Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 152

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 145

←

Archive 150

Discussion over at WT:ANIME

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A discussion is currently taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga on how broadcast times for shows should be presented in the article text. Opinions from non-WikiProject Anime and manga participants is very much appreciated. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a WP:RS issue (secondary vs. primary sources), mostly. The date style matter is that the discrepancy between the "release" date and the airdate (which differ only by crossing the midnight date line) are being represented with pseudo-times like "May 21 at 25:00" in some sources, and this ought not be done on WP, per our date formatting rules. But this issue is obviated automatically if RS is followed (even if it weren't, the alternative proposed was to give one date and then the other in a footnote, so no MOS:NUM problem either way). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Interaction between DATEFORMAT guidelines

Latest comment: 9 years ago46 comments7 people in discussion

I have said this elsewhere, but I just wanted to document here my common-sense understanding of the interactions between these guidelines, based on their wording:

Ignore all rules (WP:IAR) and Use common sense (WP:COMMONSENSE): Consensus on a specific article/topic may decide to ignore the below guidelines.
Common sense should be used and occasional exceptions will apply to the guidelines below, for good reason as determined by consensus of editors on a specific article or topic area.
Consistency (MOS:DATEUNIFY): Each article should use the same date format (with exceptions for publication and access/archive dates), without expressing any preference for DMY or MDY.
Strong national ties to a topic (MOS:DATETIES): Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation:
- US topics use MDY except US military topics use DMY (it is proposed that they may use DMY or MDY);
- Canada may use DMY or MDY;
- Other English-speaking countries use DMY.
- There may be other exceptions not expressly documented in the guideline.
Retaining existing format (MOS:DATERET): If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, don't change it unless:
- to conform with strong national ties (MOS:DATETIES); or
- there is consensus on the article's talk page otherwise (WP:IAR).

This represents an order of priority. That is:

Local consensus overrides all else;
DATETIES overrides DATERET, so an article on an Australian topic written with MDY dates can be changed to DMY dates unless there is an explicit consensus on the article's talk page (including archives) to use MDY anyway;
DATERET requires the existing format be retained unless DATETIES applies or there is explicit consensus on the article's talk page;
In any case, each article should be consistent in using DMY or MDY unless local consensus dictates otherwise.

If anyone seriously disagrees with this, then perhaps some revisions would make this clearer. —sroc 💬 14:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

My first thought is that "1." should incorporate the notion, as given in MOS top-of-page banners, of occasional exceptions i.e. exceptions for good reason, not just because editors on a given article decide "We'd rather do it this other way." EEng (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. That's rather clear from the wording of WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. —sroc 💬 15:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Understand, friend sroc, that I'm only pressing this because of the high tensions traditionally associated with date guidelines. Since so far it's just you and me I've modified your text to emphasize the occasional aspect, subject of course to your objection. EEng (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking this could become an essay. —sroc 💬 04:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Excursion regarding US military topics and other exceptions to MOS:DATETIES

If we accept that local consensus overrides any guidelines here, and consensus of editors on a specific article or topic area is paramount, then why attempt to modify the guidelines on a particular topic area - in this case the modern U.S. Military - when there exists a community of editors dealing with that very topic area? Is this not self-contradictory? --Pete (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Why limit this guideline to English-speaking nations? The choice between DMY and MDY in prose is akin to the choice between SI and Imperial measurements. A nation uses one or the other (apart from ISO, which we do not support in prose), and it seems odd to see (say) articles on French subjects use MDY. It is like giving the height of the Eiffel Tower in feet and inches. --Pete (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is about the interaction between the DATEFORMAT guidelines mentioned above. It is NOT about:

the appropriate format for US military articles; or
whether DATETIES should apply to topics about non-English speaking countries.

Please stick to the subject. —sroc 💬 14:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur. It is difficult enough to discuss these matters without folks wandering off the farm. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If this is not about US military articles, then why mention them above, specifying a difference from what currently exists? All we need say is that some topic areas may use a different format from the usual national format? U.S. Military is mentioned as an example. There may be others. We cannot specify them here in the MoS, and following point 1 above, we cannot dictate what format such topic areas must use. Do you see how this naturally falls into the order of priority? --Pete (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The guideline explicitly mentions US military articles, so I mentioned it above. I have now inserted a line acknowledging that there may be other exceptions. —sroc 💬 12:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sroc: to the extent the above reflects your personal understanding, there can hardly be any argument: it is factual statement of your understanding. However, to the extent you are proposing that everyone one else should accept this understanding, well, that's what we are arguing about.

I point out that allowing "common sense" to override all other considerations could be a serious problem. You will recall that back on 25 May even two reasonable editors (Hawkeye7 and Resolute, at 11:12 and 14:10, resp.) differed as to whether common sense supported DMY or MDY dates. Even if we truly had a commonality of good sense I think we would still need guidelines. As it is, there are indications that some editors take "common sense" to be their estimation of what is sensical, never mind any bureaucratic guidelines. Undoubtedly there will be exceptions, but I think local consensus should be the arbiter of any exceptions and "common sense". I say we should go with your "local consensus overrides all else", and state that at the top. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to come in like this, but there's an awful lot above that I don't want to read. Could the proponent of change summarise briefly the problems with the current guidelines on this area? It seems to have worked smoothly enough. I leave date formats in US military articles as I find them, as long as they're consistent. Tony (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: Please see my context below. —sroc 💬 13:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

And I leave date formats in all articles as I find them, as long as they are consistent. But should mass changes, done unilaterally and without discussion, and even contrary to an existing consistency, such as we have in the case presented in the discussion above (#User converting date formats in complete articles) be allowed to stand, or reverted?

As to the need for change, I would concur with sroc's list of several deficiencies in the current wording of these policies (see 14:42, 9 June). These include:

lack of clarity in application to US military biographies.
lack of clarity re military personnel notable for non-military reasons.
emerging consensus that both DMY and MDY should be acceptable.
frequent disregard of the guideline.

Regarding the last item note also Jc3s5h's comment above (20:42, 6 July) that not following the guideline (at least in new articles) is an "unacceptable error". I find this interpretation troubling, as seems to invite "corrections" where none are really needed. E.g., Transatlantic telegraph cable uses MDY (i.e,. "U.S.") dates, even though no part of it crosses U.S. territory, and the eastern end is definitely in "DMY territory". By this interpretation that is prima facie an "unacceptable error" begging for correction. On the contrary, I argue that what needs correction is the guideline that (arguably) allows such unneeded and often divisive actions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it (sroc's interpretation as seen by J. Johnson); an article which is not tied to a specific specific country which uses DMY may use MDY, while an article which is not tied to a specific specific country which uses MDY may use DMY. "Transatlantic telegraph cable" is not tied to any specific country, so should not be changed from the first usage without consensus. If the guideline wording doesn't match this (I think it does, whether or not amended for US Military), it needs to be changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Although the Transatlantic telegraph cable is physically tied (anchored?) in Newfoundland (Canada, use either MDY or DMY, per guideline) and Ireland (use DMY?), I grant that you are taking a more nuanced view of "strong ties". But neither WP:STRONGNAT nor MOS:DATETIES explain what those are, and application is based entirely on any editor's subjective understanding of the term. (See WP:STRONGNATSUCKS.) I agree with you that date formats "should not be changed from the first usage without consensus" (at least not en masse). But the guideline not only does not say this (where??), it is being explicitly cited (aka MOS:NUM, MOS:DATEFORMAT, WP:DATERET, WP:DATETIES, etc.) as license for doing such unilateral, non-consensual changes. (E.g., I invite your attention to the case discussed just above.) Sroc's assessment was mainly about the U.S. military rule, but I deem "strong ties" (whether national or any other) to be flawed overall. And the use of this guideline as license for unilateral mass-changes is a fundamental deficiency that does need correction. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Tangent into whether "strong national ties" is flawed

Strong national ties is how edit-warring and disruption was and is minimised. It may be flawed on some absolute level, but it is a practical measure that works. --Pete (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not may be flawed on some absolute level, but is flawed on a definite pragmatic level. That the current wording has minimized edit-warring is certainly disputable, and I argue even encourages disruption. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JJ. I am sure that you feel that your opinions etc. inside your head are true and correct, but for the rest of us, could you give some diffs, please? Three that have made it to a noticeboard, for example. --Pete (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Funny guy, I can find three cases at ANI involving you. But presumably you are only interested in cases after 2008, when, according to you, MOS:DATETIES and WP:STRONGNAT minimized edit-warring and disruption. Fine. Here's four cases where editors either disputed the date guidelines, or cited them for questioned edits:

But so what? Your criterion here (cases reaching ANI) is like trying to estimate the homicide rate in the U.S. by the number of death penalty cases reaching the Supreme Court. To properly measure the residual disruption caused by the current guideline wording would take more skill than I have, but I think we all have seen examples of editors running free with date format changes, often citing the MOS to beat down any opposition. If you have already forgotten, then do what you have told me before: read the archives. Or if that is too much of stretch, just look at the discussion immediately above. where a question has been asked on how the guidelines apply to a questioned edit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I'm not being funny. Disruption on Wikipedia is easily measured because if something causes more than a minimal amount of fuss it will be reported on some noticeboard or other. I'm looking to test your assertion above that "I argue that … the current wording … even encourages disruption."

Looking at your examples:

WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#1exec1 and Template:Use dmy dates 1exec1 applied a "Use DMY" template to several articles that were already in a hidden category "Use DMY dates". The example given, that of a Scottish soldier who had fought in France and returned to support Bonnie Prince Charlie in Scotland where he became notable, seems a clear case of an article where DMY date formats are completely in accordance with MOSDATE. I'm not sure if someone wrongly complaining about another editor's legitimate actions counts as disruption, and the complaint seems to be more about the use of a bot to add a template, rather than the format itself.
WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive191#User:O'Dea reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: Already Warned) This looks to be pretty straightforward. Editor O'Dea was incorrectly applying a DMY format to a US-centric article, specifically a caption to an image of President Obama following the 2012 Aurora gun massacre. The discussion is about the continuation of edit-warring over another image, citing copyright issues. It's hard to see how this could be construed as misunderstanding STRONGNAT. US date formats for US articles is about as straightforward as it gets.
WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Matej1234 This looks to be about footnotes and date ranges more than date formats, though I can see one instance where Matej applied a DMY format date to a Spain-centric article, which goes back to DATERET and the article's second edit. Not sure how this increases disruption. I quote from the initial complaint, "I am reporting User:Matej1234 for continued and persistent removal of the template:no footnotes against consensus and policy". Date formats don't get more than one tangential mention in the final paragraph of the discussion.
WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#date format warrior This is an editor changing date formats on US articles from YMD to MDY. We don't support YMD format in text and changing YMD formats in references to match the format used in the text is not a problem, except to someone who thinks YMD formats are the way to go.

None of them look like much to me. But let's be generous. Could you explain how you see four cases in eight years as a good example of "increasing disruption"? I'm just guessing here, but if I look at the years preceding 2008, I'll bet I can find a LOT more cases involving date formats. --Pete (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You asked for three cases "that have made it to a noticeboard", without further qualification. I met your criterion, with an additional post-2009 qualification, which would seem sufficient for establishing that such cases exist. However, you want to quibble. Fine. Let's look closer.

You have characterized the first case as "someone wrongly complaining about another editor's legitimate actions ...." "Wrongly" and "legitimate" are very subjective here. But the key issue was about the appropriateness of making unilateral mass changes on the basis of MOSNUM, without prior consultation on the talk page. I note also your comment then (11:25, 3 April 2012) which implied that exceptions to WP:MOSDATE can be made by consensus on the talk page

I cite the second case not because of any question about the proper format to use, but because disputaton of WP:DATE fueled the edit-war. In the third case there was disruption sufficient to bring it to ANI, and date formatting was considered part of it, so it meets the criterion you established. Similarly with the fourth case: the relevance here is not to re-argue the appropriateness (or not) of YMD, but to illustrate a typical debacle where the date guidelines are being wielded as cudgels.

Which I think is enough chasing of moveable goal posts. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to do irony, JJ. You do very little but evade uncomfortable examination of your unfounded assertions. I'm looking to test your assertion above that "I argue that … the current wording … even encourages disruption." Let's just stick to that, if you please. You haven't shown much disruption with your four very minor cases, let alone an increase from your arbitrary 2009 starting point. If you say that the wording encourages disruption, then where the hell is it? All in your mind, I suggest. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

So you asked for three cases serious enough to get raised on a noticeboard, and I provided four, but now you say that they are minor, and anyway four is not a big number, so therefore there is no problem. I have a feeling that you were not engaged in sincere discussion, but were simply trolling; I wonder if you would accept as an indication of a problem anything less than blocking of multiple editors and direct intervention from Jimbo. As you have previously rejected "trying to deal with individual articles here" there is no point going in that direction. Since you are not willing to examine your own assumptions (e.g., the whole "format warrior" thing) and caveats, and have evaded my questions, I see no useful future for this discussion. Besides which, I am tired of humoring you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you grow weary of unsuccessfully defending your unfounded opinions, JJ. If that is the case, then so be it, and you may turn your attention to other matters, where I trust you will be more productive.

I see that you disagree with my characterisation of the four cases you provided. I indicated why they were tangential or minor, but you disagree, characterising them as akin to important Supreme Court cases. I let your comments on each case rest for a while, but you think that they are momentous, so I will respond.

WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#1exec1 and Template:Use dmy dates You said,"But the key issue was about the appropriateness of making unilateral mass changes on the basis of MOSNUM, without prior consultation on the talk page." No. The key issue was about using a bot to apply templates. Did you even read the discussion on ANI? As for the example given being subjective, again, you are wrong. The subject of the article was a Scottish soldier who became notable in Scotland. The MoS leaves no room for subjective opinion: DMY is the appropriate format to use. It is hard to see how the MoS could be plainer on this point, but you consider this is an example of the wording encouraging disruption. That is a ludicrous argument and patently false.

WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive191#User:O'Dea reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: Already Warned) You said, "disputaton of WP:DATE fueled the edit-war." A case of an editor wrongly applying DMY dates to a US non-military topic. Again, it is crystal clear which format should be applied but you see the MoS's wording as being the problem. The editor was in error and was swiftly corrected. I see this as Wikipedia's policies working exactly as intended.

WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#Matej1234 You said, " In the third case there was disruption sufficient to bring it to ANI, and date formatting was considered part of it, so it meets the criterion you established." What nonsense! As I pointed out, the issue of date format is tangential in the extreme. Did you just do a search on noticeboards for incidents involving dates and copy the links without even reading them, thinking that I would be as lax?

WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#date format warrior You said, " Similarly with the fourth case: the relevance here is not to re-argue the appropriateness (or not) of YMD, but to illustrate a typical debacle where the date guidelines are being wielded as cudgels." See my comments immediately above. One editor correctly applied policy and another opined that he did not like it. He received no support at all in a wider forum. You do not indicate how you see this incident as increasing disruption over some previous wording, but if you could do so now, that would be helpful to your argument. On the face of it, I cannot see you could seriously present this, but I may have missed some subtle point.

Your assertion is that "I argue that … the current wording … even encourages disruption." Is this still the case, or are you now arguing something more general? --Pete (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

With just a brief glance over your comments I see you claim the the MOS couldn't be plainer, and is crystal clear, perhaps more. If so, than one can wonder why such cases ever arose in the first place, let alone to ANI. You could blame inattentive, thick-headed editors on Missions from God, but those are the kinds of editors we have, and the MOS is woefully deficient if it works only for obviously common-sensical erudites such as yourself.

Responding to you seems hardly worthwhile. Even if I "win" on the significance of those four cases, you have already indicated your next defense: it's "only" four cases. So how many do I need to produce: a dozen? twenty? Or do you just keep raising the bar? Just like you keep revising (i.e., misrepresenting) my positions, so now it's not enough that I show that any disruption exists, but, according to you, I am expected to show increasing disruption. I give up on discussing this with you not because you "right", but because it seems that the basis of your fear all change (re the MOS) is deeper than I can reach with reasonable expenditure of time and patience. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion is that "I argue that … the current wording … even encourages disruption." I am asking you to support your claim. If you are unable to do this, that's fine, that's how logic works, it's not a personal thing. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is timestamped 22:32, but that fails to show this edit at 22:59 where you corrected your original misrepresentation. While I am all for corrections, it amounts to deceit to make them without acknowledgement. Surely you know how to do "~~original~~" and "revised", right? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

JJ, thanks for pointing this out. I've noticed that you prefer to seize upon trivia, rather than provide substance in support of your opinions. I'm interested in why you do this. Comments? --Pete (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresentation is hardly trivial, as it leads to totally irrelevant arguments. Why do you that so much? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

See above, brother. --Pete (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Above" covers a lot of ground. Why don't you just answer the question? Is it because you don't really know? Or perhaps you don't pay close enough attention? Or do you just have too much attitude to actually engage with others in working out what the issues are? Perhaps you are slightly dyslexic, and confused "don't GAF" with "do AGF"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Context

To bring this discussion back on track, the purpose of my original post was not directed at US military articles; I only mentioned them because they are expressly mentioned as an exception to DATETIES. The purpose of this discussion is to clarify the interaction between the various guidelines. I had thought my introduction made this clear.

I brought this up mainly because my understanding of the priority as set out in my original post has been disputed by others. For example, when I previously noted that "DATETIES is an exception to DATERET", J. Johnson replied: "sroc's ... view that WP:DATETIES overrides WP:DATERET is a questionable view ..." It doesn't help discussions on specific issues (e.g., whether dates should be change to comply with DATETIES in established articles) when there is disagreement on what the underlying guidelines mean.

For the record, this is my understanding of the principles behind these guidelines:

DATEUNIFY: Inconsistent dates are bad, mmmkay?
DATETIES: When articles relate to topics related to a specific English-speaking countries, it makes sense to use the date format common to that country because either readers/editors will tend to be from this country and find it convenient or readers from elsewhere will find it naturally fitting for the article. This does not apply to topics related to non-English-speaking countries because this is the English language Wikipedia.
DATERET: Unless needed to comply with DATEUNIFY or DATETIES, so don't editwar over dates and leave them as they are. Wikipedia's readers come from all over the world, including many from the USA and many from other English-speaking countries, so either DMY or MDY dates are generally acceptable.

Having regard to the example of the Transatlantic telegraph cable article mentioned above, the topic (presumably) does not have strong ties with any specific English-speaking country, so DATETIES does not apply to force the choice. DATERET requires that the current format (MDY) be kept unless there is consensus to change it (e.g., editors may agree that DMY dates should be used because the cable is associated with many countries including English-speaking countries that use DMY and not the USA, but this is a matter for consensus rather than a unilateral change without discussion).

There are a few comments where editors have suggested it's best to leave date formats alone "as long as they're consistent", but this doesn't accommodate cases where date formats are inconsistent, least of all when no one contributes to discussions about date formats on their talk pages. It would be helpful to have clarity over how to apply these guidelines in cases like this.

As to J. Johnson's comment: "Undoubtedly there will be exceptions, but I think local consensus should be the arbiter of any exceptions and 'common sense'. I say we should go with your 'local consensus overrides all else', and state that at the top." This should go without saying because, as COMMONSENSE itself says:

Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.

Finally, there's nothing I've seen in the guidelines that says that changes to articles cannot be made to comply with the guidelines without discussing them or gaining consensus on the articles' talk pages first. Indeed, the guidelines are based on the premise that consensus can override the guidelines. Moreover, the principle in BRD is that changes can be made boldly and only reverted if the changes make Wikipedia worse—not just because the changes were not discussed first (especially if the change is a good one to comply with the guidelines). —sroc 💬 13:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, sroc. Of course DATETIES has a higher priority than DATERET; it's stated right there in the MoS. My interruptions above were:

in reaction to your rewording of the US military text. It introduced a change in meaning, which I considered incautious.
To highlight an inconsistency with DATETIES - that of the English-language restriction. This seems to be unique to date formats. There is no such restriction regarding units of measurement at WP:UNIT or currencies at WP:$, but this is the English-language Wikipedia, so if the "English-speaking" restriction is important in DATETIES, why is it not worth mentioning in regard to units of measurement and currencies? --Pete (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Scoc: dateunify, yes; dateties, yes, but the "fitting" is much deeper than just a hypothesis about reader origins (we don't write the article on Chicago just for US readers—call it an issue of national identity/ego, if you wish; it keeps things calm, and BTW in practice it seems to be applied to articles related to majority anglophone countries, with anglophone-minority countries tagging along, with less urgency, mostly using dmy, except the Philiphines, which mostly uses mdy ... I apply dateret to those). Dateties does trump ret.
There are two grey areas: the US military one (especially admiralty), where I apply dateret (who wants to be yelled at?); and bios where, say, they were born in the UK and spent most of their career in the US ... needs to be negotiated on the talkpage if there's trouble, but ret is good enough for me). Are the guidelines really deficient? I do tons and tons of this, and complaints are rare. Tony (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC) And PS, I harmonise dates in reference lists to the form chosen for the article. Tony (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Same here. The only time I get reverted on this are instances of WP:OWN (especially WP:CITEVAR fetishism), and usually even then only by individuals who have a long-standing bone to pick with me personally, or with MOS in generally, making it a WP:POINTy exercise as well as OWNish. There doesn't seem to be a widespread issue. And the "Canada trick" I outlined in another thread could be used to obviate most disputes that aren't POINTy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The box at the top of this thread (with the first point revised as it has been) correctly describes the logic in my view. It permits that there can be exceptions per common sense and consensus, so we do not need to instruction creep by trying to specifically address every possible dispute that could arise. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. The only element that is open to interpretation is DATETIES. Local consensus (such as for the modern US military) will preclude many disputes, but I'm wondering just how much of a problem really exists. Editors aren't wrangling over date formats near as much as they used to, at least in my experience over many years. --Pete (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Essay

Thanks everyone for your comments. I have written an essay to provide an overview. See:

Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines (WP:DATEOVER)

The essay, of course, does not have the same standing as a guideline but may help editors to understand how the guidelines should be applied. It is based on the box at the beginning of this discussion but adapted with an introduction for context. I am indebted for EEng's contributions on the wording, and the comments of others above such as Pete regarding proposed changes to DATETIES on US military topics (I have based the essay on the current wording) and JJ on the "common sense" exceptions (which are clearly explained at the end, as this seems like a more logical place after explaining the blackletter provisions in the guideline itself).

As others such as SMcCandlish and Tony1, I don't think DATEFORMAT requires any clarification on this, but I hope the essay meets with broad support and may be useful in directing editors who are otherwise confused. —sroc 💬 03:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work. Is there any reason we cannot simply replace what is already in MosDate with this? --Pete (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pete: Thanks. You're not serious, I trust? MOSDATE has the detail, the essay is the basic digest. Having said that, if we were so inclined, we could use a summary like the essay in MOSDATE and link to the more detailed provisions on sub-pages (like how Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Calendar items links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Seasons and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Acronyms links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Acronyms). —sroc 💬 09:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty well summarised at Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Dates and time §§ Days:

Choice of format

All the dates in a given article should have the same format (day-month or month-day). However, for citations, see WP:Citing sources § Citation style. These requirements do not apply to dates in quotations or titles.
Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that country (month-day for the US, except in military usage; day-month for most others; articles related to Canada may use either consistently).
Otherwise, do not change an article from one form to another without good reason. More details can be found at WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Dates.

—sroc 💬 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm serious. If we have two pieces of text saying the same thing, we should use that which is best suited to the purpose, and here clarity and understanding is the purpose. So far as I can see, your essay says the same thing as what we already have in MoS, but in a way that communicates the facts better. --Pete (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that assessment of how to build good guidelines. But also agree with sroc's own point that MOSDATE provides more details. So, either a merge into MOSNUM using sroc's clearer wording and format where feasible, or perhaps merging with the material in MOS proper, so that it contains the clearer explanation, while the other details remain here in MOSNUM (MOS's own hyper-short summary seems maybe too compressed). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What if the essay were move to (or replicated at) Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Dates and time §§ Days? Then it would provide a handy summary but still preserve the detail at MOS:DATEFORMAT for anyone who wants it. —sroc 💬 09:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Military dates, round 2

Latest comment: 9 years ago155 comments19 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to change existing practice. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello.

Is anybody noticing that today's article on Paul Tibbets is using mdy dates, despite his background in the U.S. military?

I will remind people of this discussion, archived not so very long ago, where I was more or less ridiculed for being of the opinion that people of the U.S. military should have mdy dates, just like other American people. The reason: Wikipedia is larger than military life, and problems arise when people have another notable career, such as in the case of Dwight D. Eisenhower, John McCain, Audie Murphy, James Stewart, Wesley Clark, and many more. This problem does not occur in the U.S. military, as they, unlike Wikipedia, don't write about just about everything.

In Tibbets' case, it's doubtful that his post-military career is notable, as it's connected to his background in the U.S. Air Force. That career alone had, most probably, not qualified him for an article here. Thus, he's mainly known for his military background. Still, his article uses mdy dates.

I put it to you that the constant re-surfacing of this issue, and the numerous articles of American military people that have mdy dates (despite the guideline), is an obvious indicator that the guideline that was "hammered out" at WP:MILHIST may not necessarily be the correct one.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a change to MOS/Dates you're proposing? Otherwise, discuss this with other editors on the Tibbrts talk page? If that discussion convinces you a change is needed in the guidelines then come back here and propose something. So far I'm just hearing that some articles still need to be brought into conformance with best practice. EEng (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

There's always border cases. Use whatever format seems best after talk page discussion and don't be anal about dates. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

If we change the guidelines – remember: consensus can change – then there will not be any border cases. Articles on American people will have mdy dates, period.

In any case, this Tibbets guy clearly isn't a border case; his post-military career is just barely notable, he's mainly notable for his military career (dropping the bomb), and thus, according to the current interpretation of the guideline, the article should have dmy dates. But I have no intention whatsoever to bring that up on the article talkpage, because I believe that the current interpretation is wrong, and thus the article correct. Instead, the guidelines, or the interpretation of them, should change, which is why I brought it up here.

The interpretation of this clause – articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage – is what need to change. To me, it's obvious that this does not apply to people. You don't say about people that "there goes a modern military".

Yes, the military use dmy dates when referring to people too (they do it consistently), but wikipedia is larger than the military, which is why these problems arise.

