Talk:Timeline of Quebec history/Delete

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of pages in the Timeline of Quebec series.

Further comments should be made on the talk page rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was keep this series of pages.

The following were created from Timeline of Quebec history, done arbitrarily and without consensus. Breaking up a clear and precise one-page history makes it harder for Wikipedia users to do research. But, breaking it up makes it more difficult to monitor someone with a demonstrated agenda such as User:Mathieugp whose goal is to manipulate the various articles to his distinct point of view. Delete the following:

• • 1760 to 1773 (British Regime - Royal Proclamation)
  • 1774 to 1790 (British Regime - Quebec Act)
  • 1791 to 1840 (British Regime - Constitutional Act)
  • 1841 to 1866 (British Regime - Union Act)
  • 1867 to 1899 (British Regime - Federal Dominion)
  • 1900 to 1930 (British Regime - Federal Dominion (continued))
  • 1931 to 1959 (Sovereign Canada)
  • 1960 to 1981 (Modern Quebec)
  • 1982 to present (Repatriation)
• Angelique
  • I agree it's hardly a "timeline" if it's spread across many pages. Nothing wrong with linking to specific articles from a timeline, but that's not happening here. It's just a fragmented timeline. With or without the need to monitor POV editors, this is not good. I say delete and revert. Angelique, can you or somebody else put a VfD on the individual pages please? Sorry, I don't have time to help right now. Anjouli 14:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I have done so. -- Cyan 14:55, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I am neutral on this question. I note that Timeline of United States history has been in this format for several months. Does this nomination for deletion attempt to promulgate a Wikipedia-wide principle, or is it concerned only with the Quebec history pages? -- Cyan 14:49, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I'm loathed to intervene in the political edit war that angelique is one of the main actors in. If the articles can be made big enough so that having them all on the one page is unmanageable then they should be split. However I don't believe the listing here is due to the practicalities involved. All sides seem to be crying Wolf! Vandalism! POV! Secretlondon 14:52, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see what's POV about splitting a page which is too large into smaller ones. Timeline of United States history and Timeline of Afghan history are split into subpages in the same way. Angela. 15:15, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. The division is reasonable. VfD is not the correct forum for settling edit wars or conflict between users. -- Finlay McWalter 15:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I am the guilty one who split the Timeline of Quebec history, using Timeline of United States history as reference. The page is, unlike stated above far from being precise and clear. The whole point of this subdivision which was discussed in Talk:Timeline of Quebec history was to clean up the mess. The article was awfully long an disorganized (see the history of the page) and it included full paragraphs that didn't belong in a timeline. User:Angelique stated that she would object to whatever I do by principle, because she says I am pushing a distinct POV, unlike her who of course does not. This fact makes it impossible to arrive to a concensus. In the most recent parts of the discussion, I agreed with User:Adam Bishop that my proposed subdivision was not good. After seeing it with my own eyes, I agreed that some subdivisions could be merged together, such has 1001 to 1533 which has only about 4 items long! I invite you all to compare this with the Timeline of United States history and also consider that beginning the history of Quebec with either the British Conquest or the French colonization is in fact pushing a POV in itself. Didn't many peoples live in Quebec for milenia before Jacques Cartier arrived? I think including everyone qualifies as NPOV. I think using an existing timeline subdivision as a model is NPOV. -- Mathieugp 15:52, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep; but each page needs navigation bar at top and bottom, linking to previous/ next in series. Andy Mabbett 16:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Sounds fair. I can do that. -- Mathieugp 17:46, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I suppose we should point out Talk:Timeline of Quebec history and Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/Quebec issue, to give this some context. This was already being discussed on the Timeline's talk page, but Angelique keeps refusing to communicate with us; it's completely unnecessary to have these listed on VfD. Adam Bishop 18:10, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See folks: Timeline of United States history is about a country. There is no "Timeline of Kentucky history". Quebec is a Province of Canada and as User:Adam Bishop pointed out, all this Quebec stuff should in fact be moved into the Canadian sections EXACTLY in the same way as the United States is done. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia most certainly should not treat the country of Canada different than the USA. Angelique 21:52, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• • There is absolutely nothing that prevents the people of California from writing a Timeline of Californian history or the people of New York, or the people of Virginia, or the people of Louisiana. Because we are talking about States that joined a Union, telling the story of the Union will not reveal the many years of history of a given State before its entry in the said Union. For example Newfoundland entered the Canadian federation in 1949. It is only since that time that the history of Newfoundland and Canada sort of "overlap". Are we to prevent the people of Newfoundland from telling the 250 years of Newfoundland's pre-Canadian history because it is now part of a greater political ensemble? In the case of Quebec, we are talking about at least 333 years of history before it became part of the Canadian federation. I don't think it is in the policy of Wikipedia to ignore certain parts of human history for political reasons. -- Mathieugp 22:09, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Whatever the subject, I strongly believe a "timeline" should be something on a single page that can be easily scanned for a chronological overview. If the user has to jump backwards and forwards from one page to another, then IMHO it loses its function. If a "timeline" is too big to fit on one page, then probably it is too detailed. In short, a timeline should be a brief easily-scanned chronological overview, summary or synopsis. Anjouli 13:52, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with splittin git up if need be, but perhaps one or two sections could be merged together because some pages are really too small to have their own. -- Chrism 18:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that there are proposals out for making it easier to break up an article into sub-articles; see meta:Series of articles for details. --ESP 19:16, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Note that Angelique is a reincarnation of banned user DW -- Finlay McWalter 04:57, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)