An opeinng statement with original ideas and notes will be placed upon this page under an apropriate heading. This will then be followed with discussion held on the Talk page under the same heading.
Table of Contents
The idea of dividing history by major time periods first is a potentially good one in that it could better impress the average reader as to the relative scale of time involved. For the most part the current structure seems to assume that only written history counts for anything, and that is something of a mistake.
The current timeline project that I have been working on is meant to be more of a general synopsis of terrestrial history overall than anything else. The advantage of a wiki is that a somewhat brief relatively undetailed article can then link to more in-depth articles elsewhere in the wiki.
As such making the first divisions on this page might go as follows:
- A Rough Timeline of History
- PreHistoric (prior to humans??)
- PreHistory (Pre History of man as opposed to natural and Historic)
- Ancient (Would this be prior to AD? Not sure of intent)
- Recorded History
The main reason for the first item, besides my still being somewhat inspired by H.G. Wells, is that it is being somewhat aimed at the casual browser who is just sort of looking for a brief global overview of history, who might then be enticed into pursuing what might turn out to be interesting link into something more specific, be it prehistory or whatever. Thoughts?
Comments by Kirk, Posted by OSDever
- Sounds good to me - Nomadic1
Format of Nation PagesEdit
I've had a look at the nation pages, and think that it is not clear in what the pages are for. For example, looking at the Austrian page (Austrian) gives a list of the monarchs of Austria, while the page Austria is blank. It also leaves the question of what to do with the histories of the modern states in Austria (such as Carinthia, Salzburg, and Styria) and also past states (such as Wurmbrand-Stuppach, Esterházy von Galántha, and Bregenz). I suppose one way to handle it would be through Categories, and maybe Austrian could be renamed to Rulers of Austria or something else to make it clearer? - Nomadic1
I'm worried about the name though. Adjectives in English can be a real bastard. For example: Powys. "Powysian" is the normal adjective, but "Pagensian" comes up commonly too. But the "Pagenses" were something slightly different. And it gets more fun with names such as "Caer Gwendoleu" (a Kingdom which was in southern Scotland and northern England), "Solms-Baruth upon Klitschdorf and Wehrau" (one of the very many German mediæval states), Ur (most people would not know the adjective is "Urbaidan"), and from above "Esterházy von Galántha" (Esterházy von Galánthanian?). "List of Rulers of ____" is the easiest and safest convention. - Nomadic1
Just so you know, I never stopped thinking about your concerns regarding naming convention. I've finally decided that I'm in agreement. The nation names have been changed from Adjectives to Nouns.--Kirk 05:09, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- I just created an article "Wurmbrand-Stuppach". It doesn't have a lot of the information my article at Wikipedia has, but I whipped it up quickly as a quick example. (The list of Counts at this article here is correct). If you want, compare with Wurmbrand-Stuppach at Wikipedia. Tell me what you think of it, what to change, and so forth because I'll use this format in new articles I'll hopefully write. I'll try and be active in making articles, so I want them in the best possible format to begin with. :) - Nomadic1
- Do you reckon I should add a little colour to the pages, such as light blue or light orange. It's just I reckon my pages are a little on the dull side. - Nomadic1 05:40, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I finally found the controls to some of this stuff. And I'm already liking the background a lot better. Currently tables are still defaulting to White, which is okay, but I'm thinking another color might be better. Any ideas?--Kirk 05:09, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- The white actually looks good. I just finished both of me "List of **** in the Holy Roman Empire". The white in the tables stands out. It looks classy and neat. - Nomadic1 02:32, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that this has become like me writing my own historical encyclopædia? Maybe we should think about small, tasteful and appropriate advertising abroad to try and get some people here to inject life. Also, I'd like to point out that there is not yet a disambiguation template - 10:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I know when he was still here, Osdever was thinking about recruiting some more people here. But he hasn't been anywhere in quite a while. As far as the template is concerned, let me know where I can find a copy, and I will adapt for here.
- I do intend to get back to extending the timeline project, but between a nasty spate of general vandalism throughout the wikicities, and the damn tax season I've been a bit preoccupied.--Kirk 00:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good. The pink seems a little too striking with the yellow background though. - Nomadic1 01:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Are any of the category pages working right for anyone else. I mean they are redlinked in the nation pages themselves. - Nomadic1 00:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- They're working for me, all nation pages have working pages on my screen.--GingerM 15:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
What about paleolithic Europe?
- If you are asking if such a category exist as yet, no there isn't. However, there could be. Especially if we get more articles dealing in that area.--Kirk 17:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this wiki using BC/AD or BCE/CE? Also, are we going to create articles on ancient mythology, like the greek myths and gods, or are we going to have links to wikipedia for information on them?--GingerM 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- On dating conventions. The overall tendency is to go with BCE/CE. If a single article here or there somehow uses the other convention, I don't think anyone one is going to be too horribly bent out of shape. Still, BCE/CE is currently the favored convention.
- As far as the Mythology thing. I don't think Prwitch ever thought of it. Until now, neither did I. However, given that the myths are cultural artifacts that tend go hand in hand with the religions of the time, I would say we should go ahead and include such things as being part of what shaped the local history of the people who actually believed in them. As long we see no comic book stuff, I'm okay with it.--
19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks.--GingerM 18:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I hate BC/BCE and refuse to use it. To me, it is a bunch of PC crap cooked up by some retarded bureaucrat. I admit it is not a particularily nice view of it, though I don't think it makes me wrong. - Nomadic1 00:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If you've been following my last edits, you'd have noticed I've been struggling with a system to differentiate between the rulers of Austria named "Leopold". I've finally got a workaround established, so can the following pages please be deleted: Leopold VII of Austria and Leopold I, Duke of Austria (Habsburg). Thanks. - Nomadic1 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- The deletions have been done.-- 19:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
New Web AddressEdit
In case anyone hasn't already noticed, our Web address has been changed. It is no longer history.wikicities.com. Instead it is now history.wikia.com. Apparently the name "Wikicities" was creating a little too much confusion. Other than that, everything should be the same as before.--188.8.131.52 00:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
They look good :) Just thought I'd say - Nomadic1 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just thought I'd say hi and let you know about a wiki I've started called Quakerpedia. There will be a good amount of historical information about Quakers there (and already is some), along with more contemporary info about Quakers as well. The "license" is public domain, so anything you see of value, now or later, can be copied over freely. Best of luck on this project, Zach A 17:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)