Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Tim Starling (talk | contribs) That's a wilful bald-faced deceptive rhetorical lie and you know it |
ISO is not relevant at all |
||
Line 152:
::Ec, why are you claiming [[February 11]] is in accordance with ISO 8601? That's a wilful bald-faced deceptive rhetorical lie and you know it ;) Do you want support for negative years as well? -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 07:50, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
I don't see how ISO 8601 is even remotely relevant, and would object to it being used at all, and would change any usage of it. ISO 8601 specifies a format for computer-readable dates, not human-readable dates. It is something used by CS and Engineering people, not encyclopedia writers. You will note that no major manual of style even knows of the ''existence'' of ISO 8601, let alone recommends its use. In short, it is wholly unsuitable to an encyclopedia. To see just how uninterested in human readability ISO 8601 is, their allowed encodings for the date/time "13:10:30 on February 14, 1993" are "19930214T131030" or "1993-02-14T13:10:30" (quoted directly from the standard). This is obviously ridiculous for use in written text, which is why people who write encyclopedias don't refer to ISO documents. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 08:01, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
| |||