nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 358:
Line 358: + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages (view source)
Revision as of 07:52, October 16, 2008
, 07:52, October 16, 2008→Birth-Death: Having standards.
:No one, to my knowledge, is complaining about Liam writing here or the decision to have him write here. I don't view the date format question as being a big issue, but I'm rather ambivalent. I don't see it as being meaningful right now in that there are many, many more articles with birth and death dates than the number of people who will currently go around seeing that they adhere to an adopted standard. Generally speaking, I've found articles have a tendency to include full birth and death dates when they are larger and just the year when they are smaller. Mostly I see something like this after the person's name (1896 - 1964) which I think is acceptable. Likewise if an editor wanted to update it to (Jan 23, 1896 - Jul 21, 1964) that would be fine too. The fact is most of our editors who create articles and put in dates aren't going to be coming to this page for guidelines and I haven't seen any arguments or complaints about it so I think I am justified in not necessarily taking a strong position. I don't think it's necessary as our editors don't see to be having any difficulty with it as is, but I'm certainly not going to fight it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:52, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
:No one, to my knowledge, is complaining about Liam writing here or the decision to have him write here. I don't view the date format question as being a big issue, but I'm rather ambivalent. I don't see it as being meaningful right now in that there are many, many more articles with birth and death dates than the number of people who will currently go around seeing that they adhere to an adopted standard. Generally speaking, I've found articles have a tendency to include full birth and death dates when they are larger and just the year when they are smaller. Mostly I see something like this after the person's name (1896 - 1964) which I think is acceptable. Likewise if an editor wanted to update it to (Jan 23, 1896 - Jul 21, 1964) that would be fine too. The fact is most of our editors who create articles and put in dates aren't going to be coming to this page for guidelines and I haven't seen any arguments or complaints about it so I think I am justified in not necessarily taking a strong position. I don't think it's necessary as our editors don't see to be having any difficulty with it as is, but I'm certainly not going to fight it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:52, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Having a standard doesn't force anyone to start another project, but it does provide an opportunity for someone if they are looking for something to do.
:: Also, having a standard probably won't mean that people will come here for guidelines, but really, they should, shouldn't they? If you are going to contribute to an encyclopaedia, surely you have at least ''some'' obligation to find out what standards that encyclopaedia uses? But even if they don't, if editor A sees editor B doing something inconsistent with these standards, A could point this out to B (so B ''does'' learn even though he didn't come here first), or editor A could change it himself ''and have this standard as his justification'' in case there is any dispute about editor A changing editor B's work. There was a ''big'' argument on the [[talk:Isaac Newton|Isaac Newton]] talk page about whether or not to refer to him as "sir" in the first line. This is the sort of thing that having a standard can avoid.
:: You many be correct, Learn together, that it is not ''necessary'', but it is still quite useful and worth doing.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:52, 16 October 2008 (EDT)