Conditional formatting not updating automatically
If the proposal fails, there will be no instructions on the proper way to incorporate YYYY-MM-DD into footnotes, other than not to use it outside the year range 1583 through 9999.
Proposed text: YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose, and should not be used in sentences or footnotes.Whatam Idoing (talk) , 1 October 2009 (UTC) My point is, how to write dates in footnotes will be fairly clear if the proposal is adopted, but will be unclear if it fails. And if it was, the start year would surely be 1752.Of course, someone could create a new proposal, but the guidance will be unclear unless and until a new proposal is adopted. - Denimadept (talk) , 7 October 2009 (UTC)If you are right, nothing stops us.--Alarics (talk) , 14 November 2009 (UTC) I prefer to write the month in words, that leaves no ambiguity. For example in India, the one followed is DD-MM-YY/ DD-MM-YYYY.Yogesh Khandke (talk) , 30 September 2009 (UTC) On the contrary.
Search for conditional formatting not updating automatically:
I note with great interest btw that in the short time since I pointed to the above example User: Rjwilmsi has already made a fix to the first date, a sign at how efficient our fixer-uppers are, and how even searcing out all such instances that exist today don't reflect the true level of confusion of the inputting editors, as fixer bots have already "fixed" unknown numbers of such errors.