Internet dating just bytes

Rated 3.92/5 based on 986 customer reviews

-- Alarics (talk) , 29 September 2009 (UTC) As examples of Wikipedia editors confused by the ambiguity of the YYYY-MM-DD style, who have input what appear to be dates in the YYYY-DD-MM style (I am assuming of course that they were not dyslexic), we have [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. B.: Since I pointed out these errors, users have deleted or corrected the errors, so you will have to look back in the history to see my point.

Note: these are examples where our fix-it bots have not yet gotten around to "fixing" the entry.

If you really want to see some confusion, try looking at the two paragraphs above Britaon, concerning Sweden.

--Redrose64 (talk) , 8 October 2009 (UTC) I find it amazing that anyone can even pretend that 20091001 is confusing with the useful separators to give 2009-10-01.

In such cases I would want the accessdate to be visible to the reader.

It would have been helpful, for example, in articles about the cash-for-clunkers program, which, if I recall correctly, was extended several times by Congress at the last minute.

Whatam Idoing (talk) , 1 October 2009 (UTC) My point is, how to write dates in footnotes will be fairly clear if the proposal is adopted, but will be unclear if it fails. And if it was, the start year would surely be 1752.

Of course, someone could create a new proposal, but the guidance will be unclear unless and until a new proposal is adopted. - Denimadept (talk) , 7 October 2009 (UTC)If you are right, nothing stops us.

internet dating just bytes-73

internet dating just bytes-42

internet dating just bytes-74

internet dating just bytes-77

--Jc3s5h (talk) , 8 October 2009 (UTC) Besides 1582 in Rome, see also Gregorian calendar#Adoption in Europe - the date of changeover varied, and seems to have been 1752 only in Britain and the British Empire (including the eastern part of what is now the United States).

I can't support advocating using YYYY-MM-DD because while it may be sortable, it is also much less understandable.

Dabomb87 (talk) , 30 September 2009 (UTC) Many understood the current wording to proscribe YYYY-MM-DD format in footnotes because footnotes are not tables and are not especially constrained for space.

In the meantime, yyyy-mm-dd is the best format for accessible and sortable full dates in tables.

Eubulides (talk) , 30 September 2009 (UTC) Sort and dts are used in many, many tables, especially in featured lists.

Leave a Reply