Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
GraemeL (talk | contribs)
m →‎Date Links: Gah. Fix my bad indenting I broke with last edit. Sorry about multiple new messages if you see them
Rune.welsh (talk | contribs)
m date links
Line 20: Line 20:


:Getting into an edit war over date formats with somebody is something you should avoid. Changing them for the sake of changing them could be interpreted as disruption in the same manner as English/American spelling changes are. Anyway, now you know that the software formats linked full dates, I'll leave you to it. --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] [[User_talk:GraemeL|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
:Getting into an edit war over date formats with somebody is something you should avoid. Changing them for the sake of changing them could be interpreted as disruption in the same manner as English/American spelling changes are. Anyway, now you know that the software formats linked full dates, I'll leave you to it. --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] [[User_talk:GraemeL|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 22:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

==Date links==
Re [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo&curid=165381&diff=33209713&oldid=32626367 this edit]. ''Dates'' should definitely remain linked in order to trigger the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Preferences#Date_format date preferences] for users. Do not remove such links in the future.

Year links are a copletely different matter, and as GraemeL said above, try to avoid edit conflicts over that.

Happy editing. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Rune Welsh]] | [[User_talk:Rune.welsh|&tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa;]] | [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">Esperanza</font>]] 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:36, 30 December 2005

Welcome

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Please don't remove the link markup around dates. Linking of dates has a special function. When linked, they get formatted in the manner set in user preferences. When not linked, they just display as they were entered. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for more information. --GraemeL (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date Links

From what I see in the Manual of Style, we should not be linking 'years', when standing alone; 'months', when standing alone; or 'months with days', when the 'year' is not present. Correct? Hmains 22:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much correct. Personally (it's not a policy), I usually link the 1st incidence of any individual year in an article if I think it's relevant. This helps people if they're researching timelines rather than specific subjects. After the 1st link, I don't link them again in the same article. Months, I wouldn't link unless it was an article discussing dates. Not acually sure what the policy is on dates without years as the software will format them to user preferences if they're linked.
Getting into an edit war over date formats with somebody is something you should avoid. Changing them for the sake of changing them could be interpreted as disruption in the same manner as English/American spelling changes are. Anyway, now you know that the software formats linked full dates, I'll leave you to it. --GraemeL (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Re this edit. Dates should definitely remain linked in order to trigger the date preferences for users. Do not remove such links in the future.

Year links are a copletely different matter, and as GraemeL said above, try to avoid edit conflicts over that.

Happy editing. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 08:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply