Forum:Dates: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Created page with '{{Forumheader|Panopticon}} <!-- 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 da…') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<!-- 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) | |||
Revision as of 22:37, 5 February 2010
Index → Panopticon → Dates
Spoilers are strongly policed here.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
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)
