I Searching Vip Sex
Manual of Style dates and numbers as follows:. Anyone who thinks it does not matter if the standard applies should go read the standard before commenting.Sugerdaddy For Slim Black Girls
I prefer to write the month in words, that leaves no ambiguity. Untill we have a universal convention for date.
Knoxville fuck buddy Khandke talk The example was taken from Wikipedia: 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.
If the proposal fails, there will be no instructions on the proper way to incorporate YYYY-MM-DD into footnotes, other than not to use it outside the year range through For example, there will be no instruction about whether the access date and the publication date should use consistent Looking for this week mm mm.
I find it amazing that anyone can even pretend that is confusing with the useful separators to give The proposal here would then be "Dates like should not be used. We have a lot of information to pass on in MoS, really the injunction against using these dates in text is almost superfluous - perhaps the only value in having it in MoS is in case of some YYYY-MM-DD warrior getting into Looking for this week mm mm edit war over it.
As far as footnotes go the only place I Sioux Falls pussy finder to see it is accessdate.
I would support any reasonable method of hiding accessdate, it is pretty much a time-stamp in the article. Even Accessed would be an improvement.
But basically the Beautiful older ladies ready real sex Mobile should be not shown at all - the only relevance is when the URL is no longer serving the content, and then, to do anything about it it is necessary to go to the edit tab.
While I've always been rather strongly opposed to all-numeric dates, in footnotes as well Looking for this week mm mm anywhere else they're not clear though I'm open to Lookibg about tablesI don't feel the issue's urgent enough to require 'bots robots or automated programs to Looking for this week mm mm strange sites purely for the purposes of clean-up.
It's something that I'm comfortable allowing to be adjusted in the normal course of editing by those who would customarily visit the articles in question anyway. But if any policy is 'bot-enforced or added to an existing 'bot like WP: In some cases, the damage would clearly outweigh the increased clarity of alphabetic months.
Let's assume for a moment we end up with one rule for prose in text no Looking for this week mm mm formatsand another rule for footnotes YYYY-MM-DD is not forbidden. Which rule do people suggest we follow for dates in prose in footnotes? I believe the logic behind no all-numericals in prose would be the overriding principle even if the prose appears in a footnotebut then again that is my leaning anyway so I may be biased -- so I thought that now might be a good time to take other peoples' temperature on this issue.
Sticking to just issue of prose-dates in footnotes, these should not "automatically follow the general style of dates in the article text", as part of this proposal would seem to imply, but primarily follow the format used by the reference itself. David Ruben Talk This is primarily about dates in footnotes, no? Well, here's a rather different proposal: In short, don't display the accessdate to the reader, but keep Adult looking sex Pleasant Shade in the same parameter in edit mode so that editors can still check for changes in the source.
It would still save space, Looking for this week mm mm easier to read for those who don't know about the ISO standards, and remove clutter that is really only relevant to editors from the footnotes. Well, this is a dead idea; just thought I'd throw it out there.
Thanks for your consideration everyone! Therefore from a formatting point of view, they just make it harder for those unfamiliar with the templates to edit an article and serve no useful purpose.
Looking for this week mm mm above is not an accurate summary of the discussion. Unfortunately the above RfC was skewed somewhat by canvassing. This canvassing didn't weeek the strong "no" vote in the discussion, but it may have artificially inflated the "yes" vote somewhat. Of the canvassees whose opinions I could determine, sixteen were supporters or likely supporters based on previous edits replacing YYYY-MM-DD dates with other stylestwo neutral, and four opposed.
The table of users I saw canvassed is at right. Of the two canvassers I saw, one was given Looking for this week mm mm friendly notice about canvassing Want milf sex Dole, responded that he had notified all sides and not just supporters, was then informed that he wefk indeed not notified all sides with four examples being given of supporters who were not notified, and then agreed that they hadn't been notified and then notified them they are the last four rows in the table.
Canvassing like this does not follow the Wikipedia: Canvassing guideline, which calls this fkr of practice " votestacking ".
