Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 80

message: Tony1 is revertwarring for the following text:
:*The month-day-year style of dating ("The attacks of September 11, 2001, were among the most serious.") treats the year as parenthetical; commas are inserted before the year and, unless it is followed by another form of punctuation, after it.
to replace
:The month-day-year style of dating ("The attacks of September 11, 2001, were among the most serious...") treats the year as parenthetical; it should be separated off by commas at both ends, unless already bounded by other punctuation.' 
Tell me, what circumstance would give these sentences different meanings? 
It may be possible to replace bounded with  followed; but the clumsy repetition of it in the top text is no improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yearless dates (5 March, March 5) are inappropriate unless the year is obvious from the context. If there would be any doubt, include the year. 
As phrased, this would prohibit Guy Fawkes Day is celebrated on 5 November; and Kandolin attempted to clarify that this was not intended — as I trust it is not. The proper response is to recast, so it only prohibits ambiguity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In the second example, the antecedent of "it" is "style", which therefore makes the wording wrong.  Using "it" a grand total of twice in one sentence is no crime, and is probably preferable to the awkward phrase "separated off".  — Aluvus t/c 01:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Precision?

message: Quite often in modern times or is now considered should not be replaced with "as of 2007". When they refer to the present state of scholarship, they can approximate "since 1950", "since 1895", or "since the Renaissance". To state that scholarship holds X as of 2007 implies that we have a source written, or at least published, this year; often we don't.  We could require "since [time]", but that would be very difficult to source, and an invitation to original research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in modern times is just too vague. Remove now from the second one and it might be OK in some contexts. Tony 06:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to include some other discussion of them, do so; but they don't belong where they were. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern times

message: There are too many reverts happening, because you act unilaterally, without talking things through here first. It's not a good look for the page. None of us owns MOSNUM; while there's often a bit of push and pull, when I see seven or eight of your edits in a row, some of them changing policy, I draw breath. Can you please cooperate? Tony 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many reverts happening because you revert even patently correct statements of English grammar, such as Michael Hardy's, below. Please stop being disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a serious problem when you try to deflect such a critical comment. Tony 15:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a fact that August has 31 days, that dates higher than 31 are incorrect, make WP look unprofessional, and should not be used, and  that August 491 is laughably incorrect. But the manual should not have instructions added except by consensus, so it would be wrong for me to take it upon myself to insert those observations into the manual. And their being correct does not make them immune from reversion. Chris the speller 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anderson, please cooperate and collaborate

message: There is a difference in meaning between
: Every number except one
and
: Every number except 1.
When one writes "There are seven reasons for this", one writes "seven" and not "7", but when one writes "The only two prime numbers that were mentioned in that paragraph were 7 and 43", it would be incorrect, in my view, to write "seven and 43".  I've adhered to that convention hundreds or perhaps thousands of articles here.  When one is using "7" as a noun to refer to the mathematical object about which one is writing, it's not at all the same as saying "There are seven reasons".
: 
I think this manual should make all this explicit. Michael Hardy 14:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it should. If any editor disagrees with the substance here, please say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, glad to see that you're encouraging measured discussion and feedback here. Tony 15:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Certain distinctions not mentioned here

message: * 3.4. It is said that "[t]he symbol is unspaced (71%, not 71 %)". There are contradictory views elsewhere on Wikipedia - Percent_sign#Spacing. Does the manual have to be unambiguous in this matter or shouldn't it present rationale for both notations according to the NPOV?
* 4.3. It is said that "[v]alues and unit symbols are spaced (25 kg, not 25kg). There are two exceptions: angles in degrees are unspaced (45°); and Celsius and Farenheit temperatures may be either spaced or unspaced (15°C or 15 °C)". This is clearly obsolete comparing to newer discoveries of Wikipedians like ISO 31-0 or Celsius#Formatting or smaller discussions on other units pages. There are three exceptions - #°, #′, #″; but not #℃ (correct: # ℃) in short.
83.9.19.149 01:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone  support "The exception is degrees..."? The actual MOS text is better, although a semicolon after (180°) would be an improvement.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All you have to do is to suggest the improvement—not to try to scrore your smarmy points during this process. And before you do that, fix up your own comment (read MOS on ellipsis dots). Tony 23:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Non-breaking spaces are commonsense; they prevent line wrap.  They should be used wherever a number shouldn't be separated from what precedes or follows it.  Highways and roads come to mind (Route 37).   is an alternative. Coordinates included.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3.4. Percentages and 4.3. Unit symbols and abbreviations

