Talk:19th century

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The use of the past and present tense on this page is inconsistent but I am not sure which should be used? BozMo(talk)

Why are there separate sections for "Significant People" and "Important Figures"?

What is the criteria to define who qualifies as "significant prople" ? For example, is Gladstone less "significant" than Disraeli ? Certainly not. Yet, the latter was included in your list while the former was not. Moreover, maybe because this is after all the "English Wikipedia", your list of "significant people" is too anglocentric.

Contents 1 Changes 2 Events 3 Relativity and Quantum Physics 4 Overview 5 A question on importance

Changes

Until the 16th century, starting from the beginning of Wikipedian time, there is no section about the "Five overall largest mass killings". It's removal is for several reasons. First of all, there is a specific format for all these year and century pages, which this violates. Secondly, it is a stupid concept that sounds like it was written by some sort of man-ape who stole a real human's keyboard and had a slight knowledge of the English language. Thirdly, the page it links to confesses that there is no amount of truth in these wild estimates. It is also a pretty amateurish page to begin with. So. I deleted it and I hope that whoever keeps reediting in mistakes will leave it alone this time. Also, the separation of “Artists,” “Scientists,” and “Infamous people” was so wholly unneeded and inaccurate that I removed it and placed them in alphabetical order. If you feel the need to change this, please do so all the way back and try not to have three or four completely different centurial templates because you know more about these specific centuries. --[[User:TheGrza|TheGrza]] 08:42, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Events

If there is no objection, I would like to revamp the events section so it resembles the events sections of the 17th and 18th centuries- chronological order with a "date:description" format. --Brunnock 15:26, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted 3 items from previous versions as they appear to me to be sound. PatGallacher 20:44, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

The three items you replaced aren't events and they don't link to anything on Wikipedia. Can you put them in a "Date:Description" format? Or at least link to other articles? Otherwise, they're just taking up space. --Brunnock 20:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Relativity and Quantum Physics

I am deleting the following line from the overview again-

These beliefs were soon dashed by 20th century developments such as relativity and quantum physics, and by the wars and genocides of that century.

If you are going to add this line to the overview again, I would be appreciative if you could explain why you feel that an overview of the 19th century should contain links to relativity and quantum physics? --Brunnock 12:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that line in the first place, but I see your point on it... perhaps it does belong in the overview for the 20th century, which I think doesn't mention those developments at present. *Dan* 16:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Overview

I would like to delete the overview for 3 reasons: 1.) It's not included in the standard layout; 2.) It's badly written (It was a century of widespread invention and discovery...heavily affected by science and technology?); and 3.) I don't think it's possible to summarize a century in just a few paragraphs. --Brunnock 11:57, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Like you, I think that the overview as it was was inappropriate. However, I think you need to go and look at 18th century and 20th century: both of those have an overview section that add considerably to the impact of the article. Their usage strikes me as redefining the standards, rather than allowing the standards to be prescriptive. I think in this case, we should leave the Overview to grow organically (and indicate that the 20th century article would act as a good template). Can I ask you to reconsider your action? Noisy | Talk 17:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Again, here is the link to the standard layout. At the top of the page, it states:

The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these rules. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.

If you want to change the layout, there's a process in place. --Brunnock 17:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

A question on importance

"The religious revival of the Second Great Awakening in the eastern United States and Canada gave rise to unique, American, Christian religions during the era of Restorationism."

Does this really merit a mention in the century overview? It's hardly one of the defining events of the nineteenth century and furthermore is relevant only in parts of two countries. Even today the US has less than 5% of the world's population, in the 19th century it was an even smaller portion. Canada represents a negligible portion of the world population. If the overview is to cover topics of such insignificance evenly then it would have to be inordinately long. I would recommend this is removed as insignificant and uneven coverage.

You want to argue that the rise of conservative Christianity in America hasn't had much effect on the rest of the world? In any case, I would recommend deleting the entire overview. No one can write an overview that will satisfy everyone. --Brunnock 11:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)