Forum:TC:1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep. jSarek 11:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s (talk - history - links - logs)

I don't see any reason of having these four. We have much more detailed articles on each year starting from 1970. And while I think that all other decade articles should stay, these four must go since they are redundant. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 09:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete

  1. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 09:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Imperialles 09:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. --Vandar Tokare42 10:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. Redundant. MauserComlink 10:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. --Eyrezer 11:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. Grunny (Talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. Pointless, when we have articles on the separate years already. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jujiggum) 12:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. Delete per nom. jSarek 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. Per that stuff those people up there said about these things. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 13:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per QuiGonJinn's comment below. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 18:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  11. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  12. I also support deleting the other decades and categorizing all these people by birth year or birth decade, since that seems to be the only information on these articles. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 11:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. I don't understand why we would arbitrarily delete these four but keep 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s. Quite frankly, I don't care what you do with any of these, delete or keep, but let's strive for a little consistency here. At the very least, none of these should exist unless they all exist. Perhaps it would be best to merge individual years into these broader decades articles, as has been done with the aforementioned decades articles not up for deletion. Again, consistency. Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Unlike these four, nothing else except for births happened in 1900s-1960s. Births are surely important, but I don't think that they relate that much to the history of Star Wars to be given an article for each year. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Toprawa here. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. As do I. Graestan(Talk) 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 22:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. I've often found them useful for linking (ex. here) when one specific year won't cut it. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. –Victor Squishy Vic (talk page) 06:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Subcategorizing Category:Years (real-world) by decade may be desirable, though. jSarek 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree, and Toprawa makes a good point. If we delete these, we should delete the rest. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jujiggum) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay then. Actually, I don't really care as long as there won't be decades and years covering the same time period. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Meh. Lucas first put pen to paper regarding Star Wars in April of 1973. Everything before the 1970s can be condensed into decades, but the 1970s and later need the finer detail provided by years, making the decades for those years redundant. jSarek 23:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)