Talk:Timeline:October 2006

Few things

So the first thing is the template. That won't be too hard to make, just didn't feel like shelling out code that isn't necessary until something's decided upon.
Next thing is span id's. I didn't include them just because they need to be cleaned up anyway. Personally, I don't see the need for them since you can refer to the section of the article. We know Homecoming is Oct. 11, so when pointing to it on the timeline, why point to Timeline#Homecoming when you can easily do Timeline#October 11, 2006. It's only a few more characters on one page instead of having to do code on two pages.
Last thing is commenting. When I was copying, I noticed someone commented on something that was a justification for a specific date for an event. I like that, and I think it should be standard for things that are unspecified.
Anyway, any feedback, and I'll start to build the other pages once I get input.--Bob 14:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• Ahhh, this is much better! Heroe!(talk) 14:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
• The span IDs only become important if we activate the Wikipedia date reflexes, which would allow user's preferences to format dates (things like the date episodes first aired, characters' death dates, and the like. I've talked to Admin about it briefly. If we had the reflexes in place, we wouldn't need sixteen different span ids (or any, really -- we could just redirect the date to the proper section) because [[October 11, 2006]] and [[11 October 2006]] would be the same article. That way, we could standardize the date format across the site (it's really messed up right now) and get nice, clean links to the timeline articles at the same time.--Hardvice (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Ah gotcha. Well in that case, I'll go ahead and add them if it's decided upon that my suggested articles be used. I'll go ahead and make the template, the pre-eclipse and after I eat, I'll go through and add tags. My question though is what should the tags be for? Just a date? If so, which format should I use?--Bob 14:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
    • I think it looks much cleaner, much more organized. The navbar template: Good call, we can wait a bit. The span ids: Hardvice is right, we don't need them for Timeline#Homecoming, we need them for all the variations of dates that are out there: Timeline#October 11, 2006, Timeline#October 11, Timeline#October 11th, Timeline#11 October 2006 etc. Comments: they're a good thing. You can't get all the math for dates etc. with just a citation; notes help a lot. I'm liking what you've done, Bob--nice job. Let's let it sit and stew for a bit to see what feedback people have. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
      • Actually, if we turn on the date reflexes, we don't need them for variations of the date at all. We can have one article for [[October 2006]] and another for [[October 11, 2006]], point them to the proper sections (with or without span id's), and links to [[October 11, 2006]] and [[11 October 2006]] and whatever other date formats Special:Preferences support would all go to the right place.--Hardvice (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
      • Wait, so elaborate on what tags should be put in. Should there be tags for each section/date?--Bob 17:45, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
        • I think what Hardvice is saying is that we should probably hold off on tags for just a bit until we find out if we can turn on the date reflexes. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Also, I agree with Ryan and Heroe: one million percent better. Great job.--Hardvice (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)