Talk:1650

message: 03-January-2007 (revised 11Mar07): Back in November 2006, many years didn't have event images.  For many of the 480 yearly articles in "1500-1980", we have been able to add images beside the corresponding text under Events, but that required opening space, along the righthand-side, by moving the "Year-in-other-calendars" to the Births section (which is where it "appeared" to be in most years with few events, by automatic formatting).  The new images now are near the corresponding Events text.  I also had to separate some sections by adding a break-line template:
::: 
            
The break-line pushes the next subheader down, below any future Events images added above it.  Images have been added in a similar manner to 1500-1899 & 1900-1980. Among those 480+ years, the various articles, originally, each had slightly different month-name groups and formats.  -Wikid77 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The Julian years 1583-1700 are 10-days slower than the Gregorian calendar, which becomes 11-days ahead in 1701 (following Julian leapday of 1700).  See "#Julian slower" below.  -Wikid77 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10-day slower 

message: There is a common practice of avoiding low-priority information in the yearly articles 1600-1699 (and others). Some basic ground-rules for notable content are:
* focus on major, forceful events of wide impact;
* avoid listing marriages, except kings or the Pope (or other shocks);
* for Births/Deaths, list highly notable (avoid mere relatives of famous people);
* for Births/Deaths, list just date/occupation (let related article describe impact of that person);
For example, under the Births section, put just "Albert Einstein, theoretical physicist, professor (d. 1955)" while allowing the related article to state "considered Man of the Milennium in America" or such.
As another example, under "Ongoing" events, it would seem excessive to include "exploration of the new world" or most other activities that spanned over 100 years. Those overall events would be better placed in article "17th century" rather than in each year.  Also, typically, a yearly article would list less than half of all births/deaths in the categories (":Category:1616 births"), by omitting people of lower-notability, such as omitting relatives of someone famous. Currently, Wikipedia users put meta-criteria about article formatting & content on the related talk-pages, but it is possible to create other subpages of an article to define such meta information in a stable location, outside the archived discussions of a talk-page.  Meanwhile, I have put common formatting notes for years "16xx" here into Talk:1650 as a spot central to those years. [ Ideally IMO, Wikipedia should have 2 page tabs for "Talk" & "Spec" to allow meta-specification of the format/content criteria as separate from the archived talk-page: a reader would click "Spec" to read about the agreed overall purpose and structure of the page. ]. Discuss these issues below, at page bottom. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Content

message: Didn't the world population reach 500 million in 1650? Joseandricardo, 21:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: 16-Feb-2007 (revised 13Mar07): Many articles start getting hacked and trashed after about 2 months (call it "Wiki-rot"). The Wikipedia concept was warned, years ago, of the natural tendency toward rampant vandalism and hacking of articles, which advised that article-content should be controlled in some manner to avoid trashing thousands of hours of work.  Indeed, within weeks of reformatting over 300 yearly articles (according to the repeated steps listed in "Talk:1550#Format" or "Talk:1750#Format" etc.), various other users began hacking and re-hacking sporadic articles into ad hoc formats, returning to the days where each year has a slightly different format from all other years.
On other subjects, various articles, upon justification, have been semi-protected from rampant editing.  In the future, as is the case in user-defined webpage-content, articles should evolve into semi-controlled sections, where only some parts of a page could be changed by random users, and protected sections would enforce standard formats and ensure that key information is not vandalized or hacked.  For example, for all years in one century, a standard format could be locked into all articles, but users might opt to expand information freely in related articles tied to "see-also" links.
Be not deceived, the problem is critical: the bio for a famous explorer was hacked in 5 weeks to have incorrect dates, joined phrases, and chopped sentence fragments.  In the "Hurricane Katrina" article, watched by dozens of people, the Mississippi landfall time (carefully recorded from footnote sources) got botched by several hours during a flurry of edits, and the mistake lasted for over 11 days, even though hundreds of people had edited the article.  A controlled section for a hurricane article could lock-down details of eye-path, wind-speed, and landfall details against tampering, while allowing a flurry of edits in other sections not critical to understanding the basic facts of Who, what, when, where, why, and how for an article.  There are too many other subjects needing expanded articles, to expect editors to continually monitor older articles for sporadically botched key facts.  -Wikid77 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hacked format 

message: :Adding events is fun!!  I clicked on "what links here" and added some stuff.  A samurai visited the Pope in Rome to negotiate a trade treaty between Japan and Mexico.  In 1615 !?!?!?  And I think driving across town is a pain.
:I don't see the benefit of grouping dates, though.  I'd even include preceding months/years to the lists; e.g. for decade 151x use years 1509-1521 (yeah, I know), or year lists running from December - January (14 months, not backwards :-).  --Saintrain 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding events

message: 20-April-2008: On this day, I noticed a new page tab "new section" which might help keep new topics added to the bottom (not top) of a talk-page, but I don't know yet. I would rather have had a tab "history/talk" that jumped to the history log for the talk-page, or some other tab. I think many people add new sections to the page top, either to focus top-billing attention or because that's how email messages are stacked (new at top). Anyway, this topic was created by clicking "new section" to see what it does. Some day, I would like to find a news-bulletin page about all these trivial changes being made every week to Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing new Wikipedia tab: new section