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General. EEng (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: Without any explicit consensus on that article's talk page and there having been no recent edits about this from the article's edit summaries, I have boldly changed the article to DMY format citing MOS:DATETIES. If anyone disputes this, they can revert and discuss on that article's talk page. The reference to "military" doesn't exclude people in the military and I disagree with your view that this is "obvious" based on your flawed use of an adjective as a noun. —sroc 💬 18:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It does not include people either, and what about the problems that constantly arise? They will vanish if we just change the flawed interpretation. There are hundreds of notable American military people in wikipedia with mdy dates. This article made it all the way up to FA status without anybody noticing the deviation from the current interpretation, so everyone involved in the process must have thought it was both natural and consistent with guidelines to use mdy. That's a clear sign that there's a problem. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Btw, I just reverted your bold edit per BRD. I wasn't able to "undo" that particular edit, so I'm notifying you here. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you proposing a change to the guidelines? If so, what change? EEng (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: DATETIES says: "articles on the modern US military use day before month". To my mind, this means any topic relating to the US military, including personnel. In practice:

the articles on current US Army Chief of Staff Raymond T. Odierno and Air Force Vice Chief Larry O. Spencer, former Marine generals John R. Allen, Michael J. Williams and Peter Pace are inconsistent in using both DMY and MDY dates;
the articles on Vice Chief of Staff Daniel B. Allyn, Sergeant Major Daniel A. Dailey, Navy Chief Jonathan Greenert, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Michelle J. Howard and Air Force Chief Mark Welsh use MDY dates only;
the articles on US Army Lieutenant General James L. Terry and Air Force General John E. Hyten use DMY dates only;
not sure about others, but most seem to use MDY dates. So yes, some clarification is needed.

It's also ambiguous what "modern" means, so it would be good to clarify this, too. When did the US mititary adopt DMY date format? —sroc 💬 19:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC) [addenda to 20:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)]

For "modern", see Modern History. It was adopted during World War I. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What about General officers in the United States, which used inconsistent date formats, even within the section referring to the World War II era? I've reconciled these to DMY consistently. —sroc 💬 20:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It is true that Paul Tibbets is not notable outside his military service (although he would still be notable had he not flown the Hiroshima mission). Had the article been created today, it would have been created with DMY dates per the WP:STRONGNAT; but it was created in 2004 (the change history doesn't go back that far). That the article used Polish dates (as they are called in the US) did not go unnoticed at FAC and other reviews; but the decision was taken to leave the article as it was per WP:RETAIN. Occasionally a USAF serviceman comes along and makes an edit, using US format, and I switch the date format. The consensus on Wikipedia over a long period of time has been to allow both Polish and US Military date formats, with the expectation that the MDY format will die off over time. Changing the rules as suggested will not eliminate border cases; it will create more of them. We still have plenty of cases of people whose nationality changed or is uncertain, of conflicts between sides using different dates, of battles and wars fought by coalitions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Tiresome EEng repeats himself

I'm going to repeat my strict line that this page is for discussion of changes to MOS/Dates. There either should be a proposal on the table for such a change or, at least, diffs should be provided of actual discussions, on actual articles, suggesting that such a change is needed. If someone thinks the Tibbets article should be changed, go open a discussion there. Otherwise we shouldn't be discussing this here, because most people here aren't interested in that article or its subject, and therefore the discussion tends to become abstract and hypothetical. For example, sroc says above that "modern" is ambiguous; well, certainly it is to at least some extent, but it has yet to be shown that it's ambiguous enough that editors waste time fighting over it on real articles.

The purpose of DATERET, DATETIES, DATEWHATTHEFUCK, and all the other guidelines on this subject is not to make sure each article uses the "right" date format for that article; there's no such thing -- if all articles used MDY, or all used DMY, or articles were assigned to use one or the other by coinflip at the moment of creation, the earth would keep turning and no one would have the slightest problem comprehending the article or be incommoded in any way. And if there was some weird software restriction that compelled only MDY to be used, or only DMY, and there was positively no way to change that, everyone would eventually get used to it and we'd all move on.

But the choice is in fact there, and people feel strongly about it. And thus we have the various DATEWHATEVER guidelines, whose purpose is (as I said) not to "get it right" but merely to cut the baby in half and end debate to the extent possible, so everyone can get back to something productive. So as long as editors are working it out for themselves on article talk pages, there's nothing for us to do here. I'd like to see evidence that that's not happening before this discussion continues.

All IMHO, of course. EEng (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I listed four articles above that use both DMY and MDY interchangably. I want to change them to ensure that they are at least consistent within each article (DATEUNIFY), and ideally consistent with related articles, but there is confusion over whether DATETIES applies to military personnel. So yes, some clarity is needed, and it's not purely hypothetical, nor would it be productive to have the same arguments about the scope of DATETIES over and over separately on each article's talk page—I'm just not sure how best to resolve it other than by discussion here. —sroc 💬 02:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but how do you know there will be any argument at all? I suggest you decide what format you think each article should use, and post that on each article's talk page. If there are no interested editors watching, or those who are watching don't object, you're done. Otherwise, if brief discussion doesn't resolve the matter, come back here. At that point our discussion will have the benefit of the (presumably) thinking of the people who participated on the article Talks. That will make any discussion here much more informed. EEng (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of having disjointed discussions on the same issue on multiple talk pages when we already have an audience here? I might post links to this discussion on the relevant articles' talk pages, but no point making the same points over and over and over—and possibly coming to different conclusions. —sroc 💬 08:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not clear there will be any discussion at all on article talk pages. Maybe you'd just be able to go ahead and change the articles as you see fit. I think you should find out how that goes first. EEng (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: Except I don't know how I "see fit" because I have no preference (unless we can obliterate illogical MDY dates altogether... anyone?) so I'm trying to ascertain which version is preferred in this context by consensus. —sroc 💬 14:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If we're using the MOS, then discussions on article talkpages are the place for BRD consensus-building talk. If we're talking about changing the MOS, then this is the right place for more general discussion. However, given this current section's focus on one article, I'd rather not have disjointed discussions, possibly coming to different conclusions. I've added a link to this page at the Paul Tibbets talk page, and it can be thrashed out here. So, I guess we're, uh, on the same page, sroc! --Pete (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the MOS. I've created the below RfC seeking to clarify the wording and linked from the talk pages on these articles where both formats are used:

—sroc 💬 09:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What does DATETIES mean for articles on US military personnel?

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Chronological items §§ Dates, months and years §§§ Strong national ties to a topic (MOS:DATETIES) says:

Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format, with (as always) consistency within any one article.
In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage.

This wording is ambiguous whether articles on US military personnel should use month–day–year (MDY) format, as is standard for general articles about the US, or day–month–year (DMY) format, as applies to other US military topics. As noted above, there is mixed usage in articles on current/recent military personnel: the trend seems to be towards MDY format, but it is unclear whether this is due to editors assuming this applies to all US-based topics without being aware of the exception for the military. There are some articles that use a mix of both formats interchangably, which is undesirable, but it is hard to know which format should be preferred in this context. Some clarification of the above wording to explicitly state whether it applies to articles on specific military personnel would be welcome. —sroc 💬 08:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, if DMY applies to US military personnel, there is the question of how this applies to Americans who are notable for reasons other than their military career (e.g., DMY if they are primarily notable for their military career, MDY if they are primarily notable for other reasons). —sroc 💬 09:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sroc, I've had my bottom spanked by military-related editors (typically those who've served) for changing dates from dmy to mdy in US military articles. It's especially the case where the admiralty is the theme. So I don't dare flip from one form to the other in US military articles. I don't think it's a big deal. If someone doesn't like it in a particular article or set of articles, they should raise it on a talkpage. Tony (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Now we're going to have to get that image out of our heads. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED EEng (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep. The primary editor(s) decide what date format to use, and after that it shouldn't be changed without consensus. If it is inconsistent, so be it. Plenty of stuff on wiki is inconsistent, but still per MOS. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That's assuming that the "primary editor" is au fait with the MoS. This is a big ask. The reason we have bots and wikignomes tidying up articles is because most editors don't write their material in compliance with MoS. That's how it's always worked: someone creates an article with useful information and others add to it, tidy it up, and it gradually climbs the quality ladder. --Pete (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is in the MoS gives the gnomes no licence to change the pages. They still have to seek agreement with article writers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MOS:DATEUNIFY requires that each article is at least consistent with its choice of DMY or MDY, so articles that use both aren't "per MOS".

Based on these comments that both forms are used, should DATETIES be revised to say that articles on US military may use either DMY or MDY as long as each article is internally consistent, as with Canada (and thus the established format shouldn't be changed on this basis, per MOS:DATERET)? Or should this be the rule for US military personnel specifically? —sroc 💬 10:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Common sense says that DMY dates should be used:
1. For biographical articles on US military personnel where their primary claim to notability is their military career;
2. For biographical articles on US military personnel that are military biography forks of the main article (ie "Military career of XXXX") Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, sroc, "In for a dime, in for a dollar", I always say. I'm inclined to extend the "US military" rule to military personnel as well. Some interesting cases:

George_Marshall - I would think he counts as clearly military, despite his later diplomatic and administrative career
Dwight Eisenhower - Tough call! Was he a general, or a president? The lead photo shows him in mufti, so I guess he's a president.

EEng (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I should clarify that 'I'm inclined to extend the "US military" rule to military personnel as well' assuming we keep the "US military" rule in the first place -- I'm open to the possibility (suggested below) of eliminating the "US military" rule. EEng (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Surely Eisenhower was generally military but the presidency takes precedence? NebY (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Civility militates against such majorly bad puns in lieu of something with a kernel of truth, except in private -- though your attempt was admirable. EEng (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I found Hawkeye7's comment interesting because to me, common sense says MDY should be used. For me, the question is "what would the reader expect?", and that overrules the pedantic arguments between editors. Most readers of US military bios will be American and naturally predisposed to the MDY format they are used to. We have no real need to use the format the US Military does (and if we decide to do so, do we intend to also use the 24-hour clock for any times noted in such articles, etc?). Reso lute 14:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Resolute, if an article discusses the timing of a military operation, per WP:MOSTIME it would entirely appropriate to use the 24-hour clock in writing about it. And, in fact, a quick survey shows that articles such as Allied invasion of Sicily, Normandy landings, and Operation Market Garden do use 24-hour time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I was speaking in general terms about a biographical article, whether or not it relates to a military mission. Reso lute 22:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Strike final sentence and let U.S. military articles use MDY dates. I don't see a strong reason why dates related to one U.S. topic should use a different style than others. Military style guides may prefer DMY, but reliable sources don't. As for the question posed here, I would prefer to use MDY per my comment and because the articles on individuals are not strictly about the American military. Calidum T|C 14:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Many comments here go well beyond the initial question, which was limited to biographies. Limiting my comments to that subject, I don't see any reason for either except to be consistent. A side note: until about 1943, the US Army used MDY formats, at least in Adjutant General correspondendce. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is a growing consensus to do away with the military exception, then I wouldn't object to it; we could start a renewed RfC if necessary. —sroc 💬 01:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree generally with Peacemaker: "The primary editor(s) decide what date format to use, and after that it shouldn't be changed without consensus.".

And agree with Resolute, that clarity of understandng by the reader should be the overriding criterion that overrules all pendantic arguments. Above all, it should be noted that there is no reason to believe that any reader of English (or even anyone who understands Arbabic numberals) should have any difficulty handling either (e.g.) "April 11" or "11 April". Which is to say that in regards of MDY/DMY both formats are acceptable.

The one reason I can see for preferring (but not mandating!) "military" date format in purely military topics is where coverage of the topic involves a lot of dates, perhaps a lot of quoted dates, and the editors prefer to follow the sources. But (following Dirtlayer) shouldn't this also imply military style time format? (Note that military time is not the same as "24-hour time". E.g., 6 AM is not 06:00, but 0600J, or "oh six hundred hours".) The advocates of military style dates don't seem to carry this logic over to time (the three articles cited above being deficient in this regard). In the end, there is no compelling argument that military topics should conform to military usage. If the editors involved desire to do so, fine, and if not, also fine, and they should not be coerced othewise. Agree with Callidium to strike the final sentence about military usage. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If the general consensus is that DMY dates in articles on military topics and/or personnel is optional, then might it be preferable to reword the final sentence instead? For example:

In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, some articles on US military use day before month, in accordance with modern military usage.

Otherwise, deleting the highlighted wording altogether could prompt wholesale changes to MDY dates (on the basis that the first bullet point of DATETIES expects them for US-centric topics) given that the exception for US military articles would be deleted and there would not be explicit consensus to adopt DMY on most articles' talk pages.

Of course, if the consensus is to abandon the exception and prefer MDY dates in US military articles, then should the second bullet point be deleted altogether? Are there any other cases where this applies? —sroc 💬 02:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not use DMY dates? These are easier for the reader to understand, as they don't involve commas. That's why the military shifted to them in the first place. There is no rational argument for MDY. They may be customary in some parts of the US, but they are not official. (And yes, there are other cases.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: What other cases are there? (Partly because I'm curious, partly because it might be useful to mention other examples or substitute the military example.) —sroc 💬 14:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It is used by some government agencies. Most people's first contact with the US government is filling in the immigration card (I-94 From memory), in which you are required to enter dates in DMY form. (It also asks if you intend to commit acts of terrorism while in the US. That keeps Bin Laden's buddies out.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: But how does that relate to this guideline? Are you suggesting artucles on US government agencies (or, indeed, terrorism in the US) should use DMY dates if those agencies do? (Should it be 11 September attacks?) —sroc 💬 12:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I was just answering your question. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I say that there should be:

no preference for either DMY or MDY in "military" articles except by the consensus of the editors involved, and
no wholesale changes whatsoever to date formats except by the consensus of the editors involved.

