 | Text and/or other creative content from ISO 8601 usage was copied or moved into ISO 8601 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Merge?
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result was merge into ISO 8601. -- heat_fan1 (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I think this article should be a part of the main article, not a stand alone. Someone that knows how to do it should append this to the main article and redirect from this articles to the main article.
James thirteen (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I expected a "usage" article to focus on ISO 8601 adoption statistics in various countries, like a more data-based version of Date and time notation by country. I agree that this list of related standards should be merged into the ISO 8601 article and this page should be deleted. --GlenPeterson (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with a merger too. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that the both articles should be merged together. //Sebastian Bergstroem 2012-11-26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.65.4 (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
In Your Face
editI am bemused that an article about the method and desirability of establishing a worldwide standard format for dates contains within its text such non-8601-compliant expressions as "current third edition published on 3 December 2004" and "the Gregorian calendar of 20 May 1875". Perhaps the authors and editors are fans of irony.