User talk:Gwax/Timeline rebuild

General Discussion

Suggestions for organization

I'm not sure what everyone's opinion on how the timeline should be organized but when I started out I tried to compile "actual" events (or at least the best ones) based on then existing articles. Maybe dates from the "On this day.." section from the main page could be incorporated into the timeline ? MadMax 07:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm for incorporating events from good "On this day"s. And yes for actual events. NOT A SINGLE CHUCK NORRIS REFERENCE, NO REFERENCE TO HITLER OUTSIDE OF THE 20TH AND LATE 19TH CENTURY, NO JESUS OUTSIDE OF THE FIRST CENTURY.. etc Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 08:17 June 27 '09

It also could be worth seeing if Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization might be interested in a colaberation. It could be useful for an example of what would be an "ideal" version for the timeline. MadMax 07:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

for that matter, you should talk directly to SysRq Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 08:17 June 27 '09

I'll leave a message at the talk page. MadMax 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible images for timeline

I've been gathering some images from Special:Unusedfiles to add to the timeline. There's not too many as yet but I think a few of these could be great with the right caption. MadMax 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Outstanding Question Solutions

How long a timespan should the timeline cover?

How about 2,000BC through the present? --Sir gwax (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

2000 BC is good. No future dates, right? Saberwolf116 00:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Slight complication; a few of the things in 2100 AD - Before the End of Time are kind of funny (ex. 'God types "format c:" into the universe's command window, causing all history to disappear.'). Oh well, perhaps the funny ones can be salvaged to somewhere else. --Sir gwax (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How should we organize pages within the timeline?

Give each year its own page, leave many of them as empty, red links. Semi-protect the ones that we do construct. Fix ones that people fill in with disgusting as the issue arises. --Sir gwax (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say give each century it's own page. Easier, more manageable.   Le Cejak • <7:18 Jun 27, 2009>

Cajerk is right. We don't want to have 4000 individual pages, all of them three liners. One page for a century is quite reasonable.. Then we can redirect the years to their corresponding centuries Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 08:09 June 27 '09

Sounds like a good idea. Saberwolf116 13:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Likin' this idea. I already started (and abandoned) work on 1700 in my userspace. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 16:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty good plan for most centuries but we'll probably want decades for the 1900s and individual years for the late 1900s/early 2000s. If we start with every century and use a Template like wikipedia's, we can have every individual year redirect to the appropriate millenia/century/decade/whatever. Then individual years can be cut out (rarely) as needs be. --Sir gwax (talk) 06:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

i like this idea. centuries until 1900, decades until 1970 or so, individual years after that. maybe less than centuries going the other way; say, before 1000 AD? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 12:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Unless you all know a whole lot of stuff about 2000-1 BC. Maybe...500 years during those times? I could see 0-50 being chock full of stuff (Jesus), but past that, 2000BC-1000AD might be a little bare if we are doing Centuries. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

How should we unify individual pages in the timeline?

I propose using a template similar to wikipedia:Template:Year nav. --Sir gwax (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How should we differentiate between years and numbers?

I say that we do it as 1983 and 1983_(number), or more pertinently, 3 and 3_(number). b--Sir gwax (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Random Dates

Should we allow the insertion of random events/dates or not? And if so, how much leeway should we allow for randomness/anachronism/bullsh*t dates? If we don't have some sort of standards, the timeline will degenerate to "Tom Cruise was brutally raped by Oprah in 1337 b.c."-type nonsense. --Mn-z 03:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't?.... I would like to say that random stuff should be allowed, as long as it is funny. That would be ideal. But, of course, we would need people watching these timelines like hawks. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 14:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the rape of Tom Cruise by Oprah happened between 1280 & 1290 b.c. The 1337 b.c. date was due to a miscalculation by Ussher. But on a more serious note, he need some guidelines to keep it from turning into a mess. I would suggest that we don't allow anachronistic dates for noted uncyclopedia memes (to wit: Oscar Wilde, Chuck Norris, Mr T, Yoda, Captain Obvious, Oprah, Paris Hilton, Tom Cruise, George W Bush, et cetera). --Mn-z 15:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. You may only talk about them during their actual time period, and even then, it must be funny. Captain Obvious... I dunno. I usually don't find him funny at all, so I don't care if he isn't in this at all. Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement

That we don't have any future dates, right? Saberwolf116 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know, I've seen a few good ones from time to time and there's plenty of future-related articles on Uncyclopedia. Maybe there should be a more strict control over what would go into a future timeline? MadMax 14:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that there should be carefully-monitored future dates. They can't be all bad, as long as they show restraint, ingenuity, and extrapolation as opposed to random namedropping. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

dibs

are we calling dibs on individual years, or the decades? for example, 1995 redirects to 1990 which contains 1990-1999. TKF, are you intending on doing all of the 1980s or just the 1989 part of the 1980s page? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just 1989, that's why I specifically put it next to 1989. And 1995 redirects to 1990 because there's no 1995 article right now. Hurf durf. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, i seem to have not realized the full ramifications of this. 1989 exists as an article, but it also exists as a section in 1977. so have we agreed to do this by decade (for the 19XX's at least), or will you create a new 1989 that stands as an article? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I figure we do all we can to create individual articles for the years mentioned on the page that accompanies this talk page, then for the decade parts, we take the best-of those individual pages and do some mergin'? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

that sounds like a spiffy idea. so 1990s would be a sort of greatest hits of 1990 through 1999. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

More or less. With its own little thing on general trends, era-specific things that individual years can't cover, too, I suppose. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

length

should we establish some sort of rough guideline for how many entries each year should have? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

anniversaries

i've been reworking some of the anniversaries here. might it be a good idea for me to take all of the entries for each day (minus the oscar wilde ones which wouldn't transfer well to the timeline) and stick them in the corresponding years in the timeline? or should we keep it as two separate entities? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 15:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia

This is kind of a given, but I'm thinking that we should try to make the formatting and overall look of the pages look similar to the timeline pages on Wikipedia. (Unless, of course, you have a good reason not too.) So, maybe put a short overview at the top of the given year/decade/century/millenia, things of that nature. (I feel like I'm stating the obvious here...) HEY, LOOK AT THAT GUY OVER THERE! skitters away Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

i agree. we should always try to be more like wikipedia. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

....well, maybe not always.... Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 18:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

hmmm...we should always try to appear like wikipedia? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've more or less been copying the format and pulling real events from Wikipedia's 1989 and 1989 in Music for my 1989. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking good

Hey folks, I just wanted to say that what I'm seeing so far is looking really good. The articles are developing a unified feel, which is nice and seems almost semi-professional in its absurdity. Things are coming together well and you're all doing a really great job. --Sir gwax (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To try and keep that consistent feel

I've put together the following template User:POTR/Template:yrTOC Usage: {{User:POTR/Template:yrTOC|Thingy 1|Thingy 2|Thingy 3|Thingy 4|Thingy 5|Thingy 6}} Obviously only put in the subheadings that correspond to your page. I have just used the generic "Events" rather than "events that happened in {{PAGENEME}} It also works well with {{Wikipedia}}{{User:POTR/Template:yrTOC|Births|Deaths|Footnotes}}. Pup t 04:23, 31/07/2009

Archived discussions and finished entries

• SEMIPROTECTED & DONE: 2003 - FINISHED - An Ape that Only Exists on Thursdays
• SEMIPROTECTED & DONE: 2000 - FINISHED? - The Woodburninator Ah, and what a fine year it was. (If anyone wants to help, I'm cool with that.)[Done, I think]
• 1999 - UNCLAIMED Nameable This will be fun. Help if you want.
  • Nameable hasn't edited this one in a week and I almost deleted it during my maintenance runs. Someone want to pick this one up? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 08:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't think I will be able to do it. Pretend it's unclaimed now. Nameable • mumble? • (UnScr:PWotM) 15:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• SEMIPROTECTED & DONE: 1993 - Gerrycheevers. i'll start here. '93 was a good year for me.
  • Are you still working on this, Gerry? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 08:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • yup, i've been mostly away for a few days, but i'll get going again today. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 12:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • i'm finished with this one. care to semi-protect it and give it a nice, bold "done", TFK? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Will do (despite the fact you called me TFK >:| ) -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
          • oh god! i've always been afraid of doing that! why did i let my acronym checking fear slip away? please don't hurt me froggy! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 00:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• SEMIPROTECTED & DONE: 1992 - FINISHED - Dexter111344. Eh... Why not? I'm pretty much done... Feel free to fix it if I did it wrong. (Pretty much done)
• SEMIPROTECTED & DONE: 1989 - FINISHED - Thekillerfroggy calls dibs, but anyone can help out or collab
• 2006 - The Woodburninator - Help welcomed.