Talk:Common year starting on Saturday
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale. |
Concerning the table of example years.
I consider it too big for the information it contains, not worth the scrolling and waiting.
I prefer the previous century per row table.
I see no need for links to millennia in the table and I do not think links to decades are important enough here to justify making the table 10 times longer.
Or why not just list the example years (e.g.)
1803 1814 1825 1831 1842 1853 1859 etc.
Also not being in a HTML tabler form backs it easier for users to correct or extend (e.g. to full 400 years).
User:Karl Palmen - 23 March 2004
I am on a Mac and the numbers don't properly align.
The format that I talked about above, has been replaced by an alternative different from the one I suggested. I am happy with it. User:Karl Palmen - 19 September 2005
Please see my comments on Common year starting on Monday - does anybody have any thoughts? --John24601 16:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New unusual format overruns small screens
07-Jan-2008: I had thought the various year-starting calendars were stable, since the concept has been around hundreds of years. Of course, I forgot "form over substance" would likely re-write the calendars into another format. Now, I notice that the new format is totally incompatible with 800x600 resolution screens, scrolling beyond the right margin for the display of something as trivial as a full-year calendar. Wikipedia continues to be plagued with garbled, weird display pages: as soon as an article gets carefully typeset for a wide range of user screens (and various browsers), the page is replaced. Now these overwide full-calendar pages have highly spastic "week numbers" appended to each week in a very queer and wiki-peculiar innovation. No original research: do not display a calendar in bizarre "new research" format. Stick to calendars that look normal, as I think they did last year. The concept "NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH" means no displaying of "standard" Gregorian Calendars with queerly spastic, peculiar week-number displays. I think these calendars need to be reverted, per WP:NOR. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
