Difference between revisions of "Talk:3053"
Sarna News
(Nice!) |
(→Template idea: - response) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I had an idea of separating out events in a year article. What do you think of using these divisions? Thanks. --[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]] 18:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | I had an idea of separating out events in a year article. What do you think of using these divisions? Thanks. --[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]] 18:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I like the /idea/ though not necessarily all of the division subjects. The idea of the division, I like the varying colors, but I'd recommend making it as simple as possible: births/deaths, technology, military events, others. That's just off the top of my head, so the limited list may be flawed in what it includes. For example, what is a military event? in my mind, invasion, noted raid, surrenders, note unit movements. Other points of view? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | :I like the /idea/ though not necessarily all of the division subjects. The idea of the division, I like the varying colors, but I'd recommend making it as simple as possible: births/deaths, technology, military events, others. That's just off the top of my head, so the limited list may be flawed in what it includes. For example, what is a military event? in my mind, invasion, noted raid, surrenders, note unit movements. Other points of view? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
::What Revanche said - it certainly ''is'' beautiful, but maybe a little over the top. What I like most is the era indicator at the top. Exact dates should be given in the article wherever possible. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | ::What Revanche said - it certainly ''is'' beautiful, but maybe a little over the top. What I like most is the era indicator at the top. Exact dates should be given in the article wherever possible. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::What categories should we use then? I think "Political and military events", "Important births", and "Technological development" are fairly obvious. Deaths are almost always politically or militarily related, so I think "Births" would be sufficient. What else would work? Thanks for the input. --[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]] 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:11, 7 July 2009
Template idea
I had an idea of separating out events in a year article. What do you think of using these divisions? Thanks. --Ebakunin 18:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I like the /idea/ though not necessarily all of the division subjects. The idea of the division, I like the varying colors, but I'd recommend making it as simple as possible: births/deaths, technology, military events, others. That's just off the top of my head, so the limited list may be flawed in what it includes. For example, what is a military event? in my mind, invasion, noted raid, surrenders, note unit movements. Other points of view? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- What Revanche said - it certainly is beautiful, but maybe a little over the top. What I like most is the era indicator at the top. Exact dates should be given in the article wherever possible. Frabby 21:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- What categories should we use then? I think "Political and military events", "Important births", and "Technological development" are fairly obvious. Deaths are almost always politically or militarily related, so I think "Births" would be sufficient. What else would work? Thanks for the input. --Ebakunin 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)