Message: 5 Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:04:54 -0500 From: "Rory Stolzenberg" rory096@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Opinions sought: linking source-access dates per MoS? To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: 10011a3a0701011804p1d129e95pdf50af7eab570d12@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 1/1/07, Rory Stolzenberg" rory096@gmail.com wrote:
... Full dates are an exception to WP:CONTEXT.
And just where does WP:CONTEXT or any other guideline say that? From my reading it doesn't. Exceptions to rules or guidelines can't solely exist in the lacunae of convention and consensus, they need to be explicitly written. Until it's written as a de jure exception to WP:CONTEXT, I'd very much inclined to disagree with the above statement.
Regards, Christopher D. Thieme (User:ExplorerCDT)
P.S. Is it just me or does Wikipedia need a policy house-cleaning to fix up these contradictions and ambiguities? ~cdt
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 5 Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:04:54 -0500 From: "Rory Stolzenberg" rory096@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Opinions sought: linking source-access dates per MoS? To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: 10011a3a0701011804p1d129e95pdf50af7eab570d12@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 1/1/07, Rory Stolzenberg" rory096@gmail.com wrote:
... Full dates are an exception to WP:CONTEXT.
And just where does WP:CONTEXT or any other guideline say that? From my reading it doesn't. Exceptions to rules or guidelines can't solely exist in the lacunae of convention and consensus, they need to be explicitly written. Until it's written as a de jure exception to WP:CONTEXT, I'd very much inclined to disagree with the above statement.
Regards, Christopher D. Thieme (User:ExplorerCDT)
P.S. Is it just me or does Wikipedia need a policy house-cleaning to fix up these contradictions and ambiguities? ~cdt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WP:DATE. "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferenceshttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Preferences#Date_formatto work, displaying the reader's chosen format." It's necessary for technical reasons, not because people want to read the date articles.
Rory's comment is the one I think should be followed. If linking dates allows preferences to kick in, it avoids disputes about how the dates should be displayed.
Mgm
On 1/2/07, Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
Message: 5 Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:04:54 -0500 From: "Rory Stolzenberg" rory096@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Opinions sought: linking source-access dates per MoS? To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: 10011a3a0701011804p1d129e95pdf50af7eab570d12@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 1/1/07, Rory Stolzenberg" rory096@gmail.com wrote:
... Full dates are an exception to WP:CONTEXT.
And just where does WP:CONTEXT or any other guideline say that? From my reading it doesn't. Exceptions to rules or guidelines can't solely
exist
in the lacunae of convention and consensus, they need to be explicitly written. Until it's written as a de jure exception to WP:CONTEXT, I'd very much inclined to disagree with the above statement.
Regards, Christopher D. Thieme (User:ExplorerCDT)
P.S. Is it just me or does Wikipedia need a policy house-cleaning to fix up these contradictions and ambiguities? ~cdt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WP:DATE. "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferenceshttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Preferences#Date_formatto work, displaying the reader's chosen format." It's necessary for technical reasons, not because people want to read the date articles. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/1/07, Christopher Thieme cdthieme@gmail.com wrote:
And just where does WP:CONTEXT or any other guideline say that? From my reading it doesn't. Exceptions to rules or guidelines can't solely exist in the lacunae of convention and consensus, they need to be explicitly written. Until it's written as a de jure exception to WP:CONTEXT, I'd very much inclined to disagree with the above statement.
IMO, you have it the wrong way round. Rules and guidelines exist to codify accepted practise, and frequently lag behind it.
-Matt
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Christopher Thieme wrote:
P.S. Is it just me or does Wikipedia need a policy house-cleaning to fix up these contradictions and ambiguities? ~cdt
My "favorite" is about how some policies don't seem subject to [[WP:IAR]] because they explicitly state that nothing can override them, even consensus. Which suggests either these policies need to be rewritten or IAR needs to be. Attempting to get this fixed is like butting my head against a brick wall.
My "favorite" is about how some policies don't seem subject to [[WP:IAR]] because they explicitly state that nothing can override them, even consensus. Which suggests either these policies need to be rewritten or IAR needs to be. Attempting to get this fixed is like butting my head against a brick wall.
IAR is inherently contradictory, don't try and fix it, you'll just give yourself a headache.
Which something like that is plainly trivial, we have to be sure to maintain high standards -- after all, FAs are all about high standards. In fact, the highest, in theory at least.
On 1/2/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007, Christopher Thieme wrote:
P.S. Is it just me or does Wikipedia need a policy house-cleaning to fix
up
these contradictions and ambiguities? ~cdt
My "favorite" is about how some policies don't seem subject to [[WP:IAR]] because they explicitly state that nothing can override them, even consensus. Which suggests either these policies need to be rewritten or IAR needs to be. Attempting to get this fixed is like butting my head against a brick wall.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l