I thought I would just pass on a thought I had while doing 1600-?? the last few days, as I see you've picked up on 1 AD-??. In the timeline at the top that reads:
1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610
(Or whatever set of years one is using) I'm thinking that the years surrounding the bold date should be the preceding five and the following five, rather than just the year placed within its decade, as seems to have been done sporadically so far.
My reasoning is:
1. It makes it easier to explore around the year within its context, and not have to worry about arbitrary decade boundaries (as one would have with years ending in "0" or "9").
2. If one is hopping pages year-by-year forwards or backwards, the link for the next page will appear underneath the mouse pointer when the link for the current year runs. If you're not sure what I mean, go to 1620, then from there go to 1621, then from 1621 go to 1622, and so on. It makes flipping through the years dead easy.
Do the years you select as you wish, of course, but I thought I'd point out what I was doing up here in the 16th century and see if you thought it a good idea. -- Paul Drye
Sounds like a good idea to me. -- Tsja
After some further thinking and seeing what MichaelTinkler has done to 840 I like this scheme best for the years:
The year and the decade are bold. In that way we can get rid of the the line "39 - decade 30s - 1st century".
I've changed the comma's in the decade line to dashes to make it more logical.
No, it's like, "well..." or 'h'm..." It became my internet alias when I was asked for one and couldn't think of a good one. Now I'm stuck with it. --Tsja
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)