Talk:Timeline of the Bill Clinton presidency

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Split 1995 and 1998. Onetwothreeip already split 1998 and 1995. Nobody has said anything for a month, so it's clear this article should be split. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

---

I propose that the article be split into eight:

• Timeline of the presidency of Bill Clinton (1993)
• Timeline of the presidency of Bill Clinton (1994)
• Timeline of the presidency of Bill Clinton (1995)
• Timeline of the presidency of Bill Clinton (1996)
• Timeline of the presidency of Bill Clinton (1997)
• Timeline of the presidency of Bill Clinton (1998)
• Timeline of the presidency of Bill Clinton (1999)
• Timeline of the presidency of Bill Clinton (2000-01) (2001 has only two entries)

FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@FoxyGrampa75: I'm not sure that would be warranted. What if we split into first term and second term, and then evaluate from there? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC) see below --DannyS712 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I say we split this into two terms. All of the articles will be too short if you split this into individual years. I change my mind. Do split this by year. See Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama and Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - to keep consistency with other presidential timelines (the Obama and Trump timelines are outliers). Also, it's easier for readers if the timeline is a true all-inclusive timeline. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

They're not outliers. Bush II is also split into years, and Obama and Trump. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I took the liberty of fulfilling Walk Like an Egyptian's choice and it showed how the timeline is mainly one large year and a bunch of stubs. This was why I didn't want to split it, but hey, how could I expect someone who's never edited it to know that? --Informant16 8 December 2018
  • And you did a very good job with the splits, I just felt that something like that needs a much greater consensus to move forward. In the end the consensus may be to split, and if that occurs, we simply revert my redirects. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support splitting This article is currently 566,771 bytes long; that's ridiculous. As for consistency, if other presidential-timeline articles are of similar length (and none are as long as this), thay should be split, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I support the splitting but maybe we should just split it into 1993-1997 & 1998-2001 (i.e. first & second terms) ‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 03:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support splitting by term my above comment comment went unanswered, so I have struck it out to fully explain here. I agree that this is extremely long, and should be split, but if split by year some of the articles would be way too short, so I oppose splitting by year. See, eg, the 2000-01 article listed above, which was deleted because it only had 2 entries, or the 1999 page, which is equally problematic. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - this is a pretty obvious article to be split but not all the years have to be split. So the last few years can stay in this article, but the years with the bulk of information should be their own article. Eventually they should all be their own article when someone adds to this article with more information. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Reason is stated above. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.