Difference between revisions of "Talk:Events"
From MHWiki
Camomiletea (talk | contribs) (→Ordering: already chronological order) |
(→Ordering: reply) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:I agree that the chronological order makes more sense. However, it's already sorted by date, rather than alphabetical. It's sorted from the earliest to latest; but maybe the reverse chronological (from latest to earliest) would be best, and more like everywhere else in the Wiki. -- [[User:Camomiletea|Camomiletea]] 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | :I agree that the chronological order makes more sense. However, it's already sorted by date, rather than alphabetical. It's sorted from the earliest to latest; but maybe the reverse chronological (from latest to earliest) would be best, and more like everywhere else in the Wiki. -- [[User:Camomiletea|Camomiletea]] 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Oops, looks like I've been a little muddled of late. Didn't look at it carefully :X You had it spot on with the reverse chronological order though. Also, from what I see so far, the event names haven't been recycled. In the event that they do, we'll probably need to add a year behind each event, but that's for another time. -- [[User:Grexx|Grexx]] 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:26, 23 December 2009
Ordering
Wondering if an adjustment of the ordering based on the dates in which an event occurs would be more logical, rather than alphabetical. This is due to the fact that most events are one-off rather than annual, especially the available rewards. While some mice might be released on an annual basis (ie Elf, Hollowhead), that does not make it the same event. Let me know your thoughts on this. -- Grexx 05:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the chronological order makes more sense. However, it's already sorted by date, rather than alphabetical. It's sorted from the earliest to latest; but maybe the reverse chronological (from latest to earliest) would be best, and more like everywhere else in the Wiki. -- Camomiletea 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, looks like I've been a little muddled of late. Didn't look at it carefully :X You had it spot on with the reverse chronological order though. Also, from what I see so far, the event names haven't been recycled. In the event that they do, we'll probably need to add a year behind each event, but that's for another time. -- Grexx 15:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
