Talk:20th century
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated NA-Class on the assessment scale (comments). |
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] photos
The article could use more photographs, and not just of wars.
[edit] external links
I would like to place an external link to an online history portal that I believe offers added-value to wikipedia's history enthusiasts. This portal, http://www.saecularis.com, offers a good selection of history books, DVDs and posters that can be purchased online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anasl001 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) --Anasl001 (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Spammity spam, spammity spam... Groupthink (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Formating
The formating in this article is significantly different than other similar articles, such as the 19th Century, 18th Century, etc. articles. I believe that this article should be re-formated to match the other similar articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsgames (talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. The other century articles have a lot less material than this one, and they mostly consist of lists. I don't think we should force all articles of a certain class to conform to a certain format in case it doesn't make practical sense.
- That said, perhaps "Significant people" and "Introductions" could be added as sections. (The latter instead of "Inventions, discoveries, introductions", as in the other century articles, since inventions and discoveries are already taken care of in the section "Developments in brief".) Teemu Leisti (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dates
I seriously believe that this century began in 1900, not 1901. In fact, as far as I know, it is widely believed that centuries/millenia start in the '00 year, not the '01 year. Feel free to agree/disagree with me on this. --66.94.154.5 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. See Century#Start and End in the Gregorian Calendar. The rule is quite established. Teemu Leisti (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. 1st century 1 A.D. - 100 A.D. 2nd 101 A.D. - 200 A.D. See previous Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.70.153 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Just because people were ignorant many years ago is no reason to accept this now. This is a situation similar to the commonly-misused date format template; CCYYMMDD. This is the 21st century, so the CC portion = 21. However, many people think they are being more correct by specifying a template of CCYYMMDD, instead of the correct template, YYYYMMDD. Michael.Urban (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. Like it or not, there was no year zero. Groupthink (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. The answer is simple: Since there was no year zero, the 1st Millenium only had 999 years instead of 1000. Plus, how exciting is to celebrate the turn of '00 to '01? zzzz... --66.167.11.88 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Counting years is more difficult as it seems.87.208.3.170 (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rewriting
I believe that this article has great potential. However, I believe a few major changes could and should be made to this article. For example, the "developments in brief" section should be eliminated and integrated into the newly-renamed "summary" section. I already took the liberty of moving the mini-summary already in the "general" section to the intro, where it is better suited, and increasing the amount of info in the "summary" section to include some critical missing points (such as the United Nations and conflict in the Middle East).
Eventually I think that even the current summary and major events sections could be integrated. Both are very well-written, but I don't think that there's ultimately a need to include two different sections that essentially cover the same things (just one in more detail and one in less detail) and especially not a third section (the current "developments in brief" section). I think if other people helped me out with this (I think I'm going to do as much work on this as I can) and help from people in finding references (my specialty is in writing prose, not finding references), we could even make this a featured article eventually. It's ambitious, but I think the basics are there for it...honestly the biggest problem is referencing. Anybody want to help out? Anybody have any thoughts? Additional suggestions? bob rulz (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've done a fair amount of work on this article, and am still looking over it now and then. (I modified it a bit just now.) So, I'll be willing to contribute. Could you give an outline of what you think the structure should be, and what material should be moved or modified? (Personally, I think the section on WW2 is too long; detailed descriptions like that belong in their own articles.) Teemu Leisti (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- There's definitely the potential of a great article here; what is here is generally of pretty high quality. The World War II section is definitely much too long. I think we could slowly combine the various sections. The "developments in brief" section could be wrapped into the rest of the article fairly easily. It's essentially just a summary of a summary of the article. Eventually everything can be pared down into just one description divided into the separate sections needed, such as cultural and societal trends, major events, technological and scientific developments, etc. 1970s would be a good template for how to organize the article, although it has the potential to be a very good article if we work at it. bob rulz (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] rock and roll
The 20th century was a time of rock and roll!
[edit] Length
Per WP:SS, this article is just too long. A WP article doesn't need to have a "summary" (aside from the intro); it should be a summary. Also, the "major events" section in this article seems to be a conglomeration of information that can be found in other articles (such as Vietnam War). So, per WP:SS (and WP:BB), I'm thinking of cutting out all the text from this section, and simply leaving it with wikilinks to relevant articles. These links, along with the sections currently named "summary" and "developments in brief," should be enough for a decent, succinct article. Any thoughts? Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your premise. An alternative solution would be to create "X in the 20th century" sub-articles, e.g., "War in the 20th century", "Technological developments in the 20th century", etc. Either would be fine with me. Groupthink (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
