Sgwrs Wicipedia:Temporary:Blwyddyn

message: Hylo! Dyma Okapi. I was wondering if it made sense (or would work at all...) to give DwyloBot another task... We are still running out of years, decades and centuries somewhere in the beginning of the 18th Century. Now I understand that other Wicipedias produced the missing ones by bot (hence the mind-boggling growth-rates). Do you think we should/could/had better not (choose as applies) do something like that? Mind you, I don't even know whether this is possible at all. Be'dy pawb yn meddwl? --okapi 01:07, 2 Aws 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a great idea. What's needed?
* Links to other years/decades within this decade/century, and previous and next centuries
* Headings: Events, Births, Deaths...
* Interwiki to all the other wikipedias who thought of this first :)
Can we mock up e.g. Temporary:Blwyddyn with this so we make sure of what we want before I get Dwylo to make a thousand copies? Marnanel 01:15, 2 Aws 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: :A Temporary:Blwyddyn would indeed be good (I've tried making one, just in case and to get the discussion going. Of course things like Ffilmiau, Gwobrau Nobel and Eisteddfodau do not apply to every year in history...) also one each for the centuries and decades. I suppose we should also switch the names of the centuries to those agreed on on Wicipedia:Arddull. Another worth while thought might be if it was possible to change them Bot-ily on the already existing pages, as there is a staggering number of those, too, which makes manual sifting something very much like penal punishment... (Don't know whether that's feasible, either... I'm afraid all I can produce concerning bots is ideas.) --okapi 01:25, 2 Aws 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I've made a few corrections, but the centuries thing is still bugging me, seeing the agreed forms used in practice like that. While people would say y pedwerydd ganrif ar bymtheg, for example, it looks like writing that down in an article seems like overkill in a way. I'd vote to keep the century articles simple - y 19eg ganrif. This also avoids the issue with articles (y/yr). I've left the forms on Temporary:Blwyddyn as they are for now until a consensus is reached (sorry if this mucks up any articles -- if you want I can go around changing any full forms to the short ones, but not this week (off to the Eisteddfod :-) ) ). Gareth 21:35, 2 Aws 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Hope you had a good time at the Eisteddfod! Marnanel 00:21, 5 Aws 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Do diolch! Dwi wedi newid y canrifoedd i'r ffurf fer. Gareth 19:22, 12 Aws 2004 (UTC)

text: The original version from which I made years from (from the 1950's to 1990's) is here: Defnyddiwr:Paul-L/Temporary-years. Paul.
thread_title:  General discussion 

message: === Two parts ===
OK, so as I understand it, Dwylo will be doing this in two parts:
=== First part ===
Create and upload a page of this form for every year from 1000 to 1706. Let's concentrate on this part for now.
I have a couple of questions, but apart from that everything's fine to go.
==== Questions ====
===== Should it start earlier than 1000? =====
replies: text: Yes, I'd say so. We even have articles mentioning things B.C., but Roman Britain (or Wales) also is a big subject that might be fairly easy (because of lots of existing books and websitea) and important to enlarge. I'd suggest to go as far back as 0 once we are at it (if it isn't too much work, that is...). Opinions? --okapi 03:23, 5 Aws 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nitpick: There never was a year 0, it went from 1 C.C. to 1 O.C. I'm not sure what the consensus is on other wikipedias, but perhaps the years 1 to 99 should have 'O.C.' in the title, e.e. 39 O.C. (or should this be 39 OC?) for clarity. Just a thought. Gareth 19:28, 9 Aws 2004 (UTC)
===== Where does it get information about books, music, etc. from? =====
Should it leave them blank for later filling in by humans, or should it somehow take them from en:?

text: This is not so much an opinion as an observation, but the Slavonic ones seem to leave blanks and fill them as they come across information. I can't say I have any better ideas... --okapi 03:26, 5 Aws 2004 (UTC)
=== Second part ===
Later, possibly, go through and update existing ones en masse. This may also be needed to fix mistakes made in the first part.
thread_title:  What needs doing 

message: OK, so as I understand it, Dwylo will be doing this in two parts:
thread_title:  Two parts 

message: Create and upload a page of this form for every year from 1000 to 1706. Let's concentrate on this part for now.
I have a couple of questions, but apart from that everything's fine to go.
==== Questions ====
===== Should it start earlier than 1000? =====
replies: text: Yes, I'd say so. We even have articles mentioning things B.C., but Roman Britain (or Wales) also is a big subject that might be fairly easy (because of lots of existing books and websitea) and important to enlarge. I'd suggest to go as far back as 0 once we are at it (if it isn't too much work, that is...). Opinions? --okapi 03:23, 5 Aws 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nitpick: There never was a year 0, it went from 1 C.C. to 1 O.C. I'm not sure what the consensus is on other wikipedias, but perhaps the years 1 to 99 should have 'O.C.' in the title, e.e. 39 O.C. (or should this be 39 OC?) for clarity. Just a thought. Gareth 19:28, 9 Aws 2004 (UTC)
===== Where does it get information about books, music, etc. from? =====
Should it leave them blank for later filling in by humans, or should it somehow take them from en:?

text: This is not so much an opinion as an observation, but the Slavonic ones seem to leave blanks and fill them as they come across information. I can't say I have any better ideas... --okapi 03:26, 5 Aws 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  First part 

message: ===== Should it start earlier than 1000? =====
replies: text: Yes, I'd say so. We even have articles mentioning things B.C., but Roman Britain (or Wales) also is a big subject that might be fairly easy (because of lots of existing books and websitea) and important to enlarge. I'd suggest to go as far back as 0 once we are at it (if it isn't too much work, that is...). Opinions? --okapi 03:23, 5 Aws 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nitpick: There never was a year 0, it went from 1 C.C. to 1 O.C. I'm not sure what the consensus is on other wikipedias, but perhaps the years 1 to 99 should have 'O.C.' in the title, e.e. 39 O.C. (or should this be 39 OC?) for clarity. Just a thought. Gareth 19:28, 9 Aws 2004 (UTC)
===== Where does it get information about books, music, etc. from? =====
Should it leave them blank for later filling in by humans, or should it somehow take them from en:?

text: This is not so much an opinion as an observation, but the Slavonic ones seem to leave blanks and fill them as they come across information. I can't say I have any better ideas... --okapi 03:26, 5 Aws 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: :Yes, I'd say so. We even have articles mentioning things B.C., but Roman Britain (or Wales) also is a big subject that might be fairly easy (because of lots of existing books and websitea) and important to enlarge. I'd suggest to go as far back as 0 once we are at it (if it isn't too much work, that is...). Opinions? --okapi 03:23, 5 Aws 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: :Nitpick: There never was a year 0, it went from 1 C.C. to 1 O.C. I'm not sure what the consensus is on other wikipedias, but perhaps the years 1 to 99 should have 'O.C.' in the title, e.e. 39 O.C. (or should this be 39 OC?) for clarity. Just a thought. Gareth 19:28, 9 Aws 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should it start earlier than 1000? 

message: Should it leave them blank for later filling in by humans, or should it somehow take them from en:?
replies: text: This is not so much an opinion as an observation, but the Slavonic ones seem to leave blanks and fill them as they come across information. I can't say I have any better ideas... --okapi 03:26, 5 Aws 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does it get information about books, music, etc. from? 

message: Later, possibly, go through and update existing ones en masse. This may also be needed to fix mistakes made in the first part.
thread_title:  Second part