This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Oppose - to keep consistency with other presidential timelines (the Obama and Trump timelines are outliers). Also, it's easier for readers if the timeline is a true all-inclusive timeline.
Onel5969TT me15:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I took the liberty of fulfilling Walk Like an Egyptian's choice and it showed how the timeline is mainly one large year and a bunch of stubs. This was why I didn't want to split it, but hey, how could I expect someone who's never edited it to know that? --
Informant16 8 December 2018
And you did a very good job with the splits, I just felt that something like that needs a much greater consensus to move forward. In the end the consensus may be to split, and if that occurs, we simply revert my redirects.
Onel5969TT me17:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support splitting This article is currently 566,771 bytes long; that's ridiculous. As for consistency, if other presidential-timeline articles are of similar length (and none are as long as this), thay should be split, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits14:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - I support the splitting but maybe we should just split it into 1993-1997 & 1998-2001 (i.e. first & second terms) ‑‑V.S.(
C)(
T)03:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support splitting by term my above comment comment went unanswered, so I have struck it out to fully explain here. I agree that this is extremely long, and should be split, but if split by year some of the articles would be way too short, so I oppose splitting by year. See, eg, the 2000-01 article listed above, which was deleted because it only had 2 entries, or
the 1999 page, which is equally problematic. --
DannyS712 (
talk)
04:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - this is a pretty obvious article to be split but not all the years have to be split. So the last few years can stay in this article, but the years with the bulk of information should be their own article. Eventually they should all be their own article when someone adds to this article with more information.
Onetwothreeip (
talk)
10:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Oppose - to keep consistency with other presidential timelines (the Obama and Trump timelines are outliers). Also, it's easier for readers if the timeline is a true all-inclusive timeline.
Onel5969TT me15:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I took the liberty of fulfilling Walk Like an Egyptian's choice and it showed how the timeline is mainly one large year and a bunch of stubs. This was why I didn't want to split it, but hey, how could I expect someone who's never edited it to know that? --
Informant16 8 December 2018
And you did a very good job with the splits, I just felt that something like that needs a much greater consensus to move forward. In the end the consensus may be to split, and if that occurs, we simply revert my redirects.
Onel5969TT me17:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support splitting This article is currently 566,771 bytes long; that's ridiculous. As for consistency, if other presidential-timeline articles are of similar length (and none are as long as this), thay should be split, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits14:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - I support the splitting but maybe we should just split it into 1993-1997 & 1998-2001 (i.e. first & second terms) ‑‑V.S.(
C)(
T)03:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support splitting by term my above comment comment went unanswered, so I have struck it out to fully explain here. I agree that this is extremely long, and should be split, but if split by year some of the articles would be way too short, so I oppose splitting by year. See, eg, the 2000-01 article listed above, which was deleted because it only had 2 entries, or
the 1999 page, which is equally problematic. --
DannyS712 (
talk)
04:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - this is a pretty obvious article to be split but not all the years have to be split. So the last few years can stay in this article, but the years with the bulk of information should be their own article. Eventually they should all be their own article when someone adds to this article with more information.
Onetwothreeip (
talk)
10:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.