Talk:20th century/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

cleanup

This article needs major cleanup. It is our article on the 20th century, an extremely important topic, and it begins with a rambling paragraph about whether 1900 or 2000 should be considered part according to various opinions and ISO definitions?? And it peters out in endless lists of names? The "20th c. vs. 1900s" cruft deserves a footnote at best. The lists should be exported to various list articles. What we want here is a description of the nature of the 20th century in fluent prose, not cruft. dab (ᛏ) 09:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to edit The 20th century in review? --Sean Brunnock 11:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
And then there's Survey of the 20th century. Why are these articles different from each other? Xaxafrad 05:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There should be one 20th century article, not three.Lijakaca 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See new section #Merge proposal. Teemu Leisti 02:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Three into one

I think Xaxafrad makes a good point. Why can't all three articles be condensed and merged into one article under a common name and the titles of the other two articles turned into redirects to the new article? It might cause less confusion for someone researching on the site. GordonJTaylor 03:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See new section #Merge proposal. Teemu Leisti 02:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Why was section "Wars and politics" deleted?

I updated the "Wars and politics" section yesterday (while not logged in, because of laziness), and today someone has removed it completely, with no word of explanation. Yesterday I also restored a big chunk of quite reasonable text (though I also edited it somewhat) that had been deleted a few days ago, and put it under the "General" and "See also" sections, which I created. I'm restoring the "Wars and politics" section, unless someone makes a good argument why it shouldn't be there. Teemu Leisti 00:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Yesterday, I added "Merge" templates pointing to articles Survey of the twentieth century and The 20th century in review, which both had merge templates pointing to each other, and to this article. I agree that these three articles should be merged. But perhaps there should still be two articles: a shorted one to act as a very short review of the subject, under the title of the present article ("20th century"), and a longer one to carry most of the material of the present revisions of these three articles. This way, the length of "20th century" would not be too radically out of step with the other "century" articles. (Today, I edited the merge templates of these three articles to point to this talk page, to concentrate the discussion in one place.) What do you think? Teemu Leisti 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk about history repeating itself. Years ago, each century article had a corresponding "Year in Review XXth Century" article. It was voted to merge all of those articles.
The standard layout for century articles is on Wikipedia:Timeline standards. --Sean Brunnock 13:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, so you're suggesting all three articles should just be merged into one big twentieth-century article? That might be the cleanest solution, even if the resulting article would be quite long. Teemu Leisti 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ditch The 20th century in review. It's incredibly Eurocentric. For example, compare that article's treatment of the European theater in WWII to the Pacific theater. --Sean Brunnock 15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge as much as possible. It's both redudant and uneccessary to have so many articles concerning the same view of the same subject. vlad§inger tlk 19:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll get on it when I have a bit of time. Teemu Leisti 11:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Haven't forgotten my promise. But in the meanwhile, article "Survey of the twentieth century" has been deleted, so I deleted it from the merge template. Teemu Leisti 10:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge. I can't think of any reason to suggest these should be separate articles, nor why there should be a short-article, long-article pairing. BTW, I can sympathize with the characterization of the articles as Eurocentric. In particular, only one of the three articles mentions the profound changes wrought by the end of colonialism, and even there it's greatly underplayed. Ipoellet 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

MERGE, no doubt about it! I agree it could become quite long, but it is likely to eventually be dwarfed by the nascent 21st century article.  ;-P By then optical computers and subspace internet will have no trouble dealing with it...
I really like the layout of the 19th century article with its list of years and links to the most important topics for those years, followed by lists of people with links to their contributions (good or bad). I believe it would serve well here and greatly assist in shortening the length of the 20th Century article.
Contrast that with the 21st century article, which is dichotomized first by topics then by years. I like it less because it is not in keeping with timeline format, but it is more important that a consistent approach be agreed upon for all the century articles.
I'd be glad to get the ball rolling, but I'm already up-to-my-eyeballs in unfulfilled promises.
Badly Bradley 16:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge. It is nonsensical to have different articles on the exact same subject. -- Kevin Browning (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. There were no opposing votes, so I merged the "Survey" article to this one by appending its content to the end. Both articles are so long that a proper merge will take time, and I just wanted to get this accomplished technically first. I also archived the talk page of the former article as Talk:20th_century/Archive_2. Teemu Leisti (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaced page "The 20th century in review", and its talkpage, by appropriate redirects. Teemu Leisti (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone moved the following text, which I'd added to the top of the article, here: Note: as per the merge suggestion that has been in both articles for many months now, I have merged the contents of article The 20th century in review into this one. For now, to get the merge accomplished technically, I simply copied the contents of the latter article to the end of this one (see #The former article The 20th century in review). I am currently properly merging the content. I archived the talk page of "The 20th century in review" as Talk:20th_century/Archive_2. Teemu Leisti (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
In any case, I just completed the merge of the contents, with lots of editing, copyediting, and adding some new text. Teemu Leisti (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.