with inputs from many different editors insted of just one. This is not a criticism of the individual in question. No one would be able to make +60 collags without other people having different ideas. I do belive he should not have made a post on the talk page first and then (if not objected to) waited a week before adding them, but with that said, he is not the problem. The struggle of having to make a completely new collage for every change as they we not created using the multiple image template is also a factor as I have pointed out. Right now, we are basically suffering from over 60 years of collage discussions all at once. I see this as a temporary problem.
 * To Thebiguglyalien: Look at all the talk pages where people have commented on which images to include ect. By taking part in the talk page discussion is indirectly saying that they agree to the concept of collages. If they disagreed, they would say come with image suggestion. Marginataen (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , if it's going to happen, we may as well get it over with. Would this be an RfC for deprecation? Or would it use softer wording like "is there consensus to add image collages to articles about years"? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Recommend it be about deprecation. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think, for now, we remove all collages with ongoing discussions until 7 November at 12:00 UTC. It would be the best way to get people's attention on them. DementiaGaming (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I support this, even though I've arrived back at the discussion rather late in the day. Deb (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

New format
The collages for 2022 and 2023 are under a new format that has not had the proper consensus to be on the lead yet. In my opinion, we should learn from this edit and try a style akin to the collage on the Wikipedia page for animal, where there are many images on it, and you can click on one that will lead you to the Wikipedia page for it. For example, if there is an image for a beaver on the collage, it will lead you to the page for beavers. We should try this style on year collages. DementiaGaming (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would work. Take the image of the coronation of Charles III and Camilla. What would that photo link to? (Charles III, Queen Camilla, coronation of Charles III and Camilla). It creates too much speace for ambiguity IMO. Marginataen (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I support this method, but it has actually been used before. The collages made by @The Ganymedian all had click coordinates, but the stretching and distortion of his collages were too severe. Later ,@The0Quester deleted all the click coordinates of the collages after fixing them, because changing the size and format of the collages required rewriting a set of click coordinates, and the original set would be obsolete. However, this is too difficult for me to write. Nagae Iku (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "because changing the size and format of the collages required rewriting a set of click coordinates, and the original set would be obsolete". Even though I'm inclined to oppose the proposal, I think, without knowing the technical details, that reimplementing this would be made easier with my "New multiple image format" proposal. Is that right? Marginataen (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

1964
There is a discussion regarding the 1964 collage here. DementiaGaming (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

2012
It's a little late to say this, but I really don't like that the only consensus on the changing of the 2012 collage were the people who edited it, which is only 2 people. Any thoughts? DementiaGaming (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Not too late at all. The existence of collages should be debated, as should their content, in every case. Such discussions should be notified to this project. Deb (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, both 4me689 and I have not been active on the collage thread for a while. Secondly, I apologize for including the collage without reaching a consensus of more than three people. Additionally, could you please point out the flaws you see in the 4.0 version of the collage?
 * Let me explain my viewpoint:
 * The 2012 phenomenon is essentially a baseless claim that did not lead to the end of the world, and @Jim Michael 2 also opposed this event.
 * The Sandy Hook shooting was indeed a tragic massacre of children, but it seems too localization.
 * The Costa Concordia disaster did have a significant international impact, but only in Europe and North America, and it only resulted in 33 deaths. I think it is very Western-centric because the East Asian world has hardly heard of this event. Nagae Iku (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. You always change everything for nothing.The 2012 phenomenon was one of the most important and memorable events of that year despite the fact that it was false and that it did not happen for real. the objective of the collages initially was first to describe in 8 images the important events of a year even if it concerns popular culture. Gennicyro4 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the events that were replaced, but the collage only has 8 grid, and in order to include new and more important events, sacrifices have to be made. Alternatively, we could implement a plan that I have been proposing for a long time: expanding the collage to 16 grid. I believe that this would truly encompass the entire year's history, and we should ensure that at least one event from each continent is included in these sixteen events. Nagae Iku (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The following is a list of candidate events that I have collected.
 * 1、2012 phenomenon
 * 2、Higgs boson
 * 3、Gangnam Style
 * 4、Curiosity (rover)
 * 5、2012 Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip
 * 6、Costa Concordia disaster
 * 7、2012 Romanian protests
 * 8、Dana Air Flight 0992
 * 9、Bhoja Air Flight 213
 * 10、MV Rabaul Queen
 * 11、Hurricane Sandy
 * 12、Typhoon Bopha
 * 13、2012 Summer Olympics
 * 14、Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
 * 15、Innocence of Muslims
 * 16、2012 transit of Venus
 * 17、Red Bull Stratos
 * 18、Mali war Nagae Iku (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with a 16-grid plan, it would be like a repeat of the events list. Regarding the dispute, again we have reached the peak intensity law - one candidate to replace is the Mali War, which reached peak intensity in 2020, where it was mentioned in its collage. Sandy Hook is my choice to put back in. DementiaGaming (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

New multiple image format
Every single time some dude finds an image of an event in a collage that might actually be better than the current one, he rans into the same problem. In order to just replace one image with a better one, he must make a whole new collage using some external program. Also, when the original collage was made, its creator often cropped the images from Commons without uploading the cropped version, meaning he must also manually crob other images when he just wants to replace one with another. With a multiple image format one would, after creating consensus for the change on the talk page, much less tediously be able to simply replace it without having to make a brand new collage. Also, the images a clickable and can thus be viewed in a higher resolution. I would like to discuss making multiple image the norm. Although I'm not sure, I don't think one can today use multiple image without having the white border inbetween. It may be nice to have the option to unselect that. As an example of the multiple image template for year articles, my tentative draft for the 2023 one can be seen below.--Marginataen (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This version is my favorite version, except for "Finland joining NATO," which I think is not as important. Perhaps it should be replaced with 2023 Brazilian Congress attack, 2023 United States banking crisis, or 2023 Chinese balloon incident. Nagae Iku (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This thread is not for discussion of this specific collage, but for my proposal to change all lead collages on articles about years to the multiple image format. Please leave your comment on the 2023 talk page. Marginataen (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Irrational. This is the talk page, where people are supposed to discuss ideas like this. If you want people to do what you want, remove it from here and put it on your talk page. DementiaGaming (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

2001 collage
There is an ongoing discussion on the 2001 talk page about that to includee in the collage. Come join :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marginataen (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I went there & found your message, sending me here. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

General comments
I used to be heavily in favor of collages, but in the end, I've since changed my position: Images should be in the article, and whether it's done through a collage or in-line images doesn't matter.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Me too. It would be sad to see them go. DementiaGaming (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

2000 collage
There is a new discussion in the 2000 talk page. I have removed the collage to get people's attention on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DementiaGaming (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It may not be necessary now.
 * But I still to share some thoughts on the collage from the year 2000. You wanted the Bush v. Gore to be included in the collage, but Deb thought it was too US-centric.
 * My suggestions:
 * Kenya Airways Flight 431 (which caused the deaths of 169 people from 33 different nationalities, making it sufficiently international)
 * Kaprun disaster (the deadliest cable car disaster in history). Nagae Iku (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Media
I believe that although collages should be removed from Wikipedia pages, they should still be made and edited because it appears most people like them.

I propose we change multiple events on collages to adjust for extremely popular media. This includes (for films): changing the collages for 1939, 2009, 2019, 1965, and 1956. These years included the release of some of the highest-grossing films of all time, and they were all immensely popular on their release. At least Gone with the Wind and Avengers: Endgame should warrant their own place.

This also included other media such as TV shows, books and possibly even YouTube videos/social media posts. For example, it is hard to believe that the Notre-Dame fire was more of a popular event than the release of Endgame if you consider it. Please post your opinions below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DementiaGaming (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

