Older Newer
Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:18:24 . . . . Tom [Added comment.]

Changes by last author:

There is a list of updates on the Site at SiteUpdates. Once this list gets long, how about we do something like archive by months? Say,
but the updates from the current month would remain on this page, and not on a subpage, until the month is over. Is that a good idea?

How about by season? It would be rounded, so:
-- JestersOfTheMoon

Anything's cool. We should start a discussion, huh?

Absolutly. Might I suggest making it as broad as 2004 and catogorizing by years?
-E bros.

A capital idea!! I dislike the idea about seasons, though, simply because Winter spans more than one year and a season can't be defined cleanly in terms of month (we'd have confusion and arguments every solstice and equinox about when the season actually starts and where to put new stuff). Also, you must remember that in the southern hemisphere, Winter and Summer are reversed. I think that yearly is too long (look how long the list is right now, and it's only 2.5 months) If we think monthly is too short a period, though, we could do quarterly:

*Q1 (Jan-Mar) 2004
*Q2 (Apr-Jun) 2004
*Q3 (Jul-Sep) 2004
*Q4 (Oct-Dec) 2004

This seems like a good compromise, and with the current frequency of updates on H*R.com makes for archive pages that are neither too sparse nor too crowded. Opinions?

-- InterruptorJones

I like it! Best we've had so far. -TheBigKnife

It would be a good way to start. I'm concerned that there might not be enough to decently fill a page, but let's start there and see what happens. We can always change things later if it doesn't work.
-The Brothers E

Come to think of it, the quarter is just as long as seasons, give or take a few days,
Jan+Feb+March=90, April+May+June=91, July+Aug+Sept=92, Oct+Nov+Dec=92 whereas Spring=92, Summer=92, Autumn=91, and Winter=90, so it's equal and it's better defined. I like this because monthly would fill up 10 lines and yearly would make its length rival RecentChanges, not to mention we would never have archive, so quaterly is a good compromise. But if it's quarterly, then we would already have to have an archive because we currently have from February to May. -CE5

== Sub-topic: Formatting Discussion ==
I didn't want to start a new page for this, so I'm putting it here. I just spent time tweaking the formatting of SiteUpdates to make it a little more readable. Here are my changes:
*Each day is separated by a blank line.
**I don't like the blank lines. It makes this way too big and spread out, and it's unneccessary. --socetew
*If there's more than one item for a given day, they're put on different lines (the . . . . thing is unfortunately necessary because of the limitations of this Wiki software.. let me tell you, I can't wait for the upgrade)
*Items follow this format:
**The type of feature followed by a colon -- this should not be a link (e.g. "Toon:", "Marzipan's Answering Machine:", or "Teen Girl Squad:")
***A special case for Strong Bad Emails: this should include the number, e.g. "Strong Bad Email #99:".
**Followed by the item's title/name/number/whatever. For toons, the title of the toon (e.g. Strong Bad is in Jail Cartoon), for emails, the name of the email as it appears on StrongBadEmail, in quotes (e.g. "different town", for Answering Machines and TGS', the version/issue (e.g. Version 6) or Issue 4).
**For stuff that doesn't fit any of the above, just put its title.

You can see it in action right now. I think that it makes for optimal readability, but I'd like some opinions. Anything? -- InterruptorJones

Yeah, you're definately right about it being more readable. I'm just afraid that it's going to be a bit to much for those who haven't gone over standards, like the one you typed out, to match. Maybe there's a compromise between legibility and, lets call it, simplicity. I'd give an idea, but it's 3 AM right now, and I'm not in my highest state of mind... -TheBigKnife


I went ahead and made quarterly archives, since nobody's talked about it in awhile. We can always change it later if we decide it's not working. -- InterruptorJones

Yeah, I still think it should be archived by month. Like So:


Hmm... I thought I might have liked monthly, but after seeing it in action, I have to say that I don't. Though I do like how organized you made it, TheBigKnife. The big problem I have with monthly is that there isn't enough on a page. For someone looking for something, it would be hard for them to search through a bunch of monthly pages looking for it. Right now, I'm thinking yearly might be good, but we should still only have three to four months on the main SiteUpdates page at a time. (So at the end of June, we'd move February to the archives.) How's that sound? -- Tom

I made a decision poll [here], and I think the discussion should be taken over there. However, I made the poll before I read your post, Tom (which isn't a bad idea...). I'll add it to the poll if you tell me how to word the poll option. -- InterruptorJones

I did my best to clarify my idea in [my post] in the [poll]. The way you worded the poll option is fine. As long as people read our two posts before voting, I'm confident the decision they'd make would be a well informed one. -- Tom