Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/August 2005 survey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This survey is closed. Results are found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years/August 2005 survey results.


Contents

[edit] Page title

[edit] Question 1

Should the pages:

Stay right where they are
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. jredmond 17:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Why should they be moved? Is there a problem caused by the article names, or is this a change suggested for the sake of change? -- llywrch 23:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
No real problem per se, but the argument was raised (see here), so I though I'd put it up for vote to see what others thought.Trevor macinnis 23:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) And let's not bring up whether 2005 years before present and over should be listed as "XXXX BC" or "XXXX BCE".
  2. Exactly where I would look for them. Warofdreams 09:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Theon 20:42, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Gdr 00:13:44, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
  5. grubber 13:10, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
  6. Ksnow
  7. jguk 06:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Sputnikcccp 11:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC) and I agree with Llywrch below
  10. Easy. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  11. It is too late to make a major change without extreme difficulty.--Jusjih 06:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  12. Psychobabble 02:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Move to AD XXXX
Move to XXXX AD
  1. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Move to XXXX (year)
Other

Putting "AD" after the number of the year is simply bad usage -- & an embarassment to Wikipedia. IMNSHO, that option should not even exist in this poll. -- llywrch 23:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Header

[edit] Question 1

  • Should the page include the Infobox:
Yes, and it should be written out as on 1956
Yes, and it should be in a template form as on 2001
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  5. But it needs to be narrower for lower resolution screens. Warofdreams 09:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theon 20:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  7. grubber 13:13, 2005 August 4 (UTC) - does need to be skinnier. On my PowerBook, it takes up 2/3's of the column.
  8. The template needs some work. It's too wide for a start. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    I'm testing a new way of doing the templates. The different types of boxes act as individual cells in the overall infobox. You can see what I mean here. This way everything is in one box, they are all formatted the same, and are the same width. - Trevor macinnis 18:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. I like the template better than its being written out as in 234 BCE; it looks more organized. Sputnikcccp 12:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
No, it should go back to the old form as on 243 BC
  1. jguk 06:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question 2

  • Should the Infobox be:
Short, like on 2000
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Long, like on 1801
  1. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC). But why call the two formats "short" and "long"?
    Well, the "short" version has the section title (i.e. "Centuries") beside the various centuries linked to, while the "long" (or should I say "tall") version has the titles above each section ("Centuries", "Decades", "Years", "Year in Topic")You can see a side by side comparison at this page.Trevor macinnis 18:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Theon 20:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC) Easier to see on small screens
  3. This arrangement looks a bit better. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Other
  1. While I admit I'm not very fond of infoboxes, they have their uses. And from the choices I see here, I think it might be wisest to use different infoboxes for different periods, say: one with more links for the years after 1800, when the historical record is the most full; another with less links for the years back to, say 1100, when the historical record is less full, yet one can have timelines with annual entries for numerous subjects; & a third, very simple & basic, for earlier years. -- llywrch 23:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    Maybe I've misunderstood, but doesn't this already happen. {{C20YearInTopic}} at 1908 has 18 "1908 in Topic" links (3 of which are redlinks} while {{C17YearInTopic}} (at say 1642 for example} has only 4 topics;Science, State Leaders, Lit, and Music. The others {{C21YearInTopic}}, {{C19YearInTopic}}, and {{C18YearInTopic}} are also slightly different.Trevor macinnis 04:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) 2001's is monstrously wide on a low-res setup; perhaps none of the options are ideal quite yet. That said, I like the concept of llywrch's idea.

