Talk:Patch Notes: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Eabrace (historical) m (→Dates) |
imported>Blondeshell (historical) m (update links) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Some links == | == Some links == | ||
* http://www.plaync.com/us/support/doc_4653.html | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20070921192010/http://www.plaync.com/us/support/doc_4653.html Chronological Patch Notes List] | ||
* http://www.plaync.com/us/support/doc_4603.html | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20070716133411/http://www.plaync.com/us/support/doc_4603.html 2004 Patch Notes] | ||
* http://www.plaync.com/us/support/doc_4617.html | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20070716133114/http://www.plaync.com/us/support/doc_4617.html 2005 Patch Notes] | ||
* http://www.plaync.com/us/support/doc_4618.html | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20070716133051/http://www.plaync.com/us/support/doc_4618.html 2006 Patch Notes] | ||
== Dates == | == Dates == | ||
Latest revision as of 05:47, 11 December 2013
Some links
Dates
I'd suggest renaming the individual patch notes pages to Patch Notes/yyyy-mm-dd so they go in order on the Category page. Adrey 13:17, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
- I agree with that suggestion. Not only does it let them sort better (which is very nice!), but it's also more clear. (Europe and the US define 1/2/07 different -- is it January 2 or February 1?) YYYY-MM-DD is an ISO standard, too. -- Sekoia 16:12, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
- Latest patch notes added using format of YYYY-MMM-DD (partially because there's no confusion on which part is the month when you use a three-letter abbreviation, partially because that's how I'm used to doing it at work and had saved it before I even thought about it.) Remaining links will have to be altered and associated articles will have to be moved to reflect the appropriate links. I could do that by hand if I was really bored, but sounds like a good job for a bot. --Eabrace 18:00, 2 October 2007 (EDT)