Forum:Making pages for BC years: Difference between revisions
Warrior2852 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
I do agree, I think we should have BC pages. It's a time travel franchise, it inevitably visits times older than the last 2024 years sometimes, we need to be able to cover that properly. One tiny change though - pages should be (e.g.) "9 BC" (with a space) not "9BC" as you had it - with a space is how BC years are written generally. [[User:Warrior2852|Warrior2852]] [[User talk:Warrior2852|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | I do agree, I think we should have BC pages. It's a time travel franchise, it inevitably visits times older than the last 2024 years sometimes, we need to be able to cover that properly. One tiny change though - pages should be (e.g.) "9 BC" (with a space) not "9BC" as you had it - with a space is how BC years are written generally. [[User:Warrior2852|Warrior2852]] [[User talk:Warrior2852|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
:I agree with the proposal to have BC years. I think the policy against having them is a relic of the old FANDOM-run wiki and the old team of editors and admins of that time in the earliest days of that wiki. This should be overturned. We WILL eventually get around to that period and then it would be stupid if we can’t cover those times, or equally if we’d lump them into a single page called “BC years” or something. I also agree with Warrior2852’s proposal that it should be "[X] BC" rather than "[X]BC". [[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:27, 25 December 2024
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Pretty simple forum here: it has been long-standing policy/precedent (not exactly sure where the policy is, I tried checking and couldn't find it) that BC years don't get their own pages, seemingly* since template:Timeline doesn't work well with them. I... find this utterly absurd, especially considering pages like 89/Feather/50 - it'd be nice if the template worked with it, but we shouldn't refuse to properly cover BC years just because a template doesn't work with it, especially since the template isn't exactly essential to the page's functioning.
I think these pages should follow the naming scheme of "[number]BC", so for example "1800BC" or "9BC".
* I think I heard this somewhere, but I can't remember where and can't verify that it's true - it is one of the only reasons I can think of for this, though. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 22:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
I do agree, I think we should have BC pages. It's a time travel franchise, it inevitably visits times older than the last 2024 years sometimes, we need to be able to cover that properly. One tiny change though - pages should be (e.g.) "9 BC" (with a space) not "9BC" as you had it - with a space is how BC years are written generally. Warrior2852 ☎ 22:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with the proposal to have BC years. I think the policy against having them is a relic of the old FANDOM-run wiki and the old team of editors and admins of that time in the earliest days of that wiki. This should be overturned. We WILL eventually get around to that period and then it would be stupid if we can’t cover those times, or equally if we’d lump them into a single page called “BC years” or something. I also agree with Warrior2852’s proposal that it should be "[X] BC" rather than "[X]BC". Danniesen ☎ 00:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