[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)


Yes, but make the earlier ones for more than one century because there are fewer topics in the past
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC). State leader by year goes all the way back to the 8th century and then some more in BC, List of years in science was some back in the 16th century.
  2. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Makes perfect sense at present - we may need to subdivide them in future as more topics are created for the past. Warofdreams 09:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
No, a written out box of topics relevant to the year will suffice
  1. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) The parent decade and century article links provide enough context to easily go find "topic in the XXX0s" or "XXth century".
But the parent decade eg.2000s and century 21st century don't link to 2004 in music --Trevor macinnis 04:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I meant for earlier periods, where we would have 1430s in law or such linked to from the 1430s decade page.
No, there are so few "Year in Topics" pre-17th century that you only need a "See also" section
There should also be an In Topic section for every decade. Warofdreams 09:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
It depends
  1. See my comments above. -- llywrch 23:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

[edit] Question 1

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


Yes, but only if the number exists on List of numbers, has a disambiguation page, or will probably be searched for
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. llywrch 23:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) easy one.
  6. Warofdreams 09:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  7. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Sputnikcccp 12:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. --Jusjih 06:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
No

[edit] Question 2

Yes
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Yes, but we may need a different form of words for years before the Gregorian calendar was used. Warofdreams 09:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. I'm with Warofdreams on this one. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. I agree. Switching calenders might be a little too complicated. Sputnikcccp 12:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
No
  1. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) um, what about years before the gregorian calendar was used?
  2. Theon 20:48, July 29, 2005 (UTC) The gregorian calendar is retroactive. Dec 31, 403 AD is presumed to be in the gregorian calendar, even though it may be another date in other calendars.
  3. No, only back to 1583. 1581 and earlier should link to the Julian calendar, if at all. 1582, of course, needs a special discusssion.
  4. 1581 and earlier for historical reason should link to the Julian calendar, but as calendars for 8 and earlier may not have been ascertained, do not link yet while still disputed. 1582, of course, needs a special discusssion, possibly Julian calendar first followed by Gregorian calendar explaining that Gregorian dates before 15 October 1582 are strictly proleptic. 1583 and later deserve links to Gregorian calendar, but as Julian calendar remained in use into early 20th century in certain country, I suggest explaining both calendars.--Jusjih 07:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question 3

  • Should it be "is" or "was" a year of the Gregorian calendar:
Is
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC). Events are in present tense. Everything else should be too.
  2. This is present practice. -- llywrch 23:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) Although if someone can point me to an authoritative grammar reference saying otherwise, I'd concede.
  4. It still is a year of the Gregorian calendar, whether it has occurred or not. Warofdreams 09:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Was
  1. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Commander Keane 07:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC). I agree that 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.
  3. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

[edit] Events

[edit] Question 1

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


For events
  1. Trevor macinnis 13:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC) -- they should be kept to thumb size though.
  2. Yes, but thumbnails only. Gdr 00:13:44, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
  3. I think images should be used to illustrate events - it adds flavour to the articles which otherwise are kind of boring. Sputnikcccp 12:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
For births / deaths
  1. Yes, but thumbnails only. Gdr 00:13:44, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
  2. Here too Sputnikcccp 12:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Never


When appropriate, but never more than X images
  1. Bantman 17:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC) Pictures should not extend the length of the page beyond the length of text.
  2. Theon 20:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Although I think it will be a while until we accumulate enough for this to become a concern. -- llywrch 21:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[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. Trevor macinnis 01:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)I'm on the fence here. I like the way is looks but I cant see it being used on 2004. But then its not a standard is it?
Yes, as above but this should allowed to be used on every year
  1. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) as innovator of this technique, I believe it should be used whenever listing events in such a way gives superior context to understand how world events relate (or don't relate) to each other.
Yes, but only if we set a date for the practice to stop (i.e. 1400)
  1. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. It works best only for years where few events can be dated by month. Warofdreams 09:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
No, the standard is already set and all pages must comply
  1. --Brunnock 09:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. llywrch 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[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
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Yes, as the links are to February 3 in general and not Feb. 3, 2004. Sputnikcccp 12:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
No, they are ugly,don't serve enough of a benefit, and a calendar is linked to in the intro anyways
  1. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC) - On this issue, my opinion is that the page with a full year's calendar should be linked to in the header, as it is done on 1958, or perhaps as I suggested on the project page, it could have it's own note in the header so that people knew that a calendar was being linked to.
    Good point. I'll change my vote if other people are on board here.Trevor macinnis 11:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'm not sold on the usefulness of calendars on these pages. -- llywrch 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) This is only useful if we have enough info to make pages such as July 28, 2005 meaningful, and we're not near getting to that point yet.
    But the calendar doesn't link to July 28, 2005. It links to July 28. Every June calendar in every year page will link to the same day page --Trevor macinnis 04:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    Exactly. My vote says that linking to July 28 is useless; we should only add calendars once we have pages for July 28, 2005 etc., which we don't now and won't in the foreseeable future.
  4. The calenders are ugly and take up too much room. They need to be removed for images to be uploaded to every page. Astrotrain 08:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[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. Trevor macinnis 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
At each months start as on (2004)
  1. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sputnikcccp 12:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[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):

