Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years

Remove all form of galleries and add images to the sections instead

I found that the galleries in year, decade and centuries articles are often made in poor taste and does not provide any context to the reader. The captions are insanely long, not to mention that this is a nightmare to read for mobile readers. I would suggest that no lead image should be added and instead images should be added at individual sections, i.e. topics and each month for year articles. That would also necessitate changes in {{Year in various calendars}} so that images can be added in january for year articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: I am aware of the previous RFC. I do not feel satisfied about the closure because it fails to address that such a collage is very cumbersome to decipher for readers. It may be easy for us editors to edit those collage, but for the reader it is a slog to read. And it inherently violates our guidelines on image galleries in general. What I suggest here is not that controversial, the final product would still be a gallery of signficant pictures but being broken up into images per month/topic. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you're going to need another RFC to overturn the previous one. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

1989 requested move

I can't see that this has been noted here, so FYI there is a discussion which would involve 1989 to AD 1989 here - Talk:1989_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_6_May_2024. I only noticed this as I have 1989 watchlisted due to vandalism on it. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism at Year in the United States pages

Just a heads up. A mobile editor keeps deleting outgoing presidents & outgoing vice presidents from YEAR in the United States pages. See
1974 in the United States,
1977 in the United States,
1981 in the United States,
1989 in the United States,
1993 in the United States,
2001 in the United States,
2009 in the United States,
2017 in the United States
2021 in the United States
GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Both myself & @Kpgjhpjm:, had to revert the vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023 Perth City Council election#Requested move 9 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Perth City Council election#Requested move 9 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

W-VHS Cassette

This product was put on sale in 1993, but a former user wrote that it was in 1994. I fixed it, but I cannot remove the "Products introduced in 1994" button on the W-VHS topic. I want it to be removed from this list and added to the year 1993.

W-VHS: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-VHS

Products introduced in 1994: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Products_introduced_in_1994 EFI Shell (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Chinese dating (WP:BIAS/WP:UNDUE)

This has been briefly and unclearly mentioned before but the current treatment of Chinese dating in our year by year infoboxes is nearly entirely mistaken. Yes, the sexagenary cycle is real and important to mention.

A. No, Yellow Emperor dates aren't really a thing, the way they're being presented.

I mean, sure, they're a thing in the exact same way AUC dates are. They're a fad some people went through in the 19th & 20th century, largely based on the mistaken idea that other important people had used them. The Romans actually almost entirely used eponymous consular dating. The Chinese actually entirely (except for that fad still somewhat upheld on almanac-style Chinese lunisolar calendars) used imperial era names.

It's a more valid notable system than the Discordian calendar we keep as lagniappe from Wiki's fun early days, sure, but it's entirely WP:UNDUE to treat it as the Chinese year now and just a WP:LIE to treat it as the Chinese year in any historical context. It's fine to keep but it absolutely needs to be labeled (YE, AH, AHD, whatever) to clarify what it is, which isn't the "Chinese calendar year".

B. No, we don't need to include two Yellow Emperor dates.

There's a list of different epochs on our Chinese calendar page. No, the other ones aren't as notable (especially in English) as YE dating and don't need to be included in the infobox. However, absolutely none of them involve a computation that even remotely produces an equivalent year 4514/4515 for AD 2024.

The same section of the same page includes what I think the second "Chinese year" in the infobox is trying to do: In 1905, the Jiangsu provincial government used a system that would've made 2024 the year 4514/4515 if anyone still used their system. Per cursory Googling in English, we're the only ones who seem to and we should just stop. Unless the second system is actually still prominently used (which the article should be changed to discuss), no, it isn't important to cover variant YE dates any more than all the variant AUC dates or Marianus Scotus's variant AD computation that was popular for a while in the 12th century.

C. Yes, we absolutely need to include the era dates.

Like the Greek and Romans, actual Chinese dating was based on regnal eras. Years in some periods like the Northern and Southern Dynasties had more than one era name and both should be included. Years were double counted as the last year of a dying emperor's reign and the first year of his successor's; both should be included. Reigns before the Han dynasty without formal era names should just list the regnal names (or conventional regency name) standard in Chinese historiography at least as far back as the Eastern Zhou. We could simply omit less certain regnal years before that or include conventional dates from a single system along the same lines as the calculation of the Yellow Emperor's reign in the first place; we don't seem to include footnotes on questionable eras for the other sections but could for those if people felt strongly about it.

In any case, there's at least 2000-odd years of an established dating system being used by roughly a fourth of humanity that we aren't mentioning or even vaguely hinting at. We should fix that.

D. Eh, the "Minguo calendar" is simply the continuation of the exact same system,

switched over to Gregorian months and years. I get why you might not want to include it in the "Chinese year" section after 1949 and why that means not including it before 1949 either. Fact remains that it's literally the exact same system, using the people's government as the new eternal era name. Similarly, as far as our article on the Republic of China calendar knows, it isn't used for dates before 1912. Our template currently (mis)uses it for ~3000 years before 1912, at least as far back as 719 BC. It's possible some people have used it that way, which should be added to our article. It's certainly uncommon and the infobox shouldn't be using it for any of those earlier years at all, just like we don't have a Juche calendar date for 1900.

E. No, we shouldn't have a separate name for the ROC era.

The Minguo era page might very well be in the wrong place. The discussion for its move from Minguo calendar to Republic of China calendar was very short and apparently based on misreliance on misplacement of the Juche calendar page to "North Korean calendar". Whichever is right, though, our infobox and the page should be using the same name for the same epoch.

 — LlywelynII 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)