Talk:3053

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)

Damn me for doing this, but if the scope of BTW is to track all canon facts (a preview of my upcoming reply to your email, Ebakunin), should we be picky about what facts are notable for the Years? And, if not, should it just be "Births" rather than "Important Births"? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a good deal of leeway with the categories, as long as it's not "fluff". It's more for ease of reading, as years like 3053 have so many significant events that they all become a blur. --Ebakunin 22:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here I go again. Why are half of these things on here? How important is knowing that the King Karnov air transport was first produced or that Stalwart Support was formed? This should be the important stuff, not every single event that happened in a given year. At a certain point, it becomes so much that the list is no longer useful. I thought the idea for the year articles was to have a list of the key events, followed by a link that shows every article that links to that year, thus giving a reader a more complete picture. If the year articles continue in this fashion, there absolutely needs to be some organization to it. --Scaletail 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that approach. The whole point of the divisions is to restore a little order :) --Ebakunin 23:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, most were added because I had spare time at work and no formal indication of what was/wasn't to be added, something I guess this talk page will nut out Cyc 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)