This

January 31 -

  • Event 1
  • Event 2
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC). Keep it looking like the other dates.
  2. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC).
  3. Warofdreams 09:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. This is the current format right? I think it's the most sensible Psychobabble 02:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This

January 31:

  • Event 1
  • Event 2

This

January 31

  • Event 1
  • Event 2


This

  1. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) While I think the next option looks cleaner, this one 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).
  3. This is the only sane way to do this due to the fact that it is easy to lose track of what date an item occurred on using any of the bullet methods. I learned this the hard way by updating hundreds of day and year pages. This is also the standard that is already in use on all day pages. These two WikiProjects should use the same standard. --mav 15:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Trevor macinnis 17:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC) - changed my vote because of the date option setting and to keep a uniform standard with the day pages.
  5. Makes automatic updating much more straightforward.Gdr 00:13:44, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
  6. grubber 13:17, 2005 August 4 (UTC) - more complete
  7. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Sputnikcccp 12:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Strongly for. Even though this causes duplicate links, it allows automatic conversion by users' preferences.--Jusjih 07:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This

  1. AFAIK, this is current practice. -- llywrch 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not so sure people follow a certain practice on this matter. if they did then we wouldn't find 37 instances of the first type (the date, a dash, then items indented) on 2004Trevor macinnis 00:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    A couple of years back, I tried to change some dates to the first type -- & was immediately reverted by Mav, who told me not to do that. Since then, I've assumed this was the standard & haven't seen an alterantive. -- llywrch 22:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    Strongly against. It's a current bad practice. I've been going to enough trouble fixing this mess. -- Smjg 14:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Second choice given the date pref issue. See above. --mav 15:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    Strongly against. I have gone thru this mess like Smjg. It cannot fit users' preferences well.

This

Against. It probably looks wrong to you Ilywrch and mav, just as the one above it looks wrong to me. -- Smjg 14:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question 6

  • How should undated events be ordered?
By "importance"?
  1. Bantman 18:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:20, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Randomly?


Roughly grouped by relevance?
  1. Trevor macinnis 18:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC) - I'm not sure what I want here but I think this is closest.
  2. Bantman 18:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Sputnikcccp 12:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC) and agree with Llywrch below
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." -- llywrch 22:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[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. Bantman 17:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC) Genghis Khan's death halted the expansion of the Mongol Empire for a couple years, perhaps saving greater Europe from conquest. This makes his death a noteworthy event.
Never
  1. Trevor macinnis 16:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC) - Change my vote. The event can mention the cause: "Expansion of.....is halted when Genghis Khan dies"
  2. If the birth/death triggers some notable event, then it may be mentioned under the event as the cause. But don't give a birth/death as an event - such things belong in the Births and Deaths sections. -- Smjg 11:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. If it triggers an event, the event is what we list. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. I agree with Trevor above, and think that if a historical event was caused by the birth/death, it should be under events like Trevor said "Succession crisis in Scotland due to so and so's death" Sputnikcccp 12:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  6. --Jusjih 07:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. A notable event may cause a listed death, or vice versa, but deaths should be listed in the list of deaths only. -Sean Curtin 00:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Only if the cause of death is notable. A natural death is not a notable event.
  1. Trevor macinnis 13:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Against - King Alexander III of Scotland's death is notable because it caused a succession crisis in Scotland leading to increased English influence, but not because he died by falling off of his horse.