TOC with Vector 2022
Hello! The new Vector design has moved the TOC to the left sidebar, but in year articles (1924) there's a NOTOC code that prevents it from appearing. Do you think we need the TOC back? (I think so, but I want to hear other opinions). Theklan (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Clean up decades collage caption
The decades college captions (such as in 2010s) could make use of the multiple image's captionX= parameter. This will make individual captions to be directly under the image which will make the collage much cleaner. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd rather we delete the images collages entirely from the decades pages. They appear like a decoration. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * best way to decorate would be using images for significant events in-line.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 06:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines on Images for 2023
I was viewing the 2023 page and observed that, unlike other pages for specific years, this page appears to have many images scattered throughout the article. Based on an examination of the pages' edit history, it appears that these photos were posted relatively recently by one or two users without any discussion or consensus. With reference to the RFC on collages above, this appears to be essentially the same issue, with the same policy violations. Would it be appropriate to remove all the images first at this stage? 33ABGirl (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * IMHO, if there was no consensus to add'em? Then they should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that there have been no discussions about the posting of the images on the talk page at all. 33ABGirl (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the images from 2023 and have directed those who may wish to restore the images to first discuss it here. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see individual images than a collage. They can be useful for breaking up the overall look of the page. A collage almost always consists of images of events that killed or harmed a lot of people, but the resulting devastation tells you nothing about the event - they tend to look very similar. If we're having images, let's have colourful, meaningful images rather than the same thing repeated 8 times. Deb (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should make everything as boring, sterile, and uninformative as possible. Because it's absolutely paramount that we follow The Rules™ and don't ever attempt to improve anything. So yes, let's delete everything. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Nobody is opposed to improvement. It's just that the collages are generally not an improvement in any way. Deb (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification: we're on ANI yet again.
The thread, originally started with regard to certain editors, I think is worth the attention of the WikiProject given some of the comments that have been made. See this thread here.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 03:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Omnibus for Various Topics
Hello all,

I apologize if this is not the right way to parse these topics but a lot has come up and it is clear that inclusion criteria for a multitude of topics needs to be re-evaluated as we continue to change our views on what warrants inclusion. I've included the topics I think warrant discussion along with examples in a few future year articles.

Should we include the release of videogames in main year articles? Currently, Rockstar Games will release Grand Theft Auto VI, the next installment in the Grand Theft Auto series. exists in 2025. Should we include entries like this in main year articles?

Should we include the release of notable criminals from prison? Currently, 30 March – Yolanda Saldívar, the convicted murderer of American Tejano singer Selena Quintanilla-Pérez, will become eligible for parole. exists in 2025. Should we include entries like this in main year articles?

Should we include Solar/Lunar eclipses in main year articles? Currently, ''August 12 – A total solar eclipse is predicted to occur at the Moon's descending node of the orbit in North America and Europe. The total eclipse will pass over the Arctic, Greenland, Iceland, Atlantic Ocean and northern Spain.'' is listed on 2026. Should we include entries like this in main year articles?

Should we include anniversaries in main year articles? Currently, July 4 – The 250th anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence. is listed on 2026. Should we include entries like this in main year articles?

Should we include the launch/decommissioning of software? Currently, 14 October – Microsoft has set the retirement (end-of-life) date for its Windows 10 operating system on this date... Should we include entries like this in main year articles?

Should we include the beginning/completion of construction projects? Currently, The Three Seas Initiative (3SI) estimates to end the Rail-2-Sea project by this year. is listed on 2029. Should we include entries like this in main year articles?

