Talk:Timeline of Australian television
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Event significance
May I please ask what the benchmark is for something to be significant enough to be included in this timeline? The only things I can currently think of is station/channel/network launches, major television events and the introduction of new broadcast technology. What else would be siginificant enough to be included in the article? As too many items in the timeline would add to clutter and reduce readability. Stickeylabel 07:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well it's Australian television in general so I've added stuff that's not exclusively to do with a certain area - the launch of certain well-known programs (like ACA, the World at Noon and so on) seemed quite relevant, so did ownership changes and other significant things. There are probably a few things that don't need to be there (license renewals might be one). timgraham 08:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh ok. The article is now starting to grow, and it's a good article, as it compliments all other articles related to Australian television. May I please suggest that the majority of events are correctly cited, as at current, only three have been cited. Stickeylabel 09:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Expanding Introduction
I have worked on the article a bit, using an FA article as a guide: Timeline of chemistry. May I please request that the introduction be expanded to something similar to Timeline of chemistry. Stickeylabel 11:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have now expanded the introduction. Stickeylabel 12:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I just want to note that all events should be explained in present tense, and not in past tense, as this is a timeline. For example, there should not be 'launched' on one line, and 'launches' on another. They should all be 'launches', so it is present tense. Stickeylabel 12:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bullet-point structure
It's probably a bit late to mention now but the bullet-point structure I used was the one from the Timeline of the BBC article - I though that was the best seeing as there were a lot of developments in a short period of time, rather than only once every few years like the chemistry timeline. Are there any hard and fast guidelines to how these things should be done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timg231 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I see. Unfortunatley there are no hard and fast guidelines to how these things should be done :(. In my opinion, the article is easier to follow now, with the years on the left with no indentation. Stickeylabel 13:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FL
Congratulations on the promotion editors! A truly deserving one, at that! --lincalinca 03:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)