Wikipedia talk:Days and years

Year layout

I figured that this would be the best place to discuss the layout of each of the years, since I'm going to have to go through them anyways.

Here are some questions. I think it might be best to discuss each item separately. Any other opinions?? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Calendar

I don't think that we need to have a separate calendar on each page, as it takes up too much space. Look at 2004 for example. Also, I'll point out that one of the tricks I use to fill out the years is to look at "What links here" and see which days/articles refer to that year and incorporate what is important. Having the calendar makes every day link to every year, so that's out for what it's work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The calendars promote convenient jumping points between days and I think they should stay. They really don't take up too much space. It isn't the calendar that makes those links, its probably the fact that recent 2004 facts have made it into a lot of day-of-the-year pages. -- Netoholic @ 15:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Centuries/Decades/Years

I don't think there's going to any questions regarding that. I'll try to fix up the links so that they go directly to Century, Decade and Year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Headings

I do think that we need Events ("Things that happended"?), Births, and Deaths. I don't think we need films, songs, etc (look at 1992 for example); it tends to go a little long. Perhaps we can make category for each year in film, music, etc like in the English wiki? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer that we stick with one single page for each year/day and include births, deaths, events, significant awards (Oscars, Nobel Prize). I have no problem if the pages get a little long. As far as categories, I don't see much need for "year in films" or "year in music" just yet. I think lists would be much better, because you could list extra information, like the director and movie company. Categories are a weak way of tying movies in a year together, since that is of little informative value by itself. -- Netoholic @ 15:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The word Century

As Netoholic mentioned to me, the word "century" is not in Basic English, although it is in Special English. I prefer not to use Category:births (1900-1999) because I think we should try to avoid parenthesis in headings if we can. How about Category:1900s births instead of Category:20th century births? Same with the general years, meaning Category:1900s instead of Category:20th century? I think that's clear enough. At least it's not a terrible amount of changing on my part. I do have to remember to sort properly for the pre-11th century stuff, but that's simply enough. It wouldn't be that unusual, because I believe one or two of the languages have the same structure. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, bad idea. I just realized that this would conflict with the decade of the 1900s, meaning 1900-1910. Maybe it should something like Category:1900-1999 births instead of Category:20th century births? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We're categorizing births, so the first word of the category should be "Births" - like Category:Births (1900-1999). I see nothing wrong with the parentheses, since we do it with article titles too. -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with the birth and death categories, but what about the general one? Category:1900-1999? We don't need the parentheses? Also, isn't the year 2000 technically in the 20th century, meaning we're going Category:Births (1901-2000) because there's no year zero? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if all this work is really worth it. Maybe we should simply have a few words at the beginning of each century article, create some redirects to make it a little clear and be done with it. It's not like people go browsing through the years in general. Usually, people travel through articles. If we decide to ignore the centuries and go 1900-1999 to make it a little easier to understand, then technically the articles here don't match the articles for each century in other wikis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

decommission births/deaths by year categories?

I don't find trees like Category:Births by year at all useful. Certainly, both Category:1970 births and Category:1970 deaths should be part of Category:1970, but do we need to have the birth/death by year category tree? I wouldn't object to a similar tree for topics, like "films by year", but birth and death are more coincidence. -- Netoholic @ 15:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)