Template talk:Nicholas the Traveler research
From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Shifted the starting week count[edit]
I've shifted the week count so it now starts with week 0, will work when the year changes (unless we get a 53 week year), and sorts properly. It is messy so a better expression would be welcome if it continues to sort properly, especially one that would not mess up for 53 week years. --Max 2 16:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Let me say it again: The week is a ISO standard week number. If we wanted a number of items then we wouldn't display it in the date column. Also it was you in the first place who wanted to display a week number. Resetting it so it starts with 0 does help nobody. poke | talk 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I set it up as the ISO week number, It was the easiest and least confusing option at the time. It also has a few problems if you think ahead a bit. There will be a problem the first week in January. That could be fixed by putting the year first, but then week 11 of the new year and afterwards will sort in the wrong order. An alternate would be to add a year's worth of weeks each year, but that would not be ISO weeks once the year changed. I'm willing to concede that this change will not be needed for some months, but it will be needed eventually. Doing a little advanced testing doesn't hurt. You are sounding absolutely prissy. So, get off your high horse and moderate your tone. --Max 2 17:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- A few things. First, why would you test on the actual template if it "will not be needed for some months"? User space plzkthx. Second, I don't care either way: either an absolute week number or numbering each week, or omitting week altogether. Finally, why didn't you come here to work out a solution to the week thing as soon as you saw some opposition? --JonTheMon 18:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just look at the history and you might see why I'm quite annoyed. We already had that before, that we should not make an issue over something that won't be of any interest for now (year change). Changing that week number so it starts with zero makes really no sense and won't help at all. poke | talk 18:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I set it up as the ISO week number, It was the easiest and least confusing option at the time. It also has a few problems if you think ahead a bit. There will be a problem the first week in January. That could be fixed by putting the year first, but then week 11 of the new year and afterwards will sort in the wrong order. An alternate would be to add a year's worth of weeks each year, but that would not be ISO weeks once the year changed. I'm willing to concede that this change will not be needed for some months, but it will be needed eventually. Doing a little advanced testing doesn't hurt. You are sounding absolutely prissy. So, get off your high horse and moderate your tone. --Max 2 17:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
