Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/August 2005 survey results

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polls are now closed. View the original survey at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/August 2005 survey


Contents

[edit] Page title

[edit] Question 1

Should the pages:

Stay right where they are

16 votes

Move to AD XXXX

0 votes

Move to XXXX AD

1 vote

Move to XXXX (year)

0 votes

Result - Current standard is overwhelmingly supported. Other options can be made as redirects to current pages.

Actions taken - none required, pages stay where they are.

[edit] Header

[edit] Question 1

  • Should the page include the Infobox:
No, it should go back to the old form as on 243 BC

1 vote

Yes, and it should be written out as on 1956

0 votes

Yes, and it should be in a template form as on 2001

10 votes

Result - Infobox on each page is supported, but 3 comments asked for it to be narrower, as it appears to take up much of the screen on some monitors (low resolution, etc). Examples can still be seen at User:Trevor_macinnis/main_page_temp#Examples_of_new_forms

Actions taken - infoxbox will be placed on all pages, User:Sj fixed width problem, applying fix to other templates.

[edit] Question 2

  • Should the Infobox be:
Short, like on 2000

2 votes

Long, like on 1801

3 votes - with the comments that its easier to see on small screens and looks better

Other

1 vote for small boxes for less populated enteries in the past 1 vote for none, perhaps something else?

Result - votes divided

Actions taken - current version is a mix of both and as it is currently in use will be edited to work properly for everyone.

[edit] Question about Year In Topic section of Infobox

  • Should there be an In Topic section for every year:
Yes, and make them specific to each century (like there already is for the 17th-21st centuries)

0 votes

Yes, but make the earlier ones for more than one century because there are fewer topics in the past

5 votes

No, a written out box of topics relevant to the year will suffice

1 vote - comments that for earlier periods, the decade pages can link to "decades in topic"

No, there are so few "Year in Topics" pre-17th century that you only need a "See also" section

1 vote - also comments that there should also be an In Topic section for every decade.

Result - Support is for In Topic section, with ealier ones being for more than one century.

Actions taken - Current In Topic boxes being put on pages, older centuries boxes yet to be written.

[edit] Intro

[edit] Question 1

  • Should each page have the statement This article is about the year ABCD. For other uses of ABCD, see ABCD (number):
Yes

0 votes

Yes, but only if the number exists on List of numbers, has a disambiguation page, or will probably be searched for

9 votes

No

0 votes

Result - Support is for the intro statement, with the stated provision.

[edit] Question 2

Yes

6 votes - but pre Gregorian calendar years may need extra wording

No

4 votes - 2 comment that pre Gregorian should link to Julian calendar, and 1582 needs something else. 1 comment that pre both calendars should have something else, more discussion needed 1 comment for both G and J

Result - Support is for a statement, but use before Gregorian years is still debatable.

[edit] Question 3

  • Should it be "is" or "was" a year of the Gregorian calendar:
Is

4 votes

Was

3 votes - comment "events can stay in present tense, but "is" in the opening sentence makes it seem like the year is currently ongoing, which is confusing. Just look at selected anniversaries on the Main Page.

Result - Support divided, slight favor of "Is"

[edit] Sections

[edit] Events

[edit] Question 1

  • Should images be used on year pages?
When appropriate images can be located

0 votes

For events

3 votes - comments "thumbnails only"

For births / deaths

2 votes - "here also"

Never

0 votes

When appropriate, but never more than X images

5 votes

Result - pictures supported throughout page, comments "thumbnail size only" and "Pictures should not extend the length of the page beyond the length of text."

[edit] Question 2

  • In ancient history (i.e. before the entire world was mapped) should this section be divided up as on 1249:
Yes, the separation of cultures and sparsity of events can allow this

1 vote

Yes, as above but this should allowed to be used on every year

2 votes

Yes, but only if we set a date for the practice to stop (i.e. 1400)

2 votes - comment "It works best only for years where few events can be dated by month."

No, the standard is already set and all pages must comply

4 votes

Results - Votes divided. Those "for" want limits.

[edit] Question 3

  • Should there be a link to a calendar of each month as on 2004:
Yes, it allows people to browse "down" to the month and day as the Infobox allows browsing "up" to the decade and century

3 votes

No, they are ugly, don't serve enough of a benefit, and a calendar is linked to in the intro anyways

6 votes

Results - Support favors no calendars

Comments - "a full year's calendar should be linked to in the header, as it is done" and "it could have it's own note in the header so that people knew that a calendar was being linked to." "This is only useful if we have enough info to make pages such as July 28, 2005 meaningful" "ugly and take up too much room. They need to be removed for images to be uploaded to every page"

[edit] Question 4

  • Should the month calendars sit all together at the beginning of the events section or individually at the start of each month's section:
  1. The title says it all. Warofdreams 09:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
All at once as on (1921)

1 vote

At each month's start as on (2004)

2 votes

Result - Support is for at each month's start, small number of votes due to calendars not being supported at all.

