Smokestack Basilisk

May 2014

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Tim Brennan. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Read & Check WP:DATE - there is no standardised date format - different people use different formats, Wikipedia recognises all. Regards Denisarona (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - maybe I should sleep instead of editing at this time. Again, Apologies. Denisarona (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification Requested

In your most recent revision to Lausanne Metro, when you removed the Use dmy dates template from the article, you wrote:

with a mixed date format you shouldnt be using that template

However, in the documentation of the Use mdy dates template (and I'm nearly positive the Use dmy dates template documentation is the same), it says:

In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body. However, it is common practice for archive and access dates to use the alternative ymd format. This usage is valid and is specifically mentioned at MOSDATE. In those cases, the archive and access date formats should not be altered when fixing dates. [emphasis mine]

So, which is it? - Does use of the Use dmy dates template overrule use of ISO ymd template in article reference 'accessdates'? Or should I restore the Use dmy dates template to the Lausanne Metro page, as it doesn't affect my use of ISO dates for reference accessdates?... TIA. --IJBall (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)