Talk:1845 in archaeology

message: "The year 1845 in archaeology involved some significant events."  Such as?  Why is this article so blank when it's so old?  --Numsgil (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, why?  Is this a trick question? —Viriditas | Talk 11:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only content of the article is that this year involved significant events.  Oh, and someone's birthday.  Is that it?  Was that statement a bold fabrication or is this year and a half old article just incomplete?  Maybe it should just be deleted all-together.  If this were some other article I would nominate it for deletion, but I understand that it's one of a series, and it wouldn't be good to have gaps in a time line.  But as it stands this article is absolutely unforgivable.  Either fill it with content or merge it with other articles and form a 1840's in archaeology article.  --Numsgil (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of the problem.  You're referring to boilerplate, not content.  There's a difference. —Viriditas | Talk 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's nothing in the boilerplate I have a problem with.  I'm assuming by boilerplate that we mean the nice block of text to the right that shows the timeline.  My issue here is two fold: 1.  The article says that this year had many significant events.  But the article only has one event, which is hardly notable.  The article needs at least two more events which are "significant" for that intro to be true.  Removing that intro would also be a solution.  Other timeline year articles don't have an intro statement like that.  2.  If there isn't enough content to make an article on this year, there shouldn't be an article on this year.  If this is just a place holder until someone cracks open a text book and places some references in the article, they should do so now.  Otherwise, perhaps we should just merge all the articles from 1840 to 1849 into a single article.  Unless there's a relevant Wikipedia policy that I'm ignorant of?  --Numsgil (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that the text you are objecting to is the boilerplate.  I'm not sure why you are concerned with this article, but since your interest is so great, why don't you try expanding it? —Viriditas | Talk 21:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I'm not being clear.  Here's what I'm saying: this article needs to be expanded, merged, or deleted.  I'm leaning towards the latter.  --Numsgil (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, is this what your role is on Wikipedia?  You just spend your time visiting random articles and declare in a low tone of voice, "By Royal decree of his Majesty King Numsgil, I solemnly declare that this page should be deleted."  Last time I checked, this was an encylopedia where people shared information, added information, and expanded the domain of knowledge.  Is there something preventing you from doing those things, or would you rather have others do them for you while you sit back and proclaim, "delete"?  Are you an expert in anthropology or archaeology?  Perhaps if you put your royal scrolls aside and got out of your throne, you would realize that having these pages allows editors to add information.  This page was created for that reason.  If you cannot make an honest attempt to research and expand this page, then don't expect me to take you seriously.  And I don't care how many people you find that agree with you. —Viriditas | Talk 02:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, that's my role.  Nail on the head.  Glad you understand.  I troll around for old articles with no substance and agitate the creators' until they produce some more.  Now come up with one more notable event and I'll be satisfied :)  --Numsgil (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How dare you try to deflate my self-righteous indignation! :) —Viriditas | Talk 10:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled