CZ:Article mechanics: Revision history

8 August 2009

• curprev 06:2506:25, 8 August 2009‎ imported>Peter Schmitt‎ 13,624 bytes +171‎ →‎Optional subpages: Catalogs, not categories
• curprev 06:2006:20, 8 August 2009‎ imported>Peter Schmitt‎ 13,453 bytes +1,429‎ →‎Metadata: more precise information

3 August 2009

• curprev 13:1613:16, 3 August 2009‎ imported>Hayford Peirce‎ 13,241 bytes 0‎ →‎Definition: minor rewriting -- maybe someday even *I* will understand what a lemma article is, although I'm not yet quite there
• curprev 13:1213:12, 3 August 2009‎ imported>Peter Schmitt‎ 13,241 bytes +1,217‎ →‎Definition: I saw "lemma article" (only) in some remarks and then found the explanation quite hidden. It should be mentioned here.

21 July 2009

• curprev 12:1512:15, 21 July 2009‎ imported>Peter Schmitt‎ 12,909 bytes +341‎ →‎Metadata: (new section) :: should be mentioned here!

1 July 2009

• curprev 13:1913:19, 1 July 2009‎ imported>Peter Schmitt‎ 12,568 bytes +21‎ Undo: that were indeed subsections to sections!
• curprev 12:1712:17, 1 July 2009‎ imported>Hayford Peirce‎ 12,547 bytes −21‎ changed all the section headers that had === around them to ==, which is, I rather the correct CZ way of formatting section headers. In any case, we shouldn't have an article with half and half
• curprev 07:1307:13, 1 July 2009‎ imported>Peter Schmitt‎ m 12,568 bytes 0‎ →‎Definition: typo
• curprev 07:1207:12, 1 July 2009‎ imported>Peter Schmitt‎ 12,568 bytes +544‎ →‎Citations: added section on Definition

15 June 2009

• curprev 23:4623:46, 15 June 2009‎ imported>Drew R. Smith‎ 12,024 bytes +44‎ →‎Conversions
• curprev 23:4223:42, 15 June 2009‎ imported>Drew R. Smith‎ 11,980 bytes +78‎ →‎Conversions
• curprev 23:4123:41, 15 June 2009‎ imported>Drew R. Smith‎ 11,902 bytes 0‎ →‎Conversions
• curprev 23:4023:40, 15 June 2009‎ imported>Drew R. Smith‎ 11,902 bytes −10,464‎ →‎Conversions
• curprev 00:5400:54, 15 June 2009‎ imported>Drew R. Smith‎ 11,840 bytes −2‎ →‎Conversions
• curprev 00:5100:51, 15 June 2009‎ imported>Drew R. Smith‎ 11,844 bytes +2‎ →‎Conversions
• curprev 00:5100:51, 15 June 2009‎ imported>Drew R. Smith‎ 11,842 bytes −10,524‎ →‎Quotations

30 May 2009

• curprev 08:4508:45, 30 May 2009‎ imported>Caesar Schinas‎ m 11,118 bytes +386‎ Robot: Changing template: TOC-right

31 March 2009

• curprev 11:1811:18, 31 March 2009‎ imported>Hayford Peirce‎ m 11,118 bytes −1‎ →‎Opening section: i don't think we need that second period
• curprev 06:2806:28, 31 March 2009‎ imported>Sandy Harris‎ 11,119 bytes +91‎ correct i.e. to e.g.

28 March 2009

• curprev 13:1013:10, 28 March 2009‎ imported>Hayford Peirce‎ 11,118 bytes +90‎ No, that sentence is in its correct place as an example of how the lede sentence should appear. But I tweaked it a little