This template is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
awards and
prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This template does not require a rating on the project's
quality scale.
Arbitrary decade splits
I agree with
Robsinden that there is no reason to split the lists by decade. this (a) bloats the template by reducing the space available for the list, (b) splits the list contra to
WP:LISTGAP, and (c) is a completely arbitrary division. please be mindful of edit warring before reverting, and discuss here instead.
Frietjes (
talk) 20:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I don´t agree. The list by decades is more easy to read and looks by far less confused. Vanthornmsg ← 20:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree with Robsinden and Frietjes, we should not have the decade divisions, and by the way, we should also try to avoid edit warring. I count at least 4 reverts. Thanks!
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)reply