Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
reply |
Tim Starling (talk | contribs) I see |
||
Line 148:
:Bordelon said "I endorse the ISO standard method (YYYY-MM-DD)." What could be clearer? As to the vote, it seem that you didn't read items 5 and 7. Throwing in the word "visible" looks like a deceptive word game. The wording was "allow logged in users to have it reprocessed to their preferred format"; it did not say "more readable format". It currently does not convert to my preferred format. If I choose to use ISO 8601, and it isn't converted that's not my problem. Not mentioning it at all is even more wilfull deception, unless you phrase it as an unwillingness to abide by international standards. [[User:Eclecticology|<font size=+1>☮</font> Eclecticology]] 06:39, 2003 Nov 13 (UTC)
::I see. Would you be happy if I added ISO 8601 (whichever flavour you nominate) as a fourth dynamic format? That way it could be listed in the manual of style as an acceptable alternative. -- [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]] 07:31, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
| |||