Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
Zoe
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
Nobody has slipped anything under your radar, Zoe. I am simply continuing the long discussion you just joined.
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:10 To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American who
reads the Wikipedia?
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
Zoe
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/ - forms, calculators, tips, and more
So let's discuss. What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:10 To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American who
reads the Wikipedia?
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
Zoe
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/ - forms, calculators, tips, and more
You claim that the discussion is ongoing, and yet the Bot has already been written, tested, and is set to go off in 30 minutes! It's confusing because it is NOT what Americans write, unless they have military training. Try writing 2/3/03 and tell me what the date is. Zoe Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:So let's discuss. What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:10 To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American who
reads the Wikipedia?
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
Zoe
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
- forms, calculators, tips, and more
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
What is with these straw man attacks? It is NOT going to go off in 30 minutes. Where in the world did you get that absurd idea? Furthermore, 2/3/03 is a non-sequitur -- no one has ever suggested it. The discussion involves only 2 March 2003 versus March 2, 2003.
What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:28 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
who reads the Wikipedia?
You claim that the discussion is ongoing, and yet the Bot has already
been written, tested, and is set to go off in 30 minutes!
It's confusing because it is NOT what Americans write, unless they
have military training. Try writing 2/3/03 and tell me what the date is.
Zoe
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
So let's discuss. What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:10 To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American who
reads the Wikipedia?
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
Zoe
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
forms, calculat! ors, tips, and more
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/ - forms, calculators, tips, and more
You wrote: The datebot has been thoroughly tested and is almost ready to be set ravening among the articles. At [[Sun Mar 2 19:44:31 PST 2003|this moment]] it has no automatic article-selection mechanism. I read this as saying that you were planning on setting it off at 19:44:31. Zoe Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:What is with these straw man attacks? It is NOT going to go off in 30 minutes. Where in the world did you get that absurd idea? Furthermore, 2/3/03 is a non-sequitur -- no one has ever suggested it. The discussion involves only 2 March 2003 versus March 2, 2003.
What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:28 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
who reads the Wikipedia?
You claim that the discussion is ongoing, and yet the Bot has already
been written, tested, and is set to go off in 30 minutes!
It's confusing because it is NOT what Americans write, unless they
have military training. Try writing 2/3/03 and tell me what the date is.
Zoe
Sean Barrett wrote:
So let's discuss. What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:10 To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American who
reads the Wikipedia?
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
Zoe
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
forms, calculat! ors, tips, and more
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
- forms, calculators, tips, and more
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
The aliasing pipe was meant to humorously link the phrases "Sun Mar 2 19:44:31 PST 2003" and "this moment"; ie, the moment in which I was writing. (What time zone are you in, that that time was half an hour in your future?) Also, the phrase "it has no automatic article-selection mechanism" might be understood to mean that it has no it has no automatic article-selection mechanism, thus making it unable to "go off" any time soon.
I still don't understand what, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003. -- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:55 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
who reads the Wikipedia?
You wrote: The datebot has been thoroughly tested and is almost ready
to be set ravening among the articles. At [[Sun Mar 2 19:44:31 PST 2003|this moment]] it has no automatic article-selection mechanism.
I read this as saying that you were planning on setting it off at
19:44:31.
Zoe
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
What is with these straw man attacks? It is NOT going to go off in 30 minutes. Where in the world did you get that absurd idea? Furthermore, 2/3/03 is a non-sequitur -- no one has ever suggested it. The discussion involves only 2 March 2003 versus March 2, 2003.
What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:28 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
who reads the Wikipedia?
You claim that the discussion is ongoing, and yet the Bot has
already
been written, tested, and is set to go off in 30 minutes!
It's confusing because it is NOT what Ameri! cans write, unless they
have military training. Try writing 2/3/03 and tell me what the date is.
Zoe
Sean Barrett wrote:
So let's discuss. What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:10 To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
who
reads the Wikipedia?
