This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
I wonder where I might find information about policy on highjacking articles for a pov presentation.
For example, let's say that a serial killer attended school x. I go to school x (which has no article as yet) and contribute accurate information on the killer's prolongeed association with the school. This is the only information there. No teachers. No principal. No school board. No other graduates. No information about who attends. Number of pupils. Nothing.
While not violating any policy, it seems to me that this ought to be discouraged. For example, I just had to disassociate a business which only had very lengthy info about a seven year old series of illegalities. The company went bankrupt a long time ago and was brought out and became a legitimate business. Not that Wikipedia ever discovered that! There was only one name that I recognized on the list of bad guys which were all breathlessly reported in exquisite detail when it became known, I suppose.
Anyway, it seems to me that the person doing the entry has some obligation to see that details about current operation are entered, however slightly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm crossposting this as suggested by User:Mercury. In the wake of the BLP marginal notability courtesy deletion of Angela Beesley, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley, a discussion on this practice is underway at:
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Marginal notability deletions. Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
From the reference desk, I became aware of a copyvio situation. I initially removed the content and listed it as a copyvio but after looking into it I believe that a CC-by text can be freely used in wikipedia articles. I know there are moves to harmonisation and there appears to be some doubt about CC-by-sa (since it's unclear if GFDL can be considered an 'alike' license) but CC-by seems fine to me since it only requires attribution. I.E. provided there's attribution everything's fine. As such, I added recognition of the source following the 1911 template as an example [1]. Am I correct that there's no problem now license wise? I noticed afterwards that Creative Commons license also uses CC-by text and it appears to have done it in a similar way. 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that there have been many changes to policy over the years.
How does a lowly user "get the ball rolling"?
Curiously, -- angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) ( talk) 05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Could some other editors please look at this page- there seem to be editors intent on adding "Jewish" right at the top and claims that his grandfather "murdered" Poles, Ukrainians and White Russians. As they don't seem to be adding this information to everyone whose grandfather was in the red army it seems to be malicious so I would be grateful if others could help to remove it. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel ( talk) 13:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) regarding where consensus lies. All participants are welcome to engage with the debate and outline their position in the hope that consensus can be formed. Hiding T 17:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
A (imho) meritorious change to include some additional java script is ongoing on WP:VPR (policy forum). The script is used on the French wikipedia to UNCLUTTER and trim down the number of images in articles when needed. It does that by making a singe image frame into a slide show presentation... that is the image displays for a bit, then the next for a few more seconds, then so on and back around... complete with individual captions. If the user does not have java script extensions enabled, the pictures are "gracefully" displayed in a column. It could probably be written to become a gallery instead but that would require a browser originated status word be recognized by mediawiki software and then sensed (as a magicword) by template software... a Slideshow template, based on existing functionality in French wikipedia // Fra nkB 19:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
(note: I copied this discussion from the FP talk page, as I think it is important and not receiving notice there.) ---- Kevin Murray ( talk) 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
To Whom it May Concern:
I represent the Islamic Information Center (IIC) on a volunteer basis, and they asked me to contact you (whoever that may be) as to a possible violation upon our principle religion regarding both the Quran and relation to the modern world today. Unfortunately, I didn't see any phone number to contact, so I wrote in discussion - as Jim Wales suggested on C-SPAN for independent organizations to contact Wikipedia. The problem is this articles (or policies) title as a basis of the five pillars of Islam. We don't consider such actions hostile towards the Muslim community, however we do ask it be changed to prevent any possible confusion in Muslims relations with Wikipedia - to something more neutral.
