Talk:Pachi the Porcupine

explanation

I restored a recently excised paragraph. I think it is notable that the Globe decided to devote an entire article to Pachi's expense. I also broke up a sentence, as sentences that have footnotes in the middle, look odd. Geo Swan (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

And I removed it again. The paragraph simply explains what the table is, and the table does a good enough job of explaining that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with your excision. Is the information in the table from a Pan American website, or TOBlog, or Torontoist? Some people would dismiss the accuracy and reliability of info from a Pan American websit. Some people would dismiss tables from TOBlog, because they dismiss all blogs, and fail to recognize that the information from some blogs is as reliable, or even more reliable, than information from official journalists. (Scotusblog, for instance, is more reliable and notable than journalists, because journalists cite Scotusblog, and not vice versa.) The Globe and Mail is widely considered Canada's most prestigious and reliable newspaper, Canada's closest equivalent to the NYTimes. Can I call on you to explain why you don't recognize that the Globe's decision that a report on the mascot's expenses was worth a whole article, was notable, in and of itself? Geo Swan (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't unnecessarily rewrite references -- it misleadingly lights up diffs, like a christmas tree, when the article's intellectual content remains unchanged.

Please don't unnecessarily rewrite references -- it misleadingly lights up diffs, like a christmas tree, when the article's intellectual content remains unchanged.

This edit applied a {{mdy}} tag, and was explained with an edit summary that calls upon the authority of MOS:DATEFORMAT. MOS:DATEFORMAT says Special rules apply to citations; see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style. Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_style says: "Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD, because of the ambiguity concerning which number is the month and which the day. For example, 2002-06-11 may be used, but not 11/06/2002."

So, neither wikidocument provided a justification for rewriting a date within a {{cite}} template that was in YYYY-MM-DD format. The edit summary suggests the other contributor used an automated editing tool to make this edit. That is disturbing, as it suggests the automated editing tool is recommending confusing, time-wasting, edits, that have the bad side-effect of eroding the value the revision history to show when an article's actual intellectual has been changed. Geo Swan (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Changing a date format is perfectly legitimate and adding a maintenance template is also perfectly legitimate. The edit summary is perfectly clear: The listed event has the time stamp of the edit, the editor with links to my talk page and other contributions, the size of the article after the edit and what the change in bytes was, finally the summary: date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script. I used a script that is available to all editors and it automatically applies that summary. There's even a link to the script used. I'm not sure how it needs justification or could be confusing. With that said, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers is the general manual of style, while WP:CITESTYLE is specific to references and it states nothing about preserving a citation style in any specific format. Since the article is about a Canadian subject, WP:STRONGNAT suggests that either the format I selected (Month day, year) or the "international format (day Month year) may be used. It says nothing about maintaining ISO-8601. It's considered polite to make a format change like this, not rude. Do you have a reason for wanting it kept in ISO-8601?

Now on to your lack of understanding of rules of capitalization. Christmas is a proper noun and should always be capitalized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)