Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Years (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Move "Epoch (reference date)" to "Epoch (date reference)"?[edit]

Please see Talk:Epoch (date reference)#RFC:Undiscussed page move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talkcontribs) 02:47, February 18, 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Incumbent section of 'Year in place' articles.[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus on options A or B; consensus strongly against C - David Gerard (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Concerning the Year in Wales, Year in Scotland (post-1707), Year in England (post-1707) & Year in Northern Ireland articles. Should we?

A) Show the head of state (monarch), under the 'Incumbents' section.
B) Don't show the head of state (monarch), under the 'Incumbents' section.
C) In the (Wales) year articles, should we be showing (or not showing) the prince (and princess) of Wales in the 'Incumbents' section? GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[]


  • A; no on C - doesn't actually matter to the Cymri. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • B; yes on C - I don't see a problem with including the Princes (and Princesses) of Wales in the Wales years. They are incumbent postholders, after all, despite their being ceremonial titles. I'm not aware of current Princes or Princesses of England or Scotland or Northern Ireland, hence the question doesn't arise for these countries. I've no opposition to including the (UK) monarch, she's the head of state, after all. Unless we include the UK prime minister too, there's no need to include the monarch. Seems like a royalist affectation otherwise. Sionk (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A or B & no on C. Seeing as England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland are not independent countries. I've no problem with having or not having the British monarch listed. However (as I noted in the discussion below), the prince & princess of Wales do not belong in the incumbents section. They're are not Wales' monarch & consort. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • B and C: Yes. Deb (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A; no on C. Sea Ane (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • B and C: Yes. --Craigysgafn (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A or B, I don't mind; C definitely not (and even more definitely not for "Princess") - these are courtesy titles of almost no direct relevance to the country concerned. If we had a "Year in Devon" article would we include the Duke of Devonshire? - no. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A; no on C: Wales is not a principality. For those voting yes on C, may I ask what about the Prince of Scotland? Peter Ormond 💬 22:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
To answer that question, the title "Prince of Scotland", though it exists for historic reasons, is seldom if ever used, whereas the title "Prince of Wales" is the correct and most common way of referring to Charles. Deb (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Similary, the title of Prince of Wales "exists for historic reasons". It is used as a courtesy title, only used as a "common way of referring" to the heir apparent. And there has never really been a "PRINCE" of Wales, since Dafydd ap Gruffydd in 1285. Peter Ormond 💬 17:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A, no on C. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No on C, soft yes on B. The Prince/Princess of Wales isn't particularly relevant to Wales; it doesn't make much sense to list them as an incumbent with all that implies. To a certain extent, I would extend that to the monarch in regards to the four countries; while the monarch does hold significant powers, they are concentrated on the national level, and are not particularly relevant to the countries themselves. However, the matter isn't as clear cut as the Prince/Princess of Wales is. BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A; no on C. I think the Prince of Wales is paradoxiclaly more relevant to the Duchy of Cornwall than to WalesDeathlibrarian (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]