To discuss this further, please contact me at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks,
Josh Armin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.111.65 ( talk) 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The reasoning for this is kind of obvious: anything ever linked on the front page always acts as a vandal magnet. This pre-empts them, and as the article is featured status already, protecting it for a bit won't hurt it any. Jtrainor ( talk) 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering what the rationale for the policy on self-published sources is (see WP:SELFPUB). I was wondering if over-use of self-published sources constitutes advertising-like language. This issue is discussed here. I'll quote the relevant bits:
"Here's another question: does the overuse of self-published sources (as in, well over half the sources; especially online self-published sources that link to subscription/membership/purchasing forms) constitute advertisement-like language? The way I see it, overuse of self-published sources lends an aura of notability to those sources which may or may not be justified. Additionally, those sources make the subject of the article look more notable through their affiliation with the subject (i.e., it appears as if the article is saying, 'Look at us, we have a notable source on our side/in our ranks; that makes us even more significant')."
I'm trying to apply WP:SELFPUB to this article. I was hoping you could also jump into the conversation in the article's talk page ( this section). Thanks! SharkD ( talk) 06:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll try Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, as I've been led to understand in another post in Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) that that is a better place for seeking advice. SharkD ( talk) 04:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a current proposal to change a naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Checkuser_requirement_for_RfA_candidates_-_Proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Many pages on software have separation between commercial non-commercial, free and open source software. While it may be useful to a user to know that certain packages are free or open source it would seem more appropriate to have this as a note in the information about the software as opposed to categorizing based on this feature.
Some examples are
one page which I feel does it right is
Comparison of video editing software
LetterRip ( talk) 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like some clarification on image usage policy, preferably form an admin.
I'm currently editing a page about a notable television franchise. 2 series (approx 75 episodes), 12 books, two films and about a dozen computer games, broadcast in multiple languages. The franchise has a large number of recurring characters most of whom are currently included on a single page. Under current image policy is it permitted/prohibited or editors to add an low resolution identifying image for each individual character?
The current argument for is that each character has been individually designed so that they visually represent the part that they play in the franchise and so an object illustration is required.
The current argument against is that doing so breaches rules on decorative images.
Any ideas?
perfectblue ( talk) 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at the talk page of the numbers manual of style ( oldid) that would change all piped wikilinks like [[2007 in film|2007]] to 2007. Those kinds of wikilinks are being referred to as surprise links. Wikilinks like [[2007 in literature|2007]], [[2007 in video gaming|2007]], etc (basically any wikilink to any of the articles at List of '2007 in' articles (and every other year) that has a pipe and then just the year would be replaced with just the plaintext year, with no wikilink. Input from the community would be appreciated. -- Pixelface ( talk) 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The main question: What should one do with language links when a single article in English is covered by multiple articles in other languages?
As I understand it language links exist to help people find material in their own language and to generally facilitate easy moving between articles in different language Wikipedias. However in certain circumstances a single term in English is represented by multiple terms in another language - this has arisen in the article college which has many related meanings in English:
...and a number of others, all of which are covered by a single article in English Wikipedia.
Now, someone has linked this article to three articles in Spanish ( es:Colegio, es:College, es:Facultad )and Italian ( it:college], it:Collegio, it:Facoltà ), which I'd guess reflect different usages of the term (e.g. one for Higher education, one for further education and one for schools), and someone has raised understandable concerns about this - seeing as it may well lead to large and confusing language link lists.
Anyway - I've thought of a couple of possible solutions to this:
Any thoughts? Solutions? Think that I'm making a mountain out of a molehill ::smile::? -- Neo ( talk) 13:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is also a discussion going on at the the talk page of the numbers manual of style ( oldid) where it's been proposed that editors stop using ISO-format dates (such as 2007-12-16) in citation templates like {{ cite web}}. When an ISO format date is placed in the date field and wikilinked, (like [[2007-12-16]]), it will be shown according to a user's date preferences. Some editors are saying we should stop doing this. Input from the community would be appreciated. -- Pixelface ( talk) 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've given a better explanation of the proposal below. — Remember the dot ( talk) 21:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There's been quite a bit of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) over the use of the ISO date format (2007-12-25) in footnotes. The general feeling is that ISO dates are unfamiliar to most readers, which could lead to confusion. Because of this, I propose that we:
[[2007-12-25]]
would become [[December 25]], [[2007]]
if the [[25 December]] [[2007]]
if the The JavaScript tool is available at User:Remember the dot/ISO date format unifier.js, but it will not work properly until the citation templates have been tweaked to allow non-ISO dates. — Remember the dot ( talk) 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example of how this change would work.
