Now that we have a lot more year pages, I'm starting to reorganize the years into subcategories. I think the general rule should be to follow Wikipedia as much as possible.
One difference is that I'm grouping all any pages earlier then 1899 into just centuries (1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s), rather then by decades as we don't have as many pages.
Starting with 1900 (since I expect we will have many more pages), I suggest what has been done for Category:Books by year and start breaking down by decades. I hope this is not too confusing (that 1900s is the decade, not the whole century).
OK. I did the 1500s and 1600s to see how it looks. Which do you like better? grouping them or just listing all the years one by one?
- I'm not liking the decades. I'm leaning towards removing the decades from the 1900s and just putting all in the years under 1900s as a century. I think it will be easier to manage, consistent with the others (like the 1800s) and less confusing overall Joe P. 17:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the consistancy will be better. After all, the decades categories will have, at most 10 years. I don't think having them split into decades is worth it.Lucas Cray 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. I'll start fixing them all. Joe P.
- I'm not sure I have understand. Is there only decades for the 1900s and 2000s and no decades before ? User:Philippe billot
The guidance for each year pages and category.
Don't create a category if it does not have any members.
Year categories will be a subcategory of it's century (e.g. Category:1900s)