Editing Talk:Timeline (1980)/Archive 1
Discussion page of Timeline (1980)/Archive 1
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
== Moved Page == | == Moved Page == | ||
Per suggestion above ("article name is also incorrect, which should use (1980)"), I moved this page from the old [[ | Per suggestion above ("article name is also incorrect, which should use (1980)"), I moved this page from the old [[Timeline (G80)]] location to [[Timeline (1980)]], and moved the above discussion across as well. [[User:Mokwella|Mokwella]] 19:11, 4 August 2006 (CDT) | ||
== Major cleanup needed == | == Major cleanup needed == | ||
Mopping this article turned into a chore. I think I understand the use of conventional years to try to plot the timeline, given that we know a date and can reverse it to the Original Series. However, the article is so filled with cruft, including poor sourcing, missing or incomplete conventions, and subjective commentary that makes it very difficult to read (or believe). The article could use a lot of work to standardize it to either a [[BW:REAL|real]] or [[BW:NPOV|neutral]] point of view voice. (I'd recommend neutral, with references). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:51, 15 May 2007 (CDT) | Mopping this article turned into a chore. I think I understand the use of conventional years to try to plot the timeline, given that we know a date and can reverse it to the Original Series. However, the article is so filled with cruft, including poor sourcing, missing or incomplete conventions, and subjective commentary that makes it very difficult to read (or believe). The article could use a lot of work to standardize it to either a [[BW:REAL|real]] or [[BW:NPOV|neutral]] point of view voice. (I'd recommend neutral, with references). --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:51, 15 May 2007 (CDT) | ||