Please let me know below which of these topics should and should not be included in main year articles. Thank you! PaulRKil (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Something should be included if it's given weight by WP:Reliable sources. What "type" of fact it is isn't relevant. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like that’s an unproductive way to measure some of these entries. For example, there will be countless reliable sources verifying the many solar/lunar eclipses that have/will occur but do they all merit entry based on the fact that they are reliably sourced? Because if that’s the case, half of the entries on main year pages would be astronomical events, videogame releases, and annually recurring sporting events like the Super Bowl and the World Series and if that is the case why have year articles for videogames, science, etc? PaulRKil (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case why is the Eurovision contestlisted in 2029? It is an annual event, so in May of any given year after 1955 there will be one. (I edited the page to get rid of the entry)CoastRedwood (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not include construction projects? (Maybe there are other things omitted due to consensus not listed here as well that might warrant discussion). Also, even if there are special articles for categories of future and past events, the main pages are meant to cover any events that are at least slightly noteworthy, no matter what the category. CoastRedwood (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not all construction should be excluded but there should be a standard. We currently include the completion of the new Indonesian capital. That is clearly a more impactful project than a tunnel that connects two countries. PaulRKil (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Topic 1: Probably not, with some exceptions
 * Topic 2: Yes
 * Topic 3: Maybe notable ones.
 * Topic 4: Noteworthy ones.
 * Topic 5: Similiar thing
 * In my opinion, the main year pages should include anything that’s even slightly noteworthy, and some of them might be personally relevant (like the Microsoft decommissioning for those with Microsoft devices). CoastRedwood (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm personally a fan of including anything that gains significant, preferably international media coverage. I think that in general, 2 through 5 are mostly no inclusions, though there be the occasional significant exception. Same with 1, but I think that GTA has been looooooong anticipated for a while, so I think it is VERY likely to receive a ton of DUE-fulfilling coverage which will merit inclusion. Same for 6, but noteworthy ones which cause a stir.  Invading Invader ' (userpage, talk) 03:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of image collages from decades, centuries and millennium pages
Should image collages be deleted from decades, centuries and millennium pages? GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One final comment: I have removed the 2020s montage because this decade is not over yet. Please do not undo it. WP:WAIT DementiaGaming (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, here you go. Apparently, the other RfC was re-opened because I removed the images from the decade pages, and many people didn’t like that because they want them to stay (only because they look good), and they didn’t think the RfC counted for decades and centuries (which, it did). Please place your comments below. DementiaGaming (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose (Keep on articles) — There is for sure sources for decade and century top events. Example is this article titled “14 Major Events of the 2010s”. A college with those events would not break any rules and would not be WP:OR. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * :I would also like to note that I am permanently leaving this worthless argument as of now. It has been surprisingly detrimental to my mental health and has ruined my reputation on this website. I have tried to use logic here but have been blasted back by other editors.
 * And yes, I don’t want them back.DementiaGaming (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC).
 * Remove per above comments. DementiaGaming (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Remove. I do think that if you can cite numerous high quality and all independent sources which all say the same thing such as a defining image or set of images, then they belong. Unfortunately this does not seem to be possible given current circumstances and so many differing points of view, and the only way to include them is to violate OR, a core content policy and a pillar of Wikipedia. If a huge amount of RS's can all say that there were some defining particular images for a decade or century (I'm talking at least 50, preferably 75, maybe even 100), then there may be a case for including them. Whilst they look aesthetically beautiful, there are more ways to include images inline as there are more articles written about why single images are defining (such as Pale Blue Dot), a full collage would require multiple sources to all say that all of the presented images on the collage were of significance, and I don't think it's feasible. And ideally, this is a case where to prevent slippery slopes (especially for newer articles), consistency should be practiced.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 02:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "(I'm talking at least 50, preferably 75, maybe even 100)"
 * This is ridiculous. List of video games considered the best requires six sources for a game to included on the list, and that's an article specifically about how games are received.
 * Just in case any admin will read this thread (which was made because another editor misunderstood me) in isolation, I have laid out my case why as to editors choosing what information warrants highlighting is not OR in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#RfC:_Removal_of_image_collages Koopinator (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed a malformed RfC tag. If someone wants to restart it, make sure to include a brief, neutral opener. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * May want to include the millenniums too. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove - too much OR and potential for bias in constructing a collage. Also, individual images become hard to distinguish making them become nothng more than (hopefully) aesthetically pleasing blobs of color. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 03:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We didn't need this RFC Why did we need to start a separate RFC on this? How do any arguments change by increasing the relevant timespan by 10, 100 or 1000? We were already discussing this in the other RFC that hasn't even concluded yet. "many people didn’t like that because they want them to stay (only because they look good), and they didn’t think the RfC counted for decades and centuries (which, it did)." - This is not true. If I did think that, I wouldn't have requested for the original RFC to be overturned. But, since we are doing this, I guess I will vote Strong Keep, citing everything I have already said in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years#RfC:_Removal_of_image_collages Koopinator (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Remove, as they're only decorative & an will create disputes over which images to include. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Question: You say they "will create disputes". Can you provide a few examples of where collages on decades, centuries, and millennium pages created disputes? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I follow the example of what happened over the collages on the Year pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. That RfC did not apply whatsoever to these articles. Please provide examples where collages have caused disputes on these specific types of pages. Otherwise, that part of your "remove" !vote is not valid. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not changing my position. The RFC closer will decide for themselves what is & isn't valid. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know I said I wouldn't comment here anymore but here are some examples of year montage disputes that I can think of: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2012, 2011, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1995, 1991, 1988, 1971, and 1964. DementiaGaming (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of these disputes are still happening. '''No matter what, these images will create disputes. DementiaGaming (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per all the points made in editor's Keep comments in the already open RfC. In any case, if this new RfC is actually kept open then please notify all of the Wikprojects and pages involved. This seems another way of picking-up a delete close so that all of the other collages on Wikipedia could be removed, as discussed in the above RfC . A reminder, each image on Wikipedia is chosen by an editor and can be called OR, in fact every word written can be called OR given the logic of these multiple discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Best not to make any accusations about editors' motives. One could've easily suggested that getting the other RFC re-opened, was based on simply not liking the results. So, let's avoid going down those roads. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct and struck, thanks. Just seems odd to cherry-pick one set of collages (years, etc) when collages have existed long term on many other pages. Why the emphasis on years/decades and not World War II etc., many of which are Good pages and likely some features in there? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are primarily one-event pages & thus the reason nobody's seeking removing any collage images from them. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * World War II was lots of events, although several stand out (as events also stand-out each year, decade, or century). Designing a good collage is a work of art, an art DementiaGaming is pretty good at. Maybe let's focus on that aspect of collages and not throw the baby out with the bath water, to coin a phrase. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pages like World War II aren't having their collage images removed, nor is anyone calling for them to be removed. We're only concerned with (previous RFC) Year pages & (this RFC) Decade, Century & Millennium pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's circular reasoning, and another reason to close these discussions as Keep or No Consensus. Collages are the topic, and if they are good on "single topics" such as World War II then they are fine for a single topic 1960s. Just depends on how wide a net "single topic" takes in or omits. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We apparently disagree, so indeed this is & will continue to be a circular argument. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove per MOS:ACCIM..... fragmented mini images that the majority can't see should not be in any article.. especially the lead. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Bad RfC Decades, centuries and millenniums are all years, there should be no need for a separate RfC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That what several other people said! And they said that the previous RfC on years didn't count for decades, etc. When they were removed, they edit warred them back in and said there should be another RfC. 2002:88E4:67C5:0:E5E7:52C6:4651:F96E (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest those editors provide reliable sources that state that a 2020 is not a year because it's a decade. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

