Wikipedia talk:Recentism

People or events for which most of the coverage was published before 1994 tend not to have a large internet footprint. But doing a google, pointing to the lack of results and then AfD-ing the article is just lazy. Just because it's difficult (or even impossible) to find on the internet doesn't mean it's not notable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:LTS" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:LTS has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10 § Wikipedia:LTS until a consensus is reached. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing argument

For example, in 2020, devoting more space to the 2020 United States presidential election article than to the 2000 United States presidential election article might seem logical. Nevertheless, in the future, when neither event is fresh, readers will benefit from a similar level of detail in both articles. As of May 2025, the 2020 entry is still twice as long as the 2000 entry.

It also just so happens that, 5 years later, the 2020 article gets 2x the views as the 2000 article. There's no longer that election surge. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot predict in another 10 years, or 100 for this matter, which one will be more notable, It is quite possible that there is just more to say about the 2020 election and this particular example is not recentism. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 05:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.