Talk:2027

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Add Project 2027 to the fiction list?[edit]

Should I go add the Deus Ex mod Project 2027 to it? --85.191.27.236 (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should create an article on it first, though you should see Your First Article to see if it's eligible to be on the encyclopedia. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2027. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111119143049/http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2011/2011-05-30-01.html to http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2011/2011-05-30-01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add patent expiration date of H.264[edit]

It is important because it is one of the common formats of HTML5. The patent expiration is important for all open-source projects and commercial too. Especially because even big companies like BBC created their own format(e.g. Dirac) to avoid paying patent fees.
example to insert:

The patent for H.264 video codec expires.^[1]

References

^ http://www.osnews.com/story/24954/US_Patent_Expiration_for_MP3_MPEG-2_H_264

Eclipses[edit]

See WT:YEARS#Eclipses for a matter relevant to this page. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

I would like to suggest changing the date format of this article to the DMY format (e.g. 6 June 2020 as opposed to June 6, 2020). The DMY format seems more international and more suitable for a "global" article like. Also DMY simply makes more sense as it goes from smallest to highest.

At the village pump, I've presented a proposal to establish a standard to use DMY in general for all articles about "generic" years. The discussion got kind of messy however, and I'll propaly restart it at some point. In the meantime, I would like it to create consensus about changing 2027 specifically as well as all other nine articles about the 2020s to the DMY format.--Marginataen (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pasting the same reply at all the 2020s talk page sections on this topic, with the exception of 2023. As of about a month ago, we had a situation in which all generic year articles had a consistent date format. Since both date styles are considered appropriate per the Manual of Style, it's unusual to see such solid consistency. Since I value consistency, I appreciated that rare situation.

As of last month, only 2023 was changed via local consensus to be different than the rest. If this proposal passes for this article, it would join a tiny minority of articles that do not match the overall consistent style. I oppose for that reason.

I would be fine with all generic year articles changing to consistently use a different style, and that is the proposal on the table at WP:VPR#Date format for year articles. Currently, it seems we're at the tail end of a pre-RfC discussion with plans to move forward with an RfC in the next week or so. I would much prefer to keep discussing the overarching change rather than have individual discussions at each year article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.osnews.com/story/24954/US_Patent_Expiration_for_MP3_MPEG-2_H_264

[1]