Talk:History of Tasmania

British colonisation of Tasmania got prod'ed. I'd prefer to see the content merged to here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I am currently undecided about a merger. There is no doubt that both articles require work and if the contradictions in the articles can be reconciled, I might be persuaded to support a merger.--Ykraps (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposed It's being discussed at
  talk) 04:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I should have said that I'm Neutral. I don't care either way. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As it was not just Tasmania being colonised but the whole continent, I think British colonisation of Tasmania is a little arbitrary. Colonisation can and should be included in
  History of Tasmania timeline. Like other Australian states and territories, the timeline part should be ditched and conversion to prose is needed. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Why is this just a timeline? Why isn't it History of Tasmania like the other states? Merging seems reasonable, but is a whole lot of prose permissible on a timeline article? Nightw 04:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - agree with Shiftchange's comments above, and suggest the change from timeline to prose article is needed as well
  Suro 06:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - When I started this article, a long long time ago, I basically created it in timeline form as History of Tasmania. Over the years (as I neglected it :-/ ) it appears to have been moved to its current name. I wouldn't mind re-writing it into prose form, but I'd need some help as it would need to be done rather quickly - otherwise it becomes a bit of a mish mash! -- Chuq (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will help. History of Queensland was recently converted from points to prose. The division by decades could be scrapped. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shiftchange. I've made an attempt to start doing a paragraph at the time but I'm struggling as to where to begin. I'm thinking that keeping the paragraphs split by decades for now is the easiest way? So far as sourcing goes, I remember a lot of came from a series of booklets that The Mercury distributed around the time of either Hobart's bicentennary. So far as what *their* sources were, I'm not sure. However most of these facts should easily be able to be referenced by alternate sources online. -- Chuq (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please consider that listing by year shouldn't preclude having a separate history page organized by decades in prose. Listing by year helps to organize massive amounts of material. I've found it useful to see dates in reference to each other to analyze how key events/people influence later events. Splitting by decades also works well for readers interested in a particular period. But some dates are missing here, for example, Sir John Franklin left VDL November 1843 after the arrival of his replacement. Research material on 19th Century Tasmania is very difficult to get in the United States, so your efforts are appreciated. Bluebethley (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Bluebethley.[reply]

• Opposed - The British colonisation is quite a distinct feature of Tasmanian history, and deserves separate discussion. The effects on the local aboriginal people was also quite different frmo the effects in the other states of Australia. It is also noted that there has been little interesting in merging in the last 4 years. Klbrain (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]