Jump to content

Talk:2001

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Update on source-guided coverage versus OR coverage

[edit]

I've used year in review books by Time and Britannica to build basis for the article, in addition to some reports for specific subjects. I'm mainly writing this here for posterity, though I'd be elated if anyone else had ideas.

Demographics, conflicts, architecture and art, media, environment and weather, and health all largely use this better sourcing. Sports, economy, politics, religion, and science and technology still have significant "handpicked" content. The events timeline is still entirely handpicked, and there doesn't seem to be any immediately solution for it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and changed some of the content and sourcing, so now it better reflects what the sources indicate as major aspects of the year, and the events aren't dependent on sources from 2001 or 2002. That just leaves the events timeline at the bottom. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Births and deaths proposal

[edit]

As we discussed above, should we add "births and deaths" to this "Events" section below, which are three notable persons born in 2001, and notable event within list article, which it provide WP:NLIST:

Extended content
Main pages: Category:2001 births and Deaths in 2001

Prominent people born in 2001 included Rachel Zegler,[1] Dixie D'Amelio[2] and Billie Eilish.[3] The United States in particular saw 2,977 people killed during the September 11 attacks.[4][5] The year witnessed the passing of world leaders Laurent-Désiré Kabila,[6] Ahmad Shah Massoud[7] and Giovanni Leone;[8] and musicians Aaliyah[9] and George Harrison.[10]

References

  1. ^ @rachelzegler (3 May 2022). "it's m'birffffdayyyyy" – via Instagram.
  2. ^ "Inside Dixie D'Amelio's 21st Birthday Celebration in Las Vegas With Charli D'Amelio and Landon Barker". E! Online. 14 August 2022. Retrieved 27 October 2023.
  3. ^ Nast, Condé (19 December 2022). "Billie Eilish Wore a Santa Minidress to Her 21st Birthday Party". Teen Vogue. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Nadeem-2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference UN OCT-2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Assassinat de Laurent-Désiré Kabila : 20 ans plus tard, le mystère reste entier" [Assassination of Laurent-Désiré Kabila: 20 years later, the mystery remains unsolved]. RTBF (in French). 15 January 2021. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
  7. ^ "Death of an Afghan icon: 20 years since the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud". France 24. 9 September 2021. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
  8. ^ "Morto Giovanni Leone, il presidente del caso Moro" [Giovanni Leone, the president of the Moro case, dies]. la Repubblica. Rome. 9 November 2001. Archived from the original on 9 November 2001. Retrieved 27 October 2023.
  9. ^ "It's Been 20 Years Since R&B Singer Aaliyah Died In A Plane Crash". NPR. 25 August 2021. Retrieved 26 October 2023.
  10. ^ Namee, Dalton Mac (29 November 2021). "Today Marks 20 Years Since George Harrison Passed Away". Nova.ie. Retrieved 26 October 2023.

81.23.193.94 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the births you mention, Billie Eilish seems the only one that comes anywhere near the level of notability we'd need, and I don't think any of their births can be called "events". Deb (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just the same block evader who continues to post this same content to this talk page. It can be disregarded.-- Ponyobons mots 22:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But it seems like now there are some folks born in 2001 that could be added to the page besides Billie Eilish. Such as Dixie D'Amelio and Kai Cenat. I know these folks aren't much, but maybe we should take a look at all the Category:2001 births pages to see if anyone significant pops up. If not, maybe we should just add a section to this page but only have it say "main article (or see also): 2001 births" or something. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that people were born in the year doesn't make their births significant aspects of the year itself that need to be mentioned in the article. If you want to add see also links, they should go in a dedicated see also section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe, it's like undue weight. 103.156.248.45 (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too much content in the introduction

[edit]

