![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
For those who want to expand the listings on year pages, People by year offers a report on how many people listed in the year categories are also listed on the year pages (1800-2004).
On 2004 October 13, the percentages range:
As the report just checks if the article in the category is directly linked from the year page, articles linked through redirects or listed in the events section get miscounted.
BTW the report is at Wikipedia:People by year/Reports/Stats#Articles_also_covered_by_year_pages.
-- User:Docu
The template, while reasonable for the modern age, is unwieldy for those years which find themselves relatively empty of events (or perhaps I should say modern knowledge of events). The unintentional result is that the header is larger then the list of events, and thus, looks strange and ridiculous. There are also four seperate edit boxes for three to seven lines of text sometimes, straining reality even more. I have edited and looked at hundreds of these years, most of my work done primarily in the 800s, 900s, 1100s and 1200s and in those backwaters this template has been replaced most of the time with a bolding of Events, Births and Deaths instead of the larger versions. While this is holding up for most of it, User:Docu has recently brought it to my attention that this template is being violated and I am violating it on many edits, trying to eliminate the spare large headings in the midst of forests of smaller ones. I submit that this smaller template be used for those years with few events and births known to us, and the larger template be left to years of fuller knowledge. -- The Grza 01:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
(I set 908 to the template to show the insanity of the template for these years.)-- The Grza 01:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I have been toiling in obscurity in the mid- 12th century, and was hoping someone would stop by and have a look. Currently I've completed year articles 1249 through 1267, and the decade article 1250s. I'm particularly interested in what people think of the 1250s article, in which I've taken the following (unusual) steps:
(Also, I've tried to add relevant pictures to the year articles to make them more visually interesting. What do you think?)
My goal is to create a system where people can "zoom out" from year to decade to century to get a good sense of a particular time in history. For example, if a reader reads only 1257, he would have no idea that one of the dominating trends in that decade was the Mongol expansion; by using the "for broader historical context" links at the top of the page, he is directed to see 1250s which summarizes in prose the two main themes in the decade as (basically) "Mongol expansion in Asia; cultural changes in Europe". Eventually, he could zoom out to 13th century and see the time he is interested in in the context of historical eras and ages, and very broad political and cultural changes.
Since this is somewhat different than existing usage of decade and century pages, I was hoping to get some feedback from this group. Thanks! - Bryan is Bantman 21:30, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that almost all of the years say "(year) is a common year..." as opposed to "(year) was a common year..." A couple that I've noticed say was but the consensus goes with is. I think this is incorrect. As the year has already occurred, it should be was. The current year at any given time could say is, or even better in my opinion could have something special saying "(year) is the current year, and is..." or something to that effect. Future years could say will be. I think that this would be more grammatically correct and would probably read better as well. Any opinions? If nobody's against it for a couple weeks I'll go through and change them all. Sholtar 23:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
All of the years link to a calendar of that year in the heading, where they say this year is a common/leap year starting on (day of the week). Some of them have a little parenthetical remark saying (link takes you to calendar). Others don't. I recommend standardizing this by having none of them link to it or have the parenthetical remark, and instead have on the line below or in some other convenient location a note saying "(year) calendar," or, "A calendar for (year)," or something else to that effect. They would retain the phrase saying that it is a common/leap year, etc. but would link to the article about common/leap year and the article about that day of the week. What do you think? Sholtar 03:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Any opinions on this? I also think the calendars in the article itself really, really need to go. They make the articles look horrible and they're quite pointless. Sholtar | talk 03:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I recently noticed that the 'year in topic' sections contain a lot of the events that are already in the respective cutoff pages (xxxx in television/film/music, etc). Not only that, but while the events in the other pages are regularly updated, the events in the main year page haven't, meaning they've been left like that for about two years now. For example, compare this event from 1939 in television:
...to the same event in the 'Year in topic' section of 1939:
Not only is the 1939 version much shorter, but it's also inaccurate (1945 instead of 1946, interrupted in the 'middle' instead of at the conclusion, etc). Therefore, I suggest we remove all the events listed in the Year in Topic sections, and just have a list directing visitors to the respective cutoff pages. There's no point in updating the events, as that would just cause even more needless duplication. Agreed? Billy H 8 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)
Centuries: | 19th century - 20th century - 21st century |
Decades: | 1890s 1900s 1910s - 1920s - 1930s 1940s 1950s |
Years: | 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 |
Since most of the layouts of millennia, centuries, decades, and years pages in the history timeline do not look like the standard proposed here. I will be taking it upon myself to rewrite the standards (and even suggest a few new ones. Nav boxes seem to be accepted, so I'll start with those (example at right). Trevor MacInnis 19:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Since many pages now have Nav boxes (see: 1920s, 1924, 20th century, 2nd millennium), i propose that these are the new standard. In the past these boxes were each written out by hand, but I propose an Infobox template for each type which could be edited to keep them all the same. You can see these Infoboxes at my page here and their practical use at 3rd millennium, 21st century, 2005, and 1990s.
