Policy Talk:Year Pages/Archive1

1 Categories
2 Side Discussion: 3053
3 Notes
4 Consensus Wrap-up

The following is an archived discussion of the included proposal. Please do not modify it.

Continuation of policy discussion that started here.

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

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)

Hello, i think we can pick up Events, Characters, and Technological developement for the Year Pages, it is better as nothing, and you give the page a little structure.Doneve 18:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the layout. The stuff in the Minor/Other category could be added to the other categories without any problem IMHO. For example:

Events

Rim Collection reaches trade agreement with Federated Commonwealth.
Blackstone BattleMechs Limited opened.
Capellan Confederation raises Harloc Raiders "mercenary unit".
Stalwart Support mercenary unit formed.
University of Blake begins construction.

Characters

Padraig O Bhaoil appointed Director of the ComStar Explorer Corps.

I'm not in favor of the Minor category because what's minor to you may be Major to me. If we really want to have minor events, perhaps we could make a subcategory underneath each category. Something like this:

Events

Rim Collection reaches trade agreement with Federated Commonwealth.
Blackstone BattleMechs Limited opened.
Capellan Confederation raises Harloc Raiders "mercenary unit".

Minor Events

Stalwart Support mercenary unit formed.
University of Blake begins construction.

Characters/People

Minor Characters/People

Padraig O Bhaoil appointed Director of the ComStar Explorer Corps.

Just my two cents. --Mbear 19:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hy Mbear i like the layouts from Ebakunin and you, but i think we need no Minor Characters/People on the Year Pages, is my opinion.Doneve 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's three of us that agree that minor is not necessary. I'd prefer to keep the categories as generic and easy to classify as possible. I don't think sub-categorizing is necessary, either.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. I've no problem with dropping the Minor category. I just wanted to provide an option for anyone who wants to add it.--Mbear 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I stronlgy dislike the word "minor" here on a matter of principle. It's a subjective word that should have no place in the structure. Frabby 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability

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)

I'd also like to suggest the idea that the only wikilink in the statement should be the focus of the statement.

Example:

Draconis Combine's Buda Enterprises of Proserpina produces first modern Tokugawa Heavy Tanks.

The intent of this would be to highlight the object of the statement. All similarly-related links would obviously be found within the actual article. Because it was the Tokugawa that was introduced in 3053, it would be the only one with a wikilink.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd go one step further and say everything should be one-liners containing a link to the proper article. In a few select cases it may be a good idea to provide some context information, but in the year articles this should be a rare exception. Frabby 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hy Frabby i think we can start with the Year Page update, i want to make this when i finished with my CCG project.Doneve 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold off for the moment, Doneve. Frabby introduced some ideas that merit a chance for others to review and discuss. I'm also working on an alternate page view of year 3053 that incorporates the ideas put forth by consensus here, so people can visiualize the proposals. Once we all make the decision, the policy will be written and then it goes into effect. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No No i have some work with the CCG section, i don't want to add at the moment, we must figuring out in the next future, have a good time.94.219.91.129 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Fuc...my comp makes problem, sorry ;).Doneve 00:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

References/Bibliographies

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)

Agree. Years pages are effectively meta-articles and much closer to categories or list articles in this respect. They should not have contet that requires any referenes; instead, link to the proper articles. Frabby 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dates

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)

Agree. On point 3) I'd suggest to explicitly allow inserting un-dated statements in-between dated statements if the un-dated statement can be pinpointed somewhere in-between these events, at the latest possible position in the list. Frabby 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Side Discussion: 3053

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)

That's what we're discussing here. I think most (if not all) of us like the organization of his example, but we need to define what the standard is before we make it policy. Please feel free to add your comments and opinions to the discussions I started above.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes

↑ The reason I referenced Wookiepedia is not because I like the site (though I do), but rather because it is the largest fan-centric wiki on the web. As such, Wookiepedia has proven itself to be excellent at community organization and a great example of how to craft wiki policy. --Ebakunin ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus Wrap-up

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:

Four categories within a Year page (in order): Battles, Events, Characters and Technology
Each entry should be short & focused, requiring only one line.
Only one wikilink per entry, on the statement's proper article.
The statement must be supported within the parent article.
No references nor bibliography sections.
All entries should be preceded by the date, if known, in the following format: month-date(s). Ex 1: March 21. Ex 2: March 21-26.
All dated entries will be shown in chronological order, within their category.
All undated entries will follow dated entries, unless the sequence of events suggests the undated event occurred between two dated events.

Example Page

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:

A lot less entries. This is because many entries were not supported in the proper article. Per the notability discussion above, if the event warrants a year entry, then it must link to one (and only one) article that provides greater detail. Otherwise, it doesn't warrant mentioning on a year page.
No redlinks. Just as stated above, if no article supports the entry, then the entry is not Year page notable.
No lists. A brief statement with one link to the parent article is all that is needed to provide relevant information. If the reported event requires links to more than one article to get a full picture, consider making multiple (but separate and un-bulleted) entries.
Less links. Only one article is needed to tell the story of the event. In the original 3053 page, some links are made to entities (military units, companies, planets) that don't reference the event at all. Those links are unneeded.
Battles category added. Battles, being a large part of BattleTech, appear notable enough to stand out of other events. None appeared within the test of the 3053 page that met notability requirements, as set in the above discussion.
No Other/Minor category. This is easy: if the event warrants inclusion in the parent article, then the event was big enough to fit in either the Battle, Events, Characters or Technology categories.
No sub-categories within Technology. This was determined to be the best course of action to help prevent confusion over what categories merited sub-categories and which don't. Keeping broad, easily distinguished sections was deemed more important than preciseness of entries that are supported by proper articles.
No References section. Per discussion, all entries should be referenced in their proper articles.

