Talk:10th century in Denmark

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into 10th century in Denmark. As discussed below, this is not an irreversible decision. A redirect for a decade can be converted into a standard article at any time if there is a reasonable amount of content, and this article changed to include a {{main}} link to the decade article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

---

I propose that 940s in Denmark, 950s in Denmark, 960s in Denmark, 970s in Denmark, 980s in Denmark and 990s in Denmark, be merged into this article. Records for this period of Denmark's history are scanty, so this article is likely remain relatively small. Also, some dates are uncertain so it may be easier to assign the events within a broader timeline. If a treasure trove of information on events in a given decade is found, there will be no problem turning the redirect for that decade into a stand-alone article linked from this one. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Note that there was no Denmark prior to the first of these contested decade-based articles. I therefore think it all depends on what the intention is with this structure. If there is also going to be century-based lists for earlier centuries (based on current borders, I assume), then I think a merge would make sense since I agree that information is very sparse and it will give a nice, simple structure: Centuries until 1000, decades from 1000 until 1600 and years after 1600. If, on the other hand, there is not supposed to be articles for earlier centuries, I think it is better to keep the decades structures for consistancy reasons since there is way too much available information to only have century-articles already from the 11th century and in the same time I think there is enough information from the 10th century to justify the contested articles, jeeping the century-based articles for prose-based summaries. And on a general note, I think it is more practical to let these articles relate to states at any given time rather than current borders since the latter option in a European perspective will easily lead to a lot of uncertainty due to all the changes in borders.Ramblersen (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be possible to have "9th century in Denmark", "8th century in Denmark" etc. articles, articles about the geographical area rather than the country. My guess is there would be hardly any firm dates. There would be records of norsemen raiding further south, but probably only vague about where they came from, and there would be archaeological records, with rough dates. I am not sure if such articles would be useful, compared to a prose style article.

Is that really relevant? Consistency is probably not all that important to readers, so much as ease of browsing. I see the century-span article, maybe the only one, as more convenient for a reader wanting to see the sequence of events. A string of very short decade-span articles would be harder to navigate. Although I suppose we could do a sort of succession template at the top right of each of them to make it easy to click from one to the other ... Aymatth2 (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support a merger. In fact I'd advise you do the same for the 1600s years you started like 1681 in Denmark, at least put in a 17th century in Denmark for starter and then decades.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice example, others such as 1648 in Denmark or 1660 in Denmark has already a fair amount of information. That is not to say that they are anywhere near complete but there is simply far too much relevant information to collect it all in a century-list. And pages such as 1538 in Norway or 1801 in South Africa and 1799 in Ireland are not exactly floating over with information either and they have been around for ages. The stub you are linking to was created the other day. I have already explained why I found it easiest to create a bunch of them at once and there would already be a lot more information on them if you had not repeated yourself so much on my talk page.Ramblersen (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

if you want to have uncompleted articles, either create them in your sandbox or tqag them as "underconstruction" or "inuse", which should keep away premature nominations. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Merge all (possibly userify for now - but I would want to see them at WP:RM before uploading to WP itself. -- I strongly suspect that far too little is known of the period for there to be any prospect of producing satisfactory decennial articles. Even if there was, it is probably better to do the split by reign (using the bio-articles on the kings) than by decade. The century article may be useful as a navigation aid, but its substantial expansion should probably be resisted. Later periods, when much more is know are suitable for decennial or even annual articles. The 1648 and 1660 articles are thus no precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Splitting by reign is just not the system which wikipedia seems to be using. As for the comments about tagging and working sandboxes, there are lots and lots of articles about years in other countries with no tagging and very little or even no content at all on them. I was therefore under the impression that these sort of articles is something that Wikipedia wants, that it was generally accepted that they start out with little content since that is how they can most easily be built (in main space so that everybody can contribute to them) and that tagging them was unneccesary since it is obvious that they are works-in progress. Aand if not, I don't get why all the other articles, many of which have been around for ages, have not generated similar controversy. Generally, I think sticking to generally accepted practices and systems is a good thing on Wikipedia to secure uniformity. If pages for later periods are going to be merged simply because their development has still not progressed very far, surely that should also be the case for all the other similar pages out there, many of which are much older, have less content and see less activity. In that case, I think this discussion should also be added to a lot of other national wikiprojects and not just Denmark. Wheather too little is known about this very early period is of course another discussion. I did not expect that to be the case - and to some extent still don't (like those who voted 'keep all' in the previous discussion about these articles relating to a speedy deletion-tagging) - but if I am wrong, a merger will of course make sense.Ramblersen (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is a distinct lack of written material about this period of Denmark's history, so there may not be a great deal more to add. This is different from later periods where the information is there, but no editor has yet got round to assembling it. A merge seems more convenient to readers, at least for now. It is not an irrevocable decision. The decade titles (e.g. "850s in Denmark") will remain as redirects, and can be converted back to full articles any time if this article seems to be growing too big, leaving this one as an overview with {{main}} links to decade articles where present. I see the decision as minor. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.