Hi! I’m a public radio reporter working on a story about the challenges of editing Wiki pages related to Palestine and Israel in the current moment. I’m hoping to interview some active editors about their experiences right now. Can you email mdalton at ct public dot org? Appreciate all your efforts so much! 69.126.242.38 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not include domestic events, notable astronomical events, etc in future year pages? First, these events are included in event lists of past years. Second, I just don’t see the point of omitting them, there aren’t very many non domestic events to include anyways, and you’d expect any international events included, people would know of anyways CoastRedwood (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was decided close to five years ago that we wouldn't include eclipses in main year articles. As far as domestic events go, every country has a respective year page ie 2024 in the United States, 2024 in China, etc.

The point of omitting most domestic events is Wikipedia tends to only focus on western countries, limiting domestic events to their respective country articles allows editors to contribute evenly for each one. PaulRKil (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why shouldn’t construction projects be included though? CoastRedwood (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also I should add: why do events in future year pages have to be notable? And some of the entries you removed seem notable enough anyways. CoastRedwood (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do editors insist on omitting so many categories of events from the year pages? Not just eclipses, but construction projects, software decommissionings, probably more. CoastRedwood (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Users insist on omitting or including so many categories because those same users have reached consensus on what merits inclusion in the past as I have said with eclipses. I'm generally open to making changes to inclusion criteria but as I have always referred to rubrics such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/criteria for inclusion criteria. As I've said, consensus exists regarding a majority of items that have been removed. I have even opened a discussion for reconsidering events like the UEFA tournaments because you're not the only one interested in their inclusion.

And to note, some of the events I listed did not have a source to back up the year as was the case with New Horizons.

I'd also prefer that you go to the talkpage for each year, go to the the years talkpage, or the editors talkpage instead of using the edit notes to call out other editors. PaulRKil (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There’s quite a few unsourced things in Wikipedia overall. There isn’t a strict rule for sourcing content in the rest of Wikipedia. CoastRedwood (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“There isn’t a strict rule for sourcing content in the rest of Wikipedia.”

That is simply not true Wikipedia:Reliable Sources outlines the need for things to be spruced. PaulRKil (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean it’s only a guideline. Just looking at pretty much any one random article you will probably find quite a few things that aren’t sourced at all (and then some more which aren’t reliably sourced). As far as I know sourcing added content is a guideline, not a requirement. Although I haven’t actually read the page, so the observations I pointed out could just mean a lot of editors break the rulesCoastRedwood (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to this revert, I see that you have cited an essay. As it clearly says on the top of the page, a essay contains .. advice or opinions and is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. The essay in question was authored by a single editor. Both other editors who made further edits added disclaimers stating that the essay held no weight as policy. 1, 2

I would like to draw your attention to a community discussion where it was made very clear that the community found hand-waving and citing of nonexistent consensus unacceptable on WP:YEARS related pages. I strongly recommend that you take some time to review the discussion I've linked before making any more edits. I also suggest you think very carefully about what edits you make in the future. Please consider this a formal warning from me. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've never been a fan of the unofficial "international notability" requirement that was the crux of that community discussion and that's never been my reasoning for removing content but the idea that there is no consensus on many of my reverts is simply not true. I used the essay because it seemed to reflect consensus in archived discussions and I misread an archived discussion where users discussed moving the essay to the years homepage which I had incorrectly concluded that users found it to be an acceptable rubric for what gets included.

For that, I apologize but consensus seems to exist for many of the edits including public domain and eclispes for example. Regarding sporting events, I've personally opened an RfC regarding them. I could create a new RfC for every edit you've taken issue with but I'd personally find it overkill.

For other edits, they simply lack sources and I cant find anything to support them such as the olympics vote entry or the sources contradict the statement being made as in the case with Artemis. If you want a fresh RfC for everything, that certainly can be done.

Additionally, I don't appreciate the threatening and deprecating tone of your comment. PaulRKil (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Paul, thanks for liking some of my edits. I'm also one of the many people she's being hostile to, breaking WP:CIVIL. She's telling us what not to do, as though she has authority. However, she's an ordinary editor like us, not an admin. She made a false 3RR & sockpuppetry report against me & is canvassing to find people to back her unreasonable claims against me. We're both good editors, yet she's trying to prevent us from continuing to improve articles! X2023X (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. Nonetheless, I've opened a noticeboard regarding this incident because it simply did not sit well with me. I will let it be handled there. PaulRKil (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]