Forum:Dates: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-[Ff]orum archives header +archive)) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive|Panopticon archives}}[[Category:Discussions without clear resolution]] | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
Is there some reason that the only way to link a date is do the awkward cardinal numbering format? [[21st July]] is nowhere near s universal in English (even in British) usage as [[21 July]]. Are there objections to at least creating redirects for the ordinal approach? '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 22:25, February 5, 2010 (UTC) | Is there some reason that the only way to link a date is do the awkward cardinal numbering format? [[21st July]] is nowhere near s universal in English (even in British) usage as [[21 July]]. Are there objections to at least creating redirects for the ordinal approach? '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 22:25, February 5, 2010 (UTC) | ||
: Regarding dates on printed material, I have always tried (I think) to replicate the date that appeared on the publication where appropriate but should add, that often dates have been 'corrected' to fit in with a particular style and I may have adopted the later convention in order to save a rewrite by someone else. [[User:The Librarian|The Librarian]] 22:37, February 5, 2010 (UTC) | : Regarding dates on printed material, I have always tried (I think) to replicate the date that appeared on the publication where appropriate but should add, that often dates have been 'corrected' to fit in with a particular style and I may have adopted the later convention in order to save a rewrite by someone else. [[User:The Librarian|The Librarian]] 22:37, February 5, 2010 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 23:22, 6 May 2012
Forums → Archive index → Panopticon archives → Dates
Is there some reason that the only way to link a date is do the awkward cardinal numbering format? 21st July is nowhere near s universal in English (even in British) usage as 21 July. Are there objections to at least creating redirects for the ordinal approach? CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 22:25, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding dates on printed material, I have always tried (I think) to replicate the date that appeared on the publication where appropriate but should add, that often dates have been 'corrected' to fit in with a particular style and I may have adopted the later convention in order to save a rewrite by someone else. The Librarian 22:37, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