now that the "Year" RFC has been closed. May this RFC be re-opened? GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment from year RfC closer: I question whether holding this RfC would be a wise use of editor resources. The arguments that editors made for both removing and keeping the collages in decades/centuries are essentially the same as those made for keeping/removing them from articles on individual years. And for the minority of editors that have differing views between years and centuries/decades, they don't seem to lean in any one direction. A large RfC takes up a lot of editor time/energy, so to hold one on such a closely related question as another that just closed, I would want to see some indication that there might be a different result, rather than just a bunch of rehashing of arguments that ultimately lands us back in the same place. In the absence of any such indication, I do not support reopening this. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW - I'v no intentions (going forward) of adding or deleting Image Collages at Decade, Centuries, Millennium pages, etc. Just seeking a concrete decision concerning them, so as to avoid other editors (potentially) getting bogged down into edit warring, over their addition/deletion. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As the one who created the initial RfC, I'm inclined to agree. There seems to be consensus that this is a valid way to present images in these articles. There still exists the problem where this issue is dominated by inexperienced editors who don't understand how weight and sources work on Wikipedia (several of whom are WP:SPAs), but another RfC won't solve that. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not going to close a fresh RfC, but I echo Sdkb's point about whether an RfC is a productive use of time. House Blaster talk 19:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to re-open the Decades etc RFC. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Sporting Events Criteria
In main year articles, should we continue to only include sporting events that are global in scale such as the Olympics, FIFA World Cup, FIBA World Cup, World Baseball Classic etc.

We've long omitted the American sporting championship games like the Super Bowl and World Series and we should continue to do so. The UEFA Champions League, along with similar events in other leagues, get added and removed often with us citing that we only include world events. Some users have argued that these tournaments are world events as they usually involve a large bloc of countries spanning an entire continent. For example, the CONCACAF Gold Cup involves national teams from North America, the Caribbean, and Central America.

I've included four options

Option A: Keep to only world level events for sports ie the FIFA World Cup, the Winter and Summer Olympics, the FIBA World cup, the World Baseball Classic, etc. etc. Option B: Include events that span multiple countries including the UEFA Champions League, the CONCACAF Gold Cup, CONMEBOL Copa América, etc. Option C: Include all major sporting events including the Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, NBA Finals, CFL Grey Cup, etc. Option D: Omit any and all sporting events INCLUDING the Olympics, World Cup, etc.

Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you! PaulRKil (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey

 * A - Let's use only international sporting events. Leave the national events to the 'Year in country' pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A - The others seem much to obscure. User1042💬✒️ 12:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A - Per User1042 Koopinator (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A – with some leeway diverted to the highest level of championships in certain professional sports which attain high levels of international attention. In particular, I would support the inclusion of the NFL's Super Bowl since it's the highest professional level of American Football and there isn't a consistently held world championship of American football (all the others hosted by IFAF are now defunct) and given how the NFL is one of the most watched sports leagues in the world. By contrast, FIBA, FIFA, and the Winter Olympics consistently hold world championships for basketball, association football, and ice hockey consistently, and they all gain worldwide attention – a fair argument could be made that the WBC also consists here. Given the now relatively very-high interest in American football worldwide with NFL games in Europe and Mexico, the popularity of the NFL in China, and further somewhat smaller but still growing interest levels in the Middle East, not to mention the international fame of certain teams such as the Dallas Cowboys, the Super Bowl is an okay inclusion. The NFL is the only sport which I can think of which would deserve some special treatment compared to the rest of the sporting world, though I personally predict there are others. People who whine "it's domestic" can't argue with Due Weight supporting the inclusion of some domestic events.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 03:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link - A discussion regarding the inclusion of the Super Bowl event on 2024 is currently underway. 33ABGirl (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification: MFD's on 4me689's Userpages
Some discussions regarding the deletion of certain userpages of 4me689 relating to this wikiproject is currently underway at MFD.

33ABGirl (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) User:4me689/collage gallery
 * 2) User:4me689/collage gallery with descriptions
 * 3) User:4me689/4me's 2023 death section
 * 4) User:4me689/2022 (4me_version)
 * Note - 4me689, hasn't edited on the project, since last October. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Why the ADs before the years in the post-BC infoboxes?
Why does the infobox in the pages after the BC Years beginning with 151, have all the years preceded with AD? For example, when you click onto 2023? you get an AD 2023 re-direct to 2023. GoodDay (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing it's the same reason for everything with these articles: one guy set it up that way 20 years ago and no one has tried to change it. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 06:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it starts at 151, but it may be a pre-emptive guard against disambiguation, eg. 404. CMD (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Should we include the annual Eurovision Song Contest in main year articles?
I personally am not sure if it is notable enough to be listed, and even if it is, it’s an annual event, meaning it takes place in May of every year. It’s like listing the equinoxes and changing seasons. By User:CoastRedwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:CoastRedwood (talk • contribs) 11:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Impartial but I've always leaned toward Exclude because it is, in essence, a regional competition exclusive to European nations. PaulRKil (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a source that demonstrates its significance in the context of the year? If yes, then include. If not, then exclude. That's how it works on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In most cases, significance of an event won't be realized until after the event has transpired. It seems like @CoastRedwood's primary gripe is the inclusion of them in upcoming years such as 2029 where the sources mostly just remark that the event is going to occur that year on a particular day and that is it. Based on where you're coming from, the inclusion of this type of event is dubious as it has not demonstrated significance and any source predicting that the event will be significant could be seen as Crystal. PaulRKil (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Exclude because although it's popular, it's regional & fun rather than a serious, prestigious competition worthy of main year articles. I doubt many serious publications or websites would include it in their review of any year. To include Junior Eurovision (which is currently on 2023) is even worse. 2A00:23C4:B18A:2E01:D1F:D7F4:656:1DE0 (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification: Discussion on Inclusion of Images for 2022
A discussion for the selection of images for the page 2022 is currently underway. 33ABGirl (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for a standardized process for yearly collage images
Background: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. Summary: Consensus was that collage images are acceptable for yearly articles. Concerns brought up were that there was no clear process to decide what images to use.

Proposal: A 3-discussion long process, with each step “advertised” well.
 * 1) A week (or longer) “candidates” time, where readers and editors are free to add events or image candidates they think could be in the yearly collage.
 * 2) After that “candidates” time, an RfC to “ratify” the candidates. Basically a discussion to solidify what images are going into the big survey in step 3. If multiple images are candidates for the same event, this step solves which image should be in the step 3 survey. This is also the final chance for “candidates” to be discussed before the true “vote”.
 * 3) After the candidates are “ratified”, a process similar to Request for Adminship occurs. Each “candidate” is given a sub-section title and editors and readers “vote” for their candidates. Each user only gets the number of votes as the collage will have in images. I.e. An 8-image collage means each user only gets 8 “votes”.
 * 4) The images with the most “votes” become the collage, per the then community consensus on the best and/or most important events & images.

