Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years

Separating elections into their own sections

This is especially the case for the current year, and given that there are so many elections in many years, I think it's only appropriate that elections are moved into a separate section. I believe that their importance is diluted when they are thrown into the general events timeline, and a separate section would provide generally better organization for readers. We already do this on the US articles to highlight every US election in a single place while hatnoting the relevant general election article for further elaboration (such as 2023 United States elections). While for the globe it doesn't have to carbon copy the exact formatting, the principle itself should at least be implemented. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Support because we include almost all general elections for heads of state & government, and readers who want to look for updates or quick summaries not found in the electoral calendar articles would benefit. Also, general elections are the main topic that consistently gets mentioned. For most other topics (i.e. natural disasters, armed conflicts, diplomatic and political events) it's harder for those events to merit mention. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Formal deprecation of arguments to exclude entries based on Americentrism

We have been having this problem for the past two years and after multiple RFC's, and we still see exclusions of events and content due to "Americentrism" in places as recent as this year. Inherently, this contrasts with DUE. Too many times are editors removing or advocating for the removal of entries since they only affect the United States. In effect, this isn't following the DUE weight policy. This is outright anti-Americanism, and an attempt to bring back the old International Notability standard (INS), which has been proven as not in place at least thrice before on 2022, was the center of an ANI discussion which got INS heavily scrutinized and the primary instigator of INS TBanned, became formally deprecated via RFC last year, and was one of the primary areas of concern which led to editors being investigated and eventually confirmed as sockupuppets for the TBanned user.

I think the multiple discussions in the past have proven enough that INS's time is officially up; its attempted implementation is only taking the new form of "Exclude due to Americentrism". I propose that the exclusion of events due to Americentrism be formally deprecated and invalidated as an argument when it comes to "main year articles" such as 2024. If successful, I believe it necessary to link this discussion to the headers of all main year article talk pages. Given the nature of the most frequent contributors, I personally predict this will go to RFC eventually, though procedurally I think it is best to start here.

Pinging recent contributors to WPYEARS articles: @Yeoutie @JohnAdams1800 @ElegantEgotist @Alsoriano97 @Wjfox2005 (and I invite you to ping anybody else who you would believe be of particular value to the discussion.) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I fully support your efforts. Wjfox2005 (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

So you are saying "This thing is too minor to include" is valid, but "This thing only affected the US, so it shouldn't be included" isn't? Hmm. I suspect that a lot of the arguments are more nuanced, along the lines of "This only affected the US and was not major and therefore should not be included." Would you want such arguments excluded? Perhaps you should give us some examples of what you think is valid and invalid? Brianyoumans (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Broadly agree. But it doesn't need to be "deprecated", we just need to enforce existing policy. None of this would be an issue if the people in this topic area (and current events more broadly) put more effort into actually making helpful contributions based on reliable sources. Also, this WikiProject doesn't have any "authority" over any articles, which again goes back to applying sitewide consensus—a consensus that rejects the POV-pushing/OR that you're describing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully speaking, I think that there have been way too many RFCs and needs for sitewide attention to come to the years articles. I agree that we do indeed to better enforce site policies, but since I feel like it's almost a semi-annual event to get the entire community involved in these shenanigans and enforce DUE here, I think we do need to put in a more reasonable solution. I'm open to hearing other ideas on how to better enforce existing policy, but I think that at least as of right now, deprecation of a core argument against policy can set things in stone even more than it presently is, and enables for a quick, easy, community approved, and most importantly (referring to the Feb 2023 ANI) a traceable consensus which approves a solution to a persistent problem and policy violation. Unsure if the deprecation of arguments has precedent on WP the same way that legislation in countries' legal systems has invalidated arguments in court (feel free to ping me if something like this has happened before), so this is intended to be proposed as a novel solution, but one which I feel is needed nonetheless, at least until a better way to help enforce core content policies is drafted, proposed, and approved upon. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm totally disagree with InvadingInvader and a few things need to be made clear.

First of all, it should be made clear that my position is not anti-American, but anti-country-centrism. I don't care if it is the USA, Spain, India or Fiji, if I see that there is an abuse of the inclusion of news from a country I will question its notoriety from the first moment.

Secondly, and we must be well positioned. The United States is undoubtedly one of the most powerful countries in the world and historically one of the most influential in the daily life of, at least, the West. But this has not been achieved without a propaganda machine that since WW2 wanted to promote the values of American society in a world that, according to them, was savage. For this reason, the press since then is able to report on any trifle that happens in that country, be it silly or irrelevant: you will have a news item in Cyprus in which they talk about Biden's fall on a bicycle and another in Namibia in which they will talk about the fly that got on Mike Pence's head. And no, not because of that, as you will understand, it implies international notoriety.

That is why it is more important than it seems that, among the active editors, there are jurists, scientists, political scientists or simple experts in certain subjects that help us to evaluate in a more encyclopedic and less journalistic way the events that we want to include in Wikipedia. And that is why it is also important that editors from other countries around the world participate. Because, let's not forget, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news journal.

The criterion of international notability should never have fallen. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes things as they appear in reliable sources. If you feel that the sources are biased, then that's something you're going to have to work out yourself. Ideally, we'd try to avoid using journalism to determine relevance anywhere on Wikipedia, as I've previously written. But I've long since accepted that we just have to let the "current events" editors scramble and argue for a while. Then after a year or so, more capable editors can go through and fix the mess they made with higher quality sources, removing the cruft when much of what they argued about ended up being irrelevant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It is also true that this is the *English* Wikipedia. While it tries to include relevant information worldwide, I don't think it is necessarily bad if it includes more complete coverage of matters in America, the largest country of native English speakers, and other major English speaking nations. After all, the sources available in English for such matters are quite plentiful.

