Forum:TC:Unused years

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 delete orphaned and empty year pages, keep others (or remake them with the information from articles linking to them).—Silly Dan (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unused years

All years with no information on them (other than empty sub-headings) and no links (outside of other years, per template). In order:


Also of note, the following pages have non-year links to them, but their information has been removed or not placed in:

These "empty years" are:

  1. Not necessary with the template. Many of them seem to have been created simply to get rid of redlinks, but changing the bottom years template would fix this issue.
  2. Slightly "annoying." Clicking on page after page, and finding no information can get tiresome.
  3. Not indicative of the length of the Chronology. It almost seems like that there's more empty years than years with any information (not true, but it's a good percentage).
  4. A little bit "encouraging" to new users to up their edit count by making a few of these. Which is probably not a good thing.

Now, obviously these years "existed" in-universe, and undoubtedly something happened with the Sith, or Rakata, or Kol Skywalker or whom/whatever during the empty years. The major argument in keeping them in the past seems to be that "they'll be filled in later." While a good majority of them (and perhaps all) will be expanded upon in the decades to come, there's no need to have an empty page, and we can always recreate, and add to, the page in the future (and even recreate the history if necessary).

Another major support is the fact that they "don't hurt anything" and "Wookieepedia isn't Flimsiplast." The above points, I believe, should indicate that they can, and are, "harmful" to the site.--Tim Thomason 02:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping

  1. jSarek, shouldn't your vote be under arguments for deleting, or did I understand what you wrote above? And I say keep any that have any links to them from a page, but the ones listed in the first section above with only other years linking to them... wipe them out. So this is a sorta keep, sorta delete vote. Wildyoda 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it should have been, thanks for pointing out my error. jSarek 22:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Wildyoda, I'm sorry I didn't intend to suggest those should be deleted. They were listed as "also of note" and should be expanded/relisted since they currently (for whatever reason) don't have information on them.--Tim Thomason 18:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for deleting

  1. I think Mr. Thomason has covered all of the main points quite effectively. These empty years are aggrevating, not helpful. jSarek 06:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. Delete the completely useless years that have nothing linked to them, Keep and Expand those with links. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 13:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. You may fire when ready. Carlitos Moff 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Deleting these pages would be a good thing. --Imperialles 23:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Delete, though a "gap page" could possibly be created for the purposes of browsing. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Delete.—Darthtyler Scuba_Diver.gif Talk 00:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Please. Thefourdotelipsis 07:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Lord Hydronium 07:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Don't need 'em. -- Ozzel 07:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. I've always hated empty or near empty years. But the ones that are linked to should be filled in with whatever the data is that warrants the link. The ones with nothing and no links to them should be deleted. Vagrant Lustoid 11:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Delete only those pages with no links to them. Furthermore this problem is created largely due to an outdated template that I placed on the pages long ago. Well we need an upgraded template that will allow for more pages to be skipped to rather than just the nearest three, as well as allow us to use with ease when creating a new year page that will be deleted but might be recreated. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Get rid of em. - JMAS 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Per Riff. Unit 8311 19:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. With extreme prejudice. Kill. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Delete only those pages with no links to them. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for merging

Comments

Shouldn't this discussion be in a CT Forum to make certain that it's voted upon? Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps that is wise. I would suggest copying and pasting all current votes into the CT and allow others to add on. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)