Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Timeline"
From XFamily - Children of God
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*I prefer Thorwald's timeline concept with one reservation: the current structure was bourne of the linking of years and the desire to scale to more atomic timelines. The concept doesn't lend itself well to that and a combination of the two (the tabular timeline for large milestones with more atomic subpages) might work. Either way we need to decide on a solution and more editor input would be appreciated. --[[User:Craven de Kere|Craven de Kere]] 13:56, 13 Mar 2005 (CST) | *I prefer Thorwald's timeline concept with one reservation: the current structure was bourne of the linking of years and the desire to scale to more atomic timelines. The concept doesn't lend itself well to that and a combination of the two (the tabular timeline for large milestones with more atomic subpages) might work. Either way we need to decide on a solution and more editor input would be appreciated. --[[User:Craven de Kere|Craven de Kere]] 13:56, 13 Mar 2005 (CST) | ||
**'''Craven''': Is there anyway to automate the process? That is, have a script that would automatically populate the table? If that is more work than it is worth, what if we at least manually populate the table with "large milestones"? Eventually, we could have a more complete table (and sub-tables). Also, my vote is for adopting tables in more categories. Anything we can do to present the information in the most readable way, I am for. —[[User:Thorwald|Thorwald]] 14:13, 13 Mar 2005 (CST) | **'''Craven''': Is there anyway to automate the process? That is, have a script that would automatically populate the table? If that is more work than it is worth, what if we at least manually populate the table with "large milestones"? Eventually, we could have a more complete table (and sub-tables). Also, my vote is for adopting tables in more categories. Anything we can do to present the information in the most readable way, I am for. —[[User:Thorwald|Thorwald]] 14:13, 13 Mar 2005 (CST) | ||
| + | ***Not easily (within wiki), the data would have to be delineated from all the other article data or a very expensive (in resources) routine would have to parse only those (in the timeline cat) articles in fulltext and then there would be the matter of "large milestone" demarcation. I think it would actually cause more work even in the long term. But I may just not have thought of the easy solution that's sometimes out there. Alternately it would be child's play to make a simple standalone script to do it but that would defeat the purpose of the interlinked pages. So I have another idea, let's use your format and if we need to scale we can do it by decade. What do you think? --[[User:Craven de Kere|Craven de Kere]] 20:01, 13 Mar 2005 (CST) | ||
Latest revision as of 02:01, 14 March 2005
- I prefer Thorwald's timeline concept with one reservation: the current structure was bourne of the linking of years and the desire to scale to more atomic timelines. The concept doesn't lend itself well to that and a combination of the two (the tabular timeline for large milestones with more atomic subpages) might work. Either way we need to decide on a solution and more editor input would be appreciated. --Craven de Kere 13:56, 13 Mar 2005 (CST)
- Craven: Is there anyway to automate the process? That is, have a script that would automatically populate the table? If that is more work than it is worth, what if we at least manually populate the table with "large milestones"? Eventually, we could have a more complete table (and sub-tables). Also, my vote is for adopting tables in more categories. Anything we can do to present the information in the most readable way, I am for. —Thorwald 14:13, 13 Mar 2005 (CST)
- Not easily (within wiki), the data would have to be delineated from all the other article data or a very expensive (in resources) routine would have to parse only those (in the timeline cat) articles in fulltext and then there would be the matter of "large milestone" demarcation. I think it would actually cause more work even in the long term. But I may just not have thought of the easy solution that's sometimes out there. Alternately it would be child's play to make a simple standalone script to do it but that would defeat the purpose of the interlinked pages. So I have another idea, let's use your format and if we need to scale we can do it by decade. What do you think? --Craven de Kere 20:01, 13 Mar 2005 (CST)
- Craven: Is there anyway to automate the process? That is, have a script that would automatically populate the table? If that is more work than it is worth, what if we at least manually populate the table with "large milestones"? Eventually, we could have a more complete table (and sub-tables). Also, my vote is for adopting tables in more categories. Anything we can do to present the information in the most readable way, I am for. —Thorwald 14:13, 13 Mar 2005 (CST)