You can see some flexibility built into the boxes. For example the {{ yearbox}} infobox can be placed at 2005 and also at 2005 in music.
I have made this edit at Wikipedia:Timeline standards as well. Trevor MacInnis 19:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Millennia: | 2nd millennium - 3rd millennium - 4th millennium |
Centuries: | 19th century - 20th century - 21st century |
Decades: | 1890s 1900s 1910s - 1920s - 1930s 1940s 1950s |
Years: | 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 |
Decades: | 1890s 1900s 1910s - 1920s - 1930s 1940s 1950s |
Centuries: | 19th century - 20th century - 21st century |
Since it links to the least articles so far, I've updated the 21st Century year in topic box to align with the new {{ yearbox}}. Example below, which you can see in action at 2005:
Years: | 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 |
Decades: | 1970s 1980s 1990s - 2000s - 2010s 2020s 2030s |
Centuries: | 20th century - 21st century - 22nd century |
News by month: |
Jan -
Feb -
Mar -
Apr -
May -
Jun Jul - Aug - Sep - Oct - Nov - Dec |
WikiProject Years/Archive 2 in topic: | |
Arts | Architecture - Art - Literature - Music - Film - Television - Home video |
Politics | Elections - Int. org. leaders - Politics - State leaders |
Science and tech | Aviation - Rail transport - Science |
By country | Canada - India - Iraq - Ireland - South Africa |
Other topics | Deaths - Video gaming - Religious leaders - Sport |
Trevor MacInnis 01:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
In order to focus everyones thinking, I think a survey is in order. Check it out here, and ask anybody you think might be interested to check it out. The more people respond the better we can respond to the answers. And add any questions you think needing answers. Trevor MacInnis 02:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Should a project template in talk page of each year article (like from Talk:1997 etc) direct people to this project? -- Commander Keane 07:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
In order to connect the different boxes and make things look better (and easier to put on new pages) I've tried out a new form where the boxes are individual cells within and overall infobox. This is based upon the form used on Mountain pages such as Matterhorn.
The format would be as follows
{{
timeline infobox start}}
this template "opens" the box{{
Timeline infobox finish}}
This template closes the box.Some examples are:
{{timeline infobox start}} {{millenniabox test| mb= 2nd | m= 3rd | ma= 4th | }} {{yearbox test| in?= in aviation| cpa=19 | cpb=th Century| c=[[20th century]] | cn1=[[21st century]] | dp3=[[1880s]] | dp2=[[1890s]] | dp1=[[1900s]] | d=[[1910s]] | da=1 | dn1=[[1920s]] | dn2=[[1930s]] | dn3=[[1940s]] | }} {{C21YearInTopic}} <br clear=right> or: {{timeline infobox start}} {{decadebox test| cpa=19 | cpb=th Century| c=[[20th century]] | cn1=[[21st century]] | dp3=[[1880s]] | dp2=[[1890s]] | dp1=[[1900s]] | d=[[1910s]] | da=1 | dn1=[[1920s]] | dn2=[[1930s]] | dn3=[[1940s]] | }} {{Timeline infobox finish}} <br clear=right> or: {{timeline infobox start}} {{millenniabox test| mb= 2nd | m= 3rd | ma= 4th | }} {{decadebox test| cpa=19 | cpb=th Century| c=[[20th century]] | cn1=[[21st century]] | dp3=[[1880s]] | dp2=[[1890s]] | dp1=[[1900s]] | d=[[1910s]] | da=1 | dn1=[[1920s]] | dn2=[[1930s]] | dn3=[[1940s]] | }} {{centurybox test| cpa=19 | cpb=th century | c=[[20th century]] | cn1=[[21st century]] | }} {{Timeline infobox finish}} <br clear=right>
- Trevor MacInnis 01:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This is a serious issue that I think should be addressed. Why are the year pages referenced in BC and AD, and searching for BCE gives you a redirect, when really, searching for "4 BC" should redirect you to "4 BCE"? And if I'm looking for the year 4 CE, 4 AD will redirect me to 4, but 4 CE won't get me anywhere. The pages of specific years should really be using the universally accepted neutral form of BCE and CE, as the use of BC and AD in any article is usually considered offensive by anyone who doesn't feel the need to organize history around the supposed birth of a Jew named Joshua (also known as Jesus). I don't know if it's possible to do a massive rehaul of pages and just change every single date to neutral form, but any input is appreciated. Sputnikcccp 11:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, you both have made excellent points. I guess we'll have to leave things where they are, and I appreciate your civility in a topic where it easily could have disintegrated into hostility. Sputnikcccp 21:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I've had the recent years pages on my watchlist for a while and I regularly delete non-notable and trivial events. I think it'd be good to have some general guidelines on the content, not just the format, of year pages. Things like annual sporting events, anniversaries of certain dates, movements of royal families, transport accidents, weather events, release of pop culture events - we need some general rules for these things I think, they're always cropping up Psychobabble 02:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, folks. A fellow just asked about a date in 1965 on the Help Desk. I was going to refer him to 1965, but then I saw there is no calendar there. Looking around at the years ... wow, what a mess. 1965 has no infobox, no on-page calendar, and no calendar link. 1966 has a calendar link and an infobox, but no on-page calendar. 1967 and 1968 have them all, but their first lines are written differently. 2000 has a differently formatted infobox. Etc.