If the editors involved cannot reach consensus then the existing (or original) format is retained. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: This is why I suggested revising the wording rather than simply striking the last sentence. Otherwise, DATETIES will be left saying that articles on US topics use MDY date format (without any carve-out for military articles), and this could then be used to justify changing articles on US military topics that currently use DMY to MDY. If the consensus is that either DMY or MDY should be acceptable in US military articles (and therefore that there is no justification for changing one way or the other), then DATETIES should say so as an explicit exception to the general guideline of MDY for US topics. —sroc 💬 14:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sroc: You keep leaving out the "should generally" that qualifies "use". A lapse which some editors then interpret as an implicit "must".

Where I said "there should be ... no preference ... except by consensus", that is what I mean: no preference, except by consensus. DATETIES is a guideline (not a mandate) that editors should consider in developing consensus, but it does not justify making any changes contrary to consensus.

If a topic (be it military, scientific, or any other) customarily uses a certain format, then it may be acceptable to use that even if it varies from any "strong national ties". Given the proclivity of some editors to over interpret, this probably should be explained. But only as general guidelines that editors should consider, which do not transcend consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: I'm not sure whether you misunderstand me or are interpreting this differently. Take the example of USAF General John E. Hyten, whose article exclusively uses DMY dates (since its creation last July) and whose talk page is blank save for maintenance templates (hence there is no explicit documented consensus that the date format for this article should depart from MOS). Now, if DATETIES were amended to remove the exception for US military topics, an editor could justifiably change the dates in the article to MDY format on the basis of the remaining guidance: "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States, this is month before day ..."; they could also argue that DATERET does not apply for changes "based on strong national ties to the topic". You could revert the change arguing that it's just a guideline, "not a mandate", but you could end up in an edit war having to explain why the revert was necessary and trying to justify it on the basis that the US military tends to use DMY dates (even though it is no longer a documented exception to DATETIES).

It would be much simpler making it clear in the guideline that both formats are acceptable for US military topics, just as we do for topics on Canadian topics. Why would you want the guideline to be less clear? —sroc 💬 12:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What is unclear about my second point of "no wholesale changes whatsoever to date formats except by the consensus of the editors involved"? Your confusion seems to arise from various suppositions (e.g., that exceptions and consensus must be explicit and documented), which you then compound into an elaborate hypothetical where you selectively invoke some guidelines but ignore others (such as the requirement for consensus). Your confusion also arises from your view that DATETIES overrules DATERET. Given the demonstrated confusion where a national tie conflicts with a military tie, it would be much simpler to declare that explicit consensus is always superior, followed by established usage (i.e., implicit consensus), and if neither resolves the matter then (just as Hawkeye7 says, below, and per MOS:DATERET) go with the date format chosen by the first major contributor. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

DATETIES is an express exception to DATERET. So is explicit consensus. But not implicit consensus. Hence my pertinent example where there is no explicit consensus where DATETIES could then be applied to change the date format. Why do you want to make more work for yourself in arguing your (flawed) position by making MOS say something other than what you want in preference for a more clearly worded guideline? (That's purely rhetorical; I'm not trying to engage you in another battle.) —sroc 💬 23:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It would make less work all around if you would pay attention. Or (non-rhetorically) do you simply not understand the concept of "should be"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@J. Johnson:

should verb 1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. 2. used to indicate what is probable.

So if the guideline says you should use MDY for US topics and someone changes the dates to MDY format in a US military article, you would need to justify why we should ignore this "obligation" or "what is probable". If you maintain that "there should be ... no preference for either DMY or MDY in [US] 'military' articles" but you don't want to say so in the guideline that says that there is a preference for MDY in US articles, you're just making more work for everyone arguing over it in individual cases. —sroc 💬 03:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Such a wonderful explication that quite misses what I said. . ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason for the original format provision is for articles like Paul Tibbets were the date formats have become mixed over time. Nothing that the readers care about, but where there is no obvious "existing" format then we go for the original format. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Can some helpful person track down the discussion, if any, behind the adding of the "US military" provision? I gotta get to bed. EEng (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 1 Note that back in the day we used to link dates, so they would appear per the users' preferences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1... well, that was a long time ago. Not much help, though, because that stupid linked-date thing makes the discussion almost meaningless. Thanks, though. EEng (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Retain existing wording - It works, it's worked for a long time, and that's really all we need for an encyclopaedia compiled by many different editors. The question here is really whether the subject of the article is more notable for military service or some other aspect. Paul Tibbets is (to quote) is best known as the pilot who flew the Enola Gay (named after his mother) when it dropped Little Boy, the first atomic bomb used in warfare, on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. That's modern US military. Lee Harvey Oswald, USMC, is better known for other activities. Of course there are cases where one might argue either way, and the article talk page is the place to have that discussion. We cannot possibly make some determination here that covers all such ambiguous situations. Leave it as it is, because it works well. --Pete (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
All US should be consistent — summoned by bot. I would be against a different guideline for military articles as this creates an unnecessary layer of inconsistency - is Colin Powell a "military article" or a non-military article? Is the president, as head of the US military? What about weapons used by the military and police? What about articles about natural disasters where the National Guard is deployed - is this a military article? You see where I'm going. And this is my firm belief per consistency; personally I prefer DMY and gleefully use it in non-USA articles. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment. This guideline has been in place since 2008. Check the history. We're not talking about creating anything new. --Pete (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Why should "all US be consistent"? Why not all en.wp? We all accept the need for consistency within each article, but why do we need consistency on any broader scale? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Because, as we have found in the past, we get people who are attached to one format or the other battling with those of a different view, and that is not good for harmony. Personally, I think we should all use SI units, drive on the right, and use dmy, because it's more practical, but others have their own reasons and who am I to argue? We gravitate to what works here and now, and this is what has worked for eight years. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So let's petition Jimbo/WMF to make DMY date formats mandatory across all of Wikipedia. One size fits all, and no arguing allowed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? I don't think so. We work out Wikipedia style right here. I'm happy with the way things are. Because it works well to minimise disruption. We've had some major battles in the past over date formats, and it's not good for Wikipedia to start that up again. JJ, if you want to take your own advice and petition Jimbo, then you go right ahead. That would be pointless and foolish, and you know it. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Pete, I read what you said, and what's more, I think I can claim a fair understanding of what you mean. But what you said— well, I asked why "all US" should be consistent, AND ALSO why consistency should not be applied to all of en.wp. A fair reading of what you said is that consistency reduces disruption. If that is true (at least for U.S. articles, but I would question that, just as Wikimandia suggests), then why shouldn't it be true for ALL articles? Would it not then be a good thing if (say) WMF mandated universal consistency? If not, then might it be possible that your apparent belief that consistency reduces disruption is not exactly correct? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that's neither what I said or meant. In fact you are exactly wrong. What we have now - an inconsistency in US articles - is what works, has worked for seven years, and minimises disruption. It's what was agreed to after much discussion among editors directly involved. If you want to insist that I said or meant something I have denied multiple times, then your behaviour is delusional, and I suggest reassessment to conform to the reality. I know what I said, I know what I meant, and I reject your interpretation completely. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Lighten up, Pete. And note carefully: what you said is: "Because ... this is what has worked". Which followed Wikimandia's assertion that "All US should be consistent" and my questioning of why that should be. Without any clarification on your part it is indeed a fair reading that you were justifying consistency. That you now declare "an inconsistency ... is what works" does not surprise me, but that's fine. Just don't blame me for your initial lack of clarity. And while we are here, please clarify if by "inconsistency" you refer to the exception made for "military articles" (as Wikimandia suggests). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A digression

Funny guy. You were wrong initially, you were wrong the second time, and you still can't get it right. I didn't say "all US should be consistent" - that was Wikimandia. The inconsistency that has worked fine since 2008 is that we have this inconsistency in DATETIES for articles on the modern US military. You want to change this for something new, and I'm not convinced you understand that this would just lead to the disruption we had prior to 2008. It seems to me that disruption and attention is your object here and I remind you that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions. --Pete (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

For shame, Pete! Please say you don't really mean that. EEng (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got me. The word "funny" was meant ironically. Sorry. --Pete (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

<Ba - da - ba - BING!> EEng (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Does the bit at WP:TALKNO about not misrepresenting other people also apply to misattribution of other people's intents? Or is that covered by WP:AGF? At any rate, I would like to examine a question of how much scope should be given consistency (or, inversely, inconsistency), but Pete seems too emotional to allow this, for fear "that this [i.e., discussion that might possibly lead to a change] would just lead to the disruption we had prior to 2008." This amounts to a showstopper. As he doesn't seem to be listening to me, perhaps someone else (EEng?) could reassure him that discussing the point is not going to bring the roof down on us. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

AGF means there needs to be really good evidence before a charge like "It seems to me that disruption and attention is your object here" is leveled. As I've mentioned before these date format debates leave me cold so I haven't been following who's advocating what and saying what, but if such a charge is justified there ought to be one or two others chiming in to say, "I'm afraid that's the way I see it too." Can I suggest that we take a voluntary 12-week break from this discussion, after which it can be resumed with clear minds and refreshed patience? EEng (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I call 'em as I see 'em, and I've been watching JJ troll his way through the discussion here for some time. He can't seriously imagine that DATETIES does not override DATERET, for example. If it's an honest misunderstanding of the plain English, then we're looking at a lack of competency with the language and he should accept the advice he's been given by sroc, among others. --Pete (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's all take that two-week break I was talking about. EEng (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I would, but that Pete is starting to piss me off with his misrepresentations and snarky remarks. (Just who is trolling here?) I tried to raise a simple question about the need for consistency, and Pete gets tangled up in inconsistent statements ("Because ... this is what has worked" [22:45, 28 May] versus "an inconsistency ... is what works" [03:58, 31 May]). Which SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE, as either would suffice for the question I would raise, but for Pete being too emotional to own up to any imperfection of expression and simply select which formulation he wants to go with. I doubt that a break would do any good. Might as well just close the RfC on the grounds that the topic of date formatting is too sensitive for some editors to contemplate. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

AM I GOING TO HAVE TO TURN THE HOSE ON YOU TWO??? EEng (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Resuming !voting

Do not argue about it Either is acceptable. Follow the date style used by whatever editor first used a date. Change the date style only with clearcut consensus. Do not canvas or make a big deal about it. Do not get indignant about date styles under any circumstances whatsoever. It is a triviality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Retain, follow established MOS. I don't see why the MoS shouldn't mention the difference. While internal DoD memos appear to go with MDY, this is not shared by the rest of the DoD (USAF, USN, USA), or even different parts of the Federal Government (DOJ). In the end, keeping with the primary editor/consensus rule appears to be best. But in general, I am of the opinion, that editors of new U.S. military articles should be made aware of the modern DMY preference used by the U.S. military.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Retain per my reasoning at the end of subsequent proposal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC).

Proposal for DATETIES on US military topics

There seems to be an emerging consensus that either DMY or MDY date formats may be used on US military topics, as decided by the editors of each page on a case-by-case basis, provided that each article is internally consistent. I thus propose the following revision to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Chronological items §§ Dates, months and years §§§ Strong national ties to a topic (MOS:DATETIES):

Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format, with (as always) consistency within any one article.
In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one. For example, as the US military now uses day–month–year dates rather than the civilian month–day–year format, articles on the modern US military (including biographical articles about Americans primarily notable for their military career) may use either format provided that each article is consistent.

This would make it clear that the usual guidance preferring MDY format in the US does not apply to military articles, while DATERET would still apply prevent needless changing between DMY and MDY formats (as DATETIES would not prefer either format over the other). This would also clarify that this applies to biographies without requiring DMY for individual cases so this would remain at editors' discretion and local consensus in each case. —sroc 💬 03:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

To assist discussion, under the proposal the bit highlighted above would replace this:

for example, articles on the modern U.S. military use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage.

I'm inclined to support this -- any problem anyone sees here? EEng (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The existing wording has worked well for many years. I see no need to add more complexity. Article talk pages are, as ever, the place to resolve borderline cases. DATERET would not prevent mass changes to date formats, as many articles on the modern US military would have been commenced with MDY formats, and a format warrior would claim that they were following DATERET. USAF and USN, for example. --Pete (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

While the new wording is longer, the additional length consists mostly of clarifying language. Other than that what the proposal does is replace

articles on the modern US military use day-before-month

with

articles on the modern US military (including biographical articles about Americans primarily notable for their military career) may use either format provided that each article is consistent

I don't see that as adding significant complexity. And, by the way, it resolves the Dwight Eisenhower problem: Eisenhower is not primarily notably for his military career, because neither his military nor his political career can be called primary -- they're both essential. Therefore MDY would be used, end of discussion. EEng (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly more complex. And you do see the problem with trying to deal with individual articles here, rather than on their talk page? --Pete (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I said significant complexity. And who's talking about dealing with individual articles here? We have to discuss examples... EEng (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm counting wordage nearly three times as long as the existing, adding new concepts and changing a working system for something that is going to cause disruption over what we already have. You've ignored the examples I gave where date format warriors can use the new wording to completely change the format of existing articles, and you've ignored the well-established precedent of dealing with borderline cases on individual article talk pages. We cannot sort out Eisenhower, Patton, Lee Harvey Oswald, Audie Murphy and so on here in the Manual of Style. You do understand this, don't you? --Pete (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see why everyone's so pissed off at you. No one is trying to sort out particular articles here -- merely, particular articles have been mentioned as thought experiments on how different wordings might operate. To my mind the new wording, combined with DATERET, makes it clear that for modern US military topics, the first significant contributor picks either of the two formats, and that format sticks. There might in some cases be uncertainty about whether a topic qualifies as "modern US military", but that can happen anyway with the current wording, and in any event that would be worked out on the article's Talk.

