Talk:1942 in rail transport
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| See also: WikiProject Trains to do list | |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. (add assessment comments) |
[edit] Rollback to restore "events" in subsection headings
I rolled back the edit to make this page consistent with all of the other YEAR in rail transport articles. When births and deaths related to rail transport are added to this article, they will have their own MONTH births and MONTH deaths subsections. Keeping the "events" in the current subsections provides automatic disambiguation in the TOC. slambo 01:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- The trouble is that it looks silly. Why would births and deaths not just go under the relvant month? Also, you've reverted my removal of the (incorrect) hyphens, and a definite article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've been formatting all of the YEAR in rail transport in this manner because that's how other YEAR in TOPIC pages do it. For example, 1942 in aviation uses a hyphen between the date and the event description; that page doesn't list births/deats, but does list first flights split out by months. They get around the ambiguous section headers by not using section headers in the first flights section, just formatting the headers in boldface type. The main 1942 page uses hyphens and splits out the births by month. I have no strong preference, but since the other YEAR in rail transport pages and the majority of other timeline pages are formatted a certain way, that's how I was following here. slambo 10:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
-
- I know — I've never been keen on it for the other "Year in Foo" pages either. Use of the hyphen is dealt with in the Style Manual, in that (if anything's needed at all) it can be changed to an em-rule or en-rule, depending on context and use. In this case, an em-rule would be appropriate; it's just that there didn't seem to be any real need for anything. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
