Talk:Granada chronology

city history content to add to timeline
Deleted on 11/5/14 by User:Bye for now without prior discussion: -- M2545 (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1892 - Caja General de Ahorros de Granada (bank) founded.
 * 1910 - Cafe Futbol in business.
 * The edit summaries, referred to What Wikipedia is not, specifically:

If it can be demonstrated that either of these two events are notable, and can be verified through a reliable sources that have written about them in non-trivial detail, then I am sure there would be no problem with them them being included in the article. According to Verifiability "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ". Hopefully, this makes things clearer. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 23:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
 * Wikipedia is not a travel guide
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
 * Some events in a city's economic history may not be dramatic, but can be notable nonetheless. See Timeline of Paris for an example of a city timeline with lots of economic, political, cultural, etc. detail. -- M2545 (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of simply deleting content, please use Template:Relevance-inline or similar tool. Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible merge/deletion
The more I try to FIX this article/list or whatever, the less convinced I become that it should should have been created in the first place. It can't ever be an article and it's not at all obvious how it could ever really become a reasonable (let alone good) list, even though there is a Category:City_timelines.


 * The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.


 * However short or schematic a list description, Neutral point of view applies, including:"It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

As it stands, it doesn't add anything to WP that isn't (or couldn't be) covered within an existing article. If the Timeline of Paris example is anything to go by, it will simply act as a magnet for the unsourced and/or trivial. --Bye for now (PTT) 11:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * User:M2545, please see: Talk:Granada edit: I have also raised the subject of City timelines (in general) HERE --Bye for now (PTT) 17:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Picking up after history merge
This section is re: WP:AN#Talk:Granada#Merger_proposal (permalinked)

This page is now the result of combining the histories of the former Timeline of Granada and Granada chronology articles. B4N, you're right that the merge was undone and your edits mostly removed - that's because M2545 continued to work on the unmerged page after the improper copy-paste move. Had they done that in the original Timeline article, it would look like this. Don't take offense, this is just a starting point.

I propose we move this page to draft space, at Draft:Timeline of Granada. If we're agreed, I'll move the page and try to clean up the redirects. Moving to Draft: means we can leave the mainspace redirects pointing to the History section on Granada while we work on the timeline article out of public view, can work out the issues, and can restore it to mainspace over the redirect later.

We also need to have criteria for what things can be included in the timeline, and I think that's where the disagreement is going to happen. Have a look at the other articles in Category:Spanish city history timelines for some examples. Generally, inclusion criteria for lists are less restrictive than for articles, so items in the list don't necessarily need to pass WP:GNG on their own. But there should be some bar for importance to be included here. There are some things here that don't belong, per WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, in particular anything that's sourced only to Lonely Planet. Let me know what you think. Ivanvector (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds ok to me. Many thanks for sorting this out. -- M2545 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * that worked well, then. --Bye for now (PTT) 20:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)