Difference between revisions of "Talk:3053"

(→‎What is "significant": ...when I see it)
Line 28: Line 28:
  
 
::I am flexible on the Harloc Raiders, and I can see your point with the DropShip class. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 
::I am flexible on the Harloc Raiders, and I can see your point with the DropShip class. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 23:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::I'm trying to stay out of this, 'cause I feel I'd come across as more critical than intended, but...how do we codify this? To the average Editor (and I feel like one with some of the events you reference here), I have to simply believe they're more important than another without really being certain. Would the birth of a minor child of a major character qualify, if say that minor character has one BattleCorps story focused on her? I'm feeling like it may boil down to Justice Potter Stewart's position on obscenity, in that I'll know what's important when I see it...but that means we'll constantly be fighting the battle of who believes what. Some help here? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  
 
==Small Change==
 
==Small Change==

Revision as of 20:43, 9 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)
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) Smiley.gif
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)
Scaletail, you and I do differ in focus on this (I appear to be more aligned with Cyc). I'm all for using the interconnectedness of wikis to allow one to find in one format everything that applies (or is semi-relevant) to a particular search item, while you want to focus on what's important and not get bogged down in the minutiae. Unfortunately, both intents can only frustrate the other. Ebakunin's method appears to address a middle ground. I presume it is not an acceptable manner of dealing with importance 'creep' though?
On a somewhat related point, I'd like to propose our Manual of Style be expanded into specific Policies, where details regarding the proper use are discussed. Discussions very like these can be easily found there (for later review, reminder, etc) and the results displayed as BTW's policy on the matter. If we had a Policy:Years that said the intent of the Years page is to list important events only (with a demonstration of determining importance), the divisors (if adopted) acceptable for inclusion (where the Year warrants it), etc., etc., then we could refer back to a easily found center of policy, rather than frustrate you when Editors not-knowledgeable (or forgetful, as in my case) act boldly. I'd be more than happy to take policy under my wing (as I stole many of our first ones from Wikipedia), but you seem to be more of a successful policy wonk in your crafting of BTW-specific policies. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


What is "significant"

To get an idea of what's a significant event, would you please copy this ♦ and paste it next to topics that you believe are not significant? Thanks for the help. --Ebakunin 18:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Done. --Scaletail 02:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool. I agree with everything except "Clan Smoke Jaguar prototype Charybdis fighter carrier DropShip enters service, renamed the Miraborg-class in honor of Tyra Miraborg" (related to a major storyline) and "Capellan Confederation raises Harloc Raiders 'mercenary unit'" (significant military unit with a really weird history). Any other thoughts/opinions? --Ebakunin 03:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I am flexible on the Harloc Raiders, and I can see your point with the DropShip class. --Scaletail 23:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to stay out of this, 'cause I feel I'd come across as more critical than intended, but...how do we codify this? To the average Editor (and I feel like one with some of the events you reference here), I have to simply believe they're more important than another without really being certain. Would the birth of a minor child of a major character qualify, if say that minor character has one BattleCorps story focused on her? I'm feeling like it may boil down to Justice Potter Stewart's position on obscenity, in that I'll know what's important when I see it...but that means we'll constantly be fighting the battle of who believes what. Some help here? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Small Change

Both Scailtail and Revanche are right:

1. Often, fiction will take a seemingly "minor" point, and make it integral to the plot (two of my favorite authors, N. Stephenson and N. Gaiman, do just that), so who are we to exclude details?

2. Too many little details are present, especially during the Clan Invasion and Jihad eras.

I am firmly with Ebakunin here, and I want to make a very straight-forward suggestion: use the pre-existing categories Events and Characters. Also, some people may not want to look at weapons development, just the date of introduction for their favorite BattleMech, so separate them. I've used divisions as guides to help the reader find info fast. Lastly, I assume that "Other" is for seemingly "Minor" points, so I changed that subtitle, too. Sorry, I been reading this for a while, and I thought I might be bold here.--S.gage 19:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

btw, I made no changes regarding "importance" of events here.--S.gage 19:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)