Wikipedia talk:Notability (years)

message: Why in the world do we need another guideline?  Is there a meaning problem this seeks to address?  Does this represent a practice at WP, or is this just a precriptive whim? --Kevin Murray 18:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it represents a practice here at WP, one in fact which has so far been dictated by commonsense. The reason for this prescription is that when it comes to numbers some people think they're the only ones who know numbers are infinite and they cite that Wikipedia doesn't have articles for every single year. So the presence of this guideline shows anti-number sneerers that when it comes to years, everyone has expected people to act with commonsense and people have lived up to this expectation even in the absence of a writing down of the guideline. PrimeFan 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WHY?

message: We have pages for years (e.g. 2007), for months of specific years (e.g. August_2007), for months of the year (e.g. August), for days of the year (e.g. August 27), days of the week (e.g. Monday). Tell me if I've missed anything in this list. We don't have pages for times of the day (e.g. 11:00am), or days of the month (e.g. the 27th), independent of month.
:You missed articles about years in specific fields, like 2007 in sports. I think most of us agree we need 2007. Not all of us might agree we also need 2007 in sports. Knodeltheory 21:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess what I would say about that is that those articles are very similar in nature and purpose to the specific year articles, except obviously more specific. I.e. they're useful for making comparisons about what kind of events were happening at similar times in those respective fields. I guess if we want that content (remember, notability doesn't regulate content), it's best to put it in another page, simply because otherwise the main year page will get bloated and biased towards the sub-topic. -- BenBildstein 00:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. 2007 in sports is far more encyclopedic because it addresses an actual topic. Somebody doing research on sports, for example, would find a page like that to be useful -- though probably more useful if further subdivided into Baseball, Football, etc. Getting a list of "everything that happened in 2007" is far less useful and is simply trivia as there is no logical connection between all of the events. Ham Pastrami 14:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I question the value of knowing that Tom Sawyer and the telephone to have been produced around the same time. If neither article references the other, because neither has any impact on the other, then on what basis is it anything more than trivia to know that they were both produced around the same time? Basically, this is like saying that the Challenger disaster and Super Bowl XX are inherently related because they both occurred in January 1986. That fact is trivia, IMO. What really bothers me about the year articles, however, is that it encourages people to wikilink *every* month, day, or year being mentioned in an article, which to me is a clear case of overlinking. If anything, this guideline should serve to instruct people not to do this kind of thing. Ham Pastrami 14:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *I agree with you about overlinking. I've noticed it too - it's just not useful! My only guess at it's purpose is to collect backlinks so you can later find out what happened in, say, January 1986. But it's obviously an incomplete way to do it because not everyone conforms (nor should they have to). But to your main point, I'd have to agree that these two examples of connections (and this kind of connection more generally) are trivia. But thinking about that, what's not trivia? I guess everything presented in any year article is trivia, in that it's taken out of context and put into a bullet list. But no one is suggesting that's a bad thing, are they? I mean sure, you could argue for removing all year pages from Wikipedia, but you'd have a snowball's chance. WP:TRIVIA doesn't say "don't include trivia", it just says "avoid creating lists of [trivia]". Are you suggesting rewriting such pages in paragraph style? A lot of encyclopedic content is trivial, but I'm unaware of any opinion (let alone consensus) that the trivial should not be allowed in Wikipedia. Imagine if we had to justify the value, to potential readers, of every bit of information on Wikipedia! -- BenBildstein 07:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * I did the same thing in a more random selection and didn't find any omitted years in the common era.  Hypothetically, I'd say that you are right, but in practice there is something significant in each year and the infrastructure lends itself to allowing a page per year.  The current system is not perfect, but it seems to be fairly sensible and workable.  Why fuss with prescribing something other than what has already evolved in a very organized manner?  --Kevin Murray 11:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree. I wouldn't prescribe that we shouldn't have pages when there is nothing interesting to report, I would simply advise against it. Then again, it probably makes more sense for the notability guideline to say "such years are not notable" and then if an AfD comes up, for us (as Wikipedians) to say "yes, it's not notable, but let's keep it for consistency's sake". -- BenBildstein 12:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do we have pages for years at all?