Note: This proposal does not mean existing collages should be removed before this process occurs as per the consensus in the RfC linked in the background. However, this if we support this proposal, we begin the process for other years as well, abiding by Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines for consensus, WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, as well as, in cases of low-participation, WP:SILENCE (i.e. presumed consensus until challenged). ——— This process allows for: (1) All users and readers to be able to propose events they believe are significant. This will help counter any country-related bias. (2) The community to actually “vote” and truly decide what events (images) are the most important as well as the most ascetically appealing images are for the collage. (3) It allows for someone to go back and see if X event was thought about for the collage.

This process is the basis for what is currently ongoing to decide the 2023 collage, with Step 1 being in process. However, a user questioned this method, more as there was no “standardization” yet. So, to solve all problems, what is the community consensus on if we make this, at least for the present time, a “standard method and process” for yearly collage images. Thoughts? Questions? Comments? Do you support or oppose this proposal, which is currently in progress on 2023? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Partial support - This is a good method of establishing a consensus. New collages should be introduced with this method, and old ones superseded, but only after those RFCs have already been held. This proposal should not serve as a basis for yet another wave of image collage purging because consensus hasn't been achieved yet with this method, in the spirit of Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" and WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Furthermore, if RFCs on very old, low-traffic years fail to attract any participation from editors, we should default to using existing collages or adding collages unilaterally, as image collages are useful to readers, having encyclopedic pertinence. Koopinator (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)'''
 * Exactly! Collage purges should not occur again (hopefully ever) due to that longer RfC. This was just a process I thought of to help solve the issues about OR and no process that were mentioned in that large RfC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to add my caveats to your proposal? Koopinator (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I added a “Note” to the proposal. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Support due to the new note. Koopinator (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Would this only be for future years? Past years that are contentious (how would contentious be defined)? All years? If this were applied to previous years, that'd be a lot of RFCs. RFCs are very editor time intensive, and we should be careful to use them only when needed. Does the workflow above assume two RFCs per year article? – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be for all years. I don't think an RFC is what is being proposed. If this procedure is adopted by consensus, individual RFCs shouldn't be necessary. Deb (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * — I would say the process starts with WP:RFCBEFORE. Meaning, the process for past years would be attempted without RfCs until there is a need for RfCs. That said, I think the most immediate previous year (currently 2023) and future years (like the 2024 collage discussion in 2025) should probably need the RfC process at least for the 2nd or 3rd step. That is mostly due to debates and issues due to recentism, i.e. the current discussion for the 2023 collage is the …counting… fifth discussion started just for the collage. Obviously years like say 2008 or maybe even 2018 probably won’t attract a lot of participation (maybe I am wrong though), so the RfC process would be more of a waste and the SILENT consensus mentioned in the note would take affect. But yeah, based on historical debates, 2023 combined with future years definitely need at least 1 of the 2 steps to be an RfC or both steps. Time consuming, yes, but honestly, given the debate history with collages, for a while, it would be needed. That is my take on it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support this in principle as it is an adaptation of my own proposal on the discussion page. However, User:WeatherWriter is once again proposing that images be proposed before the major events have been identified by consensus. Events should be agreed prior to images being decided, otherwise edit warring is likely to continue. Deb (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Real question: Why would edit warring continue after this 3-step discussion? Step 2 is a ratification step, i.e. consensus must agree that no other candidates are needed or missing before the actual vote. That has been my question through our debate. You say we should do this based on “events” and you seem to say that without doing that, there will continue to be debates. How? If consensus must agree there is no missing images or event candidates to be voted on in step 2, how “will” there be continued edit warring even after the double-consensus vote? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it's less likely that we'll achieve consensus on images - because this has seldom happened in the past, which is because people are just choosing them in a subjective manner - than that we'll achieve consensus on the most important events - because we already discuss events before agreeing whether to include them, so by selecting the events first, we actually remove an unnecessary step. Deb (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that. I truly and honestly do not see how there cannot be a consensus for this proposal and method. It is, in plain steps, an RFC in the form of a RFA. Since we can clearly have a consensus on RfAs as well as RfCs, I cannot see how this would receive a no consensus. The only “no consensus” would be, exact duplicate votes and ties. I highly doubt more than 8 images will have the exact same number of votes. That would be one hell of a coincidence and a one-in-a-million shot. Plus, if ties do occur, we can just hold a brief discussion to see which has more notability…OR…just shrink the collage to not have a tie for the top images. But yeah, the physical only way to get a “no consensus” involves at least a 9-way tie. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not say that we couldn't achieve consensus; I simply explained why it is more likely that consensus will be achieved if the events are selected before people go off looking for pretty pictures of events that may well be considered unimportant by the rest of the community. Deb (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I may know where the confusion is. Imagine this is a 2-step process (Ignoring step 1). What you are thinking is exactly step 2, where editors discuss and debate what the most significant events or images for the year are. Step 3 is the then vote for the best images of those events. Step 2 is exactly what your proposal is: i.e. editors discuss the most important events and images and then have a consensus that no further events or images need to be in the vote. Step 3 is the vote. I think (maybe) step 1 confused you some. Step 1 is just a collection time to make step 2 not as painful. Mostly because the previous 2 attempts (including the one you wanted closed) started at step 2, which was not a good idea). Step 1 is solely to make step 2 easier by having maybe 80-90% of the events and attached images already present, so there is less that needs debated or discussed to “polish” off the candidates before the big vote. I still may not be understanding what you are trying to say, but based on our longer discussion at Talk:2023 and here, I truly believe step 2 is exactly what your proposal is, since that is where people actually vote to confirm no events are missing and if any are, they be added in. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Map in the 1921 in Ireland page & onward
Hello. The map at the top of the 1921 in Ireland page, should be colored to show the island as being split into different political bodies (I suggest green & blue). Then beginning with the 1922 in Ireland page, I think we should change the map to show only the country (now Republic of Ireland), not the entire island. Otherwise, we may be confusing people into thinking we're talking about the entire island. GoodDay (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Nobody's interested? GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistancy
I was recently browsing through the different articles on years prior to and following the first millenium, when I noticed the inconsistancy that all years prior to and including 1000 are marked with AD prior to it, whilst none of the years after this are. Surely either all years should be marked with AD, or none should be marked at all. WikiHmmmm... (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's true. I went to look into this matter and almost immediately ran into counterexamples such as 318, 649, 994, and more. However, to address the more underlying point: while consistency is indeed one of the article titling criteria, it's far from the only one. In this case, I think the policy that most directly undergirds the decision-making is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For many numbered years, the year is considered the primary topic for its title – there isn't a huge amount of encyclopedic material on the number 318, so it gets disambiguated, while the year 318 has greater encyclopedic significance and gets to hold the plain title "318". However, this balance of significance is not equivalent for every number–year pair. Sometimes, the number is judged to be the primary topic, particularly for low numbers like 5. Other times, there is believed to be no primary topic, and the plain title goes to a disambiguation page. This last situation is the case for 1000, which links to a DAB page, while AD 1000 and 1000 (number) are both disambiguated. In my opinion, the current system works well; it may not be perfectly consistent, but it's optimized to ensure that people have the easiest time navigating to the topics that they're likeliest to be seeking at any given title. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I still think that by defult years should be labled AD/BC whilst numbers are given (number) in brackets. WikiHmmmm... (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Resolution to the confusion
The original Rfc was specifically about individual years. Image collages for individual years are a far more contentious topic than the decades, centuries or millenia articles. It makes no sense whatsoever to remove the image collages for such large groupings of years which have common characteristics and historic events which inform viewers about the year grouping in question. On the other hand, for individual years, using collages becomes highly POV as the scale itself is so much smaller that there are proportionally far more important years to choose from for the event. The same can't be said about decades/centuries etc. because these large groupings have some clearly identifiable events which have vastly changed the course of history GymratW (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Disagree. As I said before: too much OR and potential for bias in constructing a collage. Also, individual images become hard to distinguish making them become nothng more than (hopefully) aesthetically pleasing blobs of color. If you want images on these pages, individual photos near the event in question would be FAR more useful than a jumbled collage.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The resolution to the confusion (i.e delete ), was rejected by the RFC-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * are you talking about individual years or decades? GymratW (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All of them, concerning image collages. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)