I checked the section on architecture and found several inaccuracies. The source appears to be faulty. Two of the buildings said to have been completed/opened in 2001 were actually completed/opened in 2000. I think this 2018 source is probably based largely on Wikipedia entries. Besides, now that those entries that were correct have been moved to 2001 in architecture, this paragraph is just a duplicaiton what is in the main article. Hardly any of the content is of international significance and it doesn't belong in the introduction. Deb (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Responding here instead of my talk page as you've started two identical discussions and this seems the more appropriate venue. Addressing your points one by one:
  • I'm not sure what "2018 source" you're referring to, but I looked at all of the sources from 2018 and they all seem legitimate.
  • Per WP:SUMMARY both the higher level article and the lower level article should have coverage of the subject. In this case, 2001 would cover the most prominent examples (as it currently does) while 2001 in architecture would be more exhaustive.
  • I don't know what you're picturing when you say "international significance", but I hope it's not the thing that a handful of editors were enforcing in this topic area before I reported it at ANI, the community discovered it was bogus, and one editor was topic banned for continuing to try this. Regardless, what you're proposing doesn't seem to have any basis in policy and isn't any sort of standard practice in content creation, so it's not something I'm particularly interested in.
  • What are you referring to with "introduction"? If you mean the lead, it's not uncommon for articles of this length to have a lead of this size, though there is admittedly some subjectivity in what's included and it can be changed if it doesn't reflect the balance of the article. If you mean the entire article, then it should include broad coverage of each aspect in proportion to how it appears in the sources.
  • Regarding the individual items you removed in your third revert:
    • The inclusion of the SEG Tower was a mistake on my part; the source invoked it as a comparison to the DG Bank building, not for its own construction. Thank you for catching that.
    • Aurora Place seems to have been sold and began operation in 2001.[1] I wouldn't object to a tighter standard of only including structures created in 2001, even if there are buildings created in 2000 that had more overall impact in 2001. The important thing for me is that the subjects covered are shown to have due weight instead of being cherry picked.
    • The present day Changi Chapel and Museum opened in 2001;[2][3] you may be confusing it with the previous building that housed a museum on the subject.
    • As far as I can tell, the source's reference to the Queen Elizabeth II Great Court is about a studio exhibit held there for its architect to celebrate its inauguration, but it would already have been operating by that time, so no objections to its removal if that's not good enough.
Are there any other concerns, or is that everything? Pinging Freedom4U and Mathglot who are also involved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting with the OP premise: the Lead is about 2.3% of the total article size, which is quite conservative. I went to the Featured article category, picked a bunch of articles on one page, and checked the size of the lead as a percentage of the total size as calculated by {{Section sizes}}. Here's what I found: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari=3.2%; Caesar cipher=6.4%; Caroline Island=4.0%; Casablanca (film)=9.9%; Castle=5.2%; Cerro Blanco (volcano)=4.2%; Chagas disease=12.1%. So the lead here is the smallest of all the FA's I checked.
graphical representation of ratio of lead size to article size for seven FA's and 2001
Green represents the lead section, and yellow is the rest of the article. Total size of the article in kb given in the bar at left; percentage occupied by the lead is given at the end of each line.

179k 2001 = 2.4%
134k The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari = 3.2%
19.6k Caesar cipher = 6.4%
55.4k Caroline Island = 4.0%
110k Casablanca (film) = 9.9%
115k Castle = 5.2%
88.8k Cerro Blanco (volcano) = 4.2%
69.3k Chagas disease = 12.1%

Those FA lead percentages average out to 6.4, so if you wanted to make the lead at 2001 closer to the average lead size of the Featured articles I tested, consider doubling or tripling it. Mathglot (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of my main concerns is that the lead has been written by a single person who has made a subjective judgement on what is and what isn't important. Comparing the lead in a list article to the lead in an article that consists mainly of narrative prose is completely inappropriate. We have Year in Topic articles, which should have been checked before adding content here which was not included in those. I have not made three reverts. I've made an improvement by removing content that appears to have been included mainly as a space filler. Deb (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, the purpose of the lead is to summarize the body. If you feel that there are any sections in this article that are over or underrepresented in the lead, it would be more helpful if you could provide specifics. To your other points, I have already explained the relevant content-writing practices to you above if you could direct your attention there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New articles very often start out as a one-person effort, and any article written by a single person is going to reflect subjective judgements of what to include, so nothing unusual there. If that is your main concern, I don't know what to tell you, other than this is a wiki, so any editor can come along and change it, and this talk page exists to resolve any disagreements, which is what we are doing. You have a point about the lead of lists possibly being different, and I may look into that; my recollection is that there is a lot more variation in the lead of lists, and they range more widely, from very short to a lot longer, and I don't think this one is out of bounds. Mathglot (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did another test in response to your objection about not checking lists. So, I went to the 'Ca' page of Category:Featured lists that have appeared on the main page, clicked a bunch of articles and looked at them, and here's what I found: Caldecott Medal: 2.5%; Cardinal electors in the 2013 papal conclave: 6.3%; Cartography of Jerusalem: 10.1%; Charlie Chaplin filmography: 12.4%; Citra Award for Best Actress: 3.4%; Coldplay videography: 9.2%; Counties of Croatia: 10.7%. Average size of the lead as a percentage of the selected featured list articles was 7.8%; smallest was 2.5%. Mathglot (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

  1. ^ "Aurora Place seeks $700m". Australian Financial Review. 2009-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-30.
  2. ^ Hoffman, Steven J.; Wonu Veys, Fanny; Feldman, Joseph P; Barrett, Natasha; Lenz Kothe, Elsa; Crisà, Antonino; Mukhopadhyay, Sayantan; Morishita, Masaaki; Klekot, Ewa (2016-07-01). "Exhibition Review Essays and Exhibition Reviews". Museum Worlds. 4 (1): 215–237. doi:10.3167/armw.2016.040116. ISSN 2049-6729.
  3. ^ "This Building Next To Changi Prison Is Actually An Underrated Museum Dedicated To WWII POWs, And It's Just Undergone A Revamp". TODAY. Retrieved 2024-08-30.

The way this page is structured is frustrating.

[edit]

The surrounding years (excluding 2002) all have the same structure of the page. But this page (and 2002) do not? The main problem is that the event categories are on/near the bottom of the page while births and deaths aren't on the page at all. There are tons of topics that do not belong on this page. For example, "Conflicts in 2001" which the information could have just been added to the events category. Sopa De Letras 2001 (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The surrounding years are like that because no one has ever bothered to improve them. Regarding births and deaths, there was a discussion last year that these were overwhelming the articles and should instead be listed on their own pages. You can check out Births in 2001 and Deaths in 2001. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2001&oldid=1263644662"