Before: | Wikipedia:Citing sources. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( 2007-01-02). Retrieved on 2007-01-02. |
After American formatting: | Wikipedia:Citing sources. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( January 2, 2007). Retrieved on January 2, 2007. |
After British formatting: | Wikipedia:Citing sources. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( 2 January 2007). Retrieved on 2 January 2007. |
After reformatting, the dates become significantly easier for the average reader to read and understand. — Remember the dot ( talk) 00:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to have to type out the month every time I cite something and worry about whether the day should come first or second. It's easier to type 02 than February. There's a lower risk of typos. When I'm signed in, [[2007-12-25]] appears to me like "December 25, 2007" because I've set my date preferences to display it like that. When I'm not signed in, [[2007-12-25]] appears to me like 2007- 12-25. If you put your cursor over "12-25", it displays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_25 in the status bar at the bottom of the browser. Unregistered users can still see that 12-25 means December 25 (although they may not realize that until they mouseover it).
For articles that were nominated for the 65th Golden Globe Awards, I've used this reference frequently, the list of nominations:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.goldenglobes.org/news/id/81 |title=HOLLYWOOD FOREIGN PRESS ASSOCIATION 2008 GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007 |accessdate=2007-12-16 |date=[[2007-12-13]] |publisher=goldenglobes.org}}</ref>
Now you're saying I have to figure out if the day should come first or second on every article I use that citation in?
It needs to be determined how many unregistered users have complained about stuff like 2007- 12-25 before ISO dates are disallowed from citation templates. -- Pixelface ( talk) 06:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
I wonder where I might find information about policy on highjacking articles for a pov presentation.
For example, let's say that a serial killer attended school x. I go to school x (which has no article as yet) and contribute accurate information on the killer's prolongeed association with the school. This is the only information there. No teachers. No principal. No school board. No other graduates. No information about who attends. Number of pupils. Nothing.
While not violating any policy, it seems to me that this ought to be discouraged. For example, I just had to disassociate a business which only had very lengthy info about a seven year old series of illegalities. The company went bankrupt a long time ago and was brought out and became a legitimate business. Not that Wikipedia ever discovered that! There was only one name that I recognized on the list of bad guys which were all breathlessly reported in exquisite detail when it became known, I suppose.
Anyway, it seems to me that the person doing the entry has some obligation to see that details about current operation are entered, however slightly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm crossposting this as suggested by User:Mercury. In the wake of the BLP marginal notability courtesy deletion of Angela Beesley, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Angela Beesley, a discussion on this practice is underway at:
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Marginal notability deletions. Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
From the reference desk, I became aware of a copyvio situation. I initially removed the content and listed it as a copyvio but after looking into it I believe that a CC-by text can be freely used in wikipedia articles. I know there are moves to harmonisation and there appears to be some doubt about CC-by-sa (since it's unclear if GFDL can be considered an 'alike' license) but CC-by seems fine to me since it only requires attribution. I.E. provided there's attribution everything's fine. As such, I added recognition of the source following the 1911 template as an example [1]. Am I correct that there's no problem now license wise? I noticed afterwards that Creative Commons license also uses CC-by text and it appears to have done it in a similar way. 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that there have been many changes to policy over the years.
How does a lowly user "get the ball rolling"?
