Talk: List of years in science

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

How many singular year entries are useful (1600-present) or (1700-present) etc. Before that time it is probably sanest to go by decade (or maybe century). What do others think? Maximus Rex 05:08, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• the earliest page that links here is 1643, so I'd say individual years back to 1600.Gentgeen 07:29, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why? Almost without exception every year article in the 17th and 18th centuries are stubs and will probably be very short for a long time. So why then does it make sense to break off the science? Not much science there either, BTW. --mav 09:38, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I like the idea, but I suggest that we drop the quotes (as was done for List of years in literature) rename this page List of years in science. The quotes render badly in the URL and aren't really necessary in any case. --Lexor 09:50, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Done. --Lexor 09:55, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)