![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This project has had little activity in the past 4 years. Most of its members are no longer with us. The scope of the project as described seems outdated and, in my opinion, needs to be rewritten. We have just come up with a compromise for allowing summaries of the year into year articles. Things are changing and I think we need to look at where we want to go with this project and what we want year articles to look like in the years to come. I suggest a roll call of all listed members to see who's still around. I also suggest we remake our todo list and scope description. We also need to invite new members into the project regularly to keep it active. Wrad ( talk) 18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
What I like most about this wikiproject is that it cuts to the heart of a gordian knot of audience and level of detail that Wikipedia has never addressed head on, while slowly over the last 6 years addressing the issue implicitly by adding depth in every dimension and new articles to fill gaps.
For what it's worth, I concur with others that 1345 is too detailed for our current encyclopedic style; and should have perhaps half of its information moved into the 1340s article and a further 10% moved into the 1300s article. I also think that we should have our own standards for featured quality for such explicitly detail-layered sets of articles -- 1340s might be an appropriate first target to raise to featured status; which should be granted only when each of the decade's years is dealt with in appropraite detail, and the events and figures prominent in the decade are laid out in balanced overview in the decade article. +sj + 04:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the points made are quite accurate. Personally , I think that the Americas and other regions don't need a general overview for each year if no details are known — just use {{details|topic=the Americas and other regions during this period|1340s}} to produce
The distinction will become clearer as we start working on the decade articles. -- Grimhelm ( talk) 17:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I just expanded this article and added a summary as requested by several people on the 1345 talk page and here. Wrad ( talk) 23:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
After the tagging run I've had WP 1.0 bot do a manual update so you guys can see how many articles you have. The template is located here. If you need any more tagging done ever, feel free to hit me up on my talkpage. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have tried twice now to remove what I consider inappropriate content from 2008. This includes:
Much of this is News, in many cases barely even that!
These removals have been reverted with the excuse that they are included in previous years or that they are in fact "highly notable". I strongly disagree, in fact they should be removed from those other years as well, but as it is not possible to revert the reverts after more than a few hours because of other editing I don't (yet) feel like wasting my time trying this again. Is there anyone else out there interested in trying to enforce wiki policy with regard to this? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 12:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have written a redraft of the 1340s article, and nominated it for collaboration by the Tzatziki Squad. The 1340s made sense because the only two years rewritten thus far are 1345 and 1346. As a decade article, it also has a more general scope than a single year; we can iron out some of the background issues in the curent year articles, and it is more likely to reach Featured status.
I finished some preliminary research on the trends of the decade. I would be interested in seeing what both projects can do for it; and when it is of reasonable standard, we can move to mainspace and nominate for DYK. -- Grimhelm ( talk) 17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Bot requests#Automatic time period category sorting.. My current proposal, (but not the response), is copied here. Any objections?
What I'd like, is a bot which, whenever [[domain:xxx text]] is in [[Category:xxx ntext]], the sort key is set to Otext where:
To avoid possible accidential sort key errors due to something else starting with 2000 being in Category:2000 AD, we might restrict ntext to be null for years. It's less likely that something would be in a category such as Category:20th Century Fox with the "Century" not capitalized.
The bot should log its output in such a way that it can be reversed if it goes WP:ROUGE, remembering that a sort key of " " is not the same as a sort key of "". Remember, if the bot works at all as I request, it won't change any categories, merely change the sort order of categories.
Some of the categories are populated by templates, so the bot won't effect those. A couple months ago, I changed Template:DeathsInCenturyBC to properly tag the nth Century BC deaths articles.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Assuming all of these were not generated by a template:
Any comments? Clarification requested? Rotten fruit? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the Wipedia project Timelines is inactive, but a lot of the problems in Years is related to having a decent timeline. I have been working on a timeline concept for years ad think that I now got it right. It is not part of Wikipedia but is based on the Wikipedia content. Have a look at http://www.worldcivilizations.info/civilizations/index.html and see what you think about it. The project is still in development but the basics are there, and the associated blog outlines how it will evolve further. If you think it is worth pursuing and want to contribute send an email to mtomczak@internode.on.net I am not an active Wikipedia contributor, so I don't know how to sign off here. 17 July 2008 Matthias Tomczak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias Tomczak ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The above named project is currently tagged as inactive, and covers material which also seemingly falls within the scope of this project as well. A merger seems rather logical to me. John Carter ( talk) 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
In a number of year articles ( 2008 through 2011, at least), the "-"s separating the date from the content have been replaced by spaced m-dashes (—). This may be in better keeping with WP:DASH, but it should also have been discussed here. If done, all year articles, and probably decade, century, and millennium articles, should be changed. (Personally, I think a colon (:) would be better than a spaced dash, as we already have spaced n-dashes for date ranges, but that may be another matter....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've made a start on cleaning out the nn entries for this page to bring it into line with 2008. So far mainly elections, annual sporting events and other entries clearly not internationally or historically notable. I've tried to err on the side of caution so there is certainly much more that does not belong that could be removed. Have not yet made a start on deaths. If anyone has time could they look through and see what other improvements could be made? The page appears relatively inactive so there should hopefully less 'resistance' than there has been in the 2008 page. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 07:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Orion11M87 has been extensively editing and referencing 2008 and is claims that every entry requires a citation. Surely this is pointless as most entries should have a page of their own and the referencing should be included there. Is this a misinterpretation of the "reference everything" policy? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 00:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hemanshu has been refactoring birth, death, and event months for a number of years. (I only noticed it because of 1990, which I promptly reverted.) His version went:
Perhaps we could set a guideline that intervals should be regular (in 6-month, 3-month, 2-month, or single month intervals). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
With the upheaval in WP:MOSDATE, we need to specify that our dates should be linked. If one were interested in what happened in 1990 on April 30, one might also be interested in what happened on other April 30s, so the date link should be there, even if datelinks are now depreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wanna make sure you guys have seen Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Decades; I know Arthur and Sept have. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
DecadeLink|180}}
will link to
1800–1809, (optionally) with the name 1800s.
(Copied, with some removals from
Talk:1800–1809.)
Is it desirable or is it undesirable for dates of birth and death at the top of a biography article to be linked to corresponding "day" and "year" pages?
An RfC is now open at WT:MOSNUM#RfC: Linking of dates of birth and death -- Jheald ( talk) 11:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
IMO, before the past few centuries, there is not sufficient material from which to construct reasonably substantial year pages, and these should be conflated into decade pages. Not 1345 and 1346 but the 1340s. This is a far better way to provide an overview. Tony (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This project has had little activity in the past 4 years. Most of its members are no longer with us. The scope of the project as described seems outdated and, in my opinion, needs to be rewritten. We have just come up with a compromise for allowing summaries of the year into year articles. Things are changing and I think we need to look at where we want to go with this project and what we want year articles to look like in the years to come. I suggest a roll call of all listed members to see who's still around. I also suggest we remake our todo list and scope description. We also need to invite new members into the project regularly to keep it active. Wrad ( talk) 18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
What I like most about this wikiproject is that it cuts to the heart of a gordian knot of audience and level of detail that Wikipedia has never addressed head on, while slowly over the last 6 years addressing the issue implicitly by adding depth in every dimension and new articles to fill gaps.
For what it's worth, I concur with others that 1345 is too detailed for our current encyclopedic style; and should have perhaps half of its information moved into the 1340s article and a further 10% moved into the 1300s article. I also think that we should have our own standards for featured quality for such explicitly detail-layered sets of articles -- 1340s might be an appropriate first target to raise to featured status; which should be granted only when each of the decade's years is dealt with in appropraite detail, and the events and figures prominent in the decade are laid out in balanced overview in the decade article. +sj + 04:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the points made are quite accurate. Personally , I think that the Americas and other regions don't need a general overview for each year if no details are known — just use {{details|topic=the Americas and other regions during this period|1340s}} to produce
The distinction will become clearer as we start working on the decade articles. -- Grimhelm ( talk) 17:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I just expanded this article and added a summary as requested by several people on the 1345 talk page and here. Wrad ( talk) 23:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
After the tagging run I've had WP 1.0 bot do a manual update so you guys can see how many articles you have. The template is located here. If you need any more tagging done ever, feel free to hit me up on my talkpage. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have tried twice now to remove what I consider inappropriate content from 2008. This includes:
Much of this is News, in many cases barely even that!
These removals have been reverted with the excuse that they are included in previous years or that they are in fact "highly notable". I strongly disagree, in fact they should be removed from those other years as well, but as it is not possible to revert the reverts after more than a few hours because of other editing I don't (yet) feel like wasting my time trying this again. Is there anyone else out there interested in trying to enforce wiki policy with regard to this? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 12:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have written a redraft of the 1340s article, and nominated it for collaboration by the Tzatziki Squad. The 1340s made sense because the only two years rewritten thus far are 1345 and 1346. As a decade article, it also has a more general scope than a single year; we can iron out some of the background issues in the curent year articles, and it is more likely to reach Featured status.