[edit] Question 5

  • When multiple events occur on the same day the date should the date be followed by (vote For the one you want and against the others if you wish):

1st option

January 31 -

  • Event 1
  • Event 2

3 votes

2nd option

January 31:

  • Event 1
  • Event 2

0 votes

3rd option

January 31

  • Event 1
  • Event 2

0 votes

4th option

9 votes for

5th option

1 vote for 1 vote for as second choice 2 votes against

6th option

1 vote against

Results - Support is for the 4th option.

'Comments - The 4th option "allows people's date options setting to remain consistent (some will see January 31 both times, others will see 31 January both times; not linking them kills the activity of this setting)" and "this is also the standard that is already in use on all day pages" The 5th option "cannot fit" some "users' preferences well."

[edit] Question 6

  • How should undated events be ordered?
By "importance"?

2 votes

Randomly?

0 votes

Roughly grouped by relevance?

4 votes

Results - Support is for grouping by relevance.

Comments - "We really need an objective criteria here, but I don't have a good suggestion; it's only a matter of time before various editors argue over whose nationality is "more important."

[edit] Question 7

  • Should births or deaths be listed under "events"
When notable as an event in and of itself in the context of world history e.g. Genghis Khan or John F. Kennedy

1 vote

Never

7 votes

Only if the cause of death is notable. A natural death is not a notable event.

0 votes

Results - Vote supports never listing deaths as an event.

[edit] Question 8

  • Should changes in leader of state be noted under "events"
Always

4 votes

Sometimes: Only when otherwise notable ("first president of X", establishes new dynasty, precipitates an event or period e.g. Oliver Cromwell, or is a particularly notable person e.g. Genghis Khan)

3 votes

Never

0 votes

Results - Votes divided.

Comments - one suggestion: "when the change of leadership was newsworthy in other parts of the world."

[edit] Births

[edit] Question 1

  • Should a (now) dead person have their death date listed after their name:
Yes

7 votes

No

1 vote

Doesn't matter

3 votes

Results - Support is for listing the death date after a births name.

[edit] Question 2

  • How should undated births (and deaths) be ordered?
By "importance"?

0 votes

Alphabetically?

8 votes

Randomly?

0 votes

Roughly grouped by relevance?

0 votes

Results - Alphabetical

[edit] Question 3

  • Should birth names be listed
As simple link (e.g. "Louis IX of France")

0 votes

With title (e.g. "King Louis IX of France")

2 votes

With explanation (e.g. "Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States")

5 votes

Always?

2 votes

When editor suspects many people may be unfamiliar with the person?

1 vote

Never?

0 votes

Results - Support is for an explanation, kept short.

[edit] Deaths

[edit] Question 1

  • Should people be listed here at all:
Yes, people may be browsing this page to find people who died

10 votes

Yes, but not all of them. Mix with the "See:Deaths in" bit and set a maximum

1 vote

No, then they can find them with a "See:Deaths in 2003" or a "See:Category:2003 deaths"

4 votes

Results - Support is for listing names

Comments - "but if there are many, split the less notables into "deaths in XXXX"". "If the main year page is within the size limit, include deaths, but if not shift them all to a separate article."

[edit] Question 2

  • If the deaths list is set at a max what should it be:
10

1 vote

20

0 votes

How can we possibly say?!

Results - 10 death max. Little vote count result of support being for all names included

[edit] Question 3

  • If there is a max who should be on the list:
Leaders, innovators, that type
Anyone

Results - no support for limiting "type" of people on the list

[edit] Question 4

  • Should the Deaths section give each person's year of birth, or age at death? -- From Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Be semi-tautological and give both

0 votes

Give year of birth

9 votes

Give age at death

0 votes

Give neither

0 votes

Results - Support giving year of birth. Comments suggest giving age if year not known.

[edit] Question 5

  • What death page should there be a link to on the Infobox:
Category:XXXX deaths only

3 votes

Deaths in XXXX if it exists, otherwise Category:XXXX deaths.

1 vote

Deaths in XXXX only, leave the redlink for others to fill in

1 vote

Results - Small vote count but "Category" favored.

[edit] Question 6

  • Should death names be listed
As simple link (e.g. "Louis IX of France")

0 votes

With title (e.g. "King Louis IX of France")

2 votes

With explanation (e.g. "Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States")

5 votes

Always?