So, sorry for butting into an ongoing discussion, but may I suggest that some tentative standards for year pages be agreed upon very quickly, so we can put the year pages into some semblance of consistency? The standards can certainly be discussed and modified further, but right now things are in a bad state.
Therefore, may I suggest that, for now, we do this for recent years:
1967 was a common year starting on Sunday (link goes to calendar) of the Gregorian calendar.
Lastly, what infobox should be used?
Again, there is no reason the ongoing discussion on standards should not continue, but I think things need to be prettied up right now. Also, other issues, like AD/CE, which births should be listed, etc. are less urgent, and I don't feel any need to have those settled immediately.
— Nowhither 18:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Survey results are in!. Lots of issues seem to have support (and some don't). To start let's implement the following:
1. Infoboxes have support. Let's put Template:Yearbox and Template:C21YearInTopic on each page in the 21st century to start, and see what happens. If there are concerns about what in the templets then they can be changes later, but there's no harm in using them now.
2. The following form for multiple events is supported. Lets changeover pages to it.
Anything else people think we can get started on? - Trevor MacInnis( Talk | Contribs) 19:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
with this:2004 is a leap year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar.
2004 is a leap year starting on Thursday (link goes to calendar) of the Gregorian calendar.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
For those who want to expand the listings on year pages, People by year offers a report on how many people listed in the year categories are also listed on the year pages (1800-2004).
On 2004 October 13, the percentages range:
As the report just checks if the article in the category is directly linked from the year page, articles linked through redirects or listed in the events section get miscounted.
BTW the report is at Wikipedia:People by year/Reports/Stats#Articles_also_covered_by_year_pages.
-- User:Docu
The template, while reasonable for the modern age, is unwieldy for those years which find themselves relatively empty of events (or perhaps I should say modern knowledge of events). The unintentional result is that the header is larger then the list of events, and thus, looks strange and ridiculous. There are also four seperate edit boxes for three to seven lines of text sometimes, straining reality even more. I have edited and looked at hundreds of these years, most of my work done primarily in the 800s, 900s, 1100s and 1200s and in those backwaters this template has been replaced most of the time with a bolding of Events, Births and Deaths instead of the larger versions. While this is holding up for most of it, User:Docu has recently brought it to my attention that this template is being violated and I am violating it on many edits, trying to eliminate the spare large headings in the midst of forests of smaller ones. I submit that this smaller template be used for those years with few events and births known to us, and the larger template be left to years of fuller knowledge. -- The Grza 01:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
(I set 908 to the template to show the insanity of the template for these years.)-- The Grza 01:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I have been toiling in obscurity in the mid- 12th century, and was hoping someone would stop by and have a look. Currently I've completed year articles 1249 through 1267, and the decade article 1250s. I'm particularly interested in what people think of the 1250s article, in which I've taken the following (unusual) steps:
(Also, I've tried to add relevant pictures to the year articles to make them more visually interesting. What do you think?)
My goal is to create a system where people can "zoom out" from year to decade to century to get a good sense of a particular time in history. For example, if a reader reads only 1257, he would have no idea that one of the dominating trends in that decade was the Mongol expansion; by using the "for broader historical context" links at the top of the page, he is directed to see 1250s which summarizes in prose the two main themes in the decade as (basically) "Mongol expansion in Asia; cultural changes in Europe". Eventually, he could zoom out to 13th century and see the time he is interested in in the context of historical eras and ages, and very broad political and cultural changes.