Consensus Support/Non-Support

Please state either your support or non-support for this policy, per the listed "Consensus Wrap-up" points:

Support: I feel this policy is much needed and will provide direct awareness of a lot of articles that might otherwise remain orphaned and seldom viewed. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
points 1-5, 7-8 Support, point 6 non-support Dates should be entered in a template, that should display according what's been set in user preferences. --Neufeld 14:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point: what would that date template be? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the inner working of the wiki. Did a search and found this: Manual:Dynamic dates. Have to test out in Sandbox, if it works by default. --Neufeld 20:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seems to work by default. :( --Neufeld 20:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia stopped using that. The inner workings of WP have become more mysterious and arcane, but I'm sure there's a good reason. Second, everywhere else on BTW the format is [Date] [Month] [Year] because that's the format in BattleTech. I see no reason to change that, though I would argue that it should still be in the order you propose, Revanche. --Scaletail 03:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Laudable idea, Neufeld. Wish it had worked out, 'cause it would have made standardization easier. I'll presume that the non-support has defaulted to neutral for point 6. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the American date format, but since there are no years, I vote neutral on point 6. Month Day is acceptable, Month Day Year is not. --Neufeld 16:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been no call for Month Day Year. Year is superfluous, since the page subject is the year.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Support points 1-3, 5-8. I'm not sure about point 4. That seems to be specific to the Events category. (Personally I like those unneeded links because they take me to something I've never seen before.)--Mbear 16:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit confused. I believe you are referencing point 3, since that deals with unrelated links. Point 4 indicates that the stated event must be referenced in the parent article, where the details would reside. Can you also elaborate on your statement regarding the Events category? I'll comment on your concerns once I'm clear that we're talking about the same issue.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm talking about the fourth bullet: "Less links. Only one article is needed to tell the story of the event. In the original 3053 page, some links are made to entities (military units, companies, planets) that don't reference the event at all. Those links are unneeded. "--Mbear 16:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, and again, sorry for the initial confusion over that; it was my fault for numbering the wrap-up and the bullets alike. You are referencing point #3, with elaboration provided by the 4th bullet (changes between the current 3053 version provided by Ebakunin and the test verions provided by me, per the above discussions (links above)).

The intent of the Years page, as led by Ebakunin's suggestion and followed by the discussions here, is to make the page informative as to events that matter that specific year. Your request has the intent of free-form exploring of links on BTW, as a way of either educating or inspiring yourself. I would argue that

1) there are plenty of ways to do your intent, by
- a) following the parent link and exploring links embedded there,
- b) grabbing a term from the Year statement and putting it in the left-column search field or
- c) using the Random Page function in that same column;
2) providing multiple links detracts (not kills, simply detracts) from the intent of cleaning up the Years pages and focusing on one specific event per bullet.

In summation and with due respect to you, I think there is plenty of opportunities to endulge your free-form wikilink following, but this is the only place on the wiki to sum up a Year's events in a format that provides exactly the information someone wants, without them having to parse through extraneous information. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

One thing I just thought of is that the year categories were imported from the timeline, which came from CBT.com. Many of those event are redlinked, but I don't think they should be removed. I'm not sure how this distinction can be made easily, but perhaps an event that is redlinked could contain a reference to the CBT.com timeline until an article is made for the subject? --Scaletail 01:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that is definitely an option. I think whatever Editor(s) undertakes the new format has either the option of removing a redlink (only) statement or research if it exists on that timeline and then hyperlinking to it. I'm open to it (though I wouldn't go to that much detail, due to the shear amount of pages to be updated).--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading both of our statements, Scaletail, I latched onto the term "how this distinction can be made easily". I agree that it would be difficult if we allowed for redlinks in these cases, as most people (IMO) will not research to see if the redlink is tied to that timeline, nor would follow-on Editors challenge that. We'd then again have a proliferation of redlinks that provide no means to elaborate upon the Year entry. New entries would be made without any ties to the official timeline, but are added because other redlinks already exist on the page (which is one thing we're trying to clean up with this policy). In my view, if the Editor who chooses to fix the article to the new template style doesn't wish to research the official timeline in which to link to, then the policy should state the redlink is removed. The entry can always be made later by an Editor seeking to add that particular statement.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I just wanted the topic considered. I'm fine with getting rid of them. --Scaletail 01:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

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?

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)

Sure can, if you're familiar with the policy. I'm moving the policy over to its page now and announcing it after that. Bring the pain. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Search

Policy Talk:Year Pages/Archive1

Sarna News

BattleTech Community Ads

Contents

Categories

Events

Characters

Events

Minor Events

Characters/People

Minor Characters/People

Notability

References/Bibliographies

Dates

Side Discussion: 3053

Notes

Consensus Wrap-up

Example Page

Consensus Support/Non-Support

What's the hangup?

BattleTechWiki

Search

Editing BTW

Background

Current Game Systems

Admin Pages

Tools