I endorse everything sroc says below. EEng (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Lets keep the discussion to the points raised, please. Good start, now keep on going with your line of thought in relation to the two articles I mentioned. Under the proposed new wording, what happens with USAF and USN? As per the reworded WP:DATETIES and the existing WP:DATERET. Just humour me, please, and set out your logic. --Pete (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Under the new wording, both those articles could have used either format when new, but they're not new -- they're established, and use DMY. Under DATERET they stay that way. What's the problem? EEng (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that your reading of DATERET differs from the norm. The first major contributors used MDY, therefore under the proposed DATETIES wording, any subsequent format change is contrary to the established style and may be reversed. If you have a different understanding could you please quote the relevant wording and your reasoning, if any? --Pete (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The new wording says that, as an exception to the main rule for US-related articles, in modern US military articles DMY could be used. And DATERET says that, as with any other article in which DATETIES doesn't prescribe one or the other format, the first contributor's choice controls. EEng (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's essentially what I said above. Now keep going with this line of reasoning in relation to USAF and USN, please. --Pete (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Both USAF and USN use DMY, and assuming that was the first major contibutor's choice, they should stay that way per DATERET, unless consensus on Talk is to change. If something else is going on with these articles, please just fucking say what it is. We're all tired of your pseudo-Socratism. EEng (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You assume wrong, which is why I mentioned them. In both cases the initial format was MDY and both were subsequently changed to DMY under DATETIES. If you need to take a break from editing, that's fine. We're in no hurry. Take a stress pill and come back when calm. Agitated editors are sloppy editors. --Pete (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm neither stressed nor agitated, nor is there any sloppiness in what I wrote. You're confusing a stated assumption (which is a good way to simplify discussion) with a conscious but unstated assumption (which would be either lazy or disingenuous) or an unconscious assumption (which would be -- yes -- sloppy).

Since you've now deigned to share with us what you knew all along, we can now say that under the proposed wording and the actual facts, these articles should be changed back to MDY. (We might want to add some kind of grandfather clause to the proposal to avoid making too many waves -- this had occurred to me but I thought I'd bring it up later.) So once again the proposed wording gives a straightforward result without debate.

But thanks for playing our game, Einstein. EEng (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Been playing this game for many years, brother. If you're trying to get my goat, you'll have to find a different way. BBB is not that way. So you propose adding some more clauses to complicate the proposed wording which is already three times as long as the original. If you think that's needed, could you draft some wording for consideration? If you don't think it's needed, then following your argument, you support changing two major articles on the modern US military to a different date format while supporting a change to DATETIES that implies the exact opposite. I'm not seeing any value-adding here to move the Manual of Style in the direction of clear, elegant and useful.

Incidentally, I found many more articles on the modern US military that were initially in MDY format. It is a simple, but tedious, exercise. Let us consider what would happen if MoS were changed so as to have DATERET override DATETIES in this one area. Some format warrior would come in his pleated jeans, grab ahold of his datebot and set about changing every article he can find - starting with USAF and USN and working his way through the military down to individuals - and then some other editor with a different view will come along behind and change them back again and we'll be coping with the same sort of disruption that brought about the initial action on DATETIES. Trust me on this. There are people who see changing Wikipedia articles to their preferred format on things like dates as being their life's highest calling. They are immune to common sense and appeals to reason. They are on a Mission from God.

Me, I see the existing wording as having worked perfectly fine to avoid disruption and conflict for many years. I think we should retain what works and not try to fix something that ain't broke. --Pete (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not your brother. Instead of all these tediously coy, spoonfeeding posts, why didn't you just come out and say, "Doesn't this imply that military articles now in DMY, but which were originally in MDY, will need to be switched back to MDY?"? Anyway, please now you go ahead and have the last word, after which the rest of us will discuss how to deal with this obvious concern. EEng (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Pete certainly brings in a lot of emotional freight. ("Some format warrior would come in his pleated jeans, grab ahold of his datebot and set about changing every article he can find". And: "They are immune to common sense and appeals to reason. They are on a Mission from God." Wow.) I will point out that I have previously suggested (05:31, 26 May) that there be no wholesale changes whatsoever to date formats except by the consensus of the editors involved. Pete seems to think that the primality of DATETIES is the only thing preventing flower children in pleated jeans from wrecking Wikipedia as we know it. If that is the fundamental concern perhaps we should have a separate RfC for that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Skyring: The proposal addresses several deficiencies with the current wording:

It is presently unclear whether the exception for US military applies to biographies of military personnel (HandsomeFella says "To me, it's obvious that this does not apply to people"; Hawkeye7 says "Common sense says that DMY dates should be used ... [f]or biographical articles on US military personnel ..."; EEng says "I'm inclined to extend the 'US military' rule to military personnel ..."; biographical articles are divided but tend to ignore the exception);
It is further unclear whether the exception applies to US military personnel who are also notable for other reasons;
As noted in the proposal, there is an emerging consensus that both DMY and MDY should be acceptable, decided by the editors of individual articles, provided that each article is consistent (J. Johnson says "Which is to say that in regards of MDY/DMY both formats are acceptable"; Cullen328 says "Do not argue about it Either is acceptable. Follow the date style used by whatever editor first used a date.")—but that's not what it currently says;
The guideline is, in fact, frequently ignored by using MDY dates in many (most?) US military articles despite the current wording says that such articles use DMY dates—the guideline should reflect actual practice by allowing both formats.

Contrary to the claim that "date format warriors can use the new wording to completely change the format of existing articles", this is not the case because the new wording does not endorse either format over the other and DATERET still applies to overrule unjustified changes. On the contrary, the current wording allows editors to change the date format of existing articles to conform (i.e., to change MDY dates to DMY dates in US military articles). The change will actually avoid to-ing and fro-ing because the boundaries of where the exception applies will be clearer and, where it does apply, it does not require any changes in either direction. —sroc 💬 14:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any deficiencies in the current wording. It has worked fine for years, and presumably will continue to do so.

It is always going to be unclear where the dividing line is for biographies of military personnel. That is inherent in the topic and we can't straighten it out here. Common sense and talk pages will presumably continue to be employed by editors to work out if a subject is primarily modern US military or not.
If the MoS is to be reworded to follow current practice that ignores it, then what is the point of having a MoS at all? Do we lay down our preferred house style to enable consistency, or do we just throw our hands up in the air and say, "F*uck it, anything goes, lets reword the MoS to endorse this new reality"?
The proposed wording will push DATERET ahead of DATETIES for this one area, spreading confusion and inconsistency. Yes, the current wording allows people to change articles to use DMY in articles on the modern US military that do not use it. That is its precise purpose. That is what we have a Manual of Style for. To allow anyone to contribute content and for others to tidy it up to conform to our preferred style. The proposed wording would give authority for format warriors to make mass changes on articles, as per the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor". USAF and USN are examples. However, these changes would act against consistency, rather than for it.

If there is truly an emerging consensus here for change, then why change to a more complex wording? Why not simply use the example of Canada quoted above: Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. That wording has consensus and works just fine. --Pete (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Why should someone who restores a consistent, acceptable, and original date format be a "format warrior", but not the editor (or set of editors) that degraded that original, acceptable, and consistent usage? Pete might have in mind some assumptions that would make such a view seem reasonable, but they have not been stated, so we are unable to examine them. Proceeding from what appear to be different assumptions I do not see why the editor(s) restoring a set of consistent changes should be characterized as a "warrior" and not the editor(s) who screwed them up in the first place.

The view that DATERET would "give authority for format warriors to make mass changes" does not seem any different than the authority currently taken from DATETIES. That DATERET would makes us all slaves to "the first person to insert a date" would seem to arise from an assumption that there no other considerations. In fact, that is (or would be) only the extreme fall-back case. If editors involved in a given article can achieve local consensus (whether express or implicit), then that should be controlling. It is only when consensus is lacking that we need these "tie-breaking" rules. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, JJ, I'm not following your reasoning in the first part. I think you may be assuming more than was actually said. Could you expand and maybe I can help you out?

Both DATERET and DATETIES have wikihistorical bases to prevent edit-warring and hence disruption. Of course, if there is a local consensus to do something else, then that overrides any external style guidance, but how often do we see this happening in "modern US military" articles. Could you give three examples, please? --Pete (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I would be happy to facilitate your understanding. Consider an example where some editor (or group of editors) creates an article which consistently uses an acceptable date format. (Whether DMY or MDY does not really not matter.) Now suppose some second editor (or group of editors) "make mass changes" of date format on the authority of DATETIES. Note that for this example it does not matter whether they rely on a U.S. national tie (i.e., non-military) to change to MDY, or a U.S. military tie to change to DMY.

Now suppose some third editor (or group of editors) "make mass changes" of date format on the authority of DATERET (starting to sound familiar?), restoring the original, and also consistent and acceptable, date formating. This is the very case where you apply the emotionally charged term format warriors. Why should editors taking authority from DATERET be "format warriors", but not those taking authority from DATETIES? The only reason I can see is that DATETIES is arbitrarily set as superior to DATERET, wheras the contrary would work equally well, and even better. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your hypotheticals are all very well, but what we have seen in the past can only be described as format war, and that's why we have the current wording. To reduce disruption. You want to change what has worked very well for many years. --Pete (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You were pretty hypothetical in your concern about some "format warrior" in pleated jeans running amuck (05:07, 10 June). And I as said before, if that is your fundamental concern perhaps we should have an RFC for that. In the meanwhile, please stop dodging the question and explain: why should someone who restores a consistent, acceptable, and original date format be a "format warrior", but not the editor (or set of editors) that degraded that original, acceptable, and consistent usage? Alternately, just leave-off with this one-sided name-calling so we can get back to objective discussion of the topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

By format warriors, I'm referring to what we saw before we had the current wording. Changing it so that in this instance alone DATERET would override DATETIES would invite more in the same. That's just common sense. --Pete (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how the proposal "[changes] it so that in this instance alone DATERET would override DATETIES". EEng (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Pete: I remind you of WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE. This "format warrior" bogeyman you raise you have you have previously characterized (05:07, 10 June) as "changing every article he can find", as "people who see changing Wikipedia articles to their preferred format on things like dates as being their life's highest calling", "immune to common sense and appeals to reason", and "on a Mission from God." These characterizations do not arise from "common sense"; they arise entirely from your emotional over-reaction. Such comments are disruptive of objective discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

And you are still dodging my question. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Pete: it's getting onto two weeks since you stated (22:43, 8 June) that "DATERET would not prevent mass changes to date formats", implying that format warriors would make such mass changes, and you still have not provided any objective basis for believing that this would actually happen. Or why someone who restores an acceptable date format is a "warrior", but not someone who degrades it in the first place. These views are untenable, and rejecting them will hopefully allow this discussion to proceed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Have you not read my repeated comments about how things were here before the current wording? We have wording that was agreed after much discussion and has worked for many years. Please cease your trolling. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated comments show only a fear that any alteration of the status quo will unleash "format warriors" on a "Mission from God", and amount to little more than an emotional form of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT that impairs any objective discussion. Your name-calling only underscores the paucity of your response. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What to do with existing articles

I support the proposed change, but there's a consideration here which I had been meaning to raise, and it is indeed the same, in a way, as the one Pete has been worrying us about, though unlike him I don't think it's a dealbreaker. It is the following: under the proposal, a number (possibly a large number) of articles currently using DYM (because the current guideline says "articles on the modern U.S. military use day-before-month") would, under the new guideline, use MDY (because the proposed guideline says "articles on the modern US military ... may use either format", and the first major contributor -- at least the first to add a date -- chose MDY). An examples would be USN, which (I think) took on its first date around late 2006. (Search October in [1]. I didn't narrow this down to the exact edit so if I'm wrong, forgive me.)

Are we saying such articles should/could be changed back to MDY? Will that piss a lot of people off, especially if someone gets it in his head to do a lot of articles all at once? If so, what do we do about that? EEng (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC) P.s. For some comic relief see the "John Paul Jones" image here [2].

Should be changed back? Not automatically. That there is any "reason" (I use the term loosely), argument, or policy pertaining to what an article's date format should be should not in itself be a free license to charge ahead with any mass change. As I suggested a month ago (05:31, 26 May): no wholesale changes whatsoever to date formats except by the consensus of the editors involved. Even where a single "format warrior" (define it how you will) has used any policy or guideline as leverage contrary to consensus, reversion should not be made except upon consensus.

