Forum:TC:1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s (second nomination)

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s (second nomination)

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 or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete all. —MJ— Comlink 22:09, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s

This is a reopening of Forum:TC:1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s from back in 2009. It is a single TC as each page has the same issue.

So I noticed the pages for decades from the 1970s to 2000s are seriously lacking of information (compare 1972 and the entry for 1972 in the 1970s), and what information they contain is separated into year, which can be found in each year anyway. I cant think of the use of linking pages to the general decade rather then the specific year (except for the decades pre-1970, which have very little information and so make sense to clump together as a decade).

I think there is a good case for their deletion: if we did keep them, we would have to fill them out with all the information, and that would effectively be a list of dates for every event that happened in the 10 year period, which to me seem excessive since that information is held in the specific year as well as day specific day page (eg. birth of Ewan McGregor appears in both March 31 and 1971). Both the year and date link to each other, and are linked to from the actual article.

I would compare these pages to the general month pages (eg January). These however serve a purpose since they contain information for events where the exact day is not known, but the month is. Also, most any month page contains a massive list of dates. A decade page would likely contain even more data then this, the 1990s and 2000s and 2010s will become quite clogged with the amount of recently and newly released media.

Also I want to point out that there is no page for 2010s yet, which would also indicate these pages are not used often if at all

Delete

  1. As nom Manoof (talk) 11:47, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
  2. These seem redundant to me. We have an article on the 1960s precisely because we don't have articles on any individual years from the sixties, ditto the 1950s and every previous decade. We do, however, have an article for every year from 1970 onward, which effectively renders these four articles pointless. jSarek said it best in the previous TC: "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." Menkooroo (talk) 12:47, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Totally redundant to the individual year articles. —MJ— Training Room 06:53, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:30, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Fe Nite (talk) 03:01, November 29, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Everything in these pages could be listed in the individual year and month articles, if it already isn't. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:08, November 29, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Cumulonimbus Cloud (ℳeeting ℛoom) 19:29, November 30, 2013 (UTC)
  8. 1358 (Talk) 21:43, December 7, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 22:35, December 7, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 17:53, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Keep

  1. By the same reasoning, an article like Galactic Civil War is redundant because there are several smaller articles that can cover the same information in more specified detail. Redundancy is why every FAN ever has someone asking a submitter to "add context" for some that has a link. A single decade article would be able to summarize 10 other year articles at a glance. And a decade article is probably the best place for timeline information on a project that takes multiple years, like maybe the production and creation of a movie or video game? Yeah, you could put the start date in a year article. And the release date in another. But you could have start to finish in a decade article. SinisterSamurai (talk) 17:10, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • 1800s. That is all. JangFett (Talk) 23:45, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
    • In all seriousness, it's a completely unrelated example --- we don't have individual year articles for anything in the 1800s, hence the more broad 1800s article. This TC is about redundancy, not notability. Menkooroo (talk) 23:47, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
      • This is the way i see it: as a time period has more content ('more' being decided by wookieepedians), we divide it by smaller time intervals. By Century, 1800s has only 3 articles, but if we had 1900s? So we split 1900s into a smaller time period - decades. By decades, only when we get to 1970s does it start getting heaps of dates, as well as the significance of the decade being the release of the franchise we all so love. So again we split into a smaller time period - year. Now having the ability to check the overview of what happened in a certain year is useful, so breaking it further has no use. SEPARATELY we have the month for the same overviewing reason and mark those events whose specific date is not known, and specific date, to compare what happened on a certain date to previous years. And Jang, i don't know about you, but i dont want to be the one to make a 1900s century page ;) Manoof (talk) 23:58, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
        • Yeah, we have heaps of SW-related dates for the 1970s, so we have articles for each individual year from that decade. Our actual article on 1970s is literally nothing but the information from its various individual year articles rehashed onto a larger page. It's purposeless. Menkooroo (talk) 00:03, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
          • I wonder, would it be possible to transclude the respective year articles into the decade articles? And if so, would it be desirable to do do so, rather than delete the decades? jSarek (talk) 01:28, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
            • Would there be any point? The decade articles would still be redundant, existing as nothing but several smaller articles all rolled into one with no unique info. Menkooroo (talk) 01:34, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
              • True, but it would provide a certain degree of consistency for those exploring the decades sequentially. That said, I'm not currently sold on the idea myself. jSarek (talk) 01:48, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
              • Well we should probably add a 1900s (1900-1999) century page then to be consistent with the 1800s page :P Consistency has its place but i think convenience and ease of reading should take priority since the information is purely redundant. Manoof (talk) 13:51, December 6, 2013 (UTC)