Template talk:Chronology Topics

Note on the creation of the Chronology Topics template

As of this writing, I'm just trying to get the ball rolling on connecting the disparate elements about Time and Chronology across Wikipedia.

My intention is to create another cross-referencing template for Time, which will cover units and methods of measurement, (like years, months, etc. and clocks, horology, etc.) but will also list the most general of Chronology topics, since Time supercedes Chronology in concept.

This template, as it now stands, will need adjustment and editing as its development and range of coverage develops. -- Yamara 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

History and Archaeology

Hi,

Your template is an interesting idea, but please remember that many of the articles you've been flagging are concerned with questions of archaeological and historical chronology, which only interact tangentially with your stated concerns with time and timekeeping. As you say, it will take a while to sort out how these things fit together.

At this early stage, I'd be especially cautious about removing categories from articles before we've worked out how they fit in the broader scheme of things. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote in haste; Disregard what I said above. I now see the scheme you've established includes the historical sections and that you were deleting links, not categories. Nice job. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have murdered a lot of redundant See Also lists in this little project, but Categories I mostly add, leave alone, or alphabetize if I'm really bored. A cue that a template is necessary comes when one discovers a messy set of See Also links across a wide series of articles that no one else has noticed are broadly related.

Case in point, my first, and only other, template: Template:Space opera serials 1930-1960. I was originally just looking up a couple time travel shows from the period (Captain Z-Ro, Brick Bradford), when I noticed an uneven string of See Alsos leading back and forth randomly among Flash Gordon, Buck Rodgers, etc. I have no wild affection for the period genre, but I could see there was an intuitive classification there that other editors were stumbling towards. This is Wikipedia at its best, discovering a new consensus of information without original research.

The Chronology article was such an unhelpful embarrassment, I felt I had to make a start somewhere. I'm under no illusion that I know enough about any of these subjects to write authoritatively about them, but I believe this template enhances the ability of these chronological disciplines to speak to one another. -- Yamara 09:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)