Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Timeline Tracer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline Tracer .
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Contents 1 WP:TORIG is now WP:TIMETRACE (also WP:TIMET) 2 To all members 3 Nice project! 4 Vanished User your user pages are hilarious 5 Curious 6 WP:TIMETRACE has been enhanced, give a look 7 {{timefact}} 8 Reliable Sources 9 Regarding request templates 10 New guidelines 11 More clear 12 Tags and categories 13 WikiProject Time 14 Interesting 15 Bot 16 Jenkem 17 TfD nomination of Template:Timefact 18 Reminder

[edit] WP:TORIG is now WP:TIMETRACE (also WP:TIMET)

WikiProject True Origins WP:TORIG is now WikiProject Timeline Tracer WP:TIMETRACE also WP:TIMET. This follows many opinions that the previous name of the project could confuse or provide negative feelings in some users. I hope the new name serves well Daoken 02:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To all members

Please remember to change, in the page where you have your userboxes, {{user trueorig}} for {{user timetrace}} or {{user timetracer}} (smaller). I have changed the template {{user trueorig}} for it looks and act as {{user timetrace}} but safest is to change it editing your userbox page Daoken 11:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice project!

This is a very useful project I believe, there are soooo many articles wrong but WRONG ! Well, for now I registered as Friend, later may be like a Participant. In my new talk page there is a bit of humor for TimeTracers Vanished user 22:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanished User your user pages are hilarious

I was rolling of laugh, like your styleTopTopView 23:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. That's superb! Pedro |  Chat  09:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That is just lol and lol Daoken 11:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! I was looking for the oxygen mask and under-the-seat-life-preserver instructions..! Very funny! Dreadstar † 17:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I add my laugh there ℒibrarian2 20:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Make my best, keep tuned for new onesVanished user 07:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curious

I'm just curious why the original project was not moved to here, instead of newly creating this and copying the old info into it? Moving a page preserves the history, the talk page conversations, and talk page history. I'd think you would want to preserve all that. Regardless, the new name is much nicer! ^Ariel♥Gold 09:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know how to do it, asked for help to some sysop but never got response so I assumed that in spite of that there is lots of kindness helping with small things and so, when it was about something more complex, there was an unspoken policy of "work your things out, that is the best way to learn", which was fine. I also didn't want to hang on to someone always asking for help, so I made the best I could with my limited knowledge of Wiki. I hope that there is no problem with not having moved all, I just set up the new and redirected the old. Daoken 11:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Should be no problem, the history in the redirect page still exists for licensing purposes, which is the key factor. We can always have an administrator move or merge the old history here if it's important. Good job! Dreadstar † 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:TIMETRACE has been enhanced, give a look

WikiProject Timeline Tracer has been greatly enhanced with Guidelines and Strategy as well as many alternatives which will make your editions more easy to target, easier to tag or comment and much more. Please go to WP:TIMETRACE, give a look in the new tools and get busy helping articles. Remember that this WikiProject is helping the backbone (beyond content) of all articles , Reliable Sources and Verification. Thank you for participating Daoken 11:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I am impressed. Great job. ℒibrarian2 16:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's beautiful! Dreadstar † 17:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{timefact}}

I'd prefer to avoid large banners in cases where the article is 99% ok. Can I suggest a tag for use within the text, similar to {{fact}}? The text could, in fact, be identical to {{fact}}: the difference would be the category/categories added. Good idea? Bad idea? Jakew 19:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good idea, I created {{Timefact}} and will post it at the Resources page and Guidelines Good call! Vanished user 08:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A good thing to add to resources Daoken 09:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources

Hello all! I thought I would let you know that the reliable sources guideline was recently re-written. You may wish to review it, and possible revise the Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline Tracer/Reliable sources. I would actually suggest simply redirecting that page to the current WP:RS, since copying and pasting part of Wikipedia into another has its own issues (see Wikipedia:Verbatim copying). Perhaps instead of the RS section here, you could make it a supplement to historical references that talks about issues that editors may run into when dealing with older historic sources, giving tips on how to find valid, verifiable sources. Just a suggestion! Cheers, ^Ariel♥Gold 09:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable point, I changed WP:TIMETRS, if anyone disagrees please revert, but I think is better now and will not need to be updated if WP changes the RS criteria Vanished user 10:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding request templates

• Template:Histref
• Template:Histrefeval
• Template:Histrefm
• Template:Histrefverif

Hey, WikiProject Timeline Tracer! The above templates are meant for cleanup and content addition in articles, but are redundant to {{histinfo}} and other templates, such as {{refimprove}}. In addition, WikiProject notices should go on an article's talk page. May I suggest that these templates be deleted, or that they go to the article's talk page? Any suggestions are appreciated! Thanks, Gracenotes^T § 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Those templates are specific to chronological or time-line lack of references, unlike the general ones. Therefore are indicating to the editors precisely what they must look for, not just references but to verify dates and time-lines.