Since this is somewhat different than existing usage of decade and century pages, I was hoping to get some feedback from this group. Thanks! - Bryan is Bantman 21:30, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that almost all of the years say "(year) is a common year..." as opposed to "(year) was a common year..." A couple that I've noticed say was but the consensus goes with is. I think this is incorrect. As the year has already occurred, it should be was. The current year at any given time could say is, or even better in my opinion could have something special saying "(year) is the current year, and is..." or something to that effect. Future years could say will be. I think that this would be more grammatically correct and would probably read better as well. Any opinions? If nobody's against it for a couple weeks I'll go through and change them all. Sholtar 23:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
All of the years link to a calendar of that year in the heading, where they say this year is a common/leap year starting on (day of the week). Some of them have a little parenthetical remark saying (link takes you to calendar). Others don't. I recommend standardizing this by having none of them link to it or have the parenthetical remark, and instead have on the line below or in some other convenient location a note saying "(year) calendar," or, "A calendar for (year)," or something else to that effect. They would retain the phrase saying that it is a common/leap year, etc. but would link to the article about common/leap year and the article about that day of the week. What do you think? Sholtar 03:56, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Any opinions on this? I also think the calendars in the article itself really, really need to go. They make the articles look horrible and they're quite pointless. Sholtar | talk 03:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
I recently noticed that the 'year in topic' sections contain a lot of the events that are already in the respective cutoff pages (xxxx in television/film/music, etc). Not only that, but while the events in the other pages are regularly updated, the events in the main year page haven't, meaning they've been left like that for about two years now. For example, compare this event from 1939 in television:
...to the same event in the 'Year in topic' section of 1939:
Not only is the 1939 version much shorter, but it's also inaccurate (1945 instead of 1946, interrupted in the 'middle' instead of at the conclusion, etc). Therefore, I suggest we remove all the events listed in the Year in Topic sections, and just have a list directing visitors to the respective cutoff pages. There's no point in updating the events, as that would just cause even more needless duplication. Agreed? Billy H 8 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)
Centuries: | 19th century - 20th century - 21st century |
Decades: | 1890s 1900s 1910s - 1920s - 1930s 1940s 1950s |
Years: | 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 |
Since most of the layouts of millennia, centuries, decades, and years pages in the history timeline do not look like the standard proposed here. I will be taking it upon myself to rewrite the standards (and even suggest a few new ones. Nav boxes seem to be accepted, so I'll start with those (example at right). Trevor MacInnis 19:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Since many pages now have Nav boxes (see: 1920s, 1924, 20th century, 2nd millennium), i propose that these are the new standard. In the past these boxes were each written out by hand, but I propose an Infobox template for each type which could be edited to keep them all the same. You can see these Infoboxes at my page here and their practical use at 3rd millennium, 21st century, 2005, and 1990s.
You can see some flexibility built into the boxes. For example the {{ yearbox}} infobox can be placed at 2005 and also at 2005 in music.
I have made this edit at Wikipedia:Timeline standards as well. Trevor MacInnis 19:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Millennia: | 2nd millennium - 3rd millennium - 4th millennium |
Centuries: | 19th century - 20th century - 21st century |
Decades: | 1890s 1900s 1910s - 1920s - 1930s 1940s 1950s |
Years: | 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 |
Decades: | 1890s 1900s 1910s - 1920s - 1930s 1940s 1950s |
Centuries: | 19th century - 20th century - 21st century |
Since it links to the least articles so far, I've updated the 21st Century year in topic box to align with the new {{ yearbox}}. Example below, which you can see in action at 2005:
Years: | 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 |
Decades: | 1970s 1980s 1990s - 2000s - 2010s 2020s 2030s |
Centuries: | 20th century - 21st century - 22nd century |
News by month: |
Jan -
Feb -
Mar -
Apr -
May -
Jun Jul - Aug - Sep - Oct - Nov - Dec |
WikiProject Years/Archive 2 in topic: | |
Arts | Architecture - Art - Literature - Music - Film - Television - Home video |
Politics | Elections - Int. org. leaders - Politics - State leaders |
Science and tech | Aviation - Rail transport - Science |
By country | Canada - India - Iraq - Ireland - South Africa |
Other topics | Deaths - Video gaming - Religious leaders - Sport |
Trevor MacInnis 01:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
In order to focus everyones thinking, I think a survey is in order. Check it out here, and ask anybody you think might be interested to check it out. The more people respond the better we can respond to the answers. And add any questions you think needing answers. Trevor MacInnis 02:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Should a project template in talk page of each year article (like from Talk:1997 etc) direct people to this project? -- Commander Keane 07:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
In order to connect the different boxes and make things look better (and easier to put on new pages) I've tried out a new form where the boxes are individual cells within and overall infobox. This is based upon the form used on Mountain pages such as Matterhorn.
The format would be as follows
{{
timeline infobox start}}
this template "opens" the box{{
Timeline infobox finish}}
This template closes the box.Some examples are:
{{timeline infobox start}} {{millenniabox test| mb= 2nd | m= 3rd | ma= 4th | }} {{yearbox test| in?= in aviation| cpa=19 | cpb=th Century| c=[[20th century]] | cn1=[[21st century]] | dp3=[[1880s]] | dp2=[[1890s]] | dp1=[[1900s]] | d=[[1910s]] | da=1 | dn1=[[1920s]] | dn2=[[1930s]] | dn3=[[1940s]] | }} {{C21YearInTopic}} <br clear=right> or: {{timeline infobox start}} {{decadebox test| cpa=19 | cpb=th Century| c=[[20th century]] | cn1=[[21st century]] | dp3=[[1880s]] | dp2=[[1890s]] | dp1=[[1900s]] | d=[[1910s]] | da=1 | dn1=[[1920s]] | dn2=[[1930s]] | dn3=[[1940s]] | }} {{Timeline infobox finish}} <br clear=right> or: {{timeline infobox start}} {{millenniabox test| mb= 2nd | m= 3rd | ma= 4th | }} {{decadebox test| cpa=19 | cpb=th Century| c=[[20th century]] | cn1=[[21st century]] | dp3=[[1880s]] | dp2=[[1890s]] | dp1=[[1900s]] | d=[[1910s]] | da=1 | dn1=[[1920s]] | dn2=[[1930s]] | dn3=[[1940s]] | }} {{centurybox test| cpa=19 | cpb=th century | c=[[20th century]] | cn1=[[21st century]] | }} {{Timeline infobox finish}} <br clear=right>
- Trevor MacInnis 01:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
This is a serious issue that I think should be addressed. Why are the year pages referenced in BC and AD, and searching for BCE gives you a redirect, when really, searching for "4 BC" should redirect you to "4 BCE"? And if I'm looking for the year 4 CE, 4 AD will redirect me to 4, but 4 CE won't get me anywhere. The pages of specific years should really be using the universally accepted neutral form of BCE and CE, as the use of BC and AD in any article is usually considered offensive by anyone who doesn't feel the need to organize history around the supposed birth of a Jew named Joshua (also known as Jesus). I don't know if it's possible to do a massive rehaul of pages and just change every single date to neutral form, but any input is appreciated. Sputnikcccp 11:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, you both have made excellent points. I guess we'll have to leave things where they are, and I appreciate your civility in a topic where it easily could have disintegrated into hostility. Sputnikcccp 21:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I've had the recent years pages on my watchlist for a while and I regularly delete non-notable and trivial events. I think it'd be good to have some general guidelines on the content, not just the format, of year pages. Things like annual sporting events, anniversaries of certain dates, movements of royal families, transport accidents, weather events, release of pop culture events - we need some general rules for these things I think, they're always cropping up Psychobabble 02:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, folks. A fellow just asked about a date in 1965 on the Help Desk. I was going to refer him to 1965, but then I saw there is no calendar there. Looking around at the years ... wow, what a mess. 1965 has no infobox, no on-page calendar, and no calendar link. 1966 has a calendar link and an infobox, but no on-page calendar. 1967 and 1968 have them all, but their first lines are written differently. 2000 has a differently formatted infobox. Etc.
So, sorry for butting into an ongoing discussion, but may I suggest that some tentative standards for year pages be agreed upon very quickly, so we can put the year pages into some semblance of consistency? The standards can certainly be discussed and modified further, but right now things are in a bad state.
Therefore, may I suggest that, for now, we do this for recent years:
1967 was a common year starting on Sunday (link goes to calendar) of the Gregorian calendar.
Lastly, what infobox should be used?
Again, there is no reason the ongoing discussion on standards should not continue, but I think things need to be prettied up right now. Also, other issues, like AD/CE, which births should be listed, etc. are less urgent, and I don't feel any need to have those settled immediately.
— Nowhither 18:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Survey results are in!. Lots of issues seem to have support (and some don't). To start let's implement the following:
1. Infoboxes have support. Let's put Template:Yearbox and Template:C21YearInTopic on each page in the 21st century to start, and see what happens. If there are concerns about what in the templets then they can be changes later, but there's no harm in using them now.
2. The following form for multiple events is supported. Lets changeover pages to it.
Anything else people think we can get started on? - Trevor MacInnis( Talk | Contribs) 19:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
with this:2004 is a leap year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar.
2004 is a leap year starting on Thursday (link goes to calendar) of the Gregorian calendar.