message: Doesn't this fall under WP:NUMBER? >Radiant< 11:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. There's some overlap between the year and number articles (specifically that they ought to be cross-referenced where applicable) but other than that we're talking about two different animals. We are striving to make the number articles encyclopedic articles which are first and foremost about the mathematical properties of specific numbers (and besides WP:NUMBER also covers articles about kinds of numbers, like primes and squares, so piling on years would be an overextension. The year articles are almanacic rather than encyclopedic (though they are tremendous help in organizing the encyclopedic content and a vital cross-reference for biography articles). Knodeltheory 21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. WP:NUMBER feels overextended as it is. Anton Mravcek 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Either way, we need to figure out what we want the guideline to be before we try to merge it. -- BenBildstein 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline needs to be something that builds on commonsense for the cases that are not as easily justified by commonsense. Anton Mravcek 21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the ultimate consensus is that commonsense is sufficient, I'd like to see something, somewhere, saying something to the effect of "when it comes to the notability of years, use commonsense." Somewhere! -- BenBildstein 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be shrill and condescending. Anton Mravcek 02:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy? 

message: * Year in field (like 2005 in music)
* Fictional references to future years (like 2015 and 2285
I'd like this policy to address split off topics, to give hard and fast rules about when it is and when it isn't a good idea to split off a year by topics. 1892 in music might be necessary, but I doubt we could say the same thing about 1102 in music. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'd like to see this policy address is fictional references to future years. I think both Wikipedia and Memory Alpha ought to have articles about individual episodes of Star Trek, but only Memory Alpha needs to have articles about years for which the only thing we can say is that such and such Trek episodes are set in that year. Either way the concensus decides this matter, I will support adoption of this policy. ShutterBugTrekker 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we all agree (correct me if I'm wrong) that fictional references to future years are not enough to justify Wikipedia having articles on those years, even if they are enough to justify dedicated wikis (like Memory Alpha) to have articles on those years. So if you agree on this, ShutterBug, can we count on your support for adopting this policy? Anton Mravcek 02:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I support adoption of this policy provided it has what you tried to add yesterday about fictional references to future years. With something similar to your version of yesterday, this policy says everything it needs to say (in my opinion), and relieves overcrowding at policies which are only vaguely similar. ShutterBugTrekker 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support adoption of this policy. I think it adequately addresses the two issues that have been brought up in here. Cromulent Kwyjibo 19:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Count me in on supporting this policy. There's pressure to make it super-brief, but as long as it addresses the two issues raised here, I'm OK with it. CompositeFan 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good policy. I support adopting this policy. I can't think of anything else that needs to be addressed, but such things probably wouldn't crop up until after adoption. Del arte 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support adopting this either as it's written as of today or as of the first draft. Cholerashot 14:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things this policy needs to address 

message: I believe that setting a notability guideline stating that articles regarding future years are notable is in direct conflict with the exisiting policy at WP:CRYSTAL. --Kevin Murray 21:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To have scheduled an event for the future is something that was done in the past. Most normal people don't look at a crystal ball to tell what was done in the past. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are future years notable?

message: Here's the bit on future years:
"A year which has not yet begun is notable if major national or international events have been scheduled for that year and it is highly likely that they will still occur in that year even if a major catastrophe occurs. For international events that take place in a different venue each year, the venue needs to have already been chosen before listing in an article for a year to come (e.g., the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, the 2010 International Congress of Mathematicians in Hyderabad)."
*What is a 'major' national event? Does it have to be notable?
::Yes. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When did it ever say "major"? Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so I'm rewording accordingly. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Reworded as hinted at. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It goes to show verifiability. The 2048 Olympics aren't currently verifiable. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's not second-guess WP:V. It's WP:V's job to say what is and isn't verifiable, and content that isn't shouldn't be included. The 2048 Olympics aren't currently verifiable, but they could conceivably be. Seriously. What if the IOC took the unprecedented step of deciding that the 2048 Olympics were going to be held in 2049? There'd be lots of coverage. It could be verifiable. Why shouldn't we include it? -- BenBildstein 00:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a need to address the "sub"-topics that have been identified ("things this policy needs to address" section above), but we seem to have gotten bogged down on what, as PrimeFan so eloquently put it, "commonsense has already dictated." Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future years 

message: The "Years to come section" attempts to narrowly define notability for the future.  To say that the events are to be notable and verifiable for all years past, present and future is sufficient.  Why do people think that more is better when it comes to rules?  Effectiveness is not measured by the pound; a short actionable guidline which reflects actual practice at WP is what we seek.  --Kevin Murray 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's possible to go to the other extreme and make things so brief it doesn't address the nuance someone might be wondering about. ShutterBugTrekker wants some guidance regarding fictional references to future years. If we just have one short umbrella sentence, ShutterBug might've wondered if it means that it's not allowed at all or if we just didn't think about it at all. Anton Mravcek 19:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Justification etc. belongs on the talk page.  Perhaps we need a bit more clarity, but closer to the shorter version. --Kevin Murray 19:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. But let the record also show that merging this guideline anywhere else would work against clarity, even if the proposed merge-into is marginally related (e.g., the articles about integers that have disambiguation links to years). CompositeFan 20:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My first goal is clarity of guidelines to avoid confusion.  I see brevity of text and fewer pages which require preambles etc, as a step toward the goal of clarity.  Clearly there are situations where having separate guidelines induces clarity; however, having too many guidlines inherently adds to confusion.  --Kevin Murray 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Years to come section