I finished some preliminary research on the trends of the decade. I would be interested in seeing what both projects can do for it; and when it is of reasonable standard, we can move to mainspace and nominate for DYK. -- Grimhelm ( talk) 17:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Bot requests#Automatic time period category sorting.. My current proposal, (but not the response), is copied here. Any objections?
What I'd like, is a bot which, whenever [[domain:xxx text]] is in [[Category:xxx ntext]], the sort key is set to Otext where:
To avoid possible accidential sort key errors due to something else starting with 2000 being in Category:2000 AD, we might restrict ntext to be null for years. It's less likely that something would be in a category such as Category:20th Century Fox with the "Century" not capitalized.
The bot should log its output in such a way that it can be reversed if it goes WP:ROUGE, remembering that a sort key of " " is not the same as a sort key of "". Remember, if the bot works at all as I request, it won't change any categories, merely change the sort order of categories.
Some of the categories are populated by templates, so the bot won't effect those. A couple months ago, I changed Template:DeathsInCenturyBC to properly tag the nth Century BC deaths articles.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Assuming all of these were not generated by a template:
Any comments? Clarification requested? Rotten fruit? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the Wipedia project Timelines is inactive, but a lot of the problems in Years is related to having a decent timeline. I have been working on a timeline concept for years ad think that I now got it right. It is not part of Wikipedia but is based on the Wikipedia content. Have a look at http://www.worldcivilizations.info/civilizations/index.html and see what you think about it. The project is still in development but the basics are there, and the associated blog outlines how it will evolve further. If you think it is worth pursuing and want to contribute send an email to mtomczak@internode.on.net I am not an active Wikipedia contributor, so I don't know how to sign off here. 17 July 2008 Matthias Tomczak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthias Tomczak ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The above named project is currently tagged as inactive, and covers material which also seemingly falls within the scope of this project as well. A merger seems rather logical to me. John Carter ( talk) 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
In a number of year articles ( 2008 through 2011, at least), the "-"s separating the date from the content have been replaced by spaced m-dashes (—). This may be in better keeping with WP:DASH, but it should also have been discussed here. If done, all year articles, and probably decade, century, and millennium articles, should be changed. (Personally, I think a colon (:) would be better than a spaced dash, as we already have spaced n-dashes for date ranges, but that may be another matter....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've made a start on cleaning out the nn entries for this page to bring it into line with 2008. So far mainly elections, annual sporting events and other entries clearly not internationally or historically notable. I've tried to err on the side of caution so there is certainly much more that does not belong that could be removed. Have not yet made a start on deaths. If anyone has time could they look through and see what other improvements could be made? The page appears relatively inactive so there should hopefully less 'resistance' than there has been in the 2008 page. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 07:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Orion11M87 has been extensively editing and referencing 2008 and is claims that every entry requires a citation. Surely this is pointless as most entries should have a page of their own and the referencing should be included there. Is this a misinterpretation of the "reference everything" policy? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( talk) 00:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hemanshu has been refactoring birth, death, and event months for a number of years. (I only noticed it because of 1990, which I promptly reverted.) His version went:
Perhaps we could set a guideline that intervals should be regular (in 6-month, 3-month, 2-month, or single month intervals). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
With the upheaval in WP:MOSDATE, we need to specify that our dates should be linked. If one were interested in what happened in 1990 on April 30, one might also be interested in what happened on other April 30s, so the date link should be there, even if datelinks are now depreciated. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wanna make sure you guys have seen Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Decades; I know Arthur and Sept have. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
DecadeLink|180}}
will link to
1800–1809, (optionally) with the name 1800s.
(Copied, with some removals from
Talk:1800–1809.)
Is it desirable or is it undesirable for dates of birth and death at the top of a biography article to be linked to corresponding "day" and "year" pages?
An RfC is now open at WT:MOSNUM#RfC: Linking of dates of birth and death -- Jheald ( talk) 11:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
IMO, before the past few centuries, there is not sufficient material from which to construct reasonably substantial year pages, and these should be conflated into decade pages. Not 1345 and 1346 but the 1340s. This is a far better way to provide an overview. Tony (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)