[edit] Question 8

  • Should changes in leader of state be noted under "events"
Always
  1. I would have thought so. Changes in leaders are generally important events. I don't want a situation where leaders of 'important' countries get listed and others don't. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sputnikcccp 12:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Sean Curtin 00:01, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Yep, unless there's a really good reason for not doing so. Psychobabble 02:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
  1. Trevor macinnis 13:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Bantman 17:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Never
Comments
  • I voted "sometimes", but I would add another possibility: when the change of leadership was newsworthy in other parts of the world. For instance, Clinton's election in 1992 and Bush's in 2000 are probably worth mentioning in those years, even though they don't strictly meet the criteria above. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Births

[edit] Question 1

  • Should a (now) dead person have their death date listed after their name:
Yes
  1. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) useful information taking up very little extra space.
  3. If known. Gdr 00:13:44, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
  4. Ksnow
  5. If known this is fairly useful. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Sputnikcccp 12:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. This practice is sometimes but not uniformly used in Chinese Wikipedia. I sometimes do it.--Jusjih 07:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
No
  1. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


Doesn't matter
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. llywrch 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. It's not a very important piece of information, but there's no harm in it. Warofdreams 10:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question 2

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


Alphabetically?
  1. Trevor macinnis 18:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Bantman 18:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. llywrch 22:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. This makes automatic update possible. Gdr 00:13:44, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
  5. Ksnow
  6. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. --Jusjih 07:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. People born on the same date in the same year should also be listed alphabetically under the date. -Sean Curtin 00:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Randomly?


Roughly grouped by relevance?

[edit] Question 3

  • Should birth names be listed
As simple link (e.g. "Louis IX of France")
With title (e.g. "King Louis IX of France")
  1. Bantman 18:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ksnow The title is relevant because the person who has "of France" in his or her name is not always a monarch.
With explanation (e.g. "Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States")
  1. Yes, of course. How else would anyone know who these people were? Gdr 23:57:23, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
  2. Yes. But must be kept very short.-Trevor macinnis 15:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Yes. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Yes, but keep it short. -Sean Curtin 00:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Always?
  1. Not for people for whom the name of their article makes it clear who they were, e.g. Louis IX of France needs no explanation — he was king of France. But for others, yes.
  2. Ksnow I agree with the above comment.
  3. As long as it's possible in a few short words.-Trevor macinnis 15:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Sputnikcccp 12:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
When editor suspects many people may be unfamiliar with the person?
  1. Bantman 18:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Never?

[edit] Deaths

[edit] Question 1

  • Should people be listed here at all:
Yes, people may be browsing this page to find people who died
  1. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. llywrch 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. If there are many, we can create an article Deaths in xxxx Warofdreams 10:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Gdr 00:13:44, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
  6. Ksnow I think this is as important as the birth list.
  7. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Sputnikcccp 12:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. --Jusjih 07:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Yes, but if there are many, split the less notables into "deaths in XXXX". -Sean Curtin 00:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but not all of them. Mix with the "See:Deaths in" bit and set a maximum
  1. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:10, August 19, 2005 (UTC) (same with births too, I'd say.)
No, then they can find them with a "See:Deaths in 2003" or a "See:Category:2003 deaths"
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. --BozMo|talk 14:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Basically yes, at least for recent years. It is artifical and creates problems to have a list of deaths on the main year page then a separate "Deaths in XXXX" page. If the main year page is within the size limit, include deaths, but if not shift them all to a separate article. PatGallacher 15:43, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

[edit] Question 2

  • If the deaths list is set at a max what should it be:
10
  1. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
20


How can we possibly say?!
  • Comment: The same way we say anything.

[edit] Question 3

  • If there is a max who should be on the list:
Leaders, innovators, that type
Maybe if the list is long we could just bold "that type" Bantman 17:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
This could lead to endless arguments over who is "that type"
This is really the issue with limiting the list at all, isn't it? It seems like we have to do either all or none in order to eliminate any subjective judgment. Bantman 17:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone

[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


Give year of birth
  1. Trevor macinnis 11:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. llywrch 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) again, useful info at no cost to aesthetics or space
  4. Warofdreams 10:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Yes, if known. Gdr 00:13:44, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
  6. Yes, except where age is known but not year of birth. PatGallacher 15:43, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
  7. Ksnow Give year of birth, not age.
  8. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Year if known; if not, age if known. -Sean Curtin 00:11, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Give age at death


Give neither

[edit] Question 5

  • What death page should there be a link to on the Infobox:
Category:XXXX deaths only
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)We need a standard spot to link to on the Infobox.
  2. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. That's what it's for. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Deaths in XXXX if it exists, otherwise Category:XXXX deaths.
  1. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. But if this create difficulties with the infobox, Deaths in xxxx only. Warofdreams 10:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Deaths in XXXX only, leave the redlink for others to fill in

[edit] Question 6

  • Should death names be listed
As simple link (e.g. "Louis IX of France")
With title (e.g. "King Louis IX of France")
  1. Bantman 18:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ksnow
With explanation (e.g. "Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States")
  1. Yes, of course. How else would anyone know who these people were? Gdr 23:57:23, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
  2. Trevor macinnis 15:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC) - as above for births.
  3. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Yes, but keep it short. -Sean Curtin 00:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Always?
  1. Not for people for whom the name of their article makes it clear who they were, e.g. Louis IX of France needs no explanation — he was king of France. But for others, yes.
When editor suspects many people may be unfamiliar with the person?
  1. Bantman 18:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. - Trevor macinnis 15:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC) As above for births.
Never?

[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)


Remove because they exist in the topic page and if they are important then they will exist earlier in the Event section
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Remove because the pages are way too cluttered --BozMo|talk 14:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Warofdreams 10:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  6. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Comments
  • I don't understand. Could someone provide an example? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel prize/Templeton prize/Fields medals

[edit] Question 1

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


Move to the Infobox and make separate pages (eg 2004 in Nobel)
  1. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) Otherwise remove altogether
  2. Nobel Prizes in 2004, most likely. Maybe Notable awards in 2004. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Make new section titled Awards and include everything on List of prizes, medals, and awards
  1. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Could be a subpage Awards in xxxx if there are a large number. Warofdreams 10:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Against. Should a list of the winners of various awards really have the same prominence (implied by the same level header) as the other three main headings, "Events", "Births", and "Deaths"? I don't think so. These should be treated just like who won Oscars -- important in their own field, but not really notable as an event (especially because these awards often follow the noteworthy work or research by several years or decades). Bantman 17:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Against. This would be huge and cluttered, it seems to me. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Remove altogether
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Headings

[edit] Question 1

  • Should the sections be limited to "Events", "Births" and "Deaths":
Yes
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  3. llywrch 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  5. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
No
  1. Those three plus "Awards". Warofdreams 10:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. It depends on the year. For 2001, it may make sense to have a "Fictional references to the year" section. 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. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Another example: What about the "Notes" section for 1900? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Sean Curtin 00:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question 2

