Conditional formatting not updating automatically X x x n u d e

The reason 1583 is the first year that may be used without mutual agreement is because the Gregorian calendar went into force in Rome on 15 October 1582.--Jc3s5h (talk) , 8 October 2009 (UTC) Besides 1582 in Rome, see also Gregorian calendar#Adoption in Europe - the date of changeover varied, and seems to have been 1752 only in Britain and the British Empire (including the eastern part of what is now the United States).--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.

Similarly, in my second example above, User Eubulides' solution where the date made no sense has been to delete the entire citation (and he has done us the service of putting the other dates into YYYY-MM-DD format).--Epeefleche (talk) , 3 October 2009 (UTC)Goodness me, what a lot of head-in-the-sand nonsense has been written here.-- Alarics (talk) , 30 September 2009 (UTC) No, the suggestion to use (or ) needs to be removed, or at least a warning added, as both templates have important WP: ACCESSIBILITY problems and neither template should be recommended until the problems are fixed (which may take a while).Please see Template talk: Dts #Accessibility problem.I fail to see anything about the accessdate that makes YYYY-MM-DD superior to other formats, so I would prefer to see it consistent with the publication date and body of the article, except that it would be OK to abbreviate months.--Jc3s5h (talk) , 1 October 2009 (UTC)WP: CITE already says to comment out access dates for news cites, and also for web sites in cases where the target page has a clear pubication date. that access date is of no value to the ordinary reader.

-- Alarics (talk) , 29 September 2009 (UTC) As examples of Wikipedia editors confused by the ambiguity of the YYYY-MM-DD style, who have input what appear to be dates in the YYYY-DD-MM style (I am assuming of course that they were not dyslexic), we have [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. B.: Since I pointed out these errors, users have deleted or corrected the errors, so you will have to look back in the history to see my point.