Forum:Calendar proposal

Forums → Ten Forward → Calendar proposal (reply • watch)

I notice that Templates for a Calendar system have been created and I think this is a good idea, I just have a few comments on how it is implemented.

First, I think this is a sufficiently large enough project to use its own namespace instead of "Template". It would be better to create a new "Calendar" namespace. They still can be included like a template by {{:Calendar:19 February}}.

The "month" pages would be in the form "Calender:January", and the Today page would be "Calendar:Today".

Also, Kobi gave me an idea for DYKBot's next project to synchronise all the birth/death data for staff and performers around MA. This could also generate the Calendar pages. DYKBot would also add the episode airdates.

Other things that need discussion are the format of the pages, and what will be included on them. --Bp 14:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there is already format discussion at Template talk:Calendar. --Bp 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The current form of the pages created by Sulfur (thanks to his effort though) is also not suited for inclusion in the main page as I see it. The Swedish wiki does go the same way, but both MA/de and /es have some sort of standardised template: de:Vorlage:23. Juni es:Plantilla:Efemérides 0623 of which I (no wonder) prefer the German version, because it is simple enough to be included into the main page and then form the individual entries on de:Memory Alpha:Kalender/Juni -- Kobi 14:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I quite like the german layout. For the ones I did up, I was using the layout used on the Early production history page, but it is quite easy to change too. The prime reason I was doing them up was so that we didn't end up having 5 "Template:Calendar/Some Date" links in the wanted pages, since most of them had more links than any other article. There's still one or two in the top links list, so we should decide/figure out what to do sooner rather than later. -- Sulfur 15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I should be more clear about my argument for creating a "Calendar:" namespace. There will be at least 379 pages with "Template:Calendar/" in the front (366 days, 12 months, Today, plus any years that we put in), this is exactly the kind of thing that deserves a namespace. Secondly, Template: namespace is for maintenence or utility, not to be linked to like an article. The episodes now all link into the template namespace. Also, there is a guideline somewhere (Although, I can't seem to find it) that subpages made with "/" to make a kindof hacked folder structure should no be used in wikis.

Also, Early production history and any other lists of real world dates should become obsolete after the Calendar system is implemented. The Calendar namespace will hold all this information. All dates in the main namespace should be in-universe. --Bp 15:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a reply written earlier, but somehow, it didn't survive long enough to be posted. So, please excuse the list style of this second try...

Own namespace: I disagree. Being "not in-universe" or "having more than X hundred pages" are not reasons for a separate namespace - otherwise, we would have created "Actor:" or "Episode:" a long time ago, thereby violating one of the wiki key features, which is easy linking. Name=Link, whenever possible. However...
Template namespace: ...these are not first and foremost articles to be linked to, but templates to collect data for one day each. This means, they should stay in template namespace.
Current links to these templates: Some links to these pages exist, this is true - which is why I started a list of pages where I put links to these templates myself (on Template talk:Calendar), and also tried to make everyone who started to use them as well (currently just Renegade, I think) aware of that fact.
Future links: In the future, and if it makes sense to link to individual days, we could create "days articles" in main namespace, that could just include the template of that day. It makes sense to keep the content separate in a template, because it might be used in different contexts, for example on the main page (the idea that started all this).
Formatting: For this to work, the template pages itself should use a coherent and very simple formatting that could then be changed depending on context, for example by defining different css classes. For that, I suggest to make the lists themselves simple "bullet point" lists (HTML: UL) with each year "heading" using ("*") and individual entries using ("**"). No Wiki headers, and as few other formatting as possible.
Template titles: Discussion about this has been open on Template talk:Calendar for a long time now. Do we really have to change this now, and if so, why? Especially, why is this system "not suited for inclusion"?
Last but not least: And in addition to the calendar namespace suggestion. The calendar pages itself were, until now, never intended to make any other listing "by year" obsolete, and I'm still sure that it really can't. You either have a page showing all events of one year, or events on a specific day in different years, but most probably not both at the same time... :)

...anything I forgot? -- Cid Highwind 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The only way I can see making a year page obsolete would be to somehow include all the day pages in a year page... or better yet, include the day pages in a month page, and then include the month pages in a year page. Or something like that... heh. -- Renegade54 22:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Which would only work if we had one template per day per year(!) - about as many templates as we have articles now, and that's just counting Trek's "active" days since the mid-60s. I don't even want to further think about that wasteful nightmare... ;) -- Cid Highwind 22:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is different from Actor pages in that actor pages don't have Actor/ in front of every one. All of these pages will have Template:Calendar/ in front. About making the pages like Early production history obsolete, I think that was a bad choice of words. I mean the data would be moved into the calendar namespace. The namespace can contain year articles as well as the days and months that would be implemented with the Template:Calendar/ system. Years left in the main namespace would remain in-universe, like 1996, but Calendar:1996 would be the real world timeline.

