Yes, a simple (dd/mm/yy) would be great in them all. If there's no room in the title, just put it in the description.

That's a *quality idea.

Awarding notarobot with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by Sarzy.

>> ^gwiz665:
Yes, a simple (dd/mm/yy) would be great in them all. If there's no room in the title, just put it in the description.

Um i'm going to have to disagree and say it should be in a simple mm/dd/yy format

to avoid confusion between different conventions, how about dd/month/yyyy format?

ie. 15 March 2009; 29 June 2014

Why not just flick on Hotspot Shield? It's bound to be much quicker.

I mean it's no problem to me, I'll be sure to include it next time I sift anything from there.

Rottenseed: You americans with your weird orders... this is the imperial system all over again! dd/mm/yy is the logical choice, short of yy/mm/dd.

My vote is for (yyyy.mm.dd) -- While Americans have a tendency for mm/dd/yy while others use dd/mm/yy, to my knowledge everyone uses yyyy/mm/dd when the year is up front. Plus, if for any reason these titles end up being sorted by date, having them in y.m.d format ensures they will sort correctly. Using '.' instead of '/' as the separator is a stylistic choice; when I originally took French I was told that while '/' is used as a date separator here, '.' is used overseas. I don't know how true that is, but I typically use '.' for any international format as a result.