Talk:Timeline of Albanian history to 1993

Wikify

We need to wikify this article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Font

Any reason why most of this is in a non-proportional font? -- Schnee 01:03, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I pasted it from LOC site, don't know what you mean though. --Dori 03:07, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

When a row doesn't begin from the first column in the edit box, a different, uncomfortable font style is shown. It's tedious to change this, but I am going to do this as I go through the time-table. Where this is done, there I have gone through. Andres 12:08, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, Dori. This is much better. Andres 12:30, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You replied before I made another change (the months were screwed up because of newlines), look again. --Dori 13:08, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I might take a stab at wikifying the years too, so be in the lookout for that if it works. --Dori 13:10, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think bolding the months was a great idea. Thank you! And the years should be wikified when they are headings.

Should we bold the dates too?

Could you give me an example? This might be a bit hard as I'm not a regexp guru, but I'll give it a shot and let you know. --Dori 13:31, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I mean having the dates as headings in the same style as we have the months now, that is date in bold plus
plus the text without an empty line. I don't see any technical problem but I wonder if this looks good. Andres 13:50, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think I had the same idea, see my reply below. I don't think it is a technical problem for wikipedia, but I meant it might be a technical problem for me :) I am not going through and manually editing the dates, I am doing a fancy replace (see the regexp article if you're not familiar with those) which I might not be able to do depending on how the expressions look. --Dori 13:58, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I see. Yes, there are few such cases right now (only the dates I put in), and I can style them manually. I'll give a try and then judge it please, as I am going to add many dates, and so I'll be able to write them right by first edit. Andres 14:11, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the months and the dates should contain the year but probably only when they don't immediately follow the year as a heading.

I doubled months and dates. That is, when an event (1939 or 1940) was reported under a month and I had its exact date, I preserved it both under the month and the date. Is this a good idea? Andres 13:24, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary and it might add clutter. If you just have January 1, then it is good to put this date below the January section since we might link it eventually. --Dori 13:31, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand your last sentence.

OK, I'll remove the redundant passages. Andres 13:50, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was saying if we have a more specific date than just January (e.g. January 1) then it should perhaps be like this:

January

January 1 blah, blah, blah

By looking at it, maybe there aren't that many dates like this, so worse come we could do it manually. I made a change to year 1939. How does that look? The only thing I see wrong is that if we had specific dates for everything we wouldn't need the month as a separate entry (we'd just have the listings in order as in the year pages). --Dori 16:57, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's rather good and I'll follow it. But there remain some problems. Yes, if we don't state anything without the specific date then we don't need the month. We need the month when (1) the exact date is unknown; (2) the event is a process that cannot be specified by days; (3) there are so many events in one month that a survey is needed. Do you mean that in that case the description should follow from the same row, as in the case of dates? The other problem is that if the description of a year is detailed enough then the year and the date don't appear on the same screen, therefore the year should somehow appear. Andres 18:28, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Regarding #3, yes I think the survey (or whatever) of a month should be on the same indentation as specific dates, but at the end. The same would be true for a year survery (meaning it would be on the indent. of the year, at the end.

OK, let's try that. Andres 06:05, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I still don't think it would be a good idea to add the years because of the clutter, but that's just my opinion. I would think most people will remember what year they're reading about, and if not they can just scroll a bit. --Dori 05:51, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, I won't add years for time being. Andres 06:05, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I like the way how the months appear. And another question. If we have different events on the same day, probably the descriptions of all of them should be at one and the same distance from the margin? Andres 18:40, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, continuing on the same indentation, but on a new line would probably be OK. Or we might duplicate the specific date, but not link it. --Dori 05:51, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK. Andres 06:05, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

King Zog's son

Regarding "King Zog with his wife Geraldine Apponyi and their infant son Skander emigrate to Greece." I thought their only son (and child) was Leka. See also: Talk:Countess Geraldine Apponyi de Nagy-Apponyi --Dori 03:07, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are right. I copied this from the article Albania between wars but this is a mistake. Leka was born on April 5, 1939. This makes me cautious about the report on which the longer history articles about Albania are based. Another place where something is wrong is about Ali Kelmendi's and Enver Hoxha's cooperation. I also am suspicious about the name "National Liberation Movement". I'll try to check it. Andres 12:08, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I found out why Skander was mentioned as King Zog's son. Both names derive from "Alexander" or "Aleksander". Andres 15:15, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Probably, what is mentioned in the preamble of 1940, in fact occurred in 1939. Andres 22:48, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A good source

On the timeline of Albanian history, see: [[1]]. Majuru (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Timeline of Albanian history

From the outside it seems the easiest merge is to shift everything of value from 'Timeline of Albanian history to 1993' to 'Timeline of Albanian history'. Then delete 'Timeline of Albanian history to 1993'. IS that our preference or do we like the formatting of 'Timeline of Albanian history to 1993' better?

Changed to a redirect after moving missing information to Timeline of Albanian history. Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]