As far as tone or slant, we should always strive for an encyclopedaic, neutral tone, but we are also limited to what our sources say. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because years should be, like Alsor said, anti-country-centrism. It doesn't matter which country, entries in years must have sufficient due weight, plus coverage in RS and WP:GNG. Ameri-centrism is common because a plurality of Wikipedia editors (20%) come from the United States, even though less than 5% of the world population lives in the United States. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are incorrectly using the term "due weight" in a manner which contrasts from Wikipedia policy's definition. "Due Weight" as defined by policy is judged upon by coverage in RS's. You seem to interpret that Due Weight means how much substance a particular event has. That's wrong, and it's closer to International Notability than due weight. If anything, your definition of due weight seems to inherently violate what is actually due weight. Wikipedia doesn't exist for anyone to right great wrongs, and advocacy for less US-centric coverage in a manner noncompliant with the actual Due Weight policy is specifically banned here per WP:NOT. I would suggest that you give WP:DUE a good hard read again. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I Have 3 suggestions for Decades Articles!

1. I'snt bad to remake the "Leaders" Sections, Just don't include more than 145 Leaders. Important Leaders don't Include JFK, Churchill, De Gaulle and Thatcher. For example Tage Erlander Prime Minister of Swedeen (1946-1969) and the political expresser of "Swedish Model", or Tassos Papadopoulos, President of Cyprus, in the period 2003-2008 known for the opposition in Annan Plan, is important too. 1/3. EditingIsMyHobby (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I Have 3 suggestions for Decades Articles! (2)

2. Through my research I realised that the lists "People" deal with theoritical personalities and people of spectacle.

Try to help me with a list of Scientists and Engineers from 1950s to 1990s. I'll make a first draft of a list with some names of Scientists and Engineers active in between the 50's and 60's with excelent contribution throughout this decade. The names are the following:

Mathematics

Alexander Grötending: (I don't know the spelling), German Mathematician, one of most influencial Mathematicians and awarded with Fields Medal in 1966 (1960s).

Alan Turing: In the last years of his life the British Mathematician made progress in fields of Artificial Inteligence and Mathematic Biology (1950s).

Physics and Astronomy

Stephen Hawking: Already from 23 years old the British Astrophysican was developing Theories like the "Hawking Radiation" (1960s)

Charles Towns: American Physican, inventor of Laser (1960s).

Chemistry

Stephanie Kwolek: American Chemist, known for the ivention of Kevlar (1960s).

Linus Pauling: American Chemist, Researcher and Professor: (1950s)

Frederic Sanger: British Chemist, known for progressies in Genetics (1950s).

Joseph Simmons, American Chemist, inventor of Teflon (1950s).

Alexander Todd: British Chemist, known for progressies in Biochemistry (1950s).

Biology and Biosciences

Rosalind Franklin American Chemist, Maurice Wikllins British Chemist, James Watson and Frances Cirk both British Biologists. All known for the discovery of DNA structure (1950s - 1960s).

Electronics and Computer Engineering

Mohamed Atalla, Egyptian Physican, Chemist and Electronic Engineer, inventor of MOSFET (1950s).

Walter Brattain, John Bardeen, and William Shockley, American Physicans specialized in Electronics, known for invetion of Transitor (1950s).

George Devol, American Electric and Electronic Engineer, inventor of First Industrial Robot (1960s).

Jack Kilby, American Physican specialized in Electronics, Creatror of the First Intergated Circuit (1950s).

Consumer Electronics

Peter Goldmark, American Electrical Engineer and Inventor of NTSC Television System (1950s).

Pier Giorgio Perotto, Italian Electrical Engineer, Creator of Programma 101, one of the first cormmecial electronic calcucator (1960s).

Aerospace Engineering

Sergey Korolyev, Soviet Aerospace Engineer, Leader of Soviet Space Programs Sputnik and Venera (1950s - 1960s).

Werner von Braun, German Aerospace Engineer and Physican, Leader of Apollo American Space Program (1950s - 1960s).

Automotive Engineering

Spen King, British Automotive Engineer known for pionnering work in cars Like the Rover P6 (Referd in him era as one of

the most safest car), and the Range Rover. (1960s)

Rudolf Uhlenhaut, German - British Automotive Engineer, known for work in Mercedes - Benz, such the Racing W Seires of 1950s and 300SL (1950s - 1960s).

Felix Wankel, German Mechanical Engineer, inventor of Engine with rotating piston (1960s).

Medicine Christian Barnard, South - African Surgerist, responsible for the first sucssecful heart transplant (1960s).

Jonas Salk, American Medical Researcher, invented the Polio Vaccine (1950s).

Agriculture and Agronomy

Norman Borlog, American Agronomist, inventor of Borlog Variant of Wheat, Awared with Nobel Peace Prize.

3. Also the "Visual Artists" Sections need restore.

4. 2000s it's official retro, and in general "People Section" also need restore.

Please, let's make a discssution. EditingIsMyHobby (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

One more name.

Electronics and Computer Engineering

Seymour Cray, American Electrical Engineer and creator of some of most Signature Supercomputers. EditingIsMyHobby (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)