Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Years-how many pages do we need?

Must we have a page for years like 90,000 BBY, where nothing happens? If we keep this I feel we are setting a dangerous precedent. By this standard, we would need to create pages for every year from 1000000000 BBY to 140 ABY. I propose we delete year pages where nothing happens. Chack Jadson 23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I concur. Roron Corobb holocron NR Seal 00:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep them all. Havac 01:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Why? It's a waste. You do realize we'll have to add BILLIONS of pages then, with no info. Chack Jadson 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • When people start making pages for years like 90,001 BBY, then we can delete them, but I think in the long run as people do more and more mathematical conjectures and more and more information becomes available, the rough dates every 5,000 years will get filled in. Otherwise I think it would be equally obnoxious to have gaps in the chronological succession boxes as to have currently informationless pages. Still not a perfect situation, but the lesser of two evils I believe, and a problem that will work itself out. Wildyoda 03:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia's year articles only go back to a particular point in ancient history, then they start redirecting to articles on centuries and millenia. I suggest that except for the times surrounding the films and the TOTJ/KOTOR bits of the EU, we do the same. (i.e. have articles on c. 7000 BBY covering everything from 7000 BBY to 6001 BBY, but not articles on 6781 BBY). —Silly Dan (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That's the way to go. I think they should be named that way to help get the point across, like 7000-6001 BBY or 7000 to 6001 BBY. -Fnlayson 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • And how do we know EU will ever get to 90,000 BBY?--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 04:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I tentatively revise my opinion then. The problem is years like 300,000 BBY where you actually have something listed. Do we leave that because it is notable, and if so would it get a place in a chronological succession box if everything around it was listed as centuries or millenia instead of individual years? Wildyoda 15:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Nevermind, I think it just clicked. The year 300,000 BBY would be listed under something like [[299th millenium BBY]] for example, along with anything notable that would have happened in other years in that millenium and we'd be covered. Got it. I'm all for that. Wildyoda 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Yea, just add sections for the various years of note like they do with months on Wikipeda, e.g. Wikipedia:2005. -Fnlayson 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)