User talk:Yeng-Wang-Yeh

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Yeng-Wang-Yeh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass tagging of ABBA

You're on a quest to find all the right citations for this article, right? Otherwise, mass fact tagging like this makes it seem as if someone else should find all the cites for the article.

Don't get me wrong: the article should be cited, but here you have a perfect opportunity to do it yourself. That's what Wikipedia is for. I've done it many times. There is work behind the ^{[citation needed]} tag. Are you willing to do it? --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging is the first step. Yeng-Wang-Yeh (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Hi. I just noticed that you altered the formatting of dates in footnotes in the Kings (American TV series) article from the "February 1, 2010" format to "2010-02-01". This format used to be commonly used in footnotes, and is still widely seen, because some citation templates used to require it, and users who had set date autopreferencing would see it in their preferred format. However, since dates are no longer linked, these dates now appear in the "YYYY-MM-DD" format (which is not widely used outside Wikipedia, and is unfamiliar to many users). The Manual of Style recommends this date style only for lists, and also says, "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." So I'm reverting your change. In the future, please do not change date formats without prior discussion. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. This is one of those areas which has evolved considerably in recent years. The de facto standard used within the Wikipedia community appears now to be to use the international standard for dates, for all the usual reasons, especially for references.Yeng-Wang-Yeh (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, you said, "The Manual of Style does recommend that existing date formats be retained, especially for regular text, but sometimes an argument can be made for fix-ups in specific areas of usage for reasons of style and consistency." In the case of the Kings article, the text and footnotes of the article were completely consistent in using the standard American date format, so your change introduced inconsistency, not consistency. Without the "consistency" claim, you're left with "style", which the MoS and a related ArbCom decision explicitly say should not be used as a justification for changes of this sort. When date styles are inconsistent within an article, or within its footnotes, it is acceptable to change them to one standard; however, that's not what you did in this case.

It is true that YYYY-MM-DD dates are widely found on Wikipedia; however, that was not the result of any deliberate decision. It was a side-effect of the fact that this format used to be required in many citation templates, back when dates were linked and autoformatted (for logged-in users). Now, all these dates have been unlinked, leaving them as bare numbers, a date format which is unfamiliar to most readers and potentially confusing to some.

Finally, it's worth noting that the MoS explicitly says, "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness." Your comment above could be read as suggesting that dates in this format were acceptable in all circumstances, but especially in footnotes. This is not accurate. There is a consensus that this date format should not be used in main body text, and that it is permitted in tables. There is no consensus either way on its use in footnotes. Therefore, if you find an article which consistently uses another date format in its footnotes, please do not change them to YYYY-MM-DD. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for your comments. The wide array of opinions on Wikipedia is part of what makes it such an interesting place, especially considering the effort we all put into it for no pay whatsoever! ;) Yeng-Wang-Yeh (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]