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
Zoe> >
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
forms, calculat! ors, tips, and more
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
forms, calculators, tips, and more
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/ - forms, calculators, tips, and more
I'm in PST, and I noticed when I read what you wrote that your "at this moment" was still in the future. Zoe Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:The aliasing pipe was meant to humorously link the phrases "Sun Mar 2 19:44:31 PST 2003" and "this moment"; ie, the moment in which I was writing. (What time zone are you in, that that time was half an hour in your future?) Also, the phrase "it has no automatic article-selection mechanism" might be understood to mean that it has no it has no automatic article-selection mechanism, thus making it unable to "go off" any time soon.
I still don't understand what, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003. -- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:55 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
who reads the Wikipedia?
You wrote: The datebot has been thoroughly tested and is almost ready
to be set ravening among the articles. At [[Sun Mar 2 19:44:31 PST 2003|this moment]] it has no automatic article-selection mechanism.
I read this as saying that you were planning on setting it off at
19:44:31.
Zoe
Sean Barrett wrote:
What is with these straw man attacks? It is NOT going to go off in 30 minutes. Where in the world did you get that absurd idea? Furthermore, 2/3/03 is a non-sequitur -- no one has ever suggested it. The discussion involves only 2 March 2003 versus March 2, 2003.
What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:28 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
who reads the Wikipedia?
You claim that the discussion is ongoing, and yet the Bot has
already
been written, tested, and is set to go off in 30 minutes!
It's confusing because it is NOT what Ameri! cans write, unless they
have military training. Try writing 2/3/03 and tell me what the date is.
Zoe
Sean Barrett wrote:
So let's discuss. What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:10 To: WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American
who
reads the Wikipedia?
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
Zoe> >
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
forms, calculat! ors, tips, and more
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
forms, calculators, tips, and more
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
- forms, calculators, tips, and more
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
On 3/3/03 12:08 AM, "Sean Barrett" sean@epoptic.com wrote:
The aliasing pipe was meant to humorously link the phrases "Sun Mar 2 19:44:31 PST 2003" and "this moment"; ie, the moment in which I was writing. (What time zone are you in, that that time was half an hour in your future?) Also, the phrase "it has no automatic article-selection mechanism" might be understood to mean that it has no it has no automatic article-selection mechanism, thus making it unable to "go off" any time soon.
I still don't understand what, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003.
As I tried to explain, confusing is not perhaps quite the right word. Disconcerting and unnatural is better. To the American ear, "2 March 2003" sounds like something Yoda would say.
As if you had written,
"Understand what, I still do not, exactly, about 2 March 2003 confusing is."
(And then you can add that little Yoda "hmmm?" at the end and lift large objects with your mind to complete the picture.)
Our story up to now:
Both the University of Chicago Manual of Style and Strunk and White's Elements of Style state a preference for the 2 March form, but both also accept the March 2 form. Virtually every date in the Wikipedia is expressed in the March 2 form. (The mail headers for this message use the 2 March form.) Nothing that has come up in this mailing list discussion has not already been raised on the talk page (although the University of Chicago press position in favor of 2 March was greatly overstated here.)
In general, consistency in style is desirable, and most of the rules in the Manual of Style were based on what already was being done by the more careful (consistent, that is) contributors. Most dates are already in the March 2 style. It will add just that little bit of uncertainty if some are one way and some the other. There's nothing confusing about the March 2, 2003 style either.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|From: M Carling m@idiom.com |Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 21:56:56 -0800 (PST) | | | |On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, The Cunctator wrote: | |> To the American ear, "2 March 2003" sounds like something Yoda would say. | |I won't speak for you -- only for myself. I'm an American and "2 March |2003" is fine by me. | |M Carling | |_______________________________________________ |WikiEN-l mailing list |WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 01:09:56 -0500, Tom Parmenter tompar@world.std.com wrote:
Our story up to now:
Both the University of Chicago Manual of Style and Strunk and White's Elements of Style state a preference for the 2 March form, but both also accept the March 2 form. Virtually every date in the Wikipedia is expressed in the March 2 form. (The mail headers for this message use the 2 March form.)