The templates have been well received in all articles where we placed those and the editors showed fast compliance so the templates are working well in their purpose and speed up historical referencing by narrowing the focus to what exactly needs reference.

The placement on talk pages didn't yield results and was ignored so we started to follow the same strategy than other projects and placing them in the main article. We also have developed small templates which don't disturb the main appearance of the article and are placed at the footnotes. I hope this clarifies your doubts, thank you for your suggestions. Daoken 07:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines were adapted following the concern presented . See WP:TIMETGD Daoken 08:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

These templates most certainly are not redundant, they address directly the issues regarding historical validity and allow the editors to know exactly what is missing. The new guidelines are, I think, a reasonable view. ☤'ProfBrumby 13:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Would it be possible to use more accessible terminology than "historical references"? For example, "historically [adjective] references" ([adj] could possibly be "reliable"). How an article should be corrected under the project's guidelines is somewhat unclear to me; do any participants have an example diff I could see? Thanks, Gracenotes^T § 00:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Reliable" could awake some controversy and debate about how reliable is a given source. But it can be for example "historical/timeline specific sources" or "timeline confirming references/sources". Do you have any suggestion?

About your other question, a simplified view is:

a) an article describes dates and facts happening at one point in time but fails to source those claims, or

b) an article describes its subject but fails to describe its history or development timeline, or

c) an article claims a lineage but fails to source that claim.

The article's editors then must, in case:

a) insert sources for verification of those claims, or in case

b) provide a well sourced history or timeline of the article's subject, or in case

c) insert sources that verify the claims.

You may go to WP:TIMETST and search the categories for seeing some examples of how articles were improved.

At this point, with thanks for your input, after trying to integrate your suggestions, and said in a most friendly way, it could be most interesting to know how you came to be interested in our project. I see that your interest is not enough for joining but nevertheless you show remarkable interest in the details of the project. I hope you can clarify my doubts. Thank you again for your most useful suggestions. Daoken 08:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

After some thinking, perhaps "sources for chronology/history verification" ? Is this sounding more accessible? Daoken 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New guidelines

Please review some changes to WP:TIMETGD related to how to use the tags. Daoken 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More clear

I think that now the purpose is more clear. I will use the new guidelines as described in the message received at my talk page Jenny^Len☤ 16:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags and categories

At WP:UPDATE we have recently reviewed all guidelines at the light of some namespace policies. As it seems that WP:TIMET may be suffering from similar "discomfort" , I will WP:BOLD and take care of actualizing all tags and categories. This is for sparing you the trouble. If Daoken or anyone thinks I acted wrongly please let me know and revert the changes, I am doing this in the best intention ℒibrarian2 05:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that was a fine and timely work. Well done! Daoken 08:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Time

Should not the relation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Time be established and outlined on the project page? __meco 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose in this talk page what do you want to include Daoken 16:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That that project be mentioned as a related project? __meco 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I added you to the cooperation banner, is that ok? ℒibrarian2 19:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate for reasons of synergy effect if for no other. __meco 19:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting

This is an interesting WikiProject. I agree that many articles are lamentable at giving historical context, let alone referencing it. Have you considered working with Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science? Carcharoth 12:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea Jenny^Len☤ 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Daoken 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

I recommend to try this bot, it may help Daoken 05:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jenkem

This article about a drug and a phenomenon that is currently breaking in the US news media already has some timeline issues which needs to be monitored if not addressed directly. I have already given heads-up to WikiProject Update Watch about this. __meco 14:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Following the discussion at the article's talk page I splitted the timelines into a new article See Jenkem media surge (2007)‎ Daoken 12:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Although this has currently been undone, that is not the end of this. I hope members of this project will keep assisting in the development of the Jenkem article. __meco 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Timefact

Template:Timefact has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. The necessary comments are at the TfD page. Once again, and as said previously at User_talk:Adam_Cuerden#POV wars please do not stalk or target this project with your animosity against editors who happen to be WP:TIMET members but who contradict you on their own and not as representatives of this project. This type of behavior is perhaps a sequel of the pending arbitration Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#... RfA possible too, please refrain from such behavior. Daoken 09:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

Daoken 10:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)