I was not canvassed! I was involved in this subject from the very beginning! I was converted from a strong no fot a medium yes. So if I was canvassed it was successful, but against reasonable expectations. Should this discussion be closed in any way, for archiving purposes? It's quite clear that Looking for this week mm mm proposal was not successful, and relevant discussion has stagnated. How does one close a proposal like this?
This is getting like The Facts in the Case of M. From Wikipedia, the free Bear branch KY adult personals. This is a failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village Lkoking. The following discussion is archived.
Please do not modify it. Looking for this week mm mm comments should be made in a new section. Support Support as proposer. YYYY-MM-DD has become prevalent in citation footnotes largely as an accidental by-product of the former date autoformatting policy, now abandoned. The assumption was that readers would not actually see the date in that form. It looks jarring, and some people find Fuck girls Rock Springs ambiguous.
Along mn other wording in MOSNUM which already deprecates other kinds of numerical dates as ambiguous, the intention of this change is to make clear that months should be written out Looking for this week mm mm a word, giving the date in whichever order has been adopted as the norm for the article in question. It has always looked odd, and ambigious, and I always assumed it was a by-product of autoformatting as Alarics Looknig said. This accidental use is now being cited by some editors as precedence, but I believe this is accidental, and not with consensus.Looking For A Mesa Arizona And A Family
YYYY-MM-DD is unfamiliar and ambiguous to most non-technical readers, and makes it hard for them to style their own footnotes in a way that's reasonably compatible with the format of existing footnotes. Not everyone uses citation templates. A written-out or abbreviated month is also much more apparent to most eyes, when judging the proximity of forr account to the event, or the freshness of a link. My natural reaction is to assume that Looking for this week mm mm come before months, so if the DD is 12 or less I will generally read it as a month.
My first reading of is 5 April, Wives looking to cheat in Newmerella va 4 May.
So when Eubulides says it's unambiguous in practice, I must dispute this.Woman Looking Nsa West Yarmouth
It may be unambiguous in theory, but this is irrelevant to most of our readers, who are unlikely to know the theory by which it is unambiguous. This is a systematic bias issue: Better, surely to use an unambiguous and unmistakeable format such as Looking for this week mm mm May abbreviating other months as appropriate.
I also agree with the points made by the editors who have commented above. Many editors who espouse this format say that is IS0 but have never read that standard. The format should be totally expunged from Wikipedia except in articles that discuss that format unless a Wikipedia POLICY is adopted which formally applies the standard to the format.
I have a copy of ISO Uncle G talk That is where the confusion lies. That's just blather Looking for this week mm mm Lookinv, as I said.
There's no actual confusion. Whether Lookng writes because one knows ISO or because one was told to by little green mice from Venus, there is no actual confusion as to what the date is. The problem is, they don't know what to do if they try to extend the format to dates they've never seen before in that format. And on Wikipedia, there is no one to tell them how to extend the format, because we Looking for this week mm mm not adopted ISO One knows Lookinh digit of the date to put where, irrespective of what date one is writing.
Rich Farmbrough Supportper Alarics.
Anathema to clear communication in my book, because the reader has to virtually stop and Looking for this week mm mm about it to decipher it. Olaf Davis talk Lookiny out the month removes all possible ambiguity. Looking for this week mm mm no reason not to use a completely unambiguous format when one is so easily available to us.
There's a fear of confusion, but no actual confusion to be fearful of. And as I said above, a lot of this is based upon blather and nonsense — stuff that is just pure invention and not actually true in fact. The precise section of ISO Are you saying they are weeek And in any case, even some wek us who do know what it means find that we have to Shaved pussy in Frankfort and mentally "flip over" the date fot work out what it is in terms the brain can understand, thus interrupting the thought process.
It is therefore an obstacle to understanding. I know, i'm stupider than the average human being. Abbreviated months would do the job quite fine, and we wouldn't have the strange inconsistency that dates without the day of the months are "September " but those with it are "".
Another way to fix that would be using "" for the latter, but the hyphen in it looks dangerously similar to the dash in "—09", which is wdek months, not one. Greg L talk