1 vote - with exception of the persons article explains (Louis XI of France)

When editor suspects many people may be unfamiliar with the person?

2 votes

Never?

0 votes

Results - Votes support an explanation, just as in births.

[edit] Other sections

[edit] Year in Topic

[edit] Question 1

  • Should this section be expanded, or removed:
Expanded because these are important events (in a topic)

0 votes

Remove because they exist in the topic page and if they are important then they will exist earlier in the Event section

6 votes

Results - Year in Topic section should be removed from page and limited to being in the infobox.

[edit] Nobel prize/Templeton prize/Fields medals

[edit] Question 1

  • Should we:
Leave these sections, they are important awards

0 votes

Move to the Infobox and make separate pages (eg 2004 in Nobel)

2 votes - "Nobel Prizes in 2004, most likely. Maybe Notable awards in 2004."

Make new section titled Awards and include everything on List of prizes, medals, and awards

3 votes for 2 votes against - "This would be huge and cluttered"

Remove altogether

2 votes

Results - Votes slighly favor removing awards, perhaps to Infobox/seperate "year in" page

[edit] New Headings

[edit] Question 1

  • Should the sections be limited to "Events", "Births" and "Deaths":
Yes

5 votes

No

4 votes - 1 for awards. 2 for special circumstances ("2001, "Fictional references to the year" section.""Notes" section for 1900"

Results - votes split, but those for seem favor special circumstances only,

Comments - "I don't like the precedent of setting a limit on the sections that may be included in any article in a given group. So far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't do that for anything else (biographies, films, albums, U.S. Presidents, etc.), and I don't think we should start."

[edit] Question 2

  • Are you for or against the following items being on the page:
Ongoing events

5 votes against

Year equivalents:

For example 1456 is:

1:Calculated from AD 78, begining of the Saka era.
1:Calculated from 58 BC, begining of the Vikrama era

3 votes against 5 votes for

Results - No ongoing events. Votes slightly favour having year equivalents included, with a version to be worked out. Suggestions are an infobox link (XXXX dates in other calendars) or a link to an explaining article (linked at the top of each article).

[edit] General Questions

[edit] Question about cutoff dates

  • Should 500 BC be kept as the cutoff or individual pages or should a page be made for each and every year, no matter how little is on it.
Leave it as is until the decade pages reach 32KB

4 votes

Create a page as soon as it has X number of events

6 votes - 3 for 4 events, 1 for 15 events, 1 for 90 events in a century

Move the limit back to 2000BC

2 votes

Results - Votes support moving the cutoff, either when the parent decade page reaches 32kb, or when it reched X number of events.

[edit] Questions about the parent decade pages

[edit] Question 1

  • Should a decade summary (e.g. 1250s) be written?
No

1 vote

Yes

6 votes

Results - Support decade summaries

[edit] Question 2

  • Should events be categorized like in 1250s by War and Culture?
No

2 votes

Yes

2 votes

Results - Votes divided.

[edit] Question 3

  • Should events be categorized by region of world, sphere of influence, or other category, or just listed chronologically? (To clarify, this is parallel to the above "Events: Question 2")
Chronologically

5 votes

Categorized

1 vote - "to give best context", "Works better for older years where context is more difficult.

Results - votes support chronologically

[edit] Question 4

  • Should all events from the constituent year pages be included, or just the "important" ones?
Important ones

1 vote

All events

4 votes - with stipulation that when page reaches certain length, start limiting

Results - Votes favor aincluding all events from year pages with stated stipulation.

[edit] Question 5

  • Should all births and deaths from the constituent year pages be included, or just the "important" ones?
  1. Important only Bantman 18:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Bantman, at the risk of future edit wars. -- llywrch 22:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. "Important" doesn't have to be a high standard; the first editor can decide at his discretion, and if somebody later thinks so-and-so is important on the basis that they impacted world history (rather than "he was my great-great-granduncle" or "everyone from Pokesville is important"), then he's in. - Bantman 23:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. It's obviously not going to be possible to include them all for recent years; see Category:2004 deaths for why. But when there are fewer than, say, 100 of each, I see no good reason not to add them all. (In fact, with automated support I added all births and deaths for all years between 1100 and 1600!) I also made 1850 an example of how years look when there are a couple of hundred births and deaths.
  5. Important only. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested questions

  • Should the years shown in the infobox be all years in the decade (as in 2000) or the previous 3 and next 3 (as in 1993)?
  1. As in 1993, since the 2000 way is wider and more difficult to navigate. (2000 doesn't link to 1999.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:54, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Years_August_2005_survey_results_f26f.html"