WT:Timeline standards#Past vs Present tense again

I think this is the correct talk page for this. Year, decade, century, and millennium articles seem to collect anniversaries of notable events, such as the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the RMS Titanic in 2012, the tricentennial of the founding of the United States in 2070s, quadricentennials (which probably should be "tercentennials") in 22nd century, millennials in 28th century, etc. I propose a general standard that states

Anniversaries should not be listed unless there was (for past events) a notable celebration/memorial, or (for future events) a notable celebration/memorial is presently planned.

Any other suggestions? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

:@Arthur Rubin Notable is the keyword, and yes you are right. Unless the anniversary events are notable they do not belong in the article, except perhaps to simply say that they have occured, and in which year. 2604:3D09:8878:4500:5DC3:422F:E902:6594 (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this page dead, also? My comment above, more than a month ago, hasn't got a response.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

:I've been watching, but our categories system horrifies me, so I don't have anything useful to add to that thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to present facts and ideas, not trivia; so random possible future anniversaries (as opposed to expected events i.e. eclipses) are not relevant - perhaps the best place to raise it is on the talk page and then delete said trivia. I would support that. On another note, quadricentennial is awkward but probably correct as consistent in Latin origins; tercentennial is used although stylistically wrong as it is a Greek-Latin hybrid--AssegaiAli (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently the standard for the year pages describes the events section as follows:

The events section is divided into months, each month has a calendar at the beginning and lists any important events that occurred. The month header once linked to the particular month in the year (if the page exists, eg. January 2004), but doesn't anymore. Every item links to the day.

Articles for the year 500 BC and earlier should be redirected to the relevant decade. Articles for the year 1700 BC and earlier should be redirected to the relevant century. Articles for the year 4000 BC and earlier should be redirected to the relevant millennium.

YMCA has a timeline of the history of the organization. Currently it's a simple bullet list, e.g.:

• Before 1844: The oldest of all YMCA-like organizations is the Basel association, which was founded in 1787 as Lediger Verein. Bremen Jünglingsverein was founded in 1834. All German Jünglingsvereine were cancelled by Nazis and re-established after the war as CVJMs (German initials for the YMCA). In Britain the oldest association is in Glasgow where it was founded in 1824 as Glasgow Young Men's Society for Religious Improvement. In France the Société Philadelphique was founded in Nimes in 1843.

• 1844: George Williams was a 23-year-old draper, typical of the many young men who were being drawn to big cities by the Industrial Revolution. His colleagues were similarly employed, and they were concerned by the lack of healthy activities for young men in cities such as London. The alternatives were often taverns, brothels, and other temptations to sin. On June 6, Williams founded the first YMCA in London for "the improving of the spiritual condition of young men engaged in the drapery and other trades."

• 1851: There were YMCAs in Great Britain, Canada, the United States, Australia, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and France.

Is there a more formal standard for such timeline lists? {{Tl|timeline-item}} seems plausible, but appears to be used in only one article.

Jordan Brown (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:@Jordan Brown I don't know exactly what you are refering to, but I have to say that I love the way it is written. Past tense is the only way to write about the past, and just hate it when people who are trying to be cool use present tense to talk about the past. I can tolerate it if I must in very brief spurts, but long spiels like this article drive me so nuts that I cannot absorb any of the content. It needs to be fixed asap. If I had the skills to edit it I would, but I don't have them yet. 2604:3D09:8878:4500:5DC3:422F:E902:6594 (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The article doesn't specify whether timelines should use present tense (1492: Columbus sails the ocean blue) or past tense (1492: Columbus sailed the ocean blue). Should it? Tayste (edits) 06:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

: I agree that such a standard would be very useful, but I don't really have an opinion as to whether it should be present tense or past tense. -ErinHowarth (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

:: "Historic present" is in vogue, however it is confusing, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. The reason is that phrases can be taken as the continuous present - "warring factions continue to disrupt peaceful commerce in Afghanistan" - does that mean they did then, or they continue to now, and clumsy qualifying phrases such as "until the present day" are needed as qualifiers (which, as we know need to be modified with the current date - "as of 2011 XXX continues/continued to..."). Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

I hereby declare that all timelines should be written in past-tense! Clint.jenkins (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

:@Clint.jenkins I very strongly agree with you that past tense is the only tense that should be allowed when talking about THE PAST in an encyclopedia.

