Forum:Home Era layout: Difference between revisions

From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:


No, it is a wate of space. You are listing two identical words. 20th-21st century is what we should run with. I thought this was common sense but clearly not.--[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 17:32, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
No, it is a wate of space. You are listing two identical words. 20th-21st century is what we should run with. I thought this was common sense but clearly not.--[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 17:32, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
:How will it save space? There is pretty much no difference in space. [[User:Mini-mitch/Sandbox 6|here]] is an example of a page that has a list of aliases, among other things, showing the difference in look between other opinions. 'Saving Space' does not really work if there is a list of aliases, appearances, mentions etc. [[User:Mini-mitch|Mini-mitch]]\[[User talk:Mini-mitch|talk]] 17:39, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:39, 14 February 2011

IndexPanopticon → Home Era layout
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
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 20th-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 are links to both sides of the discussion: my points and Mini Mitch's counter. Thanks--Skittles the hog--Talk 08:09, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
It's not really a waste of space, when considering in other infoboxes, individuals can have their aliases, appearances, mentions etc listed, which takes up more space than '20th century - 21st century'. Even if the pages we have linked to have only one of items I mentioned above, if this was the format to be rolled out across other pages 'saving space would not stand', with, as I said page that have listed aliases, mentions, etc. I also put the '20th century - 21st century' as it comes the best compromise. Mini-mitch\talk 10:20, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a wate of space. You are listing two identical words. 20th-21st century is what we should run with. I thought this was common sense but clearly not.--Skittles the hog--Talk 17:32, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

How will it save space? There is pretty much no difference in space. here is an example of a page that has a list of aliases, among other things, showing the difference in look between other opinions. 'Saving Space' does not really work if there is a list of aliases, appearances, mentions etc. Mini-mitch\talk 17:39, February 14, 2011 (UTC)