Category talk:History

From This Might Be A Wiki

I was looking through the Years the other day and had to keep going back to Category:History to change years. I had an idea to make links to the adjacent years available and saw a few moments ago the 'id=contentSub'. This is the basic code (for 1990):

<div id="contentSub">< [[1989|Previous Year in History]]|[[1991|Next Year in History]] ></div>

I'll put it on 1990 so you can see what it looks like. Feel free to tamper with it or remove it, whatever. I'll add them to the rest of the pages by morning. --badqueso 18:50, 15 Mar 2006 (CST)

Nice, I'll do the rest. -CapitalQtalk ♪ 19:40, 15 Mar 2006 (CST)
Done. -CapitalQtalk ♪ 20:05, 15 Mar 2006 (CST)
Right on! Thanks. --badqueso 20:18, 15 Mar 2006 (CST)



so, i've noticed that the history pages are, for a large part, a big mess. i, being the kind of person i am, would be enthusiastic about taking on the project of cleaning them up. we do, however, really need some style guidelines — tense, organization, categories (when not superfluous), and others. i'm posting this as a request for input from others in the form of opinions, suggestions, or whatever. i realise this is rather open-ended, but i don't have many pre-formed ideas here, so pitch in your 2¢, whether that be in USD, GBP, EUR, AUD, or whatever cent-using currency you prefer. -- 21:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

not to be a no-change ned, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say there needs to be a lot of cleaning up. I agree that sentences should keep the same tense (present, if my opinion matters), but beyond that, I don't know what we'd want to do to improve these articles which serve as a simple framework. I can't think of any categories besides history such as "years which are divisible by 7" that we could apply. explain please! ~ magbatz 23:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
well i think that there should be certain guidelines about the order on which things are listed on a page, as well as how in-page sections are organized. additionally, things like, the phrasing of items, how specific we should get with dates and things, etc. (btw, by "categories" i meant different categories of entries on a single page... but years divisible by 7 deserve more recognition!) -- 08:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Categories I can think of: years albums were released, years EPs were released... not a lot apart from that sort of thing. Unless you mean organising the things in the pages themselves into groups like albums released, notable interviews that happened, etc., which would be possible, although I think listing chronologically works fine. It would be nice to go through and add dates to these pages, like release dates - for some events that might be asking a lot, but for the later years it doesn't seem as difficult. FWIW, I vote for present tense too. ~ blitzente (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
yes, i was referring to in-page categorization; it's not so relevant for the earlier years as much, but many of the later pages have sections to them, which i think could use some cleaning-up. -- 08:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
So will there be anything happening with this? I think it's worth at least making all of the pages look a bit more consistent. The question is whether to split everything into sections (1989, 1991 and 1997 all do this slightly differently at the moment) or to rewrite everything in full sentences like most of the later years have. Rewriting seems easier because there's not the hassle of establishing a new set of standards for all the subheadings and so on, but I don't know. Would it be a problem if I start rewriting some of the pages, if there's no prevailing wisdom about this thing? ~ blitzente (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure!
well, i think it would be useful to have some sort of consensus on the result, but idk. can't think about it much at this moment. -- 22:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)