Helpful text when there are no earlier entries

[afuna]

Title:
Helpful text when there are no earlier entries

Area:
entries

Summary:
We should have some indication of why there is no "previous" link when paging back through recent entries or the reading page

Description:
This comes up fairly regularly in Support, where someone is confused because they can no longer go to previous entries on their read page.

I think we should cut down most of the confusion by adding text on the last page to the effect that:

* read page : You cannot view earlier entries ( because of 14 days / x entries limitation blah blah OR link to an FAQ or something )

* recent entries page: You cannot go back ( because of x entries limitation blah blah OR link to an FAQ ). Try using the per-date archives [link] to see any earlier entries

Poll #1813 Helpful text when there are no earlier entries

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 32

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
27 (84.4%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
3 (9.4%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
2 (6.2%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Styles: Calendar or Archive but not both

[ninetydegrees]

Title:
Styles: Calendar or Archive but not both

Area:
styles

Summary:
The link to the year page is called 'archive' by default but the word 'calendar is used in the URL (e.g. http://dw-suggestions.dreamwidth.org/calendar). I would like both to have the same name: either archive or calendar.

Description:
I've often typed the wrong word in the URL because I expect archive to be 'archive' like reading is read, tags is tag, network is network and profile is profile. I can imagine some people expect to see the link be called 'calendar' and have to remember it's actually called archive.

Poll #1819 Styles: Calendar or Archive but not both

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 38

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
28 (73.7%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
7 (18.4%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
3 (7.9%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)