message: There is a great deal of controversy surrounding how WP:DATE is applied to articles that are discussing athletic related topics.  Many years are wikilinked to "season" articles within a given context.  For example, many people like to wikilink 2002 to the 2002 in basketball article.  The debate does not center around "is that appropriate" so much as - where in the article should that be done.  For example, at Steve Nash - there is an infobox but none of the years in the "former teams" section are wikilinked to the relative "article".  Similarly, in the same "relative section" on Barry Bonds you will see that the year 1993 is wikilinked to 1993 in baseball.  There are some references to this throughout the WP:DATE article, but they seem somewhat unfocused and don't really allow for a clear understanding of the consensus.  I would think we need to addressed better because it can also extend itself to things like the Al Pacino article because of 2003 in film. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the Baseball WikiProject already had this conflict, and it was agreed upon that the links in the infoboxes linking to ___ in [whatever] weren't any helpful in the infoboxes.  The links aren't helpful in deepening the reader's understanding of the topic, and WP:DATE says "Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic," a criterion which I believe this fails to meet.  Ksy92003(talk) 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ksy92003 - You and I have had intense disputes before and currently, I would appreciate if you would not follow me to every page i comment on and misstate information.  Seeing as Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds (amongst thousands of others - Ty Cobb) do wikilink the information, it might help to appropriately present what is going on. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're criticizing me for coming here?  If you think that you can begin a discussion about something that I'm related to, then you're mistaken.  The reason why most of those articles have yet to be changed is the person who was gonna make those changes was , who was blocked for sockpuppetry shortly after, so nobody was able to do that.  And I am not misstating information.  I've told you, and Chrisjnelson has told you, that linking the years doesn't aid in the understanding of the article.  It doesn't help the reader understand what it is, does it?  Ksy92003(talk) 21:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not criticizing you from coming here. I'm saying that if you like to point things out to people , please do a better job of reporting the information.  it seems unlikely that if there was an agreement there to remove the said content - that two of the most notable current athletes would have had their aritcles brought up to speed.  Further more, that project, just as with any project, can certainly establish its' own consensus.  However, it is difficult to apply one wikiprojects consensus to all of wikipedia.  Then again, I don't have any evidence that the wikiproject did have a consensus on this.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you decided to bring up the discussion here, I assume that you believe that there should be links.  Since that is the case, how do you feel that it helps the reader understand the topic?  In other words, the example that CJ gave, how do those links on Jay Cutler's infobox help the reader understand the Jay Cutler article?  Ksy92003(talk) 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * You can believe that, but you aren't correct. I probably lean more on the side of inclusion of season wikilinks, ultimately - I believe that there should be a clarification of the points here that will allow others to understand what the current consensus is.  Then, if that needs to be addressed as consensus can change, then we tackle that issue.  As for you and , you can speak for yourselves.  But his latest declaration of "then I will continue" is not going to help the matter. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say anythign about CJ because I have nothing to do with what he does.  We share the same perspective, so I'm not going to tell him not to do what I was doing.  And I don't know why you come out and straight-up say "you aren't correct."  This isn't a matter of right or wrong.  This is a matter of which best improves the encyclopedia.  And I don't feel that the links improve it at all.  Additionally, I am fairly certain that the only reason you contest this is because I have been the one to make the edits.  You have never yet said why there should be links.  You've continued to revert without even giving me a reason other than that the reverts were controversial.  Now, all of a sudden you bring it here without any reason.  This is something you've done to me several times with the ANI and 3RR.  Ksy92003(talk) 22:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You said "Since you decided to bring up the discussion here, I assume that you believe that there should be links." My response to that was - you aren't correct.  That had nothing to do with the issue at hand.  I have addressed your behavior and will continue to do so, through the appropriate avenues.  This post is not about you and I but about WP:DATE.  Let's not have more than one argument at a time. You insist on removing wiki links to seasons in one section of the article but not in others.  What you should be citing is "Do not autoformat dates that are: in date ranges (see below)."  That's all you need to say.  Now, that aside, and as this is so far off the beaten path, i'll start another subsection here to try and get this dealt with. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry to come late to this; the in year links shouldn't be used unless they add specific WP:CONTEXT to the article in question.  Excessive links clutter the article unnecessarily, detracting from the worthwhile links.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Hey Sandy - that's the "crux" of the debate.  The fact that the MOS says "no links in date ranges" but that it is okay when it adds context is somewhat counterintuitive.  There seems to be a drive amongst people to adopt a new consensus - take a look at Barry Bonds and Michael Jordan.  Bonds links the information and Jordan doesn't.  To say that the bonds stuff should be removed is logical; however, a large number of people have made a push to make it acceptable.  So perhaps we should move forward with a section in the article that addresses how to use Date ranges within templates. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Similarly, we need to consider here is how do we deal with single years listed in infoboxes.  For example: If i list * Team I played for (2007), i believe it should be dealt with in the same way as * Another team I played for (2003-2006). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **One rule may not suit all of sports very well.  For example, if Brett Favre plays for the Packers from 1992 until 2009 (or whatever), wikifying those two numbers doesn't help very much.  But in something like college football where most players only start for 1-2 years, wikifying seasons is helpful to navigation.  I think definitely single seasons or individually listed seasons (1999, 2002, 2003, 2006) should be wikified, but I don't see any compelling reason to wikify long ranges. --B 03:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not unique to sports.  One area it "could apply" is with films.  As for the NFL v CFB link, is there any difference?  A legitimate point of view would be that seeing the links to 1992 and to 2009 would help identify how much (or how little) things changed over an extensive period of time.  It is important to reiterate that this is not meant to extend to areas outside of navboxes and such.   Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only difference really is that you aren't going to have a long range for college years.  So it's a difference of degree, not of kind.  I'd take it one step further, though.  Linking to 2004 in baseball for someone who played for the Yankees from 2004-2006 isn't really meaningful.  But linking to a team-specific page (2004 New York Yankees if it existed) is probably helpful.  I don't really see any reason at all to link to 2004 in baseball. Awhile back, I created a template called  that will link to the best available team-specific page (the first blue link of 2004 Richmond Spiders football team, Richmond Spiders football, Richmond Spiders, University of Richmond) - something like that could be done to link to a team-year page if it exists, otherwise leave it as plain text.  Is that something that would be useful and mutually agreeable?  Only link if there is a team-year page or something otherwise more appropriate than 2004 in baseball, 2004 in sports, 2004 in American football, etc? --B 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think we're starting to get into a closely related, but different topic - what we link to is not the same as "what do we link".  If that template helps to identify what "related" page is useful - then it could be.  Pardon my poor choice of words here - but if this convention is to apply outside of "sports" (as it should) - then i think we're better off going with a "specific topic year" instead of a "specific organization year".  I would link to 2004 NFL season and not 2004 San Diego Chargers season.  For example - dealing with films - i don't know that there is an equivalent link to 2004 San Diego Chargers season.  I would identify 2004 NFL season in the same manner as I do 2004 in film.  Let me know if that sounds confusing. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think for a football player, the team-year page is the parent topic for that player.  If Michael Vick joined the Falcons in 2001 or led them to the playoffs in 2004, then linking to the team-season page is useful.  In other words, I think that Star Wars I : 1999 in film :: Michael Vick : 2001 Atlanta Falcons. --B 04:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hard to say - this "appears" to be one of those where we're going to have to get some outside opinion.  If it was Michael Vick (2001-2007), i'd link to the NFL season article.  That "appears" to be how it's done on articles like Bonds.  I think there are some more issues that are "just under" the surface, but I want to see how this discussion goes before we inundate it with all the "sub issues". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For ranges, especially, I fail to see any real reason to link to individual seasons or what have you.  For Michael Vick, to me I don't see any purpose to link his years to NFL seasons.  So he played for the Falcons first in 2001.  Does linking 2001 to 2001 NFL season help the reader in understanding what that is?  There isn't anything significant about that other than the fact that he played his first game that season.  What one man does doesn't affect the entire league, which is why I don't think that they should be linked to ___ NFL season; those are independent events that don't affect each other.  I mean it's just a year.  In the infobox, it reads as just a number.  An example: if somebody made $1 million, you wouldn't link that to million because you don't need to go to another article to know that a million is a large number.  You don't need to link 2001 to anything really because you know what 2001 is.  You know that it's a year and links shouldn't be provided unless it is going to help deepen the reader's understanding of the context.  Linking to 2001 NFL season isn't gonna help the reader know that it's 2001.  Even linking it to 2001 doesn't seem to do that much because you already know that it's a year, and that's all that you need to know when reading the infobox.  I don't see how linking it to anything would help the reader understand that 2001 is a year, and especially how 2001 NFL season helps the reader know that it's 2001.  Ksy92003(talk) 06:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...  I originally thought that linking ranges for the years players played for specific teams would be useless and messy-looking.  However, I do agree with the earlier point that we link to the team's season pages.  By the way, it does exist: 2004 New York Yankees season.  There is currently a project to create these pages for all teams for all seasons in the MLB, but I don't know about other sports.  In instances where years are listed because achievements were made (teams list years when they took various championships), or when the year is just mentioned in the prose, it should link to that year in whatever sport it is. -- Silent Wind of Doom 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So we have two issues a) should it be allowed at all and b) what is considered appropriate for direction.  Remember, this has to extend beyond sports related topics if it's going to be inserted here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with piped year links is that few folk will bother to hit a year link, assuming that it will end in one of those irrelevant, unfocused year articles. Tony 09:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:DATE as applied to athletics articles

