![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers |
![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
{{
editprotected}}
This should have a tag, probably {{ disputedtag}} to show that it is protected because of a dispute, and therefore should have a grain of salt before being taken as guidance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this section should have a clearly visible indicator that it has been split to a separate page that is protected, and is not considered stable. It should also indicate whether questions regarding this section are supposed to go to be added to the main MOSNUM talk page, or this talk page. It is all very confusing. John Vandenberg ( chat) 05:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with Ryan's analysis. I would say that the number of voters who supported year option 1 and indicated that they agreed with more than the subtitle, is less than 50% of the total number of voters. I'm not going to edit war, but I do not agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please change the template to read as follows:
Thank you. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm also considering adding a footnote to a list of examples of date delinking that were approved by several arbitrators as not being classified as mass delinking. See this. What do others think? Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Restriction regarding linking/delinking: According to the Date delinking arbitration case, for six months, no mass date delinking should be performed unless the Arbitration Committee is notified of a community-approved process for the mass delinking. [N 1] ( Remedy in place since 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)) |
Like this? Gary King ( talk) 02:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Created new shortcut for
WP:MOSDB.
Wish to add:
MOS:DOB, I found it to be a more helpful shortcut. --
œ
™
22:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There is something flawed in the statement of this section. On one hand, "In the main text of articles, the form 1996– ... is preferred in infoboxes", and yet "The form since 1996 should be used in ... article text and infoboxes". Which is it? And also, I don't see anything wrong with using "xxxx-present" in an infobox or a list. It doesn't flow well in prose which is where I support "since xxxx", but otherwise it need not be so awkward-looking. The section argues against it because "'the present' is a constantly moving target", but using "since xxxx" uses "the present" as a reference point. BOVINEBOY2008 00:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
<!--as of 10 October 2007-->
. The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes.{{
Editprotected}}
Please change in the "Other date ranges" the sentence
to the sentence
It's been a few days and nobody has fixed the contradiction or even responded here. Would you mind asking an admin to at least clear up the current contradiction, Bovineboy? Tim meh ( review me) 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
<!--as of 10 October 2007-->
. The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text.{{ editprotected}} It is requested that changes be made in the other date ranges section in accordance with BovineBoy's example (minus the strikeouts and bold text), shown directly above my last comment. Tim meh ( review me) 01:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
editrequest}}
Please add the following:
after the fourth bullet in "Dates" ("Yearless dates ..."). See WT:MOSNUM#C'mon... for the discussion leading to this. -- ___A. di M. 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the issues that forced this section to be protected are a problem anymore, so it should be unprotected and moved into its own section. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers |
![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
{{
editprotected}}
This should have a tag, probably {{ disputedtag}} to show that it is protected because of a dispute, and therefore should have a grain of salt before being taken as guidance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this section should have a clearly visible indicator that it has been split to a separate page that is protected, and is not considered stable. It should also indicate whether questions regarding this section are supposed to go to be added to the main MOSNUM talk page, or this talk page. It is all very confusing. John Vandenberg ( chat) 05:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with Ryan's analysis. I would say that the number of voters who supported year option 1 and indicated that they agreed with more than the subtitle, is less than 50% of the total number of voters. I'm not going to edit war, but I do not agree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please change the template to read as follows:
Thank you. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm also considering adding a footnote to a list of examples of date delinking that were approved by several arbitrators as not being classified as mass delinking. See this. What do others think? Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Restriction regarding linking/delinking: According to the Date delinking arbitration case, for six months, no mass date delinking should be performed unless the Arbitration Committee is notified of a community-approved process for the mass delinking. [N 1] ( Remedy in place since 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)) |
Like this? Gary King ( talk) 02:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Created new shortcut for
WP:MOSDB.
Wish to add:
MOS:DOB, I found it to be a more helpful shortcut. --
œ
™
22:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There is something flawed in the statement of this section. On one hand, "In the main text of articles, the form 1996– ... is preferred in infoboxes", and yet "The form since 1996 should be used in ... article text and infoboxes". Which is it? And also, I don't see anything wrong with using "xxxx-present" in an infobox or a list. It doesn't flow well in prose which is where I support "since xxxx", but otherwise it need not be so awkward-looking. The section argues against it because "'the present' is a constantly moving target", but using "since xxxx" uses "the present" as a reference point. BOVINEBOY2008 00:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
<!--as of 10 October 2007-->
. The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes.{{
Editprotected}}
Please change in the "Other date ranges" the sentence
to the sentence
It's been a few days and nobody has fixed the contradiction or even responded here. Would you mind asking an admin to at least clear up the current contradiction, Bovineboy? Tim meh ( review me) 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
<!--as of 10 October 2007-->
. The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text.{{ editprotected}} It is requested that changes be made in the other date ranges section in accordance with BovineBoy's example (minus the strikeouts and bold text), shown directly above my last comment. Tim meh ( review me) 01:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
editrequest}}
Please add the following:
after the fourth bullet in "Dates" ("Yearless dates ..."). See WT:MOSNUM#C'mon... for the discussion leading to this. -- ___A. di M. 09:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the issues that forced this section to be protected are a problem anymore, so it should be unprotected and moved into its own section. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)