Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:42, 21 March 2009

Revision as of 14:50, 21 March 2009

Line 370:

BTW, I enjoy Greg's "coarse" references, whether they're directed at me or others: this is not a nunnery, and there's scope for a little bawdiness when experienced editors use it to spice up proceedings. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

:I think that it would be better to take the structure of 1345, apply it to [[1340s]], and merge the year articles of the 1340s into the decade article; this way, we wouldn't face so much redundancy. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 14:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

::Exactly the point I raised at WikiProject years, for years before a certain time. There is a problem that while we have a wealth of information (and events) to list in single year articles in modern times, this is much less so for single years in much earlier centuries, including the 14th century and before (and ''especially'' in antiquity). Merging years articles into decades would allow a much more engaging article. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)