This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 17:36, 3 June 2015 (Archiving 1 discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Archives/2. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:36, 3 June 2015 by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Archives/2. (BOT))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Vancouver and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently this project voted in favour of DMY against DATERET
I was not involved in the discussion so I'm opening it up again. First, the project has no jurisdiction over any articles, it's just a project. It can't make any proclamations about how a date format is to apply to all article in the project. Second, if you think I can, I'm opposed to an imposed DMY format. It's not used in the area. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- We decided awhile ago to use DMY in 2009 and 2012. This is where the major editors of the region came together to build consensus. It's not the authority of the WP, but the authority of consensus building among editors. Walter insists he's insistent that WP:DATERET is a rationale that doesn't take into consideration consensus of editors. And DMY is used in the area so please don't speak for all Vancouverites or people from BC. Unless you can provide a source that states the DMY doesn't exist in Surrey. Mkdw 19:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Could you point me to that discussion please?
- I don't speak for all Vancouverites, nor do I pretend to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's not in the archives and the second archive is labelled incorrectly. So please, show me where this decision was made by the whole project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Mkdw: Seriously. Where is this decision recorded? Who was involved in the decision? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- As a side note, DATERET is the consensus of the entire community of Misplaced Pages and a decision of a project cannot overrule the greater community consensus, particularly when it's done in secret. All project decisions may be scrutinized by the greater community for compliance with the greater community's goals. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Given the agreement between Walter (above) and I (my talk page) that this project's decision is contrary to the greater community consensus at DATERET, and that we are unable to locate the discussion(s) asserted to have taken place, I will be returning Greater Vancouver to its previous MDY format and will be looking at the other BC articles on my watchlist that may have been changed from MDY to DMY despite the predominant usage having been the former rather than the latter. Hwy43 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I fully concur. Point me at any articles that you need help with. It appears I've volunteered to be a member of the project! Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I realize I made a mistake and it was actually at the Talk:Vancouver where the discussion about DMY or MDY was brought up. So I apologize for that mistake on my part and ultimately affects our discussion and my stance on the issue. I will go back and take a look at some of the other articles against WP:DATERET. I think for our benefit it would help me if we could agree in how you're both applying DATERET. If we use Edmonton as an example, it started with DMY and then later switched to MDY. This is where "evolved using predominantly one format" and "date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used" are at oddst with one another. Let me know which part of the guideline you're prioritizing and I'll look back at some of the articles and apply it consistently. I've already flagged quite a few BC articles for example that started MDY and then switched to DMY later and for the majority of its lifespan and vice-versa. I think as Hwy43 stated, if the article has predominantly used one, it should be moved to that format for consistency and ahead of important as to what the first date was used. Mkdw 16:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I fully concur. Point me at any articles that you need help with. It appears I've volunteered to be a member of the project! Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Given the agreement between Walter (above) and I (my talk page) that this project's decision is contrary to the greater community consensus at DATERET, and that we are unable to locate the discussion(s) asserted to have taken place, I will be returning Greater Vancouver to its previous MDY format and will be looking at the other BC articles on my watchlist that may have been changed from MDY to DMY despite the predominant usage having been the former rather than the latter. Hwy43 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've started going back over the articles. I reverted my date changes to Abbotsford, British Columbia as it's clear that MDY was first used and predominantly used. There were a few that I was reverted on under the rationale of not following WP:DATERET, such as Coquitlam and Delta, British Columbia, but in looking at the articles, if following DATERET, DMY was first used and predominantly used. I've restored DMY in those cases and left comments on the talk page. Regards, Mkdw 18:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I assume that prose and references carry different weight. References, and many tools that create them, use the DMY format, and some use ISO 8601 format. Which of those were you looking at? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Since the guideline doesn't say, I didn't weight any dates different whether they were references over prose dates or tool created. As the guideline states, date format chosen by the first major contributor. Most of the first date formats appear around 2007-2009 and don't use tools anyway. For example in the Delta, BC article, it was a reference: . The editor manually formatted and put in the reference (i.e. didn't use a template) as well as used the ISO version redundantly. I did look at which format was predominantly used as well and haven't touched any articles that were one format and then evolved using another until I could talk about it with you and Hwy43. I'm of the preference that predominantly evolved date should override first introduced date anyway. If you're seeking clarity over prose versus references, maybe it should be asked at the WP:DATERET page for comment since the guideline doesn't make that distinction. Mkdw 05:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I will take that on. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Since the guideline doesn't say, I didn't weight any dates different whether they were references over prose dates or tool created. As the guideline states, date format chosen by the first major contributor. Most of the first date formats appear around 2007-2009 and don't use tools anyway. For example in the Delta, BC article, it was a reference: . The editor manually formatted and put in the reference (i.e. didn't use a template) as well as used the ISO version redundantly. I did look at which format was predominantly used as well and haven't touched any articles that were one format and then evolved using another until I could talk about it with you and Hwy43. I'm of the preference that predominantly evolved date should override first introduced date anyway. If you're seeking clarity over prose versus references, maybe it should be asked at the WP:DATERET page for comment since the guideline doesn't make that distinction. Mkdw 05:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I assume that prose and references carry different weight. References, and many tools that create them, use the DMY format, and some use ISO 8601 format. Which of those were you looking at? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Pride
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
- What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
- When? June 2015
- How can you help?
- 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
- 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Misplaced Pages articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
- 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Misplaced Pages, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa
Categories:- Project-Class Canada-related pages
- NA-importance Canada-related pages
- Project-Class British Columbia pages
- NA-importance British Columbia pages
- Project-Class Vancouver pages
- NA-importance Vancouver pages
- Project-Class Canadian communities pages
- NA-importance Canadian communities pages
- All WikiProject Canada pages