:Just because newscasters on tv and trashy magazines allow it, that does not mean Wikipedia should. And just because other Wikipedia articles have allowed it up until now doesn't mean this one should. All of the articles about the past that are in error written in the present tense (or that portion of them) should be editted at once. If I had the skills to do it I would be doing it right now, instead of writing this here. 2604:3D09:8878:4500:5DC3:422F:E902:6594 (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The articles Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents and Timeline of the Fukushima II nuclear accidents were built ad-hoc because there were no standards for articles whose events take place on a minute-by-minute basis or the article is built as the events take place. The deletion discussion for Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents concluded that the article needs to be retained, but also needs cleanup.

I am not taking a position on what the correct format and process should be, but I am documenting some of the characteristics of this article and its evolution for the purposes of further discussion:

• Main section for the timeline (e.g., ==Timeline==)
• Section heading for each day (e.g., ===Friday, 11 March===)
• Each timestamp in a day is hour:minute using 24 hour format, begins on a new line that was preceded by a blank line, the timestamp is on a line of its own, and the text for that timestamp begins on the line after the timestamp and is indented.
• Each timestamp used the format of a bolded hour:minute followed by a colon and space (e.g., ; 15:01 (approximate): Text or ; 02:44: Text) and paragraphs in the text following the timestamp were indented using a colon and space (e.g., : Text)
• The timestamps used the local time of the geographic location of the event
• Some timestamps are the time of the event, and some timestamps are the time of the report of the event, but this is an inconsistency
• Timestamps in sources for the same event did not always agree
• The timestamps are in chronological order starting from the earliest, not most recent on top
• The events for all the geographic locations (in this case, primarily the nuclear power plants) are mixed together so there is one big timeline
• Technical status tables
• The format and contents evolved as the event evolved
• The article Fukushima I nuclear accidents‎ contains just one copy of the latest version that was updated as events transpired
• The article Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents contains multiple copies that was updated as events transpired and placed under the appropriate timestamp
• Sometimes the version in Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents was copied from Fukushima I nuclear accidents, sometimes vice versa, and sometimes they were updated independently
• The format and content of the table in Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents and Fukushima I nuclear accidents was not kept in sync; the version in Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents followed one official source more closely, and the version in Fukushima I nuclear accidents was augmented with additional information from additional sources
• The table is bulky and threatens to make the length of the article Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents too long as the events continue
• This timeline article was not done in a vacuum, but was part of an ecosystem of articles, navigation, hatnotes, categories, templates, and lists, including the overarching 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents‎, with name changes to the articles as events evolved
• Initially, the timeline of events for Fukushima I and Fukushima II were combined, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents&diff=prev&oldid=421984900#Proposed_split a discussion to split the article] resulted in the article being split into two articles.

Timeline resources:

{{col-begin}}

{{col-break|width=50%}}

• Articles
• List of timelines
• Timeline
• Chronology
• Living graph
• 2010s
• Projects
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Years
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline Tracer
• Other
• :Category:Timelines
• :Category:Graphical timelines
• {{intitle|timeline}}

{{col-break|width=50%}}

• Writing standards
• Wikipedia:Timeline
• Wikipedia:Timeline standards (I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards)
• Wikipedia:Timeline syntax
• Wikipedia:EasyTimeline
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists)
• Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

{{col-end}}

Obankston (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Timelines are not exempt from the RfC determination in 2009 concerning the formulaic linking of chronological units. If the name of this article is not changed, this will need to be pointed out explicitly. Tony (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

:Timelines are not specifically exempt, but "inherently" (or intrinsically) "chronological articles" are. The examples of "inherently chronological articles" in the MOS are clearly not complete, so the question of whether a timeline article is "inherently chronological" is still open. Still, this article is presently about year / decade / century / millennium articles, with a see also for month-and-day articles, so it should be renamed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

::Please look again at the community's decision. We've been through this recently, and you know this assumption is wrong. Tony (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Yes, we have been through this recently, and there is no community input in favor of your interpretation other than that of the principal architects of the biased RfCs. Still, we are in agreement that this guideline should be renamed. Any ideas for a target. WP:Time interval standards? WP:Epoch article standards?