Secondly, these are not templates. They are lists of events of a certain day. Just like the year and month articles. That they can be included on pages like the main page and month pages doesn't change that. They should not be in the template: namespace just because they will be "included" (the operation) on the main page and month pages. --Bp 22:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I already adressed the first issue (see: "Future links"), but tell me - what, if not the fact that it consists of data that can and that is included on several other pages under different circumstances ("reuse"), does define a "template"? Of course a list of events can be a template, just like we have a template containing a table of all episodes of TNG season 1... -- Cid Highwind 22:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they are articles that can be included, not templates that can be articles. The day articles will be more like Star Trek birthdays than Template:EnterpriseHelmsmen. --Bp 23:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Then we're talking about different things. These templates were initially intended to be "unformatted lists" that can be included in a variety of circumstances, including but not restricted to, a box on the main page. They were not intended to be full-blown articles. As a "day article", it would need at least a browser to get from day to day, perhaps an introductory paragraph, and so on. All things which would make it impossible to use the page in a small box on the main page where no browser is wanted, no additional text, ... I think you get the drift?

So, as I already said above - the best solution to have "day articles" while keeping the functionality that these templates are supposed to have would be to start creating articles in whatever fashion you like, and then include the template of each day on that page. -- Cid Highwind 08:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As a template, each day will be included in 1 page, the month. One day a year, it will be included on "Today" and the main page. So total, inclusion on 3 pages. As an article it will be directly linked in over 700 pages. It is not a template, it is an article that can be included. As an article, it can still follow the list format and use <noinclude> to leave out the parts that will not be included on the 3 pages that will include it. It seems stupid to me to link to "Template:Calendar/XXX" for every date in the hundreds of pages that will link. Templates are not supposed to be used this way, and article names are not supposed to be used this way (with a /). Also, if we link the actors/staff births/deaths, like I propose, there will be even more. --Bp 11:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

One worry I have is the maintenance of birthdates and deathdates. As it stands, I keep coming across performer articles that have a birth and death day, but no links to the births and deaths lists, and no mention in either of those of the performer. Ditto for the yearly production/early history lists. -- Sulfur 11:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

(Re:Template vs. Article) Oh boy... Maybe I was too vague when I explained it on this page, first, or when I referred to that explanation when the question came up the second and third time. I think I even explained my rationale for adding the template link to the episode sidebar (as an "article link", temporarily) to someone either on one of the talk pages, or on IRC. Wasn't that you as well? Anyway, again:

No, the template pages are not supposed to be linked to directly.
Yes, it is done at the moment.
For that, we have a short list over at Template talk:Calendar, so that we can sort that out later.
If you think that an article page for a day is necessary, feel free to create one and perhaps include the templated event list for that day. I suggest [[DD MONTH]], that is, the same nomenclature as what has been agreed to for the templates.
No, I don't think merging all on one "article" page that is also used as a template, only viable by making extensive use of noinclude or includeonly, is a good idea, if "1 template + 1 article" seems to be a so much cleaner approach.
I really don't understand your way of counting possible inclusions. Why should a list of events happening on a specific day in various years ever be included on some "month page"? What purpose would this humonguous page have?

-- Cid Highwind 12:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Gruh

The 700 pages I mentioned are the episode pages that are already linked directly to "Template:Calendar/XXX" throught the episode sidebar template. Linked as an article. There is no "extensive use" of <noinclude>, it will be only used once in each day article to stop the header of the page from being included. I dont know what you mean about #3, since I am not questioning the month-day naming order. I have made an example below. Each day has all the events that happened on that day. By inclusion, each month has all the events that happened in that month. Month-year (June 1965) pages will be like the current month year pages in the main namespace, only moved out of the main namespace.

Still each day article will be included as a template 3 times maximum, but it is directly linked over 700 times already. And adding the proposed links to actors/staff will make it several hundred more. 3 as template, 700+ as article, should not be a template.

example

Day page "Calendar:January 1"

 
 <noinclude> 
 Events that occur on '''January 1'''.
 [[December 31]] [[January|January]] [[January 2]]
 </noinclude>

 ;1967
 :Joe Shmoe was born
 ;1997
 :An episode airs
 :Some event happened
 :Some other event in 97
 :A birth
 ;1998
 :Yet another event
 :A death

Month pages "Calendar:January"


 Events of '''January'''.

