Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Template

Subsections
has added subsections to July 14 along temporal lines to make it easier to edit (Pre-20th century, Post-19th century, etc.)  It seems like a reasonable idea as these article get longer, but if we're going to do so, we should come up with a standardized way to do it and reflect it on this template.

Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think standardization of any temporal level 3 subsections this is urgent as the ad-hoc changes subsections are proliferating already. Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've been inactive on the project recently but I'm going to offer some ill-thought-out opinions to get the discussion going:
 * Splitting up very long sections by time is an improvement over the status quo.
 * Splitting by century is the obvious division, even though C20 is going to be longer than the others.
 * If we want to divide C20 it should be into 1900–1950 and 1950–1999, even if that doesn't give the best division in terms of numbers — arbitrary choices like 1900–1970 in order to balance the numbers up are going to produce a complete mess.
 * Lumping the pre-1800 entries together is probably wise unless there are very many of them.
 * Standardization is good and it would be best to come to a conclusion here and then change all the articles together, regardless of what state they're in wrt references etc.
 * Best, Wham2001 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Portions struck in favor of Deb's argument below Wham2001 (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Here's my suggestion, before the OP reverted it, click this link. In other words, it would be sub-divided between Pre-19th century, 19th century, and 1901–present. Cordially,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  14:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to splitting into subsections, but I'm concerned that it might actually encourage recentism. I know that finding dates for events, births and deaths anywhere up to and including the medieval period can be difficult, but I'd favour something more like Pre-1600, 1601-1900, 1901 to present, partly because it allows everyone to see that the 20th and 21st centuries are overloaded and maybe might make people think twice before adding more entries to those sections. Deb (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To me this seems like the clearest rationale of those proposed so far, though I think it's optimistic to think that an overlong section will dissuade editors from adding their favorite footballer to these lists. Does anybody have any objection to this division? Wham2001 (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Splitting the sections would maybe make the task of referencing seem a little less daunting to anyone new if it's in subsections rather than one long list. Also noticed an overview was added 25 February when it was divided into subsections. Not sure how necessary it is as it seems like one of those things people will constantly add to and might get unmanageable after a while. Suonii180 (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First, thank you to Toddst1 for inviting discussion of the subject. I wasn't really intending to make the sub-sections permanent as the dates in question are the ones I adopted for upgrade. I know the sub-headings were left in 25 February, which is finished, but I had no preferences either way and that also applies to the overview mentioned by Suonii180. Now that the question has arisen, I entirely agree there should be a standard if splits are going to be applied across the whole project.
 * I would make one comment, however, which is that the 20th century began in 1901 and ended in 2000. This century began in 2001. Therefore, I entirely agree with the point made above by History DMZ and also mentioned by Deb. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW this is the usage prescribed by MOS:CENTURY (which I'd not looked at before making my post). Wham2001 (talk)

My read on this is consensus has been established to change the project template, adding the following subsections to Events, Births and Deaths:
 * Pre – 1600
 * 1601 – 1900
 * 1901 – present

which excludes breaking into decades in the 20 & 21st century. Correct? Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Wham2001 (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Always allowing for the exceptional case, of course – for example, a date with 286 events in the 19th century (!), but the basic formula allows for those by extension of decades. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Suonii180 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)