Disputatio Formulae:Annus

message: I need help with this template, please. I added an optional 2nd parameter. When given, it shall show a note, but just for year pages, not for decennia pages. Unfortunately it does not work. :-( --Rolandus 11:11, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: should be fixed now. The weird syntax used here is described at meta:ParserFunctions. Greetings, --UV 02:35, 2 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Well done, UV. I like that the aCn pages do not show the numerus page. Macte and happy new year!--Ioshus (disp) 03:25, 2 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd parameter for year pages

message: I'm puzzled by this formula. In what language are the years 2011 to 2020 called "decennium 202"? The existence of this series of pages encourages editors to use these terms on other pages, and I don't believe people understand them. Am I right? If so, how would we solve this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:20, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently in no language, see d:Q19022. We currently have 337 pages on individual decennia in :Categoria:Decennia. What shall we do with them, rename them to a different title? Delete them, since most of them do not contain much content anyway and the content could be moved to the appropriate century page? --UV (disputatio) 14:43, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thanks for your reply. I see now -- I hadn't at first understood this -- that the same formula is used on the year pages too. In the year pages its effect is really good: my only problem is with the decennium pages. There are many incoming links to those decennium pages, but I think that nearly all of them result from the formula itself. Do you think I'm right? If that's the case, is it possible to adjust this formula so that it goes on doing all the other things, but doesn't make links to decennium pages? Whereupon we could indeed delete the decennium pages, and live happily ever after :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :: I'm puzzled, too. The years 2010 to 2019 are of course anni 2010 in Latin. As far as I can see, this is in line with other languages. Neander (disputatio) 17:59, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

text: :: I think you are right, Andrew. We could, if there is consensus, easily omit the "Decennia:" line from the formula and then delete the decennium pages (moving content, if any, to the appropriate century pages). --UV (disputatio) 18:44, 3 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
(What I wrote on Neander's talk page today:) Salve, Neander! Today, you moved five out of our 337 decennia pages to a new title. I would suggest that we first continue and conclude our discussion at Disputatio Formulae:Decennium#Is it true?. If we decide to delete those pages, there is no need to move them beforehand. If we decide to move them to a new title, it is easier to do that in one batch (probably by bot), and Formula:Decennium would need to be adapted.
The move you proposed (Decennium 191 to Anni 1900) would also entail a semantic difference: While Decennium 191 encompasses the years 1901 to 1910 (and thus falls entirely within the 20th century), Anni 1900 encompass the years 1900 to 1909 and thus fall partly within the 19th and partly within the 20th century, which would make Formula:Decennium a lot more complicated. I therefore have a slight tendency to delete our 337 decennia pages (after moving content, if any, to the appropriate century pages), but we should definitely discuss that! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:01, 9 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree with the proposed change, and if deleting is the most efficient way to do it, we should do that. Eventually it would be good to have pages on the recent decades with their strong cultural associations. But I don't think there's a need for Vicipaedia right now to have a separate page for e.g. the 1590's, much less for the unconventional grouping 1591–1600. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:58, 10 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: :[Repeating a comment that I made on Neander's talk page:] Since we are agreed that the current names of the decennium pages are un-intuitive and wrong, and since the new names would entail a complicated reworking of the formula (which means demanding that someone with the requisite skill spend the necessary time), are these pages -- under whatever name -- sufficiently useful to justify making that demand? I'm not sure that they are: they seem to contain no information, and any information they might contain could just as well go into the "saeculum" pages. So our time could be better spent. So let's delete the "decennium" pages and de-activate the bit of the formula that currently creates them.

text: :[Adding:] I agree with Lesgles that if we wanted a few pages for recent and notable decennia, we could create them manually ... In most cases, though, what we'd be talking about is a series of connected events that someone has by shorthand fitted approxiately to a decade, but that deserves to have a proper name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 22 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it true?