[lettergram]

Idk why the 2016 needs to be in the title here. I understand for date relevant content, but this is not.

[gumby]

It’s not uncommon for something clear and expository to be invalidated and putting the date in the title may cause someone who knows the domain to say “oh, this must be from before this was all invalidated” and post a useful reference as a comment.

Well it’s a convention and some conventions (like this) are better applied uniformly than allowing for acidental editorialiation.

[city41]

Another reason to put the year is it helps people decide if they’ve read it before.

[lettergram]

I doubt that helps. For instance, this is from 2016, had you read it before?

I’m simply suggesting it because I don’t think it adds anything to the conversation. In addition, I’ve seen this being added more often lately and I worry it makes people think it’s date relevant (as I did) or that it somehow provides less value due to some time delay.

[city41]

Another reason is it’s possible the same author writes an update or new article on the same topic. The year helps disambiguate that.