Late last night & very early this morning. I inserted the British monarch into the (1700 to 2021) Year in Wales articles 'incumbent' sections, while deleting the prince (princess) of Wales. I did this on the basis, that the prince of Wales does not reign over Wales & his wife is thus not the consort. I didn't expect to get any resistance on those articles, but I did today (by two editors) & so thus the opening of this RFC. I also noticed that the British monarch (and no other royalty) was in the incumbent sections of the Year in Scotland articles & the Year in England articles. The British monarch is also in the incumbent section of the Year in Northern Ireland articles, too (which I inserted months ago, I think) & with no opposition. Anyways, I was & am baffled by the objections to my changes at the Welsh Year articles. Had I known ahead, I would've brought the matter to discussion first, rather then go ahead & make the over 300 edits :( GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for reverting your mass changes. The format of the Year in Wales articles was discussed and agreed many years ago and has changed little apart from the addition of the Year in Wales header template. The Year in Wales articles began to be introduced in 2006, and at the time there were no equivalent articles for Scotland, England or Northern Ireland; the first of these appeared in about 2010 in order to emulate the Year in Wales articles. You seem to be under the impression that Wales and the other home nations of the UK are identical in status and nature. That is a misconception. There is absolutely no reason for the articles to have the same format, but all broadly follow the format for Year in Topic articles (which are all slightly different). The Year in Wales articles were specifically intended to record events in Wales and directly relevant to Wales. There is no reason for the monarch to be included in the "Incumbents" section, which is simply for recording those who hold particular positions directly relevant to Wales, for example the Archdruid and the Archbishop of Wales. I would suggest, if you want consistency, that you create an infobox for inclusion on all four of the "Year in [home country]" articles making it clear that they are constituent countries of the UK and nominally ruled by the Queen and the UK government, which would clarify matters for the casual reader. PS. Please don't suggest adding Boris Johnson to the Incumbents section on the grounds that he is PM of the UK, or you'll create further bad feeling. Deb (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The addition of the British prime minister isn't required. GoodDay (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I voted to keep the monarch in the list, but am beginning now to think that is an ugly compromise. After all, if we list the monarch we should also list the UK prime minister, who also governs over Wales, though not exclusively. Deb's suggestion of explaining the UK hierarchy in an Infobox is a better solution. "Incumbents" says 'post holders' to me. The Prince of Wales is an incumbent (ceremonial) post holder specific to Wales, as is the Arch Druid for that matter. Sionk (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The UK PM is relevant only for reserved and excepted matters. Other powers are devolved to the Senedd, which nominates a First Minister of Wales. See also First Minister of Scotland and of NI. Certes (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Let's keep in mind folks, this RFC will also decide whether or not the British monarch should be in the English, Scottish & Northern Irish Year articles' incumbents section. It's not only about the Welsh Year articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Better notify the relevant projects then. Deb (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I already did that, when I opened this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Sionk says above, "The Prince of Wales is an incumbent (ceremonial) post holder specific to Wales, as is the Arch Druid for that matter." Sorry. I can't agree. The Archdruid is a genuine post with specific duties having relevance for Wales. The title "Prince of Wales" is just a historical anomaly, and simply indicates the heir-apparent to the British throne who has no actual responsibilities. (Which is why I can't take the word "post" seriously.) It is a (relatively) harmless pretence to suppose that the title holder has some special sigificance for Wales, so I'm not opposed to including this information, though it wouldn't grieve me to see it omitted. But for heaven's sake, please don't include the name of the monarch. --Craigysgafn (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Clarify: But you still want the prince (princess) of Wales in the incumbent section of the Welsh Year articles? GoodDay (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Question: when the Senedd passes a bill, who is it that formally makes it an Act of the Senedd by signing it into law? I am pretty certain that it is (almost?) always Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, for so long as she remains alive. Occasionally it might be Charles, but that would not be as Prince of Wales but in his capacity as Regent during the temporary incapacity of the Sovereign. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
That's true, but you're suggesting that the "Incumbents" section relates to legislation. What makes you think that's the case? Deb (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The incumbents section: Should inclue to the 'head of state' (British monarch) over the constituent country, as well as the local 'head of government' (first minister) & indeed the local legislature. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Why? What's the rationale for this selective inclusion of 'incumbents'. Why the UK monarch but not the UK prime minister, for example. I'm curious to know. Sionk (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
As I understand it, the British monarch appoints the first minister of Wales & first minister of Scotland. I'm not certain about the first minister of Northern Ireland. I do know however, that the British prime minister doesn't appoint any of those officials. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
In theory, the British monarch appoints those ministers. In practice, they're political appointments: the ruling party or coalition makes a nomination for the monarch to endorse. Certes (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Maybe the name of the "Incumbents" sections need renaming or clarifying. Perhaps "Head of State (UK)", "Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland government", "Other incumbents" would be better? If we're basing it on who-appoints-who, well, the UK prime minister definitely appoints the Secretary of State why draw the line with the monarch but not the UK prime minister? It all seems quite random with no particular rationale. Sionk (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]