  • Are you for or against the following items being on the page:
Ongoing events
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC).AgainstIt belongs in decades page but events within the larger event go on the year page.
  2. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC) - Ditto.
  3. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) my thoughts exactly.
  4. Warofdreams 10:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC) 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
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC).Against
  2. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC) - Against.
  3. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC) - For, though I'd propose a slightly different format. And throw in some conversions the other way as well.
Show us a suggested format for a vote. And where would you put it. In the intro or a separate section?Trevor macinnis 00:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. Against. llywrch 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Alternative - how about an infobox link to XXXX dates in other calendars and list them all there? Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Alternative - how about a link to an article explaining how to covert dates into other calendars included at the top of each article? Warofdreams 10:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Seems good to me. For major regional or world calendars during their period of use. Gdr 00:13:44, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
  5. These really ought to be included somehow. The format can be worked out, but they should be in there. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[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
  1. Smjg 10:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. When any decade reaches this limit, create all the year articles back as far as that decade. Warofdreams 10:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. --Jusjih 07:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Create a page as soon as it has X number of events
  1. Sholtar | talk 05:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC) - 15 events.
  2. Bantman 02:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC) - 4 events.
  3. Theon 20:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. 4 sounds right. Invites expansion, which Wikipedia should do. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. 4, or possibly more if the dates of more than one event are approximations. -Sean Curtin 00:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Move the limit back to 2000BC
  1. Trevor macinnis 01:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. --BozMo|talk 14:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


Other
  1. Theon & I were involved in a discussion (now in archive 1) that individual pages ought to be created when there are enough events to justify their creation. Has anyone reviewed this discussion & offered their reasons for igoring it? -- llywrch 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I saw that argument (here), which is exactly why I asked the question. I didn't feel that a resolution was found when the argument ended two and a half years ago, so I though a refresher was needed.Trevor macinnis 00:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh it hasnt been nearly that long has it? At any rate, I think that the resolution we came to back then was a fair one. If there are at least 90 events in a century (counting entries on the individual decades page), then the year pages are opened up for that century. Thus I vote for create a page as soon as it has X number of events. Theon 20:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about the parent decade pages

[edit] Question 1

  • Should a decade summary (e.g. 1250s) be written?
  1. No --Brunnock 18:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yes Bantman 18:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Yes Theon 20:28, July 29, 2005 (UTC) Why not, if somone wants to do it, it can only add to the wiki.
  4. Yes, agreeing with Theon above. Also, before the 500 BC cutoff, we only have, at best, decade summaries.
  5. Yes. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Yes. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:31, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Yes --Jusjih 07:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question 2

  • Should events be categorized like in 1250s by War and Culture?
  1. No --Brunnock 18:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yes Bantman 18:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Yes. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. No. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[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")
  1. Chronologically --Brunnock 18:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Categorized to give best context Bantman 18:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC) - Works better for older years where context is more difficult.
  3. Chronologically Theon 20:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Chronologically
  5. Chronologically. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Chronologically. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question 4

  • Should all events from the constituent year pages be included, or just the "important" ones?
  1. Important --Brunnock 18:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  2. All until page reaches certain length, then start paring down by removing least important items Bantman 18:35, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Bantman Theon 20:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agree with Bantman
  5. Per Bantman. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[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)


That the end of my questions. If you have any questions or comments to add go ahead.

[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)

[edit] Comments

This page keeps getting accidentally added to a category. To link to a category from within the text, you need to insert a colon before "Category", like this: [[:Category:2004 deaths]] -- Smjg 15:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I started this survey, but neglected to state when the polls closed. Unless there are objections I'll make it August 31st, 2005. After that I'll tally the votes, write a summary then we can re-write the Wikiproject and Timeline standards accordingly. - Trevor macinnis 18:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The close date is fine, but I would hesitate to jump directly from the poll results to new templates and standards. I think that there are multiple smaller stylistic and content issues not yet addressed, which we still need to figure out. More importantly, it seems to me that there is a real difference in opinions coming from whether people are thinking about recent years or "old" years (various dividing lines in people's minds seem to range from about 1400 to 1750 or so). There needs to be some serious discussion about whether we need two standards or alternative content and style recommendations for "old" versus "recent" years. This survey is a great first step, and gives us an idea of who's interested in this, but can't be the only basis for setting new standards. - Bantman 18:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)