Forum:Accesed VS retrieved
I just found out that at some of our references "accesed at February 5, 2011" (here for example) while at others it is "retrieved February 5, 2011" (here for example. With one is the correct one, or are they both correct?
Is "5 February 2011" correct aswell, or has it to be "February 5, 2011"? --Amroth 13:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think 'retrieved' and 'accessed' are interchangeable as we have no defined policy on it. However, I personally would follow the MHRA style which prefers 'accessed'. For example: 'accessed 5 February 2011'. -- 13:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have always used "accessed" because a) that's what I was told to at university and b) because I am merely visiting the webpage rather than bringing it back (with is what "retrieved" means, if we were being pedantic). There is no policy on this.
- On dates, we use both interchangeably. Although I'm British - and therefore favour "5 February 2011" - our date articles are in all American style so it's easier to type and link to them if I just conform to that.
- The important thing is to be consistent within an article, I think (although I would like a consistent policy across the wiki, I don't think we'll ever agree).--Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)