message: That's what this page seems like. Things like WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:SPORTS seem like acceptable guidelines for notability, but this just seems too much. Perhaps merge with WP:NUMBER?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That "instruction creep" comment would've made more sense for the first draft of this proposed policy. But after merciless editing that removed all the inessentials (and sometimes even the essentials), instruction creep is not likely to happen. Anton Mravcek 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No, merge to WP:NUMBER is an awful idea. For that idea to even begin to make sense, you first have to suggest merging the number and year articles together. Otherwise it makes as much sense as merging WP:BIO and WP:SPORTS together. CompositeFan 16:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hardly a solid argument. We could easily have a single page explaining both the year articles and the number articles - just like we have different articles on sportsmen and sport teams. Obviously one guideline can cover multiple articles. >Radiant< 16:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but at least sports teams and individual athletes are more closely related than years and numbers. We are talking about two very different animals here: the year articles are almanac-like content listing events that happened in those years, while the number articles are encyclopedic articles focused primarily on discussing the interactions of the mathematical properties of the number in question. Anton Mravcek 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *That is true, but while we appear to say a lot about numbers, we have so far been unable to state much more than a single line about years. There doesn't seem to be enough for them to "stand on their own". >Radiant< 08:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oh ho ho ho, my spidey sense is tingling on this one! Anton's reply to HisSpace led me to look at the history on this one. PrimeFan's first draft was a lot longer. Was the pruning out of a genuine drive to boil down to essentials, or merely a calculated ploy designed to enable the "it's too short to stand on its own" argument? Cholerashot 14:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: **I'm not the one pruning it down. Note, however, that PrimeFan's draft was substantially longer than the original version (which was a single sentence on WP:NUM). Was the enlarging a genuine drive to increase its scope, or merely a calculated ploy designed to remove a perceived eyesore from an allegedly-mathematical page? >Radiant< 14:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who wrote WP:NUMBER? Not PrimeFan, nor any member of WP:NUM. The whole raison d'être of WP:NUMBER was exclusively to condescend to number theory aficionadi. I think I speak for the members of WP:NUM when I say that we'd be quite alright with the deletion of WP:NUMBER and the maintaining of a single, non-condescending sentence at WP:NUM. Anton Mravcek 22:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *No, the whole raison d'être of WP:NUMBER was exclusively to explain to people who thought it'd be fun to make articles on 5473895734895 and triquadnilium that we really don't want such articles. If you believe there are many people who want it deleted, I'd suggest WP:MFD. >Radiant< 12:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * Why would a longer rambling guideline be more defensible?  Are people packing fluff into guidelines only to justify stand alone status?  If a guideline can be distilled down to a sentence, then it is all the more clear and thus useful. --Kevin Murray 14:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruction creep 

message: Quoted from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:
A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus for acceptance is not present after a reasonable time period, for which consensus is unclear after a reasonable time period for discussion regardless of whether there is active discussion or not, or where discussion has substantially died out without reaching consensus. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected.
There has been no discussion regarding this proposal for two weeks and the main proposal page has not been edited for nearly four weeks. Should this be tagged as ? Its long form was critised for containing too much non-essential content and its short form seems little more than a restatement of existing policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia:Fiction, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and WP:CRYSTAL. Any thoughts? Black Falcon (Talk) 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I do like the current form better, but just don't see a compelling need for this to be a guideline. --Kevin Murray 22:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's hope no one notices how many users have expressed their support of this proposed policy, earlier on in this very talk page. Anton Mravcek 22:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that the number is significantly more than the # of people who've voiced objections. Besides, a "support, great idea" without further participation in the discussion or an attempt to edit the guideline to address standing concerns is not especially useful. Also, please note the part of the above quote that starts with "consensus need not be fully opposed...". Nonetheless, I genuinely fail to see what need this proposed guideline fill? It consists of 5-6 sentences which only repeat what is explicitly stated or implied by the five policies and guidelines listed above. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected?