Forum:Years - Separate pages or Century pages
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Should we have large collected articles like the Early human history and the 12th century, 14th century, 15th century articles, or should we have specific year-based articles for information.
The way we follow information generally is 'if it's mentioned then it gets a page', so if a year is mentioned then shouldn't it get a page?
Alternatively, if information is to be gathered on these century articles where is the threshold of information between having it all on one page and moving it away to an individual year, is it more than one entry, more than three?
Or, should the century pages just be used for information that mentions the century but it vague about a specific year and everything that actually mentions a year gets a page? --Tangerineduel / talk 15:35, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
- My stance is that the year pages are different in that if we had some year pages for a certain time period, than we'd have to have pages for every year of that time period because otherwise we'd have a huge number of red links. This is justified for the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries (and maybe the 18th), but if we had individual year pages for earlier periods, we'd have large numbers of year pages which would have no information in them (since they've never been mentioned in context of the DWU - only a few years of each century have any data on them). Therefore, I favor the large collected articles. Doug86 15:44, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