Curiously, -- angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) ( talk) 05:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Could some other editors please look at this page- there seem to be editors intent on adding "Jewish" right at the top and claims that his grandfather "murdered" Poles, Ukrainians and White Russians. As they don't seem to be adding this information to everyone whose grandfather was in the red army it seems to be malicious so I would be grateful if others could help to remove it. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel ( talk) 13:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) regarding where consensus lies. All participants are welcome to engage with the debate and outline their position in the hope that consensus can be formed. Hiding T 17:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
A (imho) meritorious change to include some additional java script is ongoing on WP:VPR (policy forum). The script is used on the French wikipedia to UNCLUTTER and trim down the number of images in articles when needed. It does that by making a singe image frame into a slide show presentation... that is the image displays for a bit, then the next for a few more seconds, then so on and back around... complete with individual captions. If the user does not have java script extensions enabled, the pictures are "gracefully" displayed in a column. It could probably be written to become a gallery instead but that would require a browser originated status word be recognized by mediawiki software and then sensed (as a magicword) by template software... a Slideshow template, based on existing functionality in French wikipedia // Fra nkB 19:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
(note: I copied this discussion from the FP talk page, as I think it is important and not receiving notice there.) ---- Kevin Murray ( talk) 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
To Whom it May Concern:
I represent the Islamic Information Center (IIC) on a volunteer basis, and they asked me to contact you (whoever that may be) as to a possible violation upon our principle religion regarding both the Quran and relation to the modern world today. Unfortunately, I didn't see any phone number to contact, so I wrote in discussion - as Jim Wales suggested on C-SPAN for independent organizations to contact Wikipedia. The problem is this articles (or policies) title as a basis of the five pillars of Islam. We don't consider such actions hostile towards the Muslim community, however we do ask it be changed to prevent any possible confusion in Muslims relations with Wikipedia - to something more neutral.
To discuss this further, please contact me at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks,
Josh Armin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.111.65 ( talk) 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The reasoning for this is kind of obvious: anything ever linked on the front page always acts as a vandal magnet. This pre-empts them, and as the article is featured status already, protecting it for a bit won't hurt it any. Jtrainor ( talk) 00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering what the rationale for the policy on self-published sources is (see WP:SELFPUB). I was wondering if over-use of self-published sources constitutes advertising-like language. This issue is discussed here. I'll quote the relevant bits:
"Here's another question: does the overuse of self-published sources (as in, well over half the sources; especially online self-published sources that link to subscription/membership/purchasing forms) constitute advertisement-like language? The way I see it, overuse of self-published sources lends an aura of notability to those sources which may or may not be justified. Additionally, those sources make the subject of the article look more notable through their affiliation with the subject (i.e., it appears as if the article is saying, 'Look at us, we have a notable source on our side/in our ranks; that makes us even more significant')."
I'm trying to apply WP:SELFPUB to this article. I was hoping you could also jump into the conversation in the article's talk page ( this section). Thanks! SharkD ( talk) 06:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll try Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, as I've been led to understand in another post in Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) that that is a better place for seeking advice. SharkD ( talk) 04:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a current proposal to change a naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Checkuser_requirement_for_RfA_candidates_-_Proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Many pages on software have separation between commercial non-commercial, free and open source software. While it may be useful to a user to know that certain packages are free or open source it would seem more appropriate to have this as a note in the information about the software as opposed to categorizing based on this feature.
Some examples are
one page which I feel does it right is
Comparison of video editing software
LetterRip ( talk) 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like some clarification on image usage policy, preferably form an admin.
I'm currently editing a page about a notable television franchise. 2 series (approx 75 episodes), 12 books, two films and about a dozen computer games, broadcast in multiple languages. The franchise has a large number of recurring characters most of whom are currently included on a single page. Under current image policy is it permitted/prohibited or editors to add an low resolution identifying image for each individual character?
The current argument for is that each character has been individually designed so that they visually represent the part that they play in the franchise and so an object illustration is required.
The current argument against is that doing so breaches rules on decorative images.
