Talk:Documents Status Updates: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Randomanon (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Could the individual dates be put back in instead of grouping everything under the same month? I'm thinking it might prove more informative in the long term. If space is the problem, maybe some alternative layout would work, or archiving the information into subpages every few months. --[[User:Knon|Knon]] 21:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | Could the individual dates be put back in instead of grouping everything under the same month? I'm thinking it might prove more informative in the long term. If space is the problem, maybe some alternative layout would work, or archiving the information into subpages every few months. --[[User:Knon|Knon]] 21:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Some of it is space, some of it is repetition (is it really necessary to know the page was updated 5 times in the last two weeks?). I prefer for people to glance through and see the relevant details in a concise, clear format. What are the benefits of maintaining individual entry archives? --[[User:Randomanon|randomanon]] 23:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | :Some of it is space, some of it is repetition (is it really necessary to know the page was updated 5 times in the last two weeks?). I prefer for people to glance through and see the relevant details in a concise, clear format. What are the benefits of maintaining individual entry archives? --[[User:Randomanon|randomanon]] 23:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::I see this page first as a quick view on the newest updates, but also as something that would become a sort of timeline of activity. There's barely two months of updates right now, so everything is recent, but this won't be the case in a couple of months. So it would be a matter of knowing how the updates were distributed throughout the month. Having everything under November or December seems too general. I don't see how it would make it less concise or clear when it would only affect the past information, which should be known already if someone checks somewhat regularly. --[[User:Knon|Knon]] 05:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:36, 5 January 2012
Could the individual dates be put back in instead of grouping everything under the same month? I'm thinking it might prove more informative in the long term. If space is the problem, maybe some alternative layout would work, or archiving the information into subpages every few months. --Knon 21:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Some of it is space, some of it is repetition (is it really necessary to know the page was updated 5 times in the last two weeks?). I prefer for people to glance through and see the relevant details in a concise, clear format. What are the benefits of maintaining individual entry archives? --randomanon 23:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I see this page first as a quick view on the newest updates, but also as something that would become a sort of timeline of activity. There's barely two months of updates right now, so everything is recent, but this won't be the case in a couple of months. So it would be a matter of knowing how the updates were distributed throughout the month. Having everything under November or December seems too general. I don't see how it would make it less concise or clear when it would only affect the past information, which should be known already if someone checks somewhat regularly. --Knon 05:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)