message: In an attempt to refocus the previous discussion, i want to simplify this issue for people.  There seems to be a wide variety of opinions on the wiki linking of date ranges within infoboxes. WP:DATE has some very controdictory statemetns on how to address this and I think we should dedicate some article space to this.  I would suspect that we could title the section "Dates in Templates".  Thoughts? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to come late to this; the in year links shouldn't be used unless they add specific WP:CONTEXT to the article in question.  Excessive links clutter the article unnecessarily, detracting from the worthwhile links.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Hey Sandy - that's the "crux" of the debate.  The fact that the MOS says "no links in date ranges" but that it is okay when it adds context is somewhat counterintuitive.  There seems to be a drive amongst people to adopt a new consensus - take a look at Barry Bonds and Michael Jordan.  Bonds links the information and Jordan doesn't.  To say that the bonds stuff should be removed is logical; however, a large number of people have made a push to make it acceptable.  So perhaps we should move forward with a section in the article that addresses how to use Date ranges within templates. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Similarly, we need to consider here is how do we deal with single years listed in infoboxes.  For example: If i list * Team I played for (2007), i believe it should be dealt with in the same way as * Another team I played for (2003-2006). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **One rule may not suit all of sports very well.  For example, if Brett Favre plays for the Packers from 1992 until 2009 (or whatever), wikifying those two numbers doesn't help very much.  But in something like college football where most players only start for 1-2 years, wikifying seasons is helpful to navigation.  I think definitely single seasons or individually listed seasons (1999, 2002, 2003, 2006) should be wikified, but I don't see any compelling reason to wikify long ranges. --B 03:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not unique to sports.  One area it "could apply" is with films.  As for the NFL v CFB link, is there any difference?  A legitimate point of view would be that seeing the links to 1992 and to 2009 would help identify how much (or how little) things changed over an extensive period of time.  It is important to reiterate that this is not meant to extend to areas outside of navboxes and such.   Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only difference really is that you aren't going to have a long range for college years.  So it's a difference of degree, not of kind.  I'd take it one step further, though.  Linking to 2004 in baseball for someone who played for the Yankees from 2004-2006 isn't really meaningful.  But linking to a team-specific page (2004 New York Yankees if it existed) is probably helpful.  I don't really see any reason at all to link to 2004 in baseball. Awhile back, I created a template called  that will link to the best available team-specific page (the first blue link of 2004 Richmond Spiders football team, Richmond Spiders football, Richmond Spiders, University of Richmond) - something like that could be done to link to a team-year page if it exists, otherwise leave it as plain text.  Is that something that would be useful and mutually agreeable?  Only link if there is a team-year page or something otherwise more appropriate than 2004 in baseball, 2004 in sports, 2004 in American football, etc? --B 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think we're starting to get into a closely related, but different topic - what we link to is not the same as "what do we link".  If that template helps to identify what "related" page is useful - then it could be.  Pardon my poor choice of words here - but if this convention is to apply outside of "sports" (as it should) - then i think we're better off going with a "specific topic year" instead of a "specific organization year".  I would link to 2004 NFL season and not 2004 San Diego Chargers season.  For example - dealing with films - i don't know that there is an equivalent link to 2004 San Diego Chargers season.  I would identify 2004 NFL season in the same manner as I do 2004 in film.  Let me know if that sounds confusing. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think for a football player, the team-year page is the parent topic for that player.  If Michael Vick joined the Falcons in 2001 or led them to the playoffs in 2004, then linking to the team-season page is useful.  In other words, I think that Star Wars I : 1999 in film :: Michael Vick : 2001 Atlanta Falcons. --B 04:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hard to say - this "appears" to be one of those where we're going to have to get some outside opinion.  If it was Michael Vick (2001-2007), i'd link to the NFL season article.  That "appears" to be how it's done on articles like Bonds.  I think there are some more issues that are "just under" the surface, but I want to see how this discussion goes before we inundate it with all the "sub issues". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For ranges, especially, I fail to see any real reason to link to individual seasons or what have you.  For Michael Vick, to me I don't see any purpose to link his years to NFL seasons.  So he played for the Falcons first in 2001.  Does linking 2001 to 2001 NFL season help the reader in understanding what that is?  There isn't anything significant about that other than the fact that he played his first game that season.  What one man does doesn't affect the entire league, which is why I don't think that they should be linked to ___ NFL season; those are independent events that don't affect each other.  I mean it's just a year.  In the infobox, it reads as just a number.  An example: if somebody made $1 million, you wouldn't link that to million because you don't need to go to another article to know that a million is a large number.  You don't need to link 2001 to anything really because you know what 2001 is.  You know that it's a year and links shouldn't be provided unless it is going to help deepen the reader's understanding of the context.  Linking to 2001 NFL season isn't gonna help the reader know that it's 2001.  Even linking it to 2001 doesn't seem to do that much because you already know that it's a year, and that's all that you need to know when reading the infobox.  I don't see how linking it to anything would help the reader understand that 2001 is a year, and especially how 2001 NFL season helps the reader know that it's 2001.  Ksy92003(talk) 06:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...  I originally thought that linking ranges for the years players played for specific teams would be useless and messy-looking.  However, I do agree with the earlier point that we link to the team's season pages.  By the way, it does exist: 2004 New York Yankees season.  There is currently a project to create these pages for all teams for all seasons in the MLB, but I don't know about other sports.  In instances where years are listed because achievements were made (teams list years when they took various championships), or when the year is just mentioned in the prose, it should link to that year in whatever sport it is. -- Silent Wind of Doom 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So we have two issues a) should it be allowed at all and b) what is considered appropriate for direction.  Remember, this has to extend beyond sports related topics if it's going to be inserted here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with piped year links is that few folk will bother to hit a year link, assuming that it will end in one of those irrelevant, unfocused year articles. Tony 09:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates ranges in infoboxes/templates