Any ideas?
perfectblue ( talk) 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at the talk page of the numbers manual of style ( oldid) that would change all piped wikilinks like [[2007 in film|2007]] to 2007. Those kinds of wikilinks are being referred to as surprise links. Wikilinks like [[2007 in literature|2007]], [[2007 in video gaming|2007]], etc (basically any wikilink to any of the articles at List of '2007 in' articles (and every other year) that has a pipe and then just the year would be replaced with just the plaintext year, with no wikilink. Input from the community would be appreciated. -- Pixelface ( talk) 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The main question: What should one do with language links when a single article in English is covered by multiple articles in other languages?
As I understand it language links exist to help people find material in their own language and to generally facilitate easy moving between articles in different language Wikipedias. However in certain circumstances a single term in English is represented by multiple terms in another language - this has arisen in the article college which has many related meanings in English:
...and a number of others, all of which are covered by a single article in English Wikipedia.
Now, someone has linked this article to three articles in Spanish ( es:Colegio, es:College, es:Facultad )and Italian ( it:college], it:Collegio, it:Facoltà ), which I'd guess reflect different usages of the term (e.g. one for Higher education, one for further education and one for schools), and someone has raised understandable concerns about this - seeing as it may well lead to large and confusing language link lists.
Anyway - I've thought of a couple of possible solutions to this:
Any thoughts? Solutions? Think that I'm making a mountain out of a molehill ::smile::? -- Neo ( talk) 13:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is also a discussion going on at the the talk page of the numbers manual of style ( oldid) where it's been proposed that editors stop using ISO-format dates (such as 2007-12-16) in citation templates like {{ cite web}}. When an ISO format date is placed in the date field and wikilinked, (like [[2007-12-16]]), it will be shown according to a user's date preferences. Some editors are saying we should stop doing this. Input from the community would be appreciated. -- Pixelface ( talk) 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've given a better explanation of the proposal below. — Remember the dot ( talk) 21:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There's been quite a bit of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) over the use of the ISO date format (2007-12-25) in footnotes. The general feeling is that ISO dates are unfamiliar to most readers, which could lead to confusion. Because of this, I propose that we:
[[2007-12-25]]
would become [[December 25]], [[2007]]
if the [[25 December]] [[2007]]
if the The JavaScript tool is available at User:Remember the dot/ISO date format unifier.js, but it will not work properly until the citation templates have been tweaked to allow non-ISO dates. — Remember the dot ( talk) 21:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example of how this change would work.
Before: | Wikipedia:Citing sources. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( 2007-01-02). Retrieved on 2007-01-02. |
After American formatting: | Wikipedia:Citing sources. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( January 2, 2007). Retrieved on January 2, 2007. |
After British formatting: | Wikipedia:Citing sources. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ( 2 January 2007). Retrieved on 2 January 2007. |
After reformatting, the dates become significantly easier for the average reader to read and understand. — Remember the dot ( talk) 00:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to have to type out the month every time I cite something and worry about whether the day should come first or second. It's easier to type 02 than February. There's a lower risk of typos. When I'm signed in, [[2007-12-25]] appears to me like "December 25, 2007" because I've set my date preferences to display it like that. When I'm not signed in, [[2007-12-25]] appears to me like 2007- 12-25. If you put your cursor over "12-25", it displays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_25 in the status bar at the bottom of the browser. Unregistered users can still see that 12-25 means December 25 (although they may not realize that until they mouseover it).
For articles that were nominated for the 65th Golden Globe Awards, I've used this reference frequently, the list of nominations:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.goldenglobes.org/news/id/81 |title=HOLLYWOOD FOREIGN PRESS ASSOCIATION 2008 GOLDEN GLOBE AWARDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007 |accessdate=2007-12-16 |date=[[2007-12-13]] |publisher=goldenglobes.org}}</ref>
Now you're saying I have to figure out if the day should come first or second on every article I use that citation in?
It needs to be determined how many unregistered users have complained about stuff like 2007- 12-25 before ISO dates are disallowed from citation templates. -- Pixelface ( talk) 06:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)