Policy Talk:Year Pages
Sarna News
Contents
| The following is an archived discussion of the included proposal. Please do not modify it. |
Ebakunin has provided a link to Wookiepedia, a Star Wars wikia, as an example of how they handle Year pages.[1] 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. CategoriesIt 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)
Events
Characters
Events
Minor Events
Characters/PeopleMinor Characters/People
NotabilityAs 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)
References/BibliographiesWhile 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)
DatesWhenever 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)
Side Discussion: 3053Hello 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)
Notes
Consensus Wrap-upOkay, 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:
Example PageWith 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:
Consensus Support/Non-SupportPlease state either your support or non-support for this policy, per the listed "Consensus Wrap-up" points:
Consensus Summary: Proposal passes. Closed on 30 March 2010 |
|---|
| The above is an archived discussion of the included proposal. Please do not modify it. |
What's the hangup?
So, what's still preventing this policy from being implemented? --Neufeld 17:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Informal policy is seven days after last discussion before the consensus review begins. Every time someone comments (yes, I'm guilty this time), the counter resets. We want to ensure people have a chance to comment in a reasonable amount of time. Then, another seven days of the consensus review itself, to make sure everybody understands what the policy is shaping to be.
- However, I have started on the policy itself (actually, almost finished). Take a look here: User:Revanche/Year. Unless the discussion radically alters in the next few days, this is what it will most likely look like. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Clarification: we're in decision phase now. Based on Scaletail's last comment, that means the decision phase would typically close on the 7th of April and the policy will go forward. However, I would say most people have already weighed in (that will weigh in) and decision determination may be clear sooner than that.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers! Can we start editing now, or is there something else to wait for? I'm not sure what exactly "consensus review" mean? --Neufeld 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Clarification: we're in decision phase now. Based on Scaletail's last comment, that means the decision phase would typically close on the 7th of April and the policy will go forward. However, I would say most people have already weighed in (that will weigh in) and decision determination may be clear sooner than that.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Reusing content on Timeline pages?
After looking through this discussion, and thinking about how much I hate to do work twice, I have a couple questions:
- 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.)
- 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.
--Ebakunin (talk|contribs) 00:41, 20 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.
Style rules set via global CSS file
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)
- 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)
- 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)