Timeline for On tags and time periods
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 27, 2017 at 7:22 | history | edited | user104 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Mar 25, 2017 at 16:22 | comment | added | user104 | On victorian versus 19th-century, it isn't even just a choice between them -- chuck in georgian as well. So if we had Victorian and Georgian (for UK-related questions only, probably) it's a choice of one of those or 19th-century if a Q spans both periods... but I won't die in a ditch for Victorian and Edwardian if 19th-century is good enough. | |
| Mar 25, 2017 at 16:16 | comment | added | user104 | @HarryVervet I agree about distinctions. I'd use world-war-1 for records/events specifically associated with the war (service records, war graves, pow camps, death in action...) and 20th-century for records that are only coincidental with the period 1914-18 such as births, marriages etc. But I wouldn't use both on the same question. | |
| Mar 25, 2017 at 16:09 | comment | added | Harry V. Mod | I also think it is important to distinguish event or conflict tags (such as world-war-1) from era tags (such as victorian). The latter is purely a way to group questions by date, while the former is more than that. | |
| Mar 25, 2017 at 16:01 | comment | added | Harry V. Mod | @ColeValleyGirl I have upvoted this as I agree that decade tags are not useful, and largely agree with your summary. However I question the practicality of the named-period tags you suggest, if the century tags will also exist. How would one know whether to tag a question victorian or 19th-century? I feel like this is running into the same problem as with the decade tags. It's getting too complex, where we have some questions tagged decades and some centuries. Hence my desire to not upvote this. | |
| Mar 25, 2017 at 11:18 | comment | added | user104 | If you think one element is OK in isolation (or disagree violently with one) you can pull that out as a separate answer -- as @PolyGeo has done. | |
| Mar 25, 2017 at 11:14 | comment | added | user104 | I thunk it's important to look as the topic as a whole rather than pick elements out of it that might not combine sensibly. | |
| Mar 25, 2017 at 11:14 | comment | added | user104 | @HarryVervet this answer proposes "What we should have is a simplified set of basic building blocks for use when nothing more specific is relevant (centuries and other major calendar divisions relevant to non-Western calendars); plus an increased set of Named-period tags (created as they're required) plus more specific record-type tags that include geography explicitly and time-period implicitly." Should I make the summary clearer? | |
| Mar 25, 2017 at 10:49 | comment | added | Harry V. Mod | @ColeValleyGirl I think it would be useful to get an idea of what this would practically mean. The 4 most commonly tagged countries are USA, England, Germany, Poland. Maybe we could start by generating era tags for these 4 countries to see better what it would look like. Perhaps you or Andy could submit the "era" proposal as a separate answer – this answer ends up proposing several ideas which makes it difficult to vote on if one agrees with part but not all of it. | |
| Mar 25, 2017 at 9:48 | comment | added | user104 | @HarryVervet I agree about helping in inexperienced users (so the tag wikis would have to be very clear). And I'd have no problem with sticking with century tags for (e.g.) emigrations that started in Victorian Britian and ended in America (where I suspect 'Victorian' didn't apply.) | |
| Mar 25, 2017 at 0:03 | comment | added | Harry V. Mod | @Andy I like the theory of period tags, but also think that it makes tagging questions difficult for inexperienced users. For example, one would likely have to lookup that 1717 was in Georgian England, meaning an extra step in the tagging process that I suspect most people wouldn't want to bother with. The bigger problem with having date tags that are intrinsically tied to certain geographies is that we get a lot of questions about immigrant ancestors such that a question may pertain to multiple overlapping periods. I can see it getting very messy very quickly. | |
| Mar 24, 2017 at 10:58 | comment | added | user104 | @AndyW, I agree deciding on and implementing a complete set would be hard -- but we don't need to create them until they're needed. They would need to be fairly recognisable so it's easy to decide which to use, but (in the UK) Georgian/Victorian/Edwardian might be a good start, in addition to WW1 and WW2 and 'Interwar period'. (As an aside we don't need to reinvent any wheels if there's a good set of nomenclature we can borrow from elsewhere). 20th century might be the best we could do for 1945-2000 -- or for Qs where no more precision is needed. | |
| Mar 24, 2017 at 10:41 | comment | added | AndyW | I think named period tags could be quite beneficial, for certain locations. For example, the "Periods in English History" tabulated on Wikipedia align fairly well with major social and record-keeping changes (e.g. civil registration started with Victoria's ascension). But a full set of such tags, per country, could be rather burdensome, and I'm not sure how to limit them properly. If each monarch/president/PM's reign becomes a "period" then there's a problem, but sensible and intuitive combination of those reigns isn't obviously easy. | |
| Mar 17, 2017 at 16:24 | history | answered | user104 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |