Forum:Home Era layout: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:Skittle the Hog goes for this method: [[20th century|20th]] - [[21st century]] ([[Bronwen Jones|example here]]) whereas I prefer the full dates to be written out as such: [[20th century]] - [[21st century]] ([[Garret|example here]]) Originally, I had put <nowiki><br></nowiki> to separate the two dates ([[Frank Openshaw|example here]]), until Skittles commented saying that it shows ''continual living''. I agree with this, but still felt that it should show the whole date, as it looks much more presentable, and throughout this wiki, the dates are linked in full, rather than shorted i.e. 20th (consistency). How should the date be laid out? Should we take a vote? [[User:Mini-mitch|Mini-mitch]]\[[User talk:Mini-mitch|talk]] 00:35, February 14, 2011 (UTC) | :Skittle the Hog goes for this method: [[20th century|20th]] - [[21st century]] ([[Bronwen Jones|example here]]) whereas I prefer the full dates to be written out as such: [[20th century]] - [[21st century]] ([[Garret|example here]]) Originally, I had put <nowiki><br></nowiki> to separate the two dates ([[Frank Openshaw|example here]]), until Skittles commented saying that it shows ''continual living''. I agree with this, but still felt that it should show the whole date, as it looks much more presentable, and throughout this wiki, the dates are linked in full, rather than shorted i.e. 20th (consistency). How should the date be laid out? Should we take a vote? [[User:Mini-mitch|Mini-mitch]]\[[User talk:Mini-mitch|talk]] 00:35, February 14, 2011 (UTC) | ||
Well first off, 20th century-21st century is just a waist of space. Your only argument against 20-21st century was "hard to read". It's not. This was followed quickly by "every other page uses it", that is really not an argument, Wikis are designed to be changed. | :Well first off, 20th century-21st century is just a waist of space. Your only argument against 20-21st century was "hard to read". It's not. This was followed quickly by "every other page uses it", that is really not an argument, Wikis are designed to be changed. | ||
At first Mini Mitch was keen to introduce two separate dates as shown on his page, [[Frank Openshaw]]. However, this "underneath format" is better suited to two separate dates such as is used on [[Eldritch Valdemar]]. And so we come to 20th century-21st century vs. 20th-21st century. This seems to me like another "adding a line discussion", something so pointless that I thought it was unwritten law. I understand, however, that others might be of different opinion. Thanks--[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 08:09, February 14, 2011 (UTC) | At first Mini Mitch was keen to introduce two separate dates as shown on his page, [[Frank Openshaw]]. However, this "underneath format" is better suited to two separate dates such as is used on [[Eldritch Valdemar]]. And so we come to 20th century-21st century vs. 20th-21st century. This seems to me like another "adding a line discussion", something so pointless that I thought it was unwritten law. I understand, however, that others might be of different opinion. Here ale links to both sides of the discussion: [[User talk:Mini-mitch#What?|my points]] and [[User talk:Skittles the hog#Compromise|Mini Mitch counter]]. Thanks--[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 08:09, February 14, 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:12, 14 February 2011
Index → Panopticon → Home Era layout
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Myself and Skittles the Hog have come to a disagreement over how the dates in the Home Era section in the Individuals infobox should be laid out.
- Skittle the Hog goes for this method: 20th - 21st century (example here) whereas I prefer the full dates to be written out as such: 20th century - 21st century (example here) Originally, I had put <br> to separate the two dates (example here), until Skittles commented saying that it shows continual living. I agree with this, but still felt that it should show the whole date, as it looks much more presentable, and throughout this wiki, the dates are linked in full, rather than shorted i.e. 20th (consistency). How should the date be laid out? Should we take a vote? Mini-mitch\talk 00:35, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Well first off, 20th century-21st century is just a waist of space. Your only argument against 20-21st century was "hard to read". It's not. This was followed quickly by "every other page uses it", that is really not an argument, Wikis are designed to be changed.
At first Mini Mitch was keen to introduce two separate dates as shown on his page, Frank Openshaw. However, this "underneath format" is better suited to two separate dates such as is used on Eldritch Valdemar. And so we come to 20th century-21st century vs. 20th-21st century. This seems to me like another "adding a line discussion", something so pointless that I thought it was unwritten law. I understand, however, that others might be of different opinion. Here ale links to both sides of the discussion: my points and Mini Mitch counter. Thanks--Skittles the hog--Talk 08:09, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
