Forum:Home Era layout

Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Home Era layout

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

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)

It is a waste of space because it is useless! Also, when using three-didget centuries it goes onto a second line. Do you have a problem with the idea I supplied? I see no fault with it.--Skittles the hog--Talk 17:50, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Saying it's useless is a bad excuse. Putting the full date keeps up with the consistency of this wiki, it also looks much more tidier, presentable and easier to read. It's also grammatically correct to write it out in full. Also, the majority of other pages use the date in full. Also, wikipedia articles on Doctor Who characters write the full date. Mini-mitch\talk 18:00, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Again, all pages use it is not an excuse. We are not wikipedia, I doubt the date system for fictional Dr Who characters on wikipedia has been challenged. Reading the same word twice with only a figure in between is not grammatically correct at all. I know a lot of people have been harping on your edits of late is kind of a big deal to you, but it is far more tidy, correct and readable in the 20th-21st format. Thanks.--Skittles the hog--Talk 18:06, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

The dates have been written out in full for a while. It was only yesterday that you seemed to have a problem with it. I tried to get to a compromise, which was full dates (me) and to show they were linked (you). But no, you only want it to be your way. You're also go and change the way the date is laid out on pages before a decision is reached as well. You're only excuse at first was 'useless', whereas I had several reasonable points. Lets us vote. Mini-mitch\talk 18:16, February 14, 2011 (UTC)You had no reasonable points. I have written above counters to each and every one. You say they have been written you way for a while? Lies, you believed they should be beneath so you aren't being truthful in that part. It is disappointing that it should come to a vote over something so petty.--Skittles the hog--Talk 18:22, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

You had no resonable points. I have written above counters to each and every one. You say they have been written you way for a while? Lies, you believed they should be beneath so you aren't being truthful in that part. It is dissapointing that it should come to a vote over something so petty.--Skittles the hog--Talk 18:21, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

You did not counter my points, all you said was 'No.' and it's a waste of space. It's is more grammatically correct to write the dates it in full. Writing the dates out in full keeps up with the consistency of this wiki. Putting '20th' looks stupid, but in full it look much more presentable. '20th' looks really messy and out of place. Mini-mitch\talk 18:26, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Read it again. Also, I know I am biased, but unregistered user votes shouldn't count as users can simply log out to vote. Thanks--Skittles the hog--Talk 18:33, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Hang on. I found this. Mini-mitch\talk 18:44, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I recall this discussion. Do you think it relevant?--Skittles the hog--Talk 18:47, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Might be. We could have the centuries written out, and then dates in brackets? Like here. Mini-mitch\talk 18:49, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Could we save that for another day? Can I ask if you agree regarding unregistered voting?--Skittles the hog--Talk 18:52, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'm half and half. Half of me says yes, as hey have a right to vote as much as everyone else. the other half of me says no, as User can just log out and vote - but that cheating, and should not be counted. I'm going to say yes, in the interest of fairness to them. But if it's discovered to be the same IP address, then the vote should not count Mini-mitch\talk 18:56, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Again, I know I am biased, but there is no way to tell. The user who has voted has this as their only contribution which makes me suspicious.--Skittles the hog--Talk 19:51, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I never checked, but if you do have your suspicions, should we defunct the vote? Mini-mitch\talk 20:16, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for being so agreeable.--Skittles the hog--Talk 20:24, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Skittles is, in my view, more correct. Saying "century" twice is slightly redundant. But "20th and 21st centuries", which I tend to prefer over using dashes, is also correct, as would be the variant "20th & 21st centuries".

The real question is: who's going to implement and enforce this? Unless one of the two of you is prepared to go through every page and bend them to your will, stop arguing about it. Just to make things clear, I will not make the bot available for such a change, so . . . hand editing it will mean. And hand policing. Which of you is up for that?

Since I believe the real answer to that question is "neither of you", I've proposed a compromise, below, complete with language that can be immediately placed into the MOS, if agreed.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ 

It would take time but I believe we could edit one way or another just by browsing through. However, your suggestion is agreeable.--Skittles the hog--Talk 20:38, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Vote

See above discussion for reasons why.

20th-21st century

1. --Skittles the hog--Talk 18:21, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
2. --Nyktimos 18:49, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Date in full i.e 20th century - 21st century

1. --Mini-mitch, 14 February, 2011 (UTC)
2. --Revan\Talk 18:35, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Other ways

1. --
   czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  If we're talking about a change to the MOS, the language I'd go for, to save everyone a ton of the most boring hand-editing imaginable, is this:

Pursuant to forum discussion, the preferred way to express a century date range is: "xth-yth centuries" or, if two consecutive centuries, "xth and yth centuries". Examples include: "19th-20th centuries" or "17th and 18th centuries".

The expression, "xth century - yth century", is mildly redundant and discouraged, but not specifically disallowed, as some editors may find it visually more appealing in certain situations.

The term xx00s, as in 1900s, should not be used on this wiki as a synonym for "the years in the 19th century" — except when used thus in a direct quote. Because the DWU centers around time travel, there is a need for greater precision about years than exists in general English. To reduce confusion, this wiki uses expressions in the form of 1700s, 1800s and the like to indicate decades, not centuries — even though we acknowledge that a valid, general English definition of "1700s" is "all the years beginning with 17."