No - that is an example of something that is correctly localised to user preferences. I see the header written Mon, 3 Mar 2003 01:09:56 -0500
I suggested localisation on the talk page, but it would need some sort of advanced markup such as [[date:yyyy-mm-dd]] and we'd probably still argue about the default presentation for non-logged-in users.
There's nothing
confusing about the March 2, 2003 style either.
It's not confusing, it just "feels wrong" to me.
On 3/2/03 10:39 PM, "Sean Barrett" sean@epoptic.com wrote:
What is with these straw man attacks? It is NOT going to go off in 30 minutes. Where in the world did you get that absurd idea? Furthermore, 2/3/03 is a non-sequitur -- no one has ever suggested it. The discussion involves only 2 March 2003 versus March 2, 2003.
What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
It's simply not correct in American English.
It sounds like Yoda-speech to the American ear.
The Date-bot needs to be reversible.
So, at
[[[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)]], about 30 people have been engaged in a discussion about changing the [[Month Day]] standard format.
At some point someone set up a voting scheme, listing some options, and people tagged their preference. In a shocking development, most of the people who voted for making [[Day Month]] Wikipedia policy are British.
Without getting (again) into the how very bad voting is for making a decision, I'll simply say that what is needed is to
Construct a consensus document on the merits and problems of each proposal.
Not to vote.
A 30-person vote != democratic decision.
And we should be looking for the best decision for Wikipedia, not necessarily the most popular.
I'll leave discussion of the specific merits and problems for the webpages, though Zoe has well elucidated a major issue with the subject of this thread.
"Zoe has well elucidated a major issue with the subject of this thread" -- yet neither she nor anyone els can explain how seeing "2 March 2003" is going to "confuse" anyone whoreads it.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org]On Behalf Of The Cunctator Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 20:10 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American whoreads the Wikipedia?
So, at
[[[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)]], about 30 people have been engaged in a discussion about changing the [[Month Day]] standard format.
At some point someone set up a voting scheme, listing some options, and people tagged their preference. In a shocking development, most of the people who voted for making [[Day Month]] Wikipedia policy are British.
Without getting (again) into the how very bad voting is for making a decision, I'll simply say that what is needed is to
Construct a consensus document on the merits and problems of each proposal.
Not to vote.
A 30-person vote != democratic decision.
And we should be looking for the best decision for Wikipedia, not necessarily the most popular.
I'll leave discussion of the specific merits and problems for the webpages, though Zoe has well elucidated a major issue with the subject of this thread.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sean Barrett wrote:
"Zoe has well elucidated a major issue with the subject of this thread" -- yet neither she nor anyone els can explain how seeing "2 March 2003" is going to "confuse" anyone whoreads it.
I think the word "confuse" is a bit strong, but it does look weird to me.
If "official" style guides recommend it, and it's unambiguous, then I think we should go with it, even if it looks weird. But I don't think voting is a good way to decide the issue.
--Jimbo
On the contrary, the form 2 March 2003 simply IS correct in American English. The Chicago Manual of Style prefers "that in all text, including notes and bibliographies, exact dates be written in the sequence day-month-year, without internal punctuation." Rule 8.36.
If this bot ever runs, changes will be reversible in the same way that all changes to the Wikipedia are reversible.
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org]On Behalf Of The Cunctator Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:59 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American whoreads the Wikipedia?
On 3/2/03 10:39 PM, "Sean Barrett" sean@epoptic.com wrote:
What is with these straw man attacks? It is NOT going to go off in 30 minutes. Where in the world did you get that absurd idea?
Furthermore,
2/3/03 is a non-sequitur -- no one has ever suggested it. The discussion involves only 2 March 2003 versus March 2, 2003.
What, exactly, is confusing about 2 March 2003?
It's simply not correct in American English.
It sounds like Yoda-speech to the American ear.
The Date-bot needs to be reversible.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
At 08:11 PM 3/2/03 -0800, Sean wrote:
On the contrary, the form 2 March 2003 simply IS correct in American English. The Chicago Manual of Style prefers "that in all text, including notes and bibliographies, exact dates be written in the sequence day-month-year, without internal punctuation." Rule 8.36.