message: It has been pointed out to me that two of three articles (at the time of this comment):
*battleship,
*pre-dreadnought
*ironclad warship
got Featured Article status recently. Yet they are not metric accessible. Is this a systematic failure of the MOS to achieve its objectives? Lightmouse 10:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles should not have been promoted. They should be brought to WP:FAR unless the contributors add conversions. Tony 13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many articles get by the FAC process in spite of deficiencies.  You should first raise the issues on the talk page, attempt to work them out, and if progress isn't timely, then bring them to WP:FAR.  Bringing an article to FAR for metric accessibility would be pointy; FAR takes a month, and an individual editor can fix that in one sitting.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy's right. Tony 06:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Articles apparently do not have to be metric accessible

message: This guideline says "ISO 8601 dates (1976-05-12) are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Wikipedia."  However, most of our citation templates (, ,  and so forth) either require or recommend ISO 8601 formatting for dates, especially for the "accessdate" field.  Should the guideline acknowledge this, or should the templates and their documentation change? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our citation templates aren't prose; I'm not sure they generate prose. It's probably worth considering what dateformat they should be generating; if we could have a settable article option, like DEFAULTSORT, but overridable for the handful of users that set date preference, that might be best. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ISO 8601 dates

message: This page is getting so long it is causing both IE and Firefox to crash on my system (with 100% reproducibility; it's not a one-time fluke). 68.35.40.113 12:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Jɪmp 08:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please archive