Talk:Main Page

Name of the Site

I vote for "Compendium Caidis" --Lorenz 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• That's my favorite too--Kottr 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Seconded. --Iulianna, who needs to find her wiki cheatsheet somewhere. 4/18/2008, 12:44pm (PDT)
• Thirded. --Natalya who probably could have gotten away with Natalya as her user name doh.
• I enabled the name on the wiki as Compendium Cadis (CaidWiki). For reference, the old names we were voting on were: Caidopedia, Compendium Caidis, Caidis Historia, WiCaidPedia, Caidipedia. --Kottr 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Date and Time

Question Posed

After much discussion with Natalya and Eowyn we need to figure out the standard for how we date and arrange things.

Suggested date displays are:

• yyyy/mm/dd - good for sorting, is how all the herald's stuff is formatted
• mm/dd/yyyy - mostly standard way of displaying stuff on web sites.

Chronigical listings for award listing, officer tenures, etc

• Newest to oldest
• Oldest to Newest

Please making your comments known. Thanks! --Kottr 13:38, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

Lorenz's Reply

Wiki isn't all that great for sorted lists, so I'd vote for the more human-friendly 'mm/dd/yyyy' format for dates and leave sortable database stuff like the OP, etc. to better-suited applications. I vote newest to oldest for award lists, and am agnostic regarding officer tenures. --Lorenz 14:50, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

Eowyn's Reply

I tend to agree that since we are not spending a lot of time making the computer sort stuff, we don't need to make it easy for the computer. But I'd like to throw in a third option: use the month name instead of the month number.

• I seem to perennially confuse myself - is month 08 July or August? Gotta think a minute.
• Month names are medieval, and the order of the months is fixed, but which one month is month 1 changed in our period. And for awhile, folks started years in March, and gov't started in January (that's why you get those slash years given in chronologies). I realize we are not following medieval precedent in confusing things for no reason, but we can use the historical non-confusing thing, which is month names.
• And even though all my historical records are kept oldest to newest (and thus I'd need to reverse them), it is probably slightly less confusing to list all those tenures etc. starting from now, and going back in time. *sigh* --EowynA 17:46, 27 April 2008 (PDT)

I'm fine with either the names or numbers for months; I prefer the mm/dd/yyyy to yyyy/mm/dd/. In the latter format I have to think about wither 08 is August or Tuesday.

Giles' Reply

Eowyn, I think that practically every chronological list in the English world matches your format: oldest to newest. Why would we not conform to the accepted practice? The best reason I can come up with for 'newest first' is to provide a quick fact to people who need to know who the kindom seneschal is *today*, and only rarely need to know who the first one was. Most of us already know who the KS is today...

Iulianna's Reply

From Iulianna, 2008/04/28:

• DATE CONVENTION: I think yyyy/mm/dd is a good choice for those times when we do need to cut and paste a list into a spreadsheet to sort it. I do not think that using month names is practical. Speaking professionally for a moment, it becomes very difficult to manage, as people will abbreviate (JAN, FEB, MAR), will do funky capitalizations (Jan, February, MARCH), will spell things wrong (SEPTMBRE), etc. Numbers only please.
• CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER: I think this should be decided by the page. It makes sense for the Kingdom Officers Page for Seneschal to be listed Current Office Holder first (newest to oldest), where as a history of Crown Heads should, in my humble opinion, be listed in order of ascension. --Iulianna 08:47, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

Kolfinna's Reply

My preference visually is for mm/dd/yyyy, however so much of the herald's information is in yyyy/mm/dd. That means anything we copy and paste, we need to go back and flip the numbers around. This could be potentially a big job. As for chronological order, I have no preference. I will wait to see what the other editors say then make a decision.--Kottr 11:04, 28 April 2008 (PDT)

Lorenz's Second Reply

If it's a one-time import from the heralds, it's easy enough to script reformatting dates to get them pretty. If there is a desire to regularly synchronize heraldic information from the Ordinary or the OP, we should talk about options as that could turn into a whole messy subproject of its own. --Lorenz 16:10, 29 April 2008 (PDT)

I like the month in words 1 May 2008 makes more sense to me.

I like the 1 May 2008 format.--Eichling 15:47, 1 May 2008 (PDT)