 ==January 1==
 {{:Calendar:January 1}}

 ==January 2==
 {{:Calendar:January 2}}

 ==January 3==
 {{:Calendar:January 3}}

 etc...

"Calendar:Today"

 {{:Calendar:{{CURRENTMONTH}} {{CURRENTDAY}}}}

Main Page

 {{:Calendar:{{CURRENTMONTH}} {{CURRENTDAY}}}}

In the sidebar episode template

 [[Calendar:{{{AirdateMonth}}} {{{AirdateYear}}}]]

In actor/staff pages

 Joe Shmoe (born [[Calendar:January 1|January 1]] [[Calendar:January 1967|1967]]) was an actor who...

Do you see how linking Template:Calendar/January 1 is a bad idea in the actor/staff pages? And we should not need to create duplicate day pages in the main namespace when one page per day will work fine for both. --Bp 12:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We're still not getting to any point, I fear, because any time I explain solutions to the problems you see, you just keep repeating the problems as if I don't understand them. I, too, can say again:

If links to templates are what disturbs you (and you are correct in that regard), it would be a matter of seconds to change, for example, the link in the episode sidebar template and thereby all 700 links you're talking about. Result: Instant links to [[DD MONTH]] article pages, and no remaining links to templates. This is not a big problem for the future, and (also mentioned once or twice already) at the moment only done temporarily to have something to link to so that we can fill our template pages simply by looking at the "What links here" page.

Also, regarding the "one page for all" solution - once we start creating articles (without terribly restricting editing and without telling everyone that these articles need to stay in some very simple and restricted design), we will end up with articles that someone, sooner or later, will want to edit to make them a little nicer looking, or something. If it is something that needs to look a soecific way because it's used as a template somewhere, why not put it in template namespace and be done with it? -- Cid Highwind 13:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Last but not least, I'm not sure if you get the fact that these "day templates/articles/whatever" collect data from several years. Combining them to a month will not suddenly make them behave like June 2006, unless we're starting with individual day pages like 24 June 2006... -- Cid Highwind 13:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Calendar:June 2006 and Calendar:June would only be in the same namespace, with all of the dates in Calendar:June (by inclusion of its days) that happened in 2006, also being on Calendar:June 2006, generated with the help of a bot. But I dont care, If you want to make 366 templates, and then created 366 day articles that include 1 of those 366 templates, when 1 article for each day would do the job by itself, thats fine. Do it that way. I was just thinking it would be nice to create a streamlined system to link all real-universe dates together in a consistent way. But, I don't want to argue anymore. --Bp 15:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside, one benefit that I can see in having the calendar stuff in it's own namespace (and not in the Template namespace) is that as it stands right now, I can (and do) look at all the templates in the NS and pick out the one I'm looking for. If we add a bunch of Calendar/xxxx pages to the Template NS, it'll put a big chunk of those names right in the middle of the other "normal" templates. And also, the issue about ease of linking (by keeping articles in the main NS) is irrelevant because whether the calendar entries are in Template or Calendar, they're still not in the main space and the linkage mechanism is the same in either case. Note that I'm not arguing one way or the other, just bringing up things that popped into my head. :) -- Renegade54 15:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

I'm splitting the "format" discussion from the rest above... As said above, the less formatting in the template, the better in this case. What I had in mind, and described above as "unordered list with two levels of indentation" is what can be seen here: Template:Calendar/20 November.

First level for the years, second level of indentation for events in that year. This format could be adopted for any possible use, depending on where the template is included. -- Cid Highwind 09:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

To the right I have modified Cid's bullet proposal a bit, because I think that many bullets are disturbing to see. I used the ; and : to make the year bold automatically yet enable indenting for the individual entries. Of course a mixture could be used with only having bullets for the entries but bold for the year to distinguish individual entries (see line break in 1989). -- Kobi 09:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks better, of course. All I need is a way to address both the year "headings" and the entries themselves with a CSS rule, so the consistent use of a definition list is fine as well. "1995", as presented here, basically is a definition list with a term to be defined ("1995"), but without an actual definition. Instead, an unrelated bullet point list starts at that point. I'd like to avoid such constructs... I'm also just testing: Is the second line indented with a colon still part of that definition list?

Answer: Works great :) -- Cid Highwind 11:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)