Is this an old thread or a new one that I missed? I'd like to read the
rest of the thread if it is still available.
Carcharoth
Oops, I appear to have answered a mail of Marc Riddell's from 17
September 2008 - for reasons best known to my email client. It will of
course all be online in
On 30 April 2010 19:10, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Is this an old thread or a new one that I missed? I'd like to read the
rest of the thread if it is still available.
It's older than usual, yes :-)
Those wanting to follow the original discussion can find it in October 2008:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Skyring skyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
Delirium wrote:
... strongly discourage edits that change one to
another, unless the article's strongly associated with a specific
English-speaking country
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Wily D wilydoppelgan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Skyring skyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
Delirium wrote:
... strongly discourage edits that change one to
another, unless
The problem is picking the correct one involves lots of drama and
arbcom cases. Drama that we did not have before the unlinking of
dates. (This I a direct consequence of date unlinking)
To be honest, I wonder if there is a way to reformat dates by .js
script... We could have two scripts... One 1
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org wrote:
The problem is picking the correct one involves lots of drama and
arbcom cases. Drama that we did not have before the unlinking of
dates. (This I a direct consequence of date unlinking)
Picking the correct format for
Sure, we have one going on now just over the *unlinking*. Check
WP:RFAR under current cases.
We have had problems with types of English being an issue and going to
arbcom, this is the same type of thing... Now that it is harder to set
your settings to hide the wrong format (now it is as difficult
Ah. I see. It's something else entirely. I was hoping for some input
on the points I raised...
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org wrote:
Sure, we have one going on now just over the *unlinking*. Check
WP:RFAR under current cases.
We have had problems with
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
Skyring wrote:
There's very little debate on which date format should be used for
articles on U.S. or UK subjects, but for articles on (say) France or
Brazil, there is a push to use U.S. date format, despite both of those
Delirium wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
The old link all dates is now deprecated, and we're advised to just
write them in a standard form (14 November 2000 or November 14, 2000).
It'll be interesting to see if this helps reduce overlinking
The old system was laudable, but really only worked for a
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
Delirium wrote:
... strongly discourage edits that change one to
another, unless the article's strongly associated with a specific
English-speaking country where one dialect predominates.
I'm puzzled here. Why is it only
Regardless of who speaks what, the original poster is referring to
debates over which format to use when. Ex: January 1, 2009 ; 1 January
2009 ; or even 2009 January 1.
With the automatic date formatting... People that *cared* about which
one they saw when reading articles could just change it in
Skyring wrote:
There's very little debate on which date format should be used for
articles on U.S. or UK subjects, but for articles on (say) France or
Brazil, there is a push to use U.S. date format, despite both of those
nations using International format.
There's no such push at all, and
13 matches
Mail list logo