There is no one body entitled to name US usage, and the University of Chicago Press certainly isn't. CMOS is what they want for the books they publish, no more and no less. Others often find it useful: but when I worked for a magazine that followed Chicago on most things, we set dates in the form March 3, 2003, not 3 March 2003.
|X-Sender: vr@smtp.panix.com |From: Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 08:51:35 -0500 | |At 08:11 PM 3/2/03 -0800, Sean wrote: |>On the contrary, the form 2 March 2003 simply IS correct in American |>English. The Chicago Manual of Style prefers "that in all text, |>including notes and bibliographies, exact dates be written in the |>sequence day-month-year, without internal punctuation." Rule 8.36. | |There is no one body entitled to name US usage, and the University |of Chicago Press certainly isn't. CMOS is what they want for the |books they publish, no more and no less. Others often find it useful: but |when I worked for a magazine that followed Chicago on most things, we set |dates in the form March 3, 2003, not 3 March 2003. |
That's not what my copy of 12th edition the CMOS says. It states (rule 8.14),
"The University of Chicago press prefers that in all text the day, month and year be written without internal punctuation [in the form 5 November]
"Other acceptable forms are: On November 22, 1963 . . . The course of events on the twenty-second of November
They go on to state that after the first specific reference to a day and month, elliptical references to other days in that month should be spelled out. "On 5 November, the national elections took place. By the morning of the sixth . . .
I submit we would not want to follow them in this case. Of course, style guides are not written by Nazis, and not even the CMOS, authoritative as it is, requires any of this in every instance.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
On Monday 03 March 2003 17:11, Tom Parmenter wrote:
That's not what my copy of 12th edition the CMOS says. It states (rule 8.14),
And what does the TTL say? :)
phma
On 3/2/03 10:09 PM, "Zoe" zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
Where? That is bad, and not because of its anti-Americanism. It's simply antiWikipedian to commit wholesale changes.
Some links would be helpful.
Contrary to Zoe's accusations, I am not -- and will not be -- committing wholesale changes.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org]On Behalf Of The Cunctator Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 19:57 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American whoreads the Wikipedia?
On 3/2/03 10:09 PM, "Zoe" zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
English
Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this
slip under
the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing
to do.
Where? That is bad, and not because of its anti-Americanism. It's simply antiWikipedian to commit wholesale changes.
Some links would be helpful.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:09:41 -0800 (PST), Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
That's the first time I've been asked to consider Americans to be an opressed minority :-) (4% of the world population and they expect everyone else to suffer their illogical system?) 2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the month name is used) unambiguous. In your terms, "March 2" is anti British, Anti European, Anti-Australasian, Anti-African etc. etc.
But this is the English wiki, and as such, only the format used in English-speaking countries applies. What's anti-European, anti-African (except for English speaking countries) is of no consequence. It's true that the British, Australian, New Zealand version, etc., may be different. I don't know what Canadians use. Zoe Richard Grevers dramatic@xtra.co.nz wrote:On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:09:41 -0800 (PST), Zoe wrote:
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
That's the first time I've been asked to consider Americans to be an opressed minority :-) (4% of the world population and they expect everyone else to suffer their illogical system?) 2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the month name is used) unambiguous. In your terms, "March 2" is anti British, Anti European, Anti-Australasian, Anti-African etc. etc.
I agree completely. We should use Zoe's standard. The format used in English-speaking countries must apply.
Would those of you from the various components and former components of the United Kingdom please tell us how you prefer your dates? We Americans prefer the standard form. As The Chicago Manual of Style explains, in "all text, including notes and bibliographies, exact dates [are to] be written in the sequence day-month-year, without internal punctuation." Rule 8.36.
And since no one finds 2 March 2003 confusing....
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 21:23 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Do we really want to confuse every
American who reads the Wikipedia?
But this is the English wiki, and as such, only the format used in
English-speaking countries applies. What's anti-European, anti-African (except for English speaking countries) is of no consequence. It's true that the British, Australian, New Zealand version, etc., may be different. I don't know what Canadians use.