As a side comment, I think what tends to piss off people most is not so much implementation of any specific format, but doing so in a high-handed or arrogant manner. Simply asking for objections before proceeding would likely avoid a lot of unnecessary aggravation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we add a parenthetical or something recognizing that the guideline has changed, and counseling... um... how shall I pout this... restraint in conforming existing articles to the new guideline? I just worry this will blow up in our faces. EEng (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad you've come around to my way of thinking in seeing this as a worry. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't come around to anything. As I stated in opening this thread, and took pains to make clear earlier [3] I've had this point in mind from the beginning. I just didn't waste everyone's time coyly bringing it up over a dozen posts. EEng (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, now we're both on the same page and you see mass format changes as a problem, why would you add even more wordage to the MOS? We currently have sixteen words in MOS:DATETIES which has worked well since its introduction, and you support a 45-word replacement which you now admit is problematic - "blow up in our faces", as you put it - and you want to add even more words to attempt to "fix" it even more.

What's the point? If you change this bit of MOS to have DATERET override DATETIES, then it becomes perfectly legitimate for editors to change articles to conform to the new guideline. Perhaps you could put up a wording proposal for those involved in this discussion to consider? --Pete (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hardly different from the current situation, where some editors have taken it as "prefectly legitimate" to unilaterally change articles "per WP:DATETIES". But you have gotten carried away again: the proposed text does not make DATERET override DATETIES. It says only that certain articles "may use either format". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If an article may use either format, then MOS:DATERET automatically applies. As it does for Canadian articles, which also may use either format. It is the very next section. I suggest you read it. --Pete (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you be less snotty. And be less wild in your presumptions and interpretations, which all too often lead you into untenable positions and inflammatory statements. (E.g., "format warriors".) If you think there is a problem with DATERET we could discuss that. But your behavior is rather disinviting. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've said we should think about whether this might be a problem -- I'm not convinced it is. Anyway, here's some possible text (not saying I like it a whole):

(A previous version of this guideline provided that "articles on the modern U.S. military use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage." Articles established as using DMY under that guideline should not be changed to MDY without consensus on the article's talk page.)

EEng (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a special restriction that applies to DMY → MDY, but not necessarily to the reverse. It would be simpler to just say that mass changes to date format should not be done without consensus, period. All other considerations are points to raise in discussing what date format to use; they are NOT license to make unilateral changes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

On reflection I've decided I'm not worried about the mass-change scenario. I'm ready to support the text proposed above (#Proposal for DATETIES on US military topics without any further qualification. I suggest we open a !vote in a new section below, and ping everyone who's been participating. Or maybe an RfC would be more appropriate. What do you think? EEng (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

sroc, J. Johnson, HandsomeFella, Cullen328, Hawkeye7, Skyring... what shall we do to bring this to a conclusion, one way or another? EEng (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I just happened to be thinking on this. See my proposal, below. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

An inelegant solution to a non-existent problem

Currently we have:
In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage.

This has stood, almost unchanged since September 2008. It has worked well and caused no problems.

However, some articles are on the cusp of "modern US military". Lee Harvey Oswald, ex-USMC, and Audie Murphy, film star, for example. The former uses MDY, the latter DMY, presumably related to the most notable aspect of their life. Murphy was the most decorated U.S. soldier in WW2, Oswald was a ratbag.

J. Johnson and EEng want the wording changed to:
For example, as the US military now uses day–month–year dates rather than the civilian month–day–year format, articles on the modern US military (including biographical articles about Americans primarily notable for their military career) may use either format provided that each article is consistent. A previous version of this guideline provided that "articles on the modern U.S. military use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage." Articles established as using DMY under that guideline should not be changed to MDY without consensus on the article's talk page.

I cannot see this as being a step forward. In actual fact, biographical articles on U.S. servicemen differ in format depending on the whim of the editor and nobody gives a rat's arse. It is not a problem, and it certainly does not need a complicated bit of quasi-legalese in conflict with other guidelines.

If there is any debate over what format needs to be used for a particular article, it should be resolved on that article's talk page, using common sense and well-sourced facts. --Pete (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You know, you're beginning to piss me off again. I have not proposed this new text, just offered it as an example for discussion. And J. Johnson certainly has not "proposed" anything of the kind -- in fact, as seen in the prior subsection, he doesn't seem like it. EEng (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you'd proposed it. Nevertheless, you are pushing for an inelegant solution to a !problem. The MoS should be as clear and concise as possible, not a jumble of contradictory directives. --Pete (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did: you said we "want the wording changed to...:. EEng (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I see. You think the two are equivalent. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

For this purpose I do, and this is exactly the kind of quibbling that's got people so pissed off at you. Cheers. EEng (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That's right. I (and EEng) favor some parts of the proposed text (e.g., "may use either format"), but not necessarily all of it. (For reasons including inelegance.) Pete, your failure to grasp this, and your general railing away on all of this, quite obscures the several points on which we might find agreement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed closure

I propose that the specific proposal made above be closed due to inadequacy of the wording. This is without prejudice to the view that "[t]here seems to be an emerging consensus that either DMY or MDY date formats may be used on US military topics" (subject to consistency and local consensus), and does not preclude a revised proposal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're talking about the proposal here #Proposal_for_DATETIES_on_US_military_topics? But if you see an inadequacy, why don't we fix it now? A lot of effort's gone into this to just discard it. EEng (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes (and thanks for the link). I don't see this as discarding such clarifications, etc., as have been reached. But we haven't really gotten into the inadequacy of the wording (whether in regard of elegance or scope), and as this page has gotten quite full I think it would be better to shed the cruft and start afresh. Especially as I am working working on a more general proposal which I think will avoid some of the bogs, fogs, and thickets of the current discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sroc?

sroc, where are you? EEng (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: Sorry, I've been busy with work. I personally don't see the problem with my proposed wording for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Chronological items §§ Dates, months and years §§§ Strong national ties to a topic (MOS:DATETIES):

Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is, for example, July 4, 1976; for most other nations it is, for example, 4 July 1976.
Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article.
In some topic areas the customary format differs from the usual national one~~: for example, articles on the modern U.S. military use day-before-month, in accordance with U.S. military usage~~. For example, as the US military now uses day–month–year dates rather than the civilian month–day–year format, articles on the modern US military (including biographical articles about Americans primarily notable for their military career) may use either format provided that each article is consistent.

The proposed wording specifically says that US military topics do not prefer either format so this revised version of DATETIES would not support any changes to existing articles (other than to make articles with mixed usage consistent, as they should be anyway in accordance with MOS:DATEUNIFY). Anyone who attempts wholesale changes from MDY to DMY or from DMY to MDY citing DATETIES without any discussion to establish consensus for a specific article should be reverted in accordance with MOS:DATERET: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." (There would be no "reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic".) So I don't see the drama.

If there remains any confusion on the interaction between DATEUNIFY, DATETIES and DATERET, then that's a different issue that might warrant some clarity, but I personally think it's pretty clear. —sroc 💬 12:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I see some problem with the wording (perhaps inherent in the situation it is describing), but overall I am inclined to support this as being a small step forward. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There are three problems I see.

First. There is no problem with the current wording. It has worked well for many years. Anyone seeing a need for change should clearly identify a problem to be solved.

There is a community of editors who work in this area. I rarely edit articles on the modern U.S. Military, and I doubt any of the other participants in this discussion do so either. Any changes should specifically include those editors most affected. Otherwise, we will generate needless conflict and friction in the future.

Third. The proposed wording above is longer and more complex than what we already have. Are we aiming for elegance and clarity here, or are we trying to make the MoS and Wikipedia even more of a swamp of legalese to deter new editors? --Pete (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That you see no problem with the current wording is despite clear identification of deficiencies in the current wording (e.g., here). Such efforts seem like leading a horse to water. Also, lets not forget that you also think that any change would unleash the format warriors.

If you really want to maximize clarity, elegance, and even brevity, I think nothing beats my previous suggestion (which you sneered at): petition Jimbo/WMF to make DMY date formats mandatory across all of Wikipedia. Or do you have other undisclosed requirements we must not tread upon? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

JJ. I see no problem, and if you are trying to persuade me otherwise, you are going about it the wrong way. But I will accept that you have a different view on this point, and that is fine. Do you have any opinions on my other points above, or are we in agreement there? -Pete (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not in agreement with any of your points above.

I believe there has been demonstration sufficient to establish the existence of problems with the existing guideline. If you think there is a better way of persuading you of their existence (short of personal communications from the Almighty), by all means inform us of how to proceed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You could address the points I raise in discussion, for example. If you could provide evidence - diffs, examples in articles, RfCs and so on - that work against my arguments, then I, being a reasonable person, would accept that the facts beat empty opinions. Ways of arguing that are generally regarded as unconvincing - personal abuse, hand-waving, strawmen and so on - are unlikely to persuade me. This is Wikipedia, after all, and it is not as if facts are in short supply here. Go, pull up a few, use them in a convincing fashion, and see where that gets you. --Pete (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal abuse, hand-waving, strawmen? Curiously, those are the very complaints I have about you, though I add misrepresentation and evading the question. Regarding the latter, I have addressed your points, but there is no telling what would satisfy you. It seems more likely that there simply is no "right" way of persuading you on any of this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem with current wording Why don't we get significant disputes? Because the US uses both formats "in real life" (notably 4th of July of course) and hence there is no cognitive shock in seeing the "wrong" format as there might be for people from cultures that use predominantly one format. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC).
I adopt Rich Farmbrough's reasoning, but support For example, as the US military now uses day–month–year dates rather than the civilian month–day–year format, articles on the modern US military (including biographical articles about Americans primarily notable for their military career) may use either format provided that each article is consistent. More flexibility, and clarity that US mil personnel are included within that flexibility, would be beneficial. This would allow, e.g., a US mil bio article festooned with all kinds of important military dates to use the mil date format, but permit the next article over, that is almost all about political matters, for a US mil figure who did not see any wartime action, and spent all their time at the Pentagon, stick with M D, Y dates, without room for doubt that (read: fighting about whether) this is okay. That said, I actually categorically oppose wikiproject-based WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on such matters; it's the WP:SSF problem again. Accepting special pleading of this sort, for style quirks borrowed from in-house usage in some field or sector, simply inspires more demands for variants. But since there appears to be buy-in for accepting this particular variants, it should be done the smart way. I do have to point out that this variance directly conflicts with WP:ENGVAR, but US English as used by the general public, not some subculture (and the US military is a subculture, and much has been authored about it in that regard), uniformly prefers MD,Y dates. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC). Updated. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I often turn to Wikipedia for information about the modern US military as part of my longstanding interest in military history. I know I will find useful information written by people who know what they are talking about, with enough of an active community to keep articles up to date, well illustrated and so on. I very rarely edit such articles - there is little need - and I'm a member of the general public in such cases. I prefer DMY, as I assume do most other non-US readers, not to mention many past and serving members of the modern US military. But I don't care about the date formats in the articles. I care about the articles, the content, the editors who produce them. If this community prefers to do things a certain way, as part of a subculture within the US subculture within the overall Wikipedia readership, then that's fine with me. Keep 'em happy and productive. Why fix something that ain't broken? --Pete (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User converting date formats in complete articles

Latest comment: 9 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

Is there a policy that supports conversions of full articles like this [4] Eldizzino (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:DATERET, which supports that dates should be retained in articles. If you took the time, you would have noticed that another editor had changed the dates that very morning. JOJ ^Hutton 19:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You are stating the untrue [5] Eldizzino (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

DATERET allows for users to normalize dates to the set format for the article; in the example there, the bulk of the article is using DMY dates (particularly in references) so conversion of a handful of MDY to DMY is fine. Particularly as one should not use MDY in prose and DMY in refs, or vice versa. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well it was in response to the same user making This edit on another article that was made the same morning. And in both cases WP:DATERET still applies because in both articles, MDY was the first date format introduced. Furthermore, in the case of Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes, it was determined, through consensus at The Beatles: Rock Band, that the subject determines the date format, not the publisher and the date MDY date format is consistent with the original Lego Batman: The Videogame. Now we can't have it both ways now. Either its the subject or the publisher that determines the date formats, but we can't pick and choose so that they are all DMY.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Take it to to the article's talk page guys. —sroc 💬 12:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And avoid fixation on "first major contributor". It is not required to stick with the FMC's choice; consensus can overturn that anywhere. A long process of gradual change moving an article away from the FMC's choice over time, without incident, until way too late in the game someone (who isn't even the FMC) wants to vent about it after the fact, is a consensus that's already changed, especially if there are other reasons to prefer the evolved format, almost always because it agrees with the ENGVAR in use. Basically, a DATERET dispute really should never arise and be taken seriously unless the article is in Canadian English. If it's US, use US format, if it's a US-military article, use intl. format. If it's anything else in the world, use intl. format. (Unless there's some weird case I missed. Does the military of Botswana use ISO format, and do we GAF? Heh.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

An interesting case that bears upon the DATEFORMAT discussions here, and we have been asked specially regarding a mass conversion of date format without any discussion or explicit consensus: are such conversions supported?

