Policy Talk:Year Pages

Reusing content on Timeline pages?[edit]

After looking through this discussion, and thinking about how much I hate to do work twice, I have a couple questions:

  1. Is there a way to automatically put the Year contents on the appropriate timeline page? (For example Tikonov settled automatically appearing in the Capellan Confederation/Timeline page.)
  2. Is there a way to automatically parse the pages in the Technology category so the content is inserted without human intervention?

I'd just like to re-use as much content as we can.--Mbear 16:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain there is a way to do this, but I'll key Ebakunin into the conversation and let him judge. I would like to discuss in the interim, though:
Question 1: Assuming there was code that did this, we'd have to either ensure that every possible entity that had a date already had an article in which to insert the data or ensure the code created said article when it didn't exist. (This is really the reason I doubt such a capability exists).
Question 2: I think this is rather related to your first question, but if the code exists, you'd like to see it added here automagically [<--I'm not making that term up] from when it was entered on that technology's original article. Did I state that right? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right: The questions are related. :) It's the same implementation idea, but applied to different pages in the wiki.
Question 1: I was thinking of just examining the pages that are part of the Events category. That would reduce the amount of work, I think.
Though on second thought, we'd probably have to tag each event with a series of categories (e.g. "Draconis Combine Events", etc.) to be sure the event was pulled into the correct timeline.
Question 2: I was thinking of the Weapons pages when I wrote that. The macro/program would read the Year Availability entry and add the entry to the appropriate year page if it didn't already exist. Of course it wouldn't put in the faction information, but at least it would get some of the data in place.
--Mbear 16:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you have a great idea MBear, but I'm not sure if it's feasible on this wiki as it's currently built. I tried to come up with a way to pull it off, something with multiple transcluded templates, but ultimately wikicode cannot loop through an unknown number of elements. In other words, even if we could "tag" a large number of articles or templates (I'm unsure if it's possible), we couldn't automagically combine them. The concept does not work with categories either. I could very well be wrong, but I don't think it's possible. Sad.gif --Ebakunin (talk|contribs) 00:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Style rules set via global CSS file[edit]

I just saw that Neufeld is adding the "nice technology header" to each Year page he's modifying. Though I applaud that effort, could we just assign a CSS class to the headers in the Year page template to avoid the drudgery? That would also make theming the wiki easier.--Mbear 17:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're referring to a bot, which I agree would be /very much appreciated/ by those of us able to employ or direct its use. Ebakunin? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I see Neufeld start with the technology header, is this the startup of the Year Pages update?? If yes, then we can put the other categories "Events", "Battles", but i disagree about there no red links added on the Year Pages.Doneve 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what he is doing. Please hold off on doing anything yet, also. We've still not consolidated what it looks like. When it appears as a policy, then we'll all be doing the same thing (hopefully). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Mine asks is answered.Doneve 18:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Events versus Characters[edit]

So if someone is promoted to a political or leadership position, is it an Event or a Character entry? --Neufeld 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say very much a Character entry. If the position of leadership had been first created, then it might be debatable. Also, one way to determine is: where is the supporting article? On a bio or an event page?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarifies a lot! --Neufeld 17:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Year sections template[edit]

Hey all. I finally got around to creating the year sections template. I would like all your opinions. Would you please head over to its talk section and kick up a fuss. Thanks. --Ebakunin (talk|contribs) 04:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Battles section[edit]

I propose renaming the Battles section of the Year pages to 'Conflicts'. I've seen several instances where people have listed the start (or end) of wars or the assassination of characters under Events or Characters, because (I believe), they feel those events don't fit under something called 'Battles'. The policy page goes into a full description of what that section collects, but I can't fault someone from not knowing that. I feel 'Conflicts' is a better all-around descriptor. I realize that each page would have to be hit individually (unless I can draft Nic's help), but I'd rather do it now while the majority of pages have yet to be created. Comments?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What you are think about Conflicts and Crises!--— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Doneve (talkcontribs) 14:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC).
The term 'Crises' could easily refer to a natural event, as well as a violent one. Conflict indicates its about violence between two or more humans, so incorporates only those events where humans cause harm to others. We don't want the failure of a water purification network on a colony planet or a plague to fall in the same section as battles, wars, assassinations, etc., since they're more adequately located in Events.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Gonna be bold.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 03:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Present tense[edit]

I've noticed that year pages are mostly written in present tense, which differs from most of the rest of BattleTechWiki. I think that's the best approach—the year pages are written from the perspective of that year, so the present tense makes sense to describe those events. Because it's a deviation from the general practice on BTW, it should probably be captured in policy. I propose the following policy section be added to the Details of the current policy. Tosta Dojen (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2020 (EDT)


Because each Year page takes the reader to the perspective of that year, events should be described in the present tense.


Has the policy on linked pages changed? Only I've seen a number of years pages where the pages have gone from every possible link being linked in each event, to one link per event, and then back to every possible link again, and I'm a little confused. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2020 (EST)

Based on a recent conversation I had on the subject, I suspect some editors are simply unaware of the current policy, and are editing Year pages based on the more liberal linking style seen everywhere else. Tosta Dojen (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2020 (EST)