Editing Template talk:Year sections

== What Sections? ==
Hey all. Here's the first draft of the year section template. You can see it in work here: [[2103]]. 

The template works like this:
<pre>
{{year sections | battles }}
</pre>

where the options are "battles", "events", "characters", and "technology". Anything else will create the template but with a white background and black border. I'm curious whether these are the categories and color schemes we want. Opinions? Thanks. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 04:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
: Simplified things. So it looks good. As for colors, the green seems a bit brighter that the rest, but it's nothing I would waste time on. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 07:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
::For the record, i changed it because the grey did not show on IE6 (yeah, some of us are stuck with that at work; you can tell, because my spelling errors increase.)--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
:Good job, Ebakunin.[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 09:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
:Just got on this morning, but it is far cleaner a code to use. If it hasn't been done already, I'll change the policy code to match.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

==Multiple Events==
:I don't think they should be used unless the year has more than couple events in each category, it just makes it cluttered if color templates are being used.  Example, Year [[2000]], only 1 thing happened, rest of it is subject headings.  It look cleaner without them.  If there whole number of events other related year topics, it would look better. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 11:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
::I disagree. In order to cut down on confusion for new and first-time Editors (who may not be aware of the Year pages policy), we'd want to show all available options. If the code is already in there, then a new entry should be rather easy to categorize. Otherwise, we'll either get entries placed under the only category currently emplaced or attempts to add their own sections (which will lead to non-consistent categories like 'Minor', 'Davion battles', 'BattleMechs', etc.). 
::And, to be honest, this article is about the code to be used: the old, mish-mash code that I put forth with the policy or Ebakunin's cleaner, fool-proof kind. Concerns about when to include categories would have been best suited during the policy crafting discussion of the last few weeks. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

==Edit problem==
One problem. The edit link on the right side of the heading doesn't work correctly. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 18:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:Seconded. Not a deal breaker by any means, but confusing, unless you go thru the edit tab. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

::I'll see if I can clean that up tonight. Thanks for noticing, Neufeld. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 23:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:::I believe I solved the problem. It required a CSS trick, and I've found no problems with FF, Opera, Chrome, and IE8. I'd appreciate if a few people could verify that they're no problems with IE6 and IE7, plus any other weird browsers. Here's the template in use: [[2103]]. Thanks for the help. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Ebakunin|Ebakunin]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Ebakunin|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ebakunin|contribs]])</sup> 05:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
::::I works very well, hook up . UUUppsss.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]]
::::Wasn't at work today, but will test IE6 tomorrow. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 23:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::Ok: not seeing an edit option anymore (which is fine by me).--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 23:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

::::::The edit links on the section headers are back, and take the editor to the template, which is unintuitive. To address this issue, I've added <nowiki>__NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki> to the template, which disables the edit links on section headers. [[User:Tosta Dojen|Tosta Dojen]] ([[User talk:Tosta Dojen|talk]]) 15:43, 16 December 2020 (EST)

== Meaning of some of the typical year sections ==

Of the usual four sections we have, I have doubts on two of them:
{{year sections | events }}
** What is an event? Are promotion to titles something to be put here

{{year sections | characters }}
* What is relevant to put here? Birth, dead, promotion? What else?

--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 07:02, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
Latest revision		Your text
Line 42:		Line 42:

	--[[User:Pserratv\|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv\|talk]]) 07:02, 10 October 2019 (EDT)		--[[User:Pserratv\|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv\|talk]]) 07:02, 10 October 2019 (EDT)
−
−	:My opinion is that the events section is for significant events that are not battles or specific to characters. That does prompt the question "what's a signficant event?", which is a bit of a judgement call, but things like someone becoming the new Archon of the Lyran Commonwealth is a character section point, whereas the founding of a new colony or a new nation is an event section point. For character events, birth/death/promotion are all valid entries, although on my part I'd tend to be a bit sparing with them - I wouldn't log the date of every single promotion someone in the military achieved, for example (unless it was a really, really significant person, like the new First Lord of the Star League or something). Unless the CO of the 1st Foot and Mouth Infantry Division is actually a Cameron in disguise, or the protagonist of something significant like a novel, I don't think we need to know when they reached captain/major/admiral, unless it was a noteworthy promotion. By noteworthy promotion, I'm thinking something like taking command of an important unit or theater of operations. [[User:BrokenMnemonic\|BrokenMnemonic]] ([[User talk:BrokenMnemonic\|talk]]) 07:32, 10 October 2019 (EDT)