Talk:Timeline of charity donations

When previewing, the graph doesn't seem to display unless I also change the scale to something silly (over 65000 or so). There's no easytimeline error message, it just doesn't display anything at all.

I'm not sure whether this is an easytimeline issue, something funny I'm doing, or just a preview idiosyncrasy. In any case, it makes editing difficult. --Riismo 20:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is unfortunately a problem with EasyTimeline on Wikia. I have notified the techs about it, a bug report has been filed, however it is relatively low-priority since few people actually use EasyTimeline. The key is to keep pressing preview until it actually works. It will do eventually. At that point, you can save and it should remain. --GreenReaper^(talk) 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that solved it --Riismo 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

MFM Raised money in 2005 for Tiger Haven, along with a separate fundraising for the red cross for Katrina victims. I'm working on getting figures and will provide those as I get them. -- Tahamaki

Added info for AC (from the forums reference on the AC 2008 Wikifur page - may need updating), FC, and Morphicon. FC and Morphicon data from their Wikifur pages. Please do add more as they come out! I couldn't find anything for FA:United easily, and I haven't looked for all of the cons that have happened, so it's incomplete, but better than it was. No total given for the year yet. --Findra 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Conifur Northwest

Conifur Northwest 2003 raised $3,011 in the charity auction, and Conifur Northwest 2004 raised $2248. The latter has a reference. -- Sine 01:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

ConFuzzled charity donations

I have no idea how to edit this graph, but what with some recent events I think it might be an okay time to add CF to the chart.

In 2008, ConFuzzled made £1,600 for charity ($2,369), in 2009 this grew to £2,000 ($2,962) and in 2010 to approximately £7,500 ($11,106), although that number has yet to be confirmed. All the GBP to USD conversions are done to today's exchange rates. — beeps (talk, contribs) 23:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added 2008 and 2009 to the graphs using the exchange rate of the final day of those conventions. Will do 2010 along with all the rest. --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

United States dollar ?

I think Timeline of charity donations page should say which currency are being used on the Timeline page (ie. Top or bottom of article should say something like "all donations in United States dollar (USD) amounts or have be converted into USD amounts". I think it would reduce possible confusion and lessen chances a donation would be added in Australian dollars, Canadian dollars, New Zealand dollars or some other dollar currency. --EarthFurst 22:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated

I've done a fairly major revamp of the chart - covering the following areas: 1. Rescaled to allow up to $150k (we broke the $100k limit in 2010) 2. Key moved over and the various cons moved around a bit to avoid overlapping the text 3. Charts moved around to try and avoid overlapping amount fields - this has meant that the cons are not always in the same order each year, but I don't regard this as a major problem. 4. Amounts and totals corrected (where I noticed they were wrong) 5. 2011 chart bar started

Now I need a drink ! XD Bezel 06:49, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Order of conventions

Hey guys. In recent edits, conventions have been added and re-ordered in alphabetic order. Initially, they were presented in the order of when they started making charity donations, in part because that made it easy to compare the size of donations year-on-year for each convention, and also because those who'd started earliest also tended to be the largest. In some cases this hasn't been kept to because people added recent conventions at the end of the list.

I don't particularly mind how we do it - first-donation, alphabetic, convention date, donation size - but we need to decide what the most appropriate/useful order is, and stick to it.

I'm tempted to say we should go via convention date, primarily on editing grounds - because this reduces the amount of re-numbering that has to happen over the course of the year - but what do you think? --GreenReaper^(talk) 16:51, 3 February 2016 (EST)

I'm very much so of the opinion that, due to the fact that we are talking of over 60 conventions each year which are ongoing, starting, ending, etc... Alphabetical makes the most sense. Everyone knows that Anthrocon comes before CampFur alphabetically, but I imagine most people couldn't put all 60-ish conventions in date order without help. Also, I've found that Alphabetical order makes it MUCH easier to determine which events haven't been added yet. (This could be further aided by greater use of the YEAR_events category.) --Woody (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2016 (EST) Edited because I realized I may have been unclear. --Woody (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2016 (EST)

We have a date order of conventions on the front page. Is that help enough? Admittedly, it does not cover past events directly, but they would be largely consistent from year to year. If you are adding one year at a time, it works OK because you are calculating all the offsets at once. But it will take more effort to update the 2016 row over the course of 2016. When using date order, you can just add the latest ones at the end. (It'd be nice if we could remove the editor calculation of positions, but that is not feasible in the current system; you'd need to use Javascript or Lua.) --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:06, 17 February 2016 (EST)

On that note, maybe we need to import Wikipedia:Module:Chart… --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:11, 17 February 2016 (EST)

While I love the concept of updating this throughout the year, history has shown that to be unlikely. Edited in January 2013, then not again until June, September, October, December... 2014 was a bit more regular, but then nobody touched it from August of 2014 until January of 2016. And even if we could rely upon someone to update this chart regularly, not every event knows how much they can donate during the weekend of the event. Many don't make an announcement for weeks or months, and some aren't revealed until the 990 form goes public a year+ later. For example, the same time period I mentioned, most of the data entered was for events which had happened months or years previous, in absolutely no particular order. For these reasons and more, I believe it makes more sense to enter conventions in alphabetical order, as this makes it easier to see which events are lacking information.--Woody (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2016 (EST)