:::Also, be sure to follow the redirects everywhere they appear before attempting to create the guideline you want at WP:Timeline standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Where would I find the description of and code for this timeline here? --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 12:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

2001 starts:

{{Year dab|2001|the film|2001: A Space Odyssey (film)}}

{{Year nav|2001}}

{{C21 year in topic}}

{{Year article header|2001}}

This should be reflected here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In the section #Present tense or past tense? above, and in the Teahouse questions Wikipedia:Teahouse#Past or present tense? (note the link will change when this thread is archived) and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 870#tense on timeline editors (including most recently {{U|Clint.jenkins }}) have raised the question about whether timeline entries should be in the past tense or in the Historical present tense. Personally I favor the latter, but not all that strongly. There seems to be no clear project-wide guideline on this issue. Is it worth holding a formal RfC to settle this matter? If so, does anyone have any suggestions as to the wording of a proposal or question? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

:@DESiegel I favor the regular, plain, past tense ever so strongly. I don't know the exact name of the type of tense that was used in this article. I think it's a form of present tense. At any rate, the way it is written is terribly unprofessional. They may as well have said "Hey Bro!" and sprinkled "like" into every sentence, it sounds childish.

:The short paragraph just below is a very poor example, but it shows what I am referring to when I say the tense is wrong for an encyclopedia.

:In 1345 BCE General One's mistaken belief that "right beats might" causes his forces to incur massive losses when Country A defeats his country, Country B. Country C then surrenders as well. King 1 celebrates, while one week later King 2 commits suicide out of shame.

:It is just not done to write that way in any reputable encyclopedia and it should be discouraged most strongly in all Wikipedia guidelines. It should also be hastily deleted and replaced with a proper description of the events, whatever they may be, in ordinary past tense.

:I was very shocked and disappointed to find such a long spiel of such writing in this article. Of course I've seen it elsewhere here too, but this is the longest (or largest) example I have seen so far, and I've read Wikipedia every day for years.

:I'm not a grammer Nazi either. I rarely point out others' errors, in the hope that my own will not draw criticism, but this is bad, bad, bad. It needs to be editted, and if there is no policy about this, one needs to be started, including written guidelines stating that it is incorrect to write that way in an encyclopedia. Obviously I haven't got the skills to edit it properly, or I would do so. Somebody please fix this article! 2604:3D09:8878:4500:5DC3:422F:E902:6594 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

Mkweise, DesertPipeline, Mandsford, fellow Wikipedians: This topic has come up at the Village Pump several times, but I haven't found any resolution. We need to resolve it.

• The oldest pseudo-millennium article is Timeline of prehistory and is in the present tense ("170,000 years ago: humans are wearing clothing by this date").
• The oldest millennium article is 10th millennium BC, but it does not have short date entries.
• The oldest millennium article with dated entries is 4th millennium BC, and its entries are in the present tense ("4000 BC – Susa is a center of pottery production.")
• The oldest century article is 40th century BC and uses mostly the present tense ("The Linear Pottery culture gives way to the Funnelbeaker culture in the north").
• The oldest decade article is 1790s BC and uses the present tense ("c. 1792 BC: Hammurabi starts to rule in Babylon, according to the middle chronology.")
• The oldest year article is 719 BC and uses the present tense ("*Zhou Huan Wang of the Zhou dynasty becomes ruler of China.")
• The oldest month article is January 1900 and uses the past tense ("Nikola Tesla closed down his laboratory in Colorado Springs, Colorado, after seven months of experiments in the long-distance transmission of energy.")
• A random check of month articles before 1951 shows the use of the past tense.
• Month articles are missing for 1951 and 1952.
• January 1953 uses the present tense ("The National Library of Canada is established in Ottawa.")
• Many other months since January 1953 also use the present tense.
• Some months since January 1953 use the past tense. For example, January 1960 ("The Los Angeles Rams sued the new American Football League and the Houston Oilers over the rights to Heisman Trophy winner Billy Cannon, who had signed with both teams.")

