Talk:Timeline of time capsules

These dates are out of order. don't recognize the Cape Canaveral one for 2077. Where did that one come from? Alcatraz was from Waymarking but how could it be installed in in 2073? and due to be opened in 2037 which is below 2073??

March 2077	Pending	Cape Canaveral, Florida	? 3 March 2073	Pending	Goodhue County, Minnesota	Installed 2012 13 July 2037	Pending	Alcatraz, California	Installed 2073

We need cites for these of they are to stay. We need a better system with cites if this page is to be meaningful.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is a mess. If we use a time format, do we need three lists (installed, opened, planned-to-open)? Wouldn't some check marks on a single table be more useful? Further, it is remarkable there is no good list of time capsules on the internet. What is up with the Time Capsule Society (or whatever it is called)? This project seems a bit important. We must, or course, limit ourselves to capsules with a good reference. It is a big job. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I started this list. Everything in one line but some other editors came by and separated them into three groups. This is not the way I wanted it but it is too late for me to go back and retrieve my previous version. I may do it later but I just don't have the time now. Unless you know a way of retrieving previous editions. Doesn't the editor that starts a page have some say so at all? Oh well I'm making do with what is there now. Just added a new entry. --Ourhistory153 (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't get me started about Oglethorpe. They are well referenced but unhelpful when it comes to sharing info. That's why I started this

page as I wanted some public domain resource for listings of time capsules.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so the idea is one big list? Each capsule should be listed only once, with INSTALLED, OPENED, and SCHEDULED OPENING columns? That on the face of it seems too wide. (Is width an issue?)How would such a table be ordered? Date of installation?Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes one long list, with the year as the first line item. That way the reader just has to run his finger down the list and find the year. Maybe take out the 2nd date for each site as I'd rather see the extra space for a content item.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)




 * I'm not sure 'pending' is the right word. Just Open is good The note line could be increased to put items of interest. When I do additions I choose Time Capsules that have a point of interest in them or about them. I can't do all the time capsules so I have that as a criteria.Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * let us think on it. Of course the real object is to set up a nice page that other people will then adopt, saving us the trouble! Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What are your thoughts up to now with this format? It should be easy to divide this project among whomever wants to be involved. We could have this completed together within an hour.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I will have a few hours at my desk in about five hours. Take a whack at it now if you like, and I will comment. Otherwise, I will go first. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Each capsule should be listed only once" No I think they should be listed twice if we know when they were installed and when they are due to be opened. Couple reasons, it decreases the amount of content under each entry allow more room for other items and two it allows future users to find the one's that will be opened in their year easier.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Prototype for Time Line of Time Capsules

 * No, this will not work. Obviously, the capusles are either opened or unopened. (Are those the words we seek?) #1 is unopened and listed one way but #5 is just *1 listed another way. The idea is to have one listing for each capsule. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well this is where we disagree. I am changing it back to install because there will be a cite where this goes back to. And people of the future will want a date when a time capsule was installed so they can reference it from that source.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As you will notice the 2nd entry for the open date is not only functional but it gives me more space to add more info about

that capsule. You don't have to worry about this list getting too long. There won't be many editors adding to it and I'm too busy with other stuff. In fact I may just walk away from this project, if there is too much resistance. --Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope I am not offering you any resistance. But in truth, summer has arrived here and my energy level is dipping. What if we use this prottype as a workspace and we flesh this out over a week or two? After all, there is no rush. It will be a vaulable page when we are done with it. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I started the transfer of the prototype over to the main page. The old page will be kept in the talk section now and once an entry has been transfer over to the main page then the entry will be removed from the old page. Not sure why the reference section is on top though. If you can edit that and correct it then that would be appreciated. I have some extra things I want to add once I know this new page is accepted and staying.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Old section: Entries will be deleted out of here and then replaced to the main page.
Old

Anybody know why the references and sources show on top of the article?
and not underneath it like normal.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Timeline of time capsules. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100602013611/https://www.oglethorpe.edu/about%5Fus/crypt%5Fof%5Fcivilization/most_wanted_time_capsules.asp to http://www.oglethorpe.edu/about_us/crypt_of_civilization/most_wanted_time_capsules.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Major May 2020 changes: Toward a merger with "List of time capsules"
A message at the top of List of time capsules recommends a merger of that and Timeline of time capsules. I hope my current "Timeline" might serve as a rough organization for such a future list.

"Status" has been removed. A reader will know whether the capsule has been opened by whether the "Open Year" is in the past or future. This changes the table from a list of discrete events to a list of capsules, sortable by either Install or Open.

(Secondary: I removed months and days from the Install or Open dates to make sorting easier. Time capsules work on a scale of decades or centuries, so exact dates are more clutter than aid. I don't feel strongly about this part though, and it can be reverted separately.) Danakontos (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)