The British monarch appoints the Secretary of State, on the advice of the British prime minister. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]

The monarch is listed at the infoboxes of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so why shouldn't that be mentioned at the Years articles? Peter Ormond 💬 22:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]

The monarch is listed at the infoboxes of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so why does it need to be mentioned at the Years articles? Deb (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Exactly, Deb! In fact, by today, the English monarchy are only puppets, figure heads, hereditary anomalies, with absolutely no power other that over the minds of old Etonian, lager-drinking, tatoo-worshipering right wing nationalists. They are there to remind us of our place. They achieved power by their sword, viciousness, cruelty and are an insult to the average Welsh, Scottish, Cornish and Irish person. We don't need this insulting and political bias on Wikipedia thank you, GoodDay! In the name of decolonisation, common sense and democracy, let's leave them out altogether. Cell Danwydd (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The English monarchy ended in 1707, along with the Scottish monarchy. They merged to become the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[]
For 'British monarchy' read 'English monarchy', for as Gwynfor once said: “Britishness… is a political synonym for Englishness which extends English culture over the Scots, the Welsh, and the Irish.” Cell Danwydd (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]
The 1707 Acts of Union, 1800 Act of Union etc, have said otherwise. But of course, we're getting off topic :) GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Similarly, per your logic, the prime minister or the first minister is listed at the infoboxes of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so why does it need to be mentioned at the Years articles? Peter Ormond 💬 03:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Odd discussion. Despite having been arrested (but not convicted) for ABH against the current fake incumbent as Prince of Wales, I have included them in similar articles I have written on CY Wiki eg 1864 yng Nghymru, because, like it or not, they hold titles relevant to Wales. The boss of the UK, or the Empire isn't specifically relevant to "Wales" in 18xx etc, so isn't needed. That turns the article from being one about Wales to be a generic UK article, which already exists, and is linked to in the "see also" section of the info box in English! 1864 in the United Kingdom AlwynapHuw (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Wowsers. Almost a whole month gone by, since opening this RFC. Well, when the Template is removed (which will be soon)? I'll put in a request for closure. Seeing the backlog over there, it might take a while for a decision to be handed down, so be patient. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sent in the request. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@David Gerard: I've implemented the consensus concerning Option C. However, myself & @Deb: are in slight disagreement with how to implement the no consensus on Options A & B, particularly concerning the Welsh Year articles.

I think he & I do agree to not delete (per no consensus) the British monarchs from the English, Scottish & Northern Irish Year articles, per status-quo.

I will accept his deleting the British monarchs from the Welsh Year articles (per no consensus), due to its status-quo of 'not' having them.

Note- I plan, in the coming hours or days, to open up a follow-up RFC on 'add/delete' British monarchs to/from all the English/Welsh/Northern Irish/Scottish Year articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@AlwynapHuw:, recommend you read the above closed RFC, concerning the prince/princess of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]


I think that all of these pages should have a map of the world that shows what countries existed at that time. Probably just one for years but two for decades and centuries to show what's changed. It would be really ambitious though, so I would need help.Thoughtss? AmazinglyLifelike (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History § Women's rights by year article(s)[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History § Women's rights by year article(s). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The naming of years here only considers Europe[edit]

In most articles about years between about 700 BC and 550 AD it says that the year was known as the "year of the consulship of [two people]" or something Ab Urbe Condita, but this was only used in the Roman or Byzantine empires and it is incorrect to say that that is what the year was known as everywhere. It ignores the many other calendars used outside of the Roman or Byzantine empires. Aalaa324 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

That's a good point. I just opened one year in that range - 312 - and I notice that the lead says At the time, it was known as the Year of the Consulship of Constantinus and Licinianus (or, less frequently, year 1065 Ab urbe condita). The denomination 312 for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years. As you note, all of that is only true for a small part of the world, but the lead presents it as if it were simply the universal truth. This seems like a clear example of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS at play. Correcting it will be a lot of work because it applies to so many articles, but it doesn't seem like it should be that complicated. One solution would be to just move that entire part to a section called "Europe" or something along those lines. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]