Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:13, 21 April 2022

• WT:DATESPROJ
• WT:DATESPROJECT

MOSNUM

"Full dates should be linked per MOSNUM" Not any more. See WP:UNLINKDATES. Art LaPella (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

no bots

unlink dates that were unthinkingly linked, yes. Use bots, no. Dates belong unlinked only when an eidtor makes the conscious decision that the date should not be linked in this context. It isn't acceptable to ask editors to add articles to all sorts of whitelists to stop the bots from making unwise edits. If the bots cannot deliver, switch them off. The minimum requirement should be that a bot is able to note and remember when it is reverted, and leave the article alone after that. Otherwise you are effectively using bots to edit-war, which is a practice extremely frowned upon. --dab (𒁳) 09:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. If someone has an unusual requirement whitelisting is not unreasonable, we use it elsewhere. {{bots}} is another example, as is {{sic}}. Rich Farmbrough, 09:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC).

Ambiguous date examples

How is "7/7/1961" an ambiguous date? What else could it be besides July 7, 1961? GoingBatty (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Er, yes. Bad example. Potentially ambiguous, depending on the numbers. --Ohconfucius 04:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "6/7/1961" is a much better example - thanks for the quick response! GoingBatty (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
    • "7/7/1961" could also be 7 July 1961 . But d=m point noted. Dl2000 (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

ISO 8601?

The project page makes several references to "ISO 8601". However, although this format is an option for timestamps on some system messages, it is has never been adopted for articles. There is no consensus as to whether article dates in the YYYY-MM-DD format are ISO 8601. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

outdated scripts section?

Hi, I just tried using the Date.js from User:Plastikspork, but it doesn't seem to be working for me. Is there a newer script that is commonly used? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js is the script currently used. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ambiguious dates...

What is the proper way to deal with dates when citing journals. Frequently, they are quarterly or even less regular. This one is a good example: "Asian Music Vol. 18, No. 1 (Autumn - Winter, 1986). To me that means anywhere between August and February. I expect this has come up, but don't know what others have done. Jacqke (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Autoformatting dates in CS1 templates

Whenever I create CS1-style citations, I just bung in yyyy-mm-dd dates (because it's quick) in the sure knowledge that the date format template, e.g. {{Use dmy dates}}, at the top of the article will automatically render the dates correctly for the reader (per Template:Use dmy dates#Auto-formatting citation template dates). Other editors seem keen to run scripts to get the dates formatted correctly behind the scenes despite the date format template doing the donkey work for them. Is the template's autoformatting capability deprecated for some reason? I'm a little confused. Maybe a brief note on this in MOS:DATEVAR might clear this up? Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• My two cents' worth: The scripts were written long before the latest template was configured to autoformat dates. While what you state is true, I believe that it's still desirable to harmonise dates because it looks tidier when in edit mode. The other benefits are that a script run tidies up all dates on the page, not just those within citation templates. Autoformatting not only chews up processing power of our servers, it does not work when inconsistent dates exist outside the template date parameters, and the algorithm cannot cope with errors that exist with the template parameters, whereas the script will correct a certain number of these (such as access dates that are not: yyyy-dd-mm dates, mmm yyyy dates). In any event, the script run is one mouse click and takes only a few seconds to execute. Removing the script code that changes dates within citation templates would make a marginal difference to its performance, and it's easier than having to rewrite the script . -- Ohc  21:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Should all articles have a dmy/mdy template?

There are templates like {{Use dmy dates}} or {{Use mdy dates}}, which are often placed at the top of an article setting the preference for the date format.

Should they be used on all articles? Including articles whose dates are already correctly formatted and where the template won't result in a visible change to the article text? Or on articles that don't currently have any dates in them (either in the prose or in the references)? – Uanfala (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)