Meta talk:Historical

Inclusion of pages about history

I see that Logo history is proposed to be included in this structure. There's a distinction between pages whose content is historical, and those whose content is about history (and perfectly accurate in the present). I don't want pages that belong in the latter category to be lost in a mess of irrelevant archived content. Move it under the Meta:Historical hierarchy if you want, but please preserve that distinction.--Eloquence 09:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed completely. The logo pages should have their own cluster and naming scheme. "Historical" groupings (such as Historical Wikipedia pages) should simply be for the older personal essays and texts, not for all records of past events. Sj 16:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should include both historical pages and pages about history. Meta:Historical isn't meant as an archive, where pages are moved to and forgotten. It's meant to be like a vast museum, with each page explained, documented, and cross-referenced. I think both should be included for the same reason both a historical painting and an explanatory display are included in a museum. Perhaps we could distinguish between historical and explanatory pages with {{historical}}.

I don't think essays are the only pages that should be included in Meta:Historical. The goal is to document and exhibit Meta's history, not archive essays. Those are part of the history, but certainly not the only part. // Pathoschild (^talk) 23:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As an example of how historical and informational pages would coexist in the historical project, see the navigation hierarchy below. A visitor on Meta:Historical is given the choice of several general categories. Each of these describes any general historical context, and provides links to individual historical pages. The second level pages would be informational pages, similar to Logo history, while historical pages would be in the third level.

Note that this chart shows the navigation hierarchy, not the path hierarchy. For example, Meta:Historical/Logo history and meta:Historical/Logo suggestions are in different navigation levels, but the same subpage levels. // Pathoschild (^talk) 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

// Pathoschild (^talk) 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense (nice chart - dig the gradients ;-). As long as the distinctions shown above are preserved, I agree with the move.--Eloquence 16:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't touch the history, man.

What's the feeling on pages that are clearly historical but, um, broken? Here is a page that is of interest, but the page move had left it with nothing but red links. {{Sofixit}} overcame me, but it's not now actually the page that it was.

Now that I think for more than two seconds about it, are we going to protect all these pages to "preserve" them? Because that seems the logical extension to the "remove nothing" ethos.

brenneman 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

'Historical' doesn't necessarily means that they're sancrosanct; they don't depreciate in value if we maintain links, for example. If changing the page doesn't in any way distort the information, context, or historical value, there's no reason not to edit these pages. // Pathoschild (^talk) 00:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A short history of steward elections

I wrote a small blog post about the history of steward elections that may be of interest.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted pages

Those red links are interesting. I wonder if the deletions reasons are still valid or those pages can be restored... --Nemo 17:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)