Zoe
Richard Grevers dramatic@xtra.co.nz wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:09:41 -0800 (PST), Zoe wrote:
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
English
Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this
slip
under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very
anti-American
thing to do.
That's the first time I've been asked to consider Americans to be an opressed minority :-) (4% of the world population and they expect everyone else to suffer
their
illogical system?) 2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the month
name
is used) unambiguous. In your terms, "March 2" is anti British, Anti European,
Anti-Australasian,
Anti-African etc. etc.
Richard Grevers
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http:/! /www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
http://rd.yahoo.com/finance/mailtagline/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/ - forms, calculators, tips, and more
Show me a single American newspaper that uses that "standard". Or an American magazine. Or an American encyclopedia. Even Britannica uses month, day. See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=117712&tocid=0&query=christo... or http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/columbusc_voyagestothenewworld.asp or http://www.nytimes.com/ or http://www.latimes.com/ or http://www.theatlantic.com/ or http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ Or for that matter: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ http://www.globeandmail.com/ http://www.thepost.ie/web/Home/index.asp Zoe Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:I agree completely. We should use Zoe's standard. The format used in English-speaking countries must apply.
Would those of you from the various components and former components of the United Kingdom please tell us how you prefer your dates? We Americans prefer the standard form. As The Chicago Manual of Style explains, in "all text, including notes and bibliographies, exact dates [are to] be written in the sequence day-month-year, without internal punctuation." Rule 8.36.
And since no one finds 2 March 2003 confusing....
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Zoe
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 21:23 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Do we really want to confuse every
American who reads the Wikipedia?
But this is the English wiki, and as such, only the format used in
English-speaking countries applies. What's anti-European, anti-African (except for English speaking countries) is of no consequence. It's true that the British, Australian, New Zealand version, etc., may be different. I don't know what Canadians use.
Zoe
Richard Grevers wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:09:41 -0800 (PST), Zoe wrote:
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the
English
Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this
slip
under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very
anti-American
thing to do.
That's the first time I've been asked to consider Americans to be an opressed minority :-) (4% of the world population and they expect everyone else to suffer
their
illogical system?) 2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the month
name
is used) unambiguous. In your terms, "March 2" is anti British, Anti European,
Anti-Australasian,
Anti-African etc. etc.
Richard Grevers
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http:/! /www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center
- forms, calculators, tips, and more
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Zoe wrote:
But this is the English wiki, and as such, only the format used in English-speaking countries applies. What's anti-European, anti-African (except for English speaking countries) is of no consequence. It's true that the British, Australian, New Zealand version, etc., may be different. I don't know what Canadians use.
Except for North Korea, show me a country that is not an English-speaking country. It is, for good or bad, the standard international language and the standard language for reference material on this planet. Even the French and the Chinese have mandatory English classes for all school children.
Making the Wikipedia confusing or ambiguous or both to 96% of the readership in order to please the eccentric tastes of 4% doesn't strike me as good judgement.
M Carling
Zoe wrote:
But this is the English wiki, and as such, only the format used in English-speaking countries applies. What's anti-European, anti-African (except for English speaking countries) is of no consequence. It's true that the British, Australian, New Zealand version, etc., may be different. I don't know what Canadians use.
For many years the Canadian standard was the same as the British, but at the same time many individuals and even companies have used the American system. This created much confusion in such areas as the dating of cheques, receipts, and other financial documents. Because of this the Canadian government has been an active promoter of the ISO standard.
Eclecticology
On 3/3/03 12:18 AM, "Richard Grevers" dramatic@xtra.co.nz wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:09:41 -0800 (PST), Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
That's the first time I've been asked to consider Americans to be an opressed minority :-) (4% of the world population and they expect everyone else to suffer their illogical system?) 2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the month name is used) unambiguous. In your terms, "March 2" is anti British, Anti European, Anti-Australasian, Anti-African etc. etc.
This discussion should be held to the proper forum: [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]].