The article involved (Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes) was created 30 November 2011 by User:WikiEditor44. However, the initial edit did not establish DMY or MDY usage, subsequent edits were mixed, there is no notably major contributor, and there is nothing on the talk page about which format to use.
A MDY date was introduced into the text on 5 April 2012 in ~~this edit~~ this edit by WikiEditor44. Subsequent edits added dates in both formats, without comment.
On 7 June 2012 this edit by User:X201, with the summary "date formats per WP:MOSNUM by script as per developer nationality", changed the single date in the text and various accessdates, etc., to DMY, and added the "use dmy dates" template.
On 6 Dec. 2012 this edit by User:X201, with the edit summary "date formats per WP:MOSNUM by script", made recently added dates consistently DMY.
At 11:00 9 July 2015 X201 similarly revised three inconsistent dates with this edit, citing as authority "date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script". At 14:40 User:Jojhutton, who has never before edited on this article, made this edit, which converted every date in the article to MDY format, and replacing {{use dmy dates}} with {{use mdy dates}}, citing "date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script WP:DATERET"

So how should these guidelines be applied? I can I can see various points here that lead to different ends. As overall there has been little strife in this article (very few non-vandalism reverts, no apparent edit-warring, no arguments on the talk page), any strife that should develop here will reflect on these guidelines and the editors here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Date normalization should be done, and in the case of Batman, it was clear at the time of the latest edit that the majority format was DMY, so converting the exceptional cases to that is reasonable. However, DATERET allows discussion for consensus building to argue a different format if one believes the current one is not correct, and that's what should be done here. For video games we have set a rule of thumb to base the dates on the developer's national ties, but there are cases for clear exceptions (The Beatles: Rock Band being one, since the importance of the Beatles in a video game far outweighed the importance of the developer) --MASEM (t) 20:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A small but possibly key detail: was it really clear as to the established date format? I would take the presence of the 'use dmy' template as a strong indication, but I seem to recall some protest that these do not so indicate. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that the refernences prior to the chance were pretty much in dmy , that definitely means dates in prose must be dmy too (you can't use ISO in prose, and mdy conflicts with dmy between prose and reflists). --MASEM (t) 22:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that dates in references control dates in the text. But regardless of that, my question is: what constitutes "clear"? Is an editor supposed to count up all the instances either way? Does a template have any weight on this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixing dates to normalize to the more common format means that it should be readily obvious - without exact counting - what the predominate date format has been used. If a visual scan of the article's prose and references don't easily show a near uniform date format, then it is probably best to check on the talk page. I would safely say that the change in question did have proper allowance based on the near majority of dmy sources. And yes, the template should have significant weight on the assumption it was added in good faith. And the only reason in this case that reference format drive the prose is that it was definitely the case that the ref date format was near uniformly dmy, and since mdy in prose and dmy in reference is unallowable, that forced the prose to be in dmy too. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

MOS:DATEUNIFY (aka MOS:NUM#Consistency, right above DATETIES AND DATERET) lists three categories (dates in article body text, publication dates, and access and archive dates) within which dates "should all use the same format". But I don't see that it says all three categories should be the same. It says that it is permissible to "normalize" access/archive dates to the text, but does not suggest that the contrary is true. So I would say that the format of access dates does not drive the format in the text. I agree with you that the dmy template should have significant weight, but I suspect many editors would disagree. As to "clear", it does seem to be one of those "it's obvious" matters. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The second point of Publication dates spells this out: "provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body". That is if you have prose as DMY, you cannot use MDY in citations, but you can use DMY, an abbreviated DMY, or YYYY-MM-DD. While this suggests that prose should drive the citation dates, it's basically the easiest language to state that you can't mix DMY and MDY in prose and references. And since that article before the edit was a mix of DMY and MDY between refs and body (which is not acceptable), it was a appropriate choice to go with what was the fewest number to fix, being moving MDY to DMY. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not convinced on that interpretation. But for this discussion I think we could accept that converting to DMY was appropriate, on the basis of retaining an existing usage per DATERET. But what of JOJ's argument that the initial MDY date in the text set the format, with the implication that the subsequent history is immaterial? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Now, there, [6] this edit does appear to be where X201 unilaterally change date formats based on the developer's nationality, which should be something checked in before doing on the talk page (though in the VG project, we do state that date formats should follow the nationality of the developer which Travelers Tales is UK based. But again, this isn't as strong a national tie as, say, if it was the developer's page themselves). --03:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC) ← Masem

Which is to show that X201 wasn't arbitrary, but proceeded on the basis of some kind of established guidance. This raises an interesting question regarding an intermediate level of guidance worked out by a community of editors greater than those working on a particular article, but less than the whole WP community. (Such as on a project level.) Even if such is allowed (and I am not against it), there is a significant problem: it's not in the MOS. So how would some passing passing editor not familiar with that particular guidance know about it? How should the MOS bear on such intermediate level guidance? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

As no one else cares to explain how the date guidelines should be applied in this case, I will hazard an opinion. The specific guideline relevant here appears to be [MOS:DATERET]], which starts by saying "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it ...." Jojhutton, who made the questioned edit, also cites DATERET, and argues two points in this discussion (above): 1) that the article in question is not consistent with a closely related article (implying that consistency should apply to related articles), and 2) that "MDY was the first date format introduced".

The first point is interesting, but not supported in these guidelines. And both here and elsewhere in the MOS (e.g., MOS:RETAIN) the expectation of consistency is clearly intra-article.

The second point is implicitly a claim on the third part of DATERET, which starts: "Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used ..." [emphasis added]. However, this is inapplicable, as the article was using "predominately one formt" immediately prior to Jojhutton's edit, and has been so, including use of the dmy template, since 2012. DATERET expressly states: Retain exsting format, unless certain exceptions apply, which is not alleged here.

In response to the question asked: there are no policies regarding date format particularly. But the MOS - a guideline - does NOT support conversions of date format where the existing usage is predominately consistent. The specific edit cited here appears to be unsupported, and therefore may properly be reverted.

Pinging the editors involved (X201, Jojhutton, and Eldizzino) for their comments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

First off, please accept my apologies for not contributing to this discussion; major off-wiki tasks/problems have claimed my time. I suppose explaining the rationale for the edits would be a good place to start - although Masem is very close to the full explanation. The things running through my head when I made the change were: A scan of the article where, DMY looked like the dominant form, the WP:VG guideline about developer nationality (Traveller's Tales as mentioned above). I also considered the fact that the product the game is based on is designed by Lego, and the Lego company is well known for its ties to its home nation of Denmark (MOS:TIES again), Batman is obviously American, but I'm sure most people will regard Lego Batman as a Lego product, rather than a Batman one. My edit summaries should have been vastly more informative than they were, I hold my hands up to that charge, but the edits were made with the best of intentions about what I thought was the right decision for the article.

My addition to the discussion is that the date guidelines need to nudge editors a little more into going down a particular route. To explain, DATERET reads as a bit Land Grab-y, it explains that it can be changed with discussion, but the weight of the guideline is with the founder(s) of the article. I can understand that, it needs a guideline of some sort and its a decent enough choice until the developers decide bring Wiki software up to date and allow user preference for date formats. What I think its lacking though is the "use common sense element", telling users to think about what is appropriate for an article, rather than just use their own default date format. - X201 (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The superhero article is resolved by using the date format expected by the article's ENGVAR. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Common sense" is commonly invoked, but suffers from everyone having different views on just what it is. The whole purpose of a guideline is to guide our sense of what is proper, and to provide a basis for resolving conflicts. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

There being no further discussion, either here or at the article's talk page, I have reverted the last date-format change there per DATERET. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

O Canada!

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I just realized that Canada fixes most EVGVAR vs. DATEVAR disputes. It's quite simple once you see it:

For encyclopedic-writing purposes, there is no difference between American English and Canadian English that cannot be worked around with some minor rewording occasionally ("washroom" vs. "restroom", etc.), unless the first major contributor insists on Briticized spellings ("colour", etc.). And even then consensus on the talk page could overturn that (but it wouldn't be necessary to, as we'll see). The vocabulary is about 99.99% shared.
Canadian English accepts either DMY or MDY date format.
Many topics have a natural DATEVAR due to national ties (e.g. a Russian movie), but no natural ENGVAR because of lack of national ties to the language.
If written in anything other than North American English, international date format applies by default. No issue.
If written in North American English using Commonwealth spelling, this is Canadian, and intl. format dates are permitted.
If written in North American English using non-Commonwealth spelling, this is either American or Canadian English. Canadian permits intl. date format, so we simply declare it Canadian, and here – the dispute sticking point – there suddenly is no issue any more.

It works the other direction, too with a bit more work: Any Commonwealth English article is not much different from a Canadian-with-British-spelling one (there are more vocabulary tweaks that could be needed, but nothing insurmountable). And cases of Commonwealth English but US date format are rare if they even come up at all. Is there any place that conventionally uses US date format but no longer has strong US ties, and might have some articles already written about them in non-North American English? Blind guesses might be Libera or the Philippines.

This would eliminate virtually all fights about DATEVAR vs. ENGVAR. It's also evidence that ENGVAR and DATEVAR are WP:CREEPy WP:BUREAUCRACY clouding WP:COMMONSENSE sometimes, but at least we can see through that particular cloud of hidebound WP:WIKILAWYERing, and short-circuit years of pointless future strife, letting people get back to productive editing instead of fighting over this particular brand of guideline-related conflict. This has been a mental prison of our own groupthink. As soon as we stop imagining the bars of the cage and how solid they are, they just disappear. Maybe if the Andamanese people join the industrialized world and decide they will use ISO dates, then we'll have an actual problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to blame Canada. --Izno (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

America, fuck yeah? LOL — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't this just shift whatever problem we have one stop over? The variety of English applied to a topic is often random according to whatever editors have had a whack at it. If some article has been through a GA candidate process, some practical soul will have gone through and undiscrepancied the text, but by and large if I select a random article that doesn't get a lot of interest, it looks exactly like the result of random editors with random writing styles adding a sentence or two at random times. Wikipedia's prose style rarely sparkles.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your solution to a nebulous problem, but it seems to me that you are proposing that allowable date formats are linked to variety of English, so instead of arguing over whether an international-format date applies to (say) an article on a French painter, we will argue over what variety of English the article is written in, and have some more rules to puzzle newbies with. Just as an aside, French painter articles come in a wide variety of styles. --Pete (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Editors do want to link the DATEVAR to the ENGVAR, and they're conceptually closely related. The mind rebels at the notion that dialectal language use is of such paramount importance that we must have rules about it that enforce within-the-article consistency and not changing the style already used in the article, yet also permit a date format change that directly conflicts with the dialect used in every other way in the same article. Walk the logic tree I laid out. If an intractable debate about this arises at a particular article, the way to short-circuit it is to just have consensus (which can override the first major contributor) declare that the ENGVAR that page uses is Canadian, which is compatible with both Commonwealth and US spelling (one or the other at the article in question, not both at once, of course), and both of the typical date formats used in articles. The only adjustments needed will be rare cases of vocabulary incompatibility, easily resolved by simply rewording. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Reminds me of my time in the military, where we would often find ourselves doing things that were at the same time quite logical but also patently ridiculous. Taking a shower in full uniform with weapons, for example. --Pete (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you implying that "color" is an acceptable spelling in Canadian English? It isn't. RGloucester — ☎ 22:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:How many legs does a horse have? Presuming to lecture on topics with which you have no actual familiarity is not a productive endeavor on Wikipedia, and greatly reduces the willingness of other editors to take you seriously each time it happens, which is frequently. I actually lived in Canada only a few years ago, so I know for a fact you're wrong in implying "color" is not acceptable in Canadian English. Have you ever even been there? But all you had to do was Google this, or consult any reliable source, like the The Oxford Canadian Dictionary, or even just read our well-enough sourced article Canadian English. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I missed this. Yes, I've "been there", and even lived there briefly. "Color" has not been an acceptable spelling in standard Canadian written English. Sure, a few newspapers may have used such Americanised spellings decades ago, but none do so now. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Canadian English has always vacillated between American and British spelling but in recent years a definite standard for "Canadian" English has been developing, and it is tending to be closer to British spelling (or more accurately, Commonwealth spelling) than to American spelling. Thus "colour" has been winning out over "color" and is almost universal now. A few decades ago a lot of Canadian newspapers used American spelling because it saved the trouble of rewriting articles from American news sources, but today editors can change the spelling with the click of a mouse, so almost all media use "colour" instead of "color". It's not British spelling, though, and nobody uses "tyre" instead of "tire" in Canada. The MDY versus DMY dispute remains unresolved. Canadians use either indiscriminately, and I personally use YMD because that is also a Canadian "standard". Canadian banks give you a choice of any of the three on your preprinted cheques (not checks). RockyMtnGuy (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I know. Doesn't affect what I'm saying here, though: If people are having cognitive dissonance about an apparent conflict between the ENGVAR and DATEVAR being used, a Canadian English designation provides an "escape valve". Since we accept any non-pidgin English dialect as valid, it doesn't even matter that this might eventually shift some spellings and vocabulary in the article. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Caliber issue

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Here, I raised an issue of using the convert template for metric caliber identification & it was suggested the MoS governs. (I imagine the template will need to be adjusted to permit the change, if approved, too.) So, can editors who need this "special case" get a template able to cope with it? FYI, posted the issue on the Firearms & Milhist Talk pages, with links here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you restate that in more concrete terms? I can't quite peer into your mind. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As explained at the first link, this is about not repeating the unit when a X is used. For example listing the caliber "9 × 25 mm (0.35 × 0.98 in)" [proposed] instead of "9 mm × 25 mm (0.35 in × 0.98 in)" [current]. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better raised at the template talk page? I'm not sure if we have a guideline on this precise application. --Pete (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Perhaps this would be better raised at the template talk page?" I went there first & was told it was an MOS compliance issue... If it's not... (And Fnlayson has me right: I want to be rid of the first use of the unit, or limit to one after only. No spaces would be good, too.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It will be a template issue if there's a change, but yes, you are right. It is an MoS issue, and the usage mentioned above seems to be specifically ruled out. As the usage is commonplace in military/firearms circles and our own articles (5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO and 7.62×39mm, for example), I think we should allow it and modify the wording appropriately. Are there any objections? --Pete (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Two separate issues

MOS should be recommending "9 × 25 mm (0.35 × 0.98 in)" not "9 mm × 25 mm (0.35 in × 0.98 in)", except in cases where for some reason some ambiguity or confusion could result. Using "9 mm × 25 mm (0.35 in × 0.98 in)" is obnoxiously redundant and treats our readers like morons.
"5.56×45mm NATO" is a name, that happens to be based on a measurement, but is not itself a measurement; it is thus correct without the spaces if the overwhelming majority of reliable sources (not just specialist sources) write it that way, which appears to be the case. I.e., a correct sentence to illustrate style not how to write a good encyclopedia sentence would be "The 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition measures 5.56 × 45 mm."
These measurements (not as embedded in the caliber name!) should be given with the {{Convert}} template. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Tread carefully re 5.56 × 45 mm vs. 5.56 mm × 45 mm. There's been (surprise!) some very hot debate on this in the last 6-18 months -- can't remember exactly, but I know it's been since I first became active here in early 2014, and all I can find is this (which nonetheless gives you a taste). EEng (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Sorry I wimped out at /Linking after all that fuss, but life's too short.

