Difference between revisions of "Policy Talk:Year Pages/Archive1"
(created) |
(shortcut) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | <sub>< [[Policy:Year Pages]]</sub> | ||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
Latest revision as of 07:23, 6 April 2010
The following is an archived discussion of the included proposal. Please do not modify it. |
Ebakunin has provided a link to Wookiepedia, a Star Wars wikia, as an example of how they handle Year pages.[1] He also adjusted year page 3053 as an example of what we can do. Please comment in each section, limiting the discussion to the section title, starting a new section for other areas of interest. Categories[edit]It is my opinion that the categories be limited to the following, in order: Battles (anything involving violence, to include campaigns, skirmishes, assassinations, etc.), Events (occurrences that do not involve violence, technology-based or individual character-related happenings, such as political actions, unit formations & movements, declarations, factory openings, trade agreements, etc.), Characters (events such as births, deaths, injuries and actions that are not previously attributed to an event in Battles or Events) and Technology (new vehicle releases & events, new forms of technology invented, produced, stolen or transferred, etc.). I do not like the idea of a Minor category, for reasons detailed below. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Events[edit]
Characters[edit]
Events[edit]
Minor Events[edit]
Characters/People[edit]Minor Characters/People[edit]
Notability[edit]As long as they are properly categorized in the above four categories, I'm fine with most events being included on a Year page. However, I don't agree that there should be long statements regarding an event, nor bulleted items about an event, as the required wikilinks will have articles that provide that level of detail. In my mind, most statements on a Years page can be summed up in 10-20 words.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
References/Bibliographies[edit]While I acknowledge the references & bibliography changes that Frabby, Doneve, Wrangler and myself have agreed upon and started using haven't yet become new policy, I don't feel they have any place on a Years page. As above, in my initial Notability statement, the links that the statements use will be to articles that should be properly referenced. If the articles are not there, then there is no reason the references should be here. In any case, I'd prefer Reference and Bibliography sections not be included on Year pages. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Dates[edit]Whenever possible, events should be preceeded by a date, and we'd need to agree to a format there, too. My thoughts: 1) Month-Date (e.g., March 24-29) 2) Statements should be in chronological order 3) Statements without dates would follow the dated statements, in whatever order best applies. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Side Discussion: 3053[edit]Hello Revanche, i see Ebakunins example about the 3053 year page, i want to pick up the example and added to the other year pages, when it is ok.Doneve 13:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Notes[edit]
Consensus Wrap-up[edit]Okay, looking back at the discussion, I didn't see anything that struck me as opposition to anything proposed here. For review, then, consensus appears to support the following:
Example Page[edit]With those directives in mind, I submit the following example of the 3053 year page, 3053 Test #1. Please compare the two pages. Note major changes between the two are:
Consensus Support/Non-Support[edit]Please state either your support or non-support for this policy, per the listed "Consensus Wrap-up" points:
Consensus Summary: Proposal passes. Closed on 30 March 2010 |
---|
The above is an archived discussion of the included proposal. Please do not modify it. |
What's the hangup?[edit]
So, what's still preventing this policy from being implemented? --Neufeld 17:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Informal policy is seven days after last discussion before the consensus review begins. Every time someone comments (yes, I'm guilty this time), the counter resets. We want to ensure people have a chance to comment in a reasonable amount of time. Then, another seven days of the consensus review itself, to make sure everybody understands what the policy is shaping to be.
- However, I have started on the policy itself (actually, almost finished). Take a look here: User:Revanche/Year. Unless the discussion radically alters in the next few days, this is what it will most likely look like. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Clarification: we're in decision phase now. Based on Scaletail's last comment, that means the decision phase would typically close on the 7th of April and the policy will go forward. However, I would say most people have already weighed in (that will weigh in) and decision determination may be clear sooner than that.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers! Can we start editing now, or is there something else to wait for? I'm not sure what exactly "consensus review" mean? --Neufeld 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Clarification: we're in decision phase now. Based on Scaletail's last comment, that means the decision phase would typically close on the 7th of April and the policy will go forward. However, I would say most people have already weighed in (that will weigh in) and decision determination may be clear sooner than that.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)