User talk:Keithh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Years in Art
Isn't it better to have 1390s in art, rather than individual years? And can you add content before moving on to the next one, otherwise they are likely to be speedily deleted. --Stephen 00:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinions, and articles evolve over time. But take, for example, in the next decade 1404 in art redirects to 1400s in art, as I assume the farther back you go the less content there is and the less specific the dates. --Stephen 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of 500,000 BC in art
xytram has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Apologies for being so hasty on speedy delete. When you get a chance please read my comments in Talk:500,000 BC in art. Thanks. »xytram« talk 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 32,000 BC in art
If Lion man is 32,000 years old, wouldn't that be 30,000 BC in art then? GregorB (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I thought maybe a better title for 30,000 BC in art would be 30th millennium BC in art. Also e.g. 1400 BC in art could be 14th century BC in art. It is reasonably clear that the articles don't refer to individual years anyway - but there it is, just a suggestion... GregorB (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of years in art
You are doing a great job there, much appreciated...try using this Template:Inuse - Inuse with these {{ }}) when creating new pages, it might be helpful, Thank you....Modernist talk) 12:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
