Talk:1960 in television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Piped links to "years in television"[edit]

According to WP:DATES#Partial dates, there is no consensus regarding piped linking to years in topic (like this→[[1950 in television|1950]]). Please do not use this format if you do not intend to consistently format the whole series in this manner, because it ruins the formatting integrity of the whole series. Thank you for understanding—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 04:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That article does not support your point at all. Also, I will eventually fix the entire formatting the whole series, to make it consistent with practices in other types of article.Fistful of Questions 04:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
First, that's not an article, that's a guideline. What it literally says is "[a]nother possibility is to link to a more specific article about that year, for example [[2006 in sports|2006]], although some people find this unintuitive because the link leads to an unexpected destination" (emphasis mine). Count me in with those "some people". Anyway, such linking is considered unintuitive because there is really no reason to link to years in topic like that. As a matter of fact, there is no reason to link to years at all ("years in television" series has all years linked because it was done that way when such practice was acceptable, and no one bothered to unlink the years ever since). Would you mind telling me what exactly you are trying to accomplish by linking to, say 1970 in television? Why is this important? What benefit is in it for readers? I can understand such a link if there is an important event described in that year's article, one you want readers to be aware of, but linking everything wholesale? Why?
This is not to say I am not happy that you are planning to continue work on this series. However, if you are going to bring order to the series once again, why not do it properly? If you started from the very beginning (before 1925 in television), you would have noticed that the need to overhaul the series had been recognized long before, and had you done some further research, you would have also found this discussion, where the need was established, goals laid in, and some work started (see 19251930 in television, as well as 1976, which was a pilot project). I am sorry, but taking a page out of the series at random and introducing some questionable formatting to it with complete disregard to previous consensus is not my idea of good planning.
That said, good luck in your future endeavors. I have long disinvolved myself from work on television-related subjects (1960 in television remained on my watchlist purely by accident), so you won't be hearing any more huffing and puffing from me. However, if you ever feel that you need a piece of advice from someone who combed an entire series (1925 through 2005) in the past, you are very welcome on my talk page. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)