This page is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Randor1980: Questions such as whether it made sense to you in particular, or whether a lot of readers failed to notice the infelicity are only a part of the story. Encyclopaedic language needs to be readable, non-distracting and comfortable. It also should, if not actually imposing respect in unconcerned readers, should not attract mockery by pointless risibilities. Wikipedia is in any case the target of much ill will, and to supply lampooners with ammunition is definitely harmful. It is no good arguing that you and your friends understood; it is a question of maintaining quality visible to anyone equipped to appreciate it.
Now, the very nature of these monthly shots leaves them vulnerable to satirical quips, and the most effective way to forestall that is to word the boilerplate with great care. So far this has not been done, and the deficiency was not sufficiently corrected by my edit (I am not much at liberty at the moment.) I strongly urge you, or whoever is concerned with these articles, to reconsider the form of the lede. You already have problems with the nature of any heading that tells you the number of every month (The ninth huh? Surrrpriiise! What won't they...etc) but I forbear to quibble about that. But then the least we should do is avoid aggravating matters with schoolkid blunders like suggesting that September had one Monday plus 30 Tuesdays, or speaking of "the ninth month of the current common year". What do the editors intend to have there in 2015? Still the "current" year? Or "last year"? And then "two years ago"? Etc? And then justify it by arguing that readers with any sense would know what we mean and would piece out our imperfections? Or by having a team of our editors with nothing better to do than policing articles for time-sensitive wording that they update continually?
I propose lede boilerplate a bit more like:
September 2014, the ninth month of that year in the common calendar. Thirty days long, beginning on a Monday and ending on a Tuesday.
To avoid obvious banality, it might help to pad such a lede with more general material, such as moon phases etc, but I'd rather not get involved in that discussion. JonRichfield (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
