Talk:HMS Waterloo (1833)

Military history: Maritime / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Ships Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Dates

Having the dates given only in formats that English people find hard to understand is not very helpful

When you give the date as 1833-06-10, to an English person that is nearly as unhelpful as giving it in Russian script. When I looked at it, I had to work out whether this meant 6th October 1833 or 10th June.--Toddy1 10:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is one of the standard Wiki methods of linking dates - it makes it quicker to type in and is rendered in the article text according to the user's preferences... It's just the ISO standard format, so YYYY-MM-DD. (and I am English by the bye) Martocticvs 10:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not where you are from, it is whether is it clear unambiguous and understandable. 6 October 1833 is all three. 1833-06-10 is none.--Toddy1 11:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some investigating, and although it IS a perfectly acceptable way of linking dates according to the Wiki style guide, it only works correctly if you are logged in - so yes I agree there is plenty of potential for confusion. I was under the impression that it would always render it out so that 1833-10-06 would become October 6 1833 by default. So with that in mind I'll go back to the somewhat more long-winded method - at least I haven't done too many articles that way... Martocticvs 11:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Toddy1 12:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]