Jump to content


Photo

The Timeline Project


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#26 Alahmnat

Alahmnat

    Pony In Chief

  • Grand Master
  • 4,091 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spokane, WA

Posted 08 April 2009 - 01:46 PM

Dude, you are totally awesome.

Be the storyteller
Don't worry, even Rand can't say my name right.


#27 andys1376

andys1376
  • Guild Member
  • 367 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 June 2009 - 11:50 AM

OK, the GUT should now link to all of the distributed timeline pages. I also created pages for the BE years. The original plan discussed linking the distributed timeline pages to other relevant articles in the archive that describe the events in more detail. Would the next step be to go through the GUT and see if it would be appropriate to add any cross-references in the corresponding distributed timeline pages?

#28 Horatio252

Horatio252
  • Guild Master
  • 193 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 June 2009 - 05:04 PM

Wow, Andy, great job. I've totally fallen off the wagon, but you have done a great deal of work.

Yes, I believe the next phase on the timeline project is to get to the cross linking. Three things need to happen, all brief, but for a great many articles.


1. add links from the distributed timeline to the relevant articles (for workload sake, I vote we not cross link the GUT)

2. add links from the content articles to the distributed timeline, where appropriate (for example it makes sense for the King Alish article to link to 120 DE, his coronation, but not the Ronay article to link to 73BE, even though it is mentioned)

3. identify the content articles that we need entries for. This is best done by making a thread in the Archive Request forum. the other thing you can do is create an article for the missing content and tag it as a stub. This will allow you to put in the cross links as you go, even if the content is slim.

Carry on. Right now I am pretty busy, but hopefully August will see me with more free time.

Horatio
Guild Master

MOULa KI: 00214606

#29 Alahmnat

Alahmnat

    Pony In Chief

  • Grand Master
  • 4,091 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spokane, WA

Posted 09 October 2012 - 03:43 PM

I'm picking this up and carrying it on a bit further...

The distributed timeline entries are being re-titled to only contain the primary date system's year. So, rather than "50 BE (7707 - 7706 BCE)", the article is now simply titled "50 BE". This makes it a lot easier to link to now that article linking is done by name. The parenthetical dates are now being placed under a heading in each article titled "This Year in Other Calendars".

I'm going through the unified timeline article and updating the links as I complete this process. I'm working to retain the parenthetical dates as I go, so that the unified timeline has a good reference point for how far away from "now" everything is. I don't expect this to take more than the next day or so to finish. I'll post here again once it's done, and make sure that the timeline project in the Archive is updated with any new requirements and recommendations for filling out the rest of the article inter-linking as outlined above.

Be the storyteller
Don't worry, even Rand can't say my name right.


#30 Alahmnat

Alahmnat

    Pony In Chief

  • Grand Master
  • 4,091 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spokane, WA

Posted 26 February 2014 - 11:25 PM

I'd like to take this project in a slightly different direction under MediaWiki, and organize things a bit more like Wikipedia and MystLore, without a "grand unified timeline" if possible. It's nice, but it also makes for a lot of duplicated effort. With things in MediaWiki being much more easily searchable, I don't know as though it's absolutely necessary to keep it around. We can also break things up into several "eras", as MystLore had, which could help us keep things a bit more organized chronologically.

 

Do we want to bother continuing to maintain two separate timelines for all of D'ni history (one with D'ni times, the other with CE/BCE Gregorian times)? Should we drop to using D'ni time for pre-DRC-era dates and "Surface" time for post-DRC-era stuff (aka Uru/Myst V)? Or should we standardize on one (ideally D'ni time) for the whole thing, and provide Gregorian dates referentially, rather than as their own linkable content?

 

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on how to handle this, though, so please do share. Organizing the timeline is a big messy challenge, given just how much time we're dealing with, and the big cut-over in modern times to using the Gregorian calendar for dates since 1987 CE, rather than the D'ni calendar.


Be the storyteller
Don't worry, even Rand can't say my name right.


#31 Shoom'lah

Shoom'lah
  • Junior Member
  • 1 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 10:59 PM

I think redundancy gets a bit confusing, having separate timelines for D'ni/Gregorian, but I also completely understand how messy things get once D'ni falls and you start dealing with Atrus' family arc and beyond.  Is there a change we could just have Gregorian dates redirect to their D'ni counterparts?  So if someone's searching for 1774 they aren't hitting a brick wall, but it's still categorized under one big D'ni umbrella.

 

Stepping in out of NOWHERE and providing feedback as if I know what I'm talking about,

-Shoomy



#32 Alahmnat

Alahmnat

    Pony In Chief

  • Grand Master
  • 4,091 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spokane, WA

Posted 08 May 2014 - 01:12 AM

Whoa, Shoomy out of nowhere indeed!

 

I wrote a million things in reply, and ultimately decided to boil it down to this:

 

For the sake of convenience in modern Cavern record-keeping (and for the sake of making the Archive more accessible to newcomers and casual browsers), I think we should just store stuff that happened in/after 1987 CE in entries that use the Gregorian calendar. It's easy to search, and is more likely to be what someone digging for Uru history is going to be familiar with – we can't all be super D'ni time nerds like BrettM and RIUM+ ;).

 

For Classical History™, it's probably better to use the D'ni calendar, since Gregorian time is spongy compared to the fixed length of the D'ni year (it's precise down to the thousandth of a second). This makes conversions between calendars questionable, especially since dates from before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in a given region are already complicated to work out). All of the historical reference material we have already uses DE for everything anyway, so again, it's consistent with what people are likely to be searching for.

 

If we break D'ni history down into eras (Pre-Earth [?? - 1 BE], Kings [0 - 6977 DE], Guilds [6978 - 9400 DE], Post-Fall [9401 - 9642 DE], and Modern [1987 CE - Present]), all but the last would be referenced using D'ni time, and Modern would use Gregorian. On the pages documenting each year, the other calendar would be referenced (see, for example, 9462 DE and 1987 CE), but not linked to anything. The reference on the page would make the date searchable (so searching "1806" would show 9462 DE in the search results), and should obviate the need for redirecting entries, since due to the complexities of how the D'ni and Gregorian calendars overlap and shift against each other, I think they'd be more frustration than they're worth.

 

In terms of how to handle the navigation and transition between Classical History and Modern History within the individual wiki entries, I imagine it'd be easy enough to just put the following links in the navigation box for 9480 DE : <-- 9479 DE - 9480 DE - 1987 CE (9642 DE) --> and roll the timeline over at that transition point (so 1987 CE's navigation would look like this: <-- 9480 DE (1825 CE) - 1987 CE - 1988 CE -->).

 

This ends up not really changing the way we store dates in year-by-year and day-by-day form, but hopefully better-standardizes the way we connect and group them. The Grand Unified Timeline entry would go away, and just be replaced by functional search, good inter-article navigation and category-level grouping of years into more manageable eras.


Be the storyteller
Don't worry, even Rand can't say my name right.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users