Policy Talk:Year Pages

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. 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

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:

1. Four categories within a Year page (in order): Battles, Events, Characters and Technology
2. Each entry should be short & focused, requiring only one line.
3. Only one wikilink per entry, on the statement's proper article.
4. The statement must be supported within the parent article.
5. No references nor bibliography sections.
6. 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.
7. All dated entries will be shown in chronological order, within their category.
8. 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:

1. 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.
2. No redlinks. Just as stated above, if no article supports the entry, then the entry is not Year page notable.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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)

• Support points 2-8. I'm not sure about point 1. Having the links to "unrelated" articles I find useful. Those links often take me to a page that has something that inspire plot points or other ideas.--Mbear 16:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Date format

• 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)