Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Seasons)

Disagreement
Completely disagree. Many ancient histories specify the seasons of events without specifying the months. Those of Ammianus Marcellinus often do so. In addition, there may be seasonal clues or similar constraints. Authors may refer flooded rivers, harvests, snowfalls, etc.Jacob Haller 02:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In such case it should be stated that said historian described the event to have occurred during harvest, first snowfall etc, but this is entirelly useless information for a lot of people and it should be stated that the event probably occurred during or around X month of Y year.

Shniken 05:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Been there done that
See also: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions (March 2007)

This subject was addressed on April 2006:
 * See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Archive 8
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 47

And the subject is covered in a guideline: So I think that a new guidline called, "Naming conventions (Seasons)", is unnecessary (Avoid instruction creep)
 * See Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

Please post any follow-ups in this section to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions --Philip Baird Shearer 11:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

misplaced
The issue that this proposal is trying to address appears to be a Manual of Style issue about article content, not an naming issue about article titles. As such, this proposal is wrongly named, and the issue appears to be already covered in the MoS, so this is not needed by some other name, either. Should something be clarified somewhere to make it easier for the next person to find what is already written? --Scott Davis Talk 07:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh?
Please provide evidence of this actually being a problem?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)