On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 00:22:57 -0500, The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
On 3/3/03 12:18 AM, "Richard Grevers" dramatic@xtra.co.nz wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:09:41 -0800 (PST), Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
That's the first time I've been asked to consider Americans to be an opressed minority :-) (4% of the world population and they expect everyone else to suffer their illogical system?) 2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the month name is used) unambiguous. In your terms, "March 2" is anti British, Anti European, Anti- Australasian, Anti-African etc. etc.
This discussion should be held to the proper forum: [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]].
Sorry, the threading was broken and I replied to what I thought was a 2- post thread.
I really think the answer to this problem is to simply stop time on today's date (3/3/3). Then there won't be any problems at all.
As Comic Book Man (from The Simpsons) would say, "Best ... Idea ... Ever!"
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org]On Behalf Of The Cunctator Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 21:36 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Do we really want to confuse every American whoreads the Wikipedia?
I really think the answer to this problem is to simply stop time on today's date (3/3/3). Then there won't be any problems at all.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Richard Grevers wrote:
That's the first time I've been asked to consider Americans to be an opressed minority :-)
Didn't you mean to say "...asked to consider citizens of the United States..." ha ha. ;-)
2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the month name is used) unambiguous.
I asked this question on a talk page, and I'm basically just ignorant on this issue: is '2 March 2003' natural to speech?
Americans almost never speak that way. We would say "March the Second, Two Thousand and Three" or "March Second, Two Thousand and Three". We would never say "Two March Two Thousand and Three".
--Jimbo
At 06:16 AM 3/3/03 -0800, Jimbo wrote:
I asked this question on a talk page, and I'm basically just ignorant on this issue: is '2 March 2003' natural to speech?
Americans almost never speak that way. We would say "March the Second, Two Thousand and Three" or "March Second, Two Thousand and Three". We would never say "Two March Two Thousand and Three".
The people who use the "2 March 2003" style would say "Second March, 2003", not "Two March". It's natural to British speech (or, at least, none of my British friends seem to find it artificial when they use it).
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
The people who use the "2 March 2003" style would say "Second March, 2003", not "Two March". It's natural to British speech (or, at least, none of my British friends seem to find it artificial when they use it).
"*The* second *of* March 2003", in fact. It being the second day of the month of March. Logical, see? :)
"March the second" sounds to my ear like a reference to another March, some time after the first one, much like "Elizabeth the second"... ;)
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 06:16 AM 3/3/03 -0800, Jimbo wrote:
I asked this question on a talk page, and I'm basically just ignorant on this issue: is '2 March 2003' natural to speech?
Americans almost never speak that way. We would say "March the Second, Two Thousand and Three" or "March Second, Two Thousand and Three". We would never say "Two March Two Thousand and Three".
The people who use the "2 March 2003" style would say "Second March, 2003", not "Two March". It's natural to British speech (or, at least, none of my British friends seem to find it artificial when they use it).
That's likely more right than wrong but I would think that "Second OF March" is even more common. "Two March" is often associated with U.S. militarese. Fortunately, in this debate about written format no one is seriously advocating the use of ordinals for the day. :-)
Eclecticology
Jimmy Wales said:
2 March 2003 is logical, natural to speech, and (so long as the month name is used) unambiguous.
I asked this question on a talk page, and I'm basically just ignorant on this issue: is '2 March 2003' natural to speech?
Americans almost never speak that way. We would say "March the Second, Two Thousand and Three" or "March Second, Two Thousand and Three". We would never say "Two March Two Thousand and Three".
--Jimbo
I'm in England and I would say: Second of March, Two Thousand and Three.
sannse
Zoe wrote:
Apparently there is a move under way to change EVERY date in the English Wikipedia to "2 March" format from "March 2" format. How did this slip under the radar without a major discussion? It's a very anti-American thing to do.
I would not support such a change, but I continue to support using the ISO format for dates of yyyy-mm-dd.
In the short run we should accept any of the three formats as long as they are applied consistently within an article. In either the American or the international system, however, the months should be named and not numbered.
Eclecticology