Talk:1795 in archaeology

message: Sure enough, a good number of these year in archaeology pages are underpopulated, but it does form part of an overall scheme which has withstood a couple of deletion nominations in the past (cf. List of years in archaeology and its talk pg). Therefore I don't think it's appropriate for a speedy del nomination (it's not completely empty), particularly in isolation from all of the other years in archaeology pages. In a way it's not all that different from a one- or two-line stub, of which very many exist around here without the threat of being deleted as not presently useful. The page certainly has the potential to serve a useful and encyclopaedic purpose, and there's scope for expansion here awaiting someone's action to do so. IMO it should be allowed to remain, unless some different consensus can be reached on the overall scheme via Afd.--cjllw | TALK 12:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy del nomination

message: 22-May-2007 (revised 23May): I have been analyzing about 3,000 of the year-in-topic articles and have noticed the concerns: dozens of archaeology yearly articles had contained only one notable line, such as a single birth entry, after almost 2 years of public editing.  I have begun reducing/combining the yearly articles to redirect into decade articles, which combine several one-notable-line years into a multi-line decade view.  That combined-decade concept has been used extensively for the architecture years, such as 16xx_in_architecture redirecting into one of 10 decade articles.  The benefits are immediate and lasting:  already, the 100 yearly articles from 1600_ to "1699_in_archaeology" have been redirected into just 10 decade articles, such as "1640s_in_archaeology" (combining any details from the previous yearly articles ranging 1640..1649).  Because the 100 repetitious articles have been reduced to just 10, eliminating the potential editing of 90 articles, the future expansion of details has been reduced from the former daunting 100 detailed articles to just the 10 decade articles for editing across the century years 16xx.  Vandalism that hid for 3-7 months among the 100 yearly articles can be spotted much sooner by checking just those 10 remaining combined-decade articles, such as inspecting "1670s_in_archaeology" (to look for differences or botched facts).  In the future, any year expanded with extensive details could be re-separated as a yearly article, beyond the summary details for that year within the decade article, since any future yearly article could have its own navigation-box to other years, and the year-decade connections are determined by individual redirection from each yearly article.  The combined-decade articles thus reduce the century to just 10 main articles (avoiding 90 other articles) to not only simplify the major edit-hassles but also raise the content-quality of each Wikipedia article to more than just a one-line birth entry; however, at the same time, the combined-decade articles allow any particular years to be re-expanded as yearly-articles, as appropriate to future details, without impacting the broader 10 combined-decade articles.  Overall, the combined-decade approach has been a great solution to the troublesome, multi-year problem of skeletal yearly articles in Wikipedia. -Wikid77 04:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combining/filling