I believe that for timeline articles, bullet entries should be in the present tense, and that seems to have been the original standard. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

:Historical present tense is the standard, even if it's not codified anywhere. I'm happy with this standard and don't see any need to change it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

::The List of rail accidents series is another where there is no consistency. MOS:TENSE clearly says to use past tense for past events, and give no exception for timelines. I favor past tense. From the article historical present, it is used {{tq|to heighten the dramatic force of the narrative by describing events as if they were still unfolding}}. I think that has no place in the encyclopedia. Historic events happened in the past and should be stated as such with past tense. MB 03:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

:::That tells me that the MoS isn't comprehensive and timelines aren't given much attention. These are known issues, but there doesn't seem to be much energy to formalize or standardize these things. Personally, I would welcome a more comprehensive effort to fix up the standards for timelines. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

:::@MB I agree 1000%. I won't repeat what I have already said in an original comment of my own, but I must say that you and the MOS:TENSE are both correct. I am going to check what the Britannica and others have done. I feel absolutely sure that I have never seen present tense used in an encyclopedia. I intend too check on this, and I hope to report back to this page with my findings on what tense is being used in the other open source (or partially so) encyclopedias.

:::As you seem to say, it is not the task of any reference publication to hype the events they are referring to. I am not a grammer Nazi, and I rarely speak up about errors, but this one is SO large and so glaring that I just could not ignore it. It bothered me so much that I could not absorb what was being said. I found it offensive that such poor writing was allowed to such a large extent. And now I've just read a comment above that lists many other articles where this awful type of writing has been allowed to persist! Just because trashy magazines allow it (and I have no objection to it there), that does not mean this encyclopedia should.

:::I have not yet got the skills to make an extensive edit like what is needed here, but I hope very much that someone like yourself will edit this very soon, because it makes Wikipedia look VERY unprofessional. 2604:3D09:8878:4500:5DC3:422F:E902:6594 (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm with User:MB on this one. Past tense. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Some issues I have with making timelines simple lists.

Because of the different amount of spacing amongst the list, the item a date is referring to doesn't line up with the previous or next item. For example:

• July - A happened.
• December - B happened.

For ease of reading, it would be nice if "A happened" and "B happened" were left aligned with each other.

Also, sometimes there are multiple things you want to keep track of in a chronology. For example, along with the date and what happened, often there's a party in involved that you want to keep track of. The current MOS suggests to do the following:

• July - Bob did A.
• August - Bob did B.
• September- Alice did C.
• October - Bob did D.

If the list is long, it'd be difficult to parse out what all Alice did in the timeline.

I'd suggest making timelines tables, so that items are aligned, which make it simpler to find specific dates, and parse out particular subdetails. E.g., the above examples would become:

And

The information is more broken up, but it becomes easier to scan and find information.

Fephisto (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

:A table layout works really well in, for example, North Atlantic Treaty#Article 4. Using tables seems like a good alternative to lists in some cases. The main disadvantage of tables is that if the article is displayed on a phone, wide tables cannot be read without horizontal scrolling. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

:@Fephisto No offense intended, but actually, I entirely disagree. I find lists are not usually hard to scan, especially if the pertinent difference, in this example the people's names, are mentioned in a consistent spot, like at the start of each entry or at the end of it.

:As well, most people are using their cell phone these days to access Wikipedia, and the problem mentioned by Clayquot is amplified on a cell phone. Having to change your viewing option to auto-rotate (and back again afterwards) and/or to fuss with the phone constantly to read the items is a major annoyance, at least for me. It might be ok if the chart only has 2 or 3 types of entries horizontally and isn't too terribly long. I hope more people leave their opinion. I'm only 1 person. 2604:3D09:8878:4500:5DC3:422F:E902:6594 (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)