This issue has come up many times, most recently in May 2015. The crux is whether we are talking about the name of the ammunition, in which case it should be whatever the name is, or about the dimensions of said ammunition, in which case IMO it should '5.56 mm x 45 mm'. Tread carefully is good advice. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-base-10 notation

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

While in general C notation seems fine, in some specific cases I believe other notation should be used. Articles about other languages that have an appropriate notation should use that notation. Personally, I have never found anyone confused by the OS/360 assembler X'hexdigit' notation, but if it could be confusing an article should explain the notation early on. Verilog and VHDL each have their own hex and binary notation, as do some other languages. But I agree, in general discussion, without a specific language in context, C notation is a fine choice. Gah4 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you proposing that a sentence be added that, in discussion of a particular computer language, the language's own convention should be used? And where does this leave the mathematical joke "Halloween = Christmas" (that is, 31OCT = 25DEC)? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the proposal is that without a specific language in context, C notation is a fine choice. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

Non-pure ranges - either end (or both) not a year or not exact(ly known)

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

 •   Osmund (fl. 760–772) ... [already did this edit there – possibly wrong? ]
 •   Aethelwalh (fl. c. 660 – 685) ...

Seems "760–772" should be spaced (or this example dropped). I'm not sure anyone flourishes this exactly.. or vice versa "fl. c. 660–685"? Unclear if spaced for circa is meant for the space after "c. " only or for the years. There is a rule about both years requiring c. then "fl. c. 660 – c. 685".

Anyway was looking into if this in British Antarctic Survey should be spaced (can't change/not sure how with timeline template):
1973–May 1987 – Richard Laws[7][8] [..]
2007–May 2012 – Nick Owens[11][12]
November 2012–September 2013

Also seems "FIDS/BAS/" has an extra slash.. comp.arch (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, when one end of a year range begins with a prefix ~~such as fl. or~~ c., the en dash must be spaced. Among other things, this emphasizes to the reader that the prefix on the first item in the range does not also apply to the second item. This is really just a special case of the rule that if either end of a range includes a space, the en dash must be spaced, which requires

1973 – May 1987

November 2012 – September 2013

—Anomalocaris (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally fl applies to the range, not one end of it. Therefore the first endpoint doesn't contain a space, and therefore there's no spaced ndash (unless one or the other endpoint has e.g. a month, or c. -- though not sure c. really makes sense with fl.). EEng (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I have crossed out part of my previous comment. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Note, for this reason, you would not have (fl. c. 660 – 685) as there needs to be a space after the fl. before the starting point in the range; thus: (fl. c. 660 – 685) (assuming the end point was not approximate, otherside it should have c. 685). —sroc 💬 03:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

My take:

Format Meaning & notes

660–685 between those exact years, inclusive

c. 660 – 686 660-ish to exactly 686

660 – c. 686 660 exactly to 686-ish

c. 660 – c. 686 660-ish to 686-ish

c. 660–670 around that decade; while essentially shorthand for c. 660 – c. 670, more concise yet as c. 665 in many contexts; possibly confusing in general. Deprecation suggested (i.e., merge into next example).

c. 660–685 Deprecated – uncertain meaning; instead use c. 660 – 686 or c. 660 – c. 686, as needed

fl. 660–685 between at least these years, both certain

fl. c. 660 – 685 between 660-ish and 685 for certain; probably better explained in words (easy to misinterpret as fl. c. 660 – c. 685, as well as possibly confusing in general)

fl. 660 – c. 685 between 660 for certain and 685-ish; probably better explained in words (possibly confusing in general)

fl. c. 660 – c. 685 between 660-ish and 685-ish; rare usage, probably better explained in words (possibly confusing in general)

fl. c. 660–670 somewhere in that decade probably; while essentially shorthand for fl. c. 660 – c. 670, more concise yet as fl. ca. 665 in many contexts; probably better explained in words (possibly confusing in general). Deprecation suggested (i.e., merge into next example).

fl. c. 660–685 Deprecated – uncertain meaning; instead, use fl. c. 660 – 685, or fl. c. 660 – c. 685, as needed

Hope that helps. PS: We should be permitting "ca." as well as "c."; they're both equally acceptable in usage guides, and as attested in reliable sources, while "ca." is easier to parse as "circa" instead of as something else., especially in running prose (though spelling it out in that case might better). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can integrate your table into the guidelines -- many are confused by this, at least the rare times they encounter it. Perhaps I'll mae a go at it after I get started over at /Linking. EEng (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, we'd have to use better wording. My "-ish" stuff is an informalism. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I urge not using c. 660–670 because the reader has no way of knowing that the unspaced en dash is intended to bind the c. to the whole range; in many cases the c. is intended to bind only to the start of the range. It's just sloppy. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I could get behind that. I wasn't recommending using it, just documenting it as meaning something when people do use it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

In terms of lifespan fl. 670-790 is distinct from fl. 670 died 790 . Also we may write fl. 670 - c. 790 or fl. 670 died c. 790 : in the first case we have a document attesting she was alive which is dated around 790, in the second one stating she died, that is dated around 790 (for example - it may be that the document is precisely dated but that it refers to an event which isn't). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

Alternative Date Formats

Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

MOS:DATEFORMAT

In the "Acceptable date formats" table, it says that YYYY-MM-DD is an acceptable format for brevity. But then it says "No equivalent for general use" for the expanded format.

Why exactly can't we use YYYY MMM DD or YYYY MMMM DD? Seems perfectly reasonable to me... – SarahTehCat (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD is very widely used ISO standard. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS:BADDATEFORMAT

I've two questions about this section:

1. Why are the formats YYYY MMM and YYYY MMMM not allowed? Seems a bit half-assing it, to be honest, if you allow year-month-day but not year-month, especially since the reverse, year-day, is allowed. Just wondering.

2. I would hardly blame anyone for refusing to use this format, but just out of curiousity, if you can't do YYYY MMM or YYYY MMMM, is the format YYYY-'M'MM allowed? After all, this is one of the accepted forms within the ISO 8601 standard.

I assume it is not allowed, but I would like to know for sure, nevertheless. :) – SarahTehCat (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Same answer as above. The spaced version isn't a standardized format, it's just weird and easily misinterpreted.
Huh? That seems to be an argument for 2015-'August'08 instead of August 2015. I don't find anything at that article suggesting anything like this. MOS doesn't, and can't allow every possible ISO 8601 quirk, anyway. Many of them are not parseable except by experts, and were intended for machine reading. We would never use 2015-08-02T15:57:44Z or 2015-W31-7 (and those are comparatively human-readable, given some of the even more compressed constructions). And some of them just do not work at all in our context, no matter how formatted, e.g. 'one may write ... "19" to refer to the century from 1900 to 1999 inclusive.' On WP, as in all other publications intended for human reading, a year value of "19" means 19 CE not the 20th century. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: I'll quote User:EEng two threads above this: 'ISO 8601 is a data exchange standard and has nothing to do with everyday writing'. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I keep repeating this and being ignored, but I'll repeat it again. The YYYY-MM-DD date format is widely used in written communications in Canada, as also are the European DD/MM/YYYY and American MM/DD/YYYY formats. I've worked for a number of companies that mandated YYYY-DD-MM as their standard for all company documents. It solved the fundamental ambiguity on whether 05/08/2015 is May 8 or August 5 - t's always bad to show up in the wrong month for an important event, and some people have done that. Mandating the YYYY-MM-DD format also avoided annoying arguments like these on Wikipedia between British and American expatriates over which date format to use, and is compatible with Quebec law, which often makes it illegal to use English words like "August" in workplaces. YYYY-MM-DD is also the standard date format in Chinese, and Chinese have been the largest group of immigrants to Canada in recent years. (Scary fact: there are more people in China who speak English than there are people in the US who speak English). The same companies often mandated YYYY-MMM-DD as their standard for short dates and YYYY MMMM DD as their standard for long dates. Thus the date could be written as 2015-08-05, 2015-Aug-05, or 2015 August 5. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You aren't being ignored. You are simply not getting traction for your viewpoints and refuse to drop the stick. This is a good example, since pretty much the one date format NOT being discussed in this subsection is YYYY-MM-DD. And, to rehash the previous objection to your arguments - even if YYYY-MM-DD is commonly used in technical documentation (citation needed) and particularly in areas that require machine readable consistency, Wikipedia is written for humans. And humans don't use "2015-08-05" in regular conversation or reading. Reso lute 19:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. yyyy-mm-dd, with its leading year, is a special format used where sorting of dates is a consideration (including filing of coreespondence). It's also an all-numeric format, and a special case in being the only numeric format allowed here. In formal writing (i.e., WP article text), the year is generally trailing, and the issue between DMY/MDY (where "M" is non-numeric) is the order of the day and month. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, humans don't use "2015-08-05" in regular conversation or reading - if you exclude the Chinese, of which there are 1.4 billion, from the human race. What you are really saying is that "Americans and British don't use 2015-08-05 and they are the only people who matter." But Americans and British don't agree on which format to use, which is why many Canadians use "2015-08-05" instead. It is the Mercutio A plague on both your houses approach.

To quote from the Wikipedia article Date and time notation in Canada:

While the Canadian Standards Association has adopted ISO 8601 as CSA Z234.5:1989, its use is not mandated in every situation. Thus in Canada three date and time formats are in common use. According to the Canadian Payments Association, which regulates cheques, the big endian ISO 8601 YYYYMMDD is preferred, but MMDDYYYY or DDMMYYYY may be used, and cheques must include date indicators showing which format is being used. The federal government tends to use the big endian format, but some federal forms, such as a commercial cargo manifest, offer a blank line with no guidance. Passport applications and tax returns use YYYY-MM-DD. Government of Canada regulations for expiry dates on foods mandate YYMMDD, MMDD, and DDMMYY. English language newspapers use MDY (MMM[M] D, YYYY). In Quebec a variation of DDMMYYYY is used.

I often liken it to screws. Americans usually use Phillips screws. Canadians prefer Robertson screws, which are much superior screws. The only reason Americans use Phillips screws is that Henry Ford didn't want to pay to use Robertson's patents, and Phillips more or less gave his patents away for free. As a result I am continually taking out the screws supplied with American products, often with a screw extractor because they have been damaged due to their poor design, and throwing them away, substituting better Robertson screws. Of course, car manufacturers now use Torx screws because you can't get away with screwing cars together with inferior screws any more, but you still have to put up with crappy Phillips screws in other American consumer products, and buy a set of torx screwdrivers to work on your car. Should Canadians be forced to use inferior screws just because Americans do? Of course not. Same thing with date formats. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I like YYYY-MM-DD as a format and use it often. Every time I make a subdirectory to hold a day's photos, for example. The Bigendian format sorts automatically, making my directories easy to navigate. In a perfect world, we would all use this or a similar format and there would be no disputes.

However, we at Wikipedia do not yet have the full control over making the world perfect. We must work with what we have, and the sad fact is that in everyday English text numeric format dates jar, especially in YYYY-MM-DD sequence. It would be like reading aloud except that everytime you encountered a comma, instead of pausing, you clapped your hands. If we went to YYYY-MM-DD in article text, there would be an uproar. People would say we had lost our grip.

Personally, I think the US Middle-endian date format sucks. But it's what people use in the US (mostly), and it's what our American editors feel happiest using as they write our articles. I think that the current situation, where US subjects use US dates, British subjects use international dates, Canadians and every other subject use either works well to minimise disruption. We might be able to jigger our system around a little, but any major departure from what we have would piss off our readers and editors alike. We're an encyclopaedia, presenting information to those who seek it. We aren't a religion, dogmatically enforcing our views and foibles on a helpless world. Yet. --Pete (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I object to calling the DMY format the "international" date format. It is really just the conventional European date format, with former European colonies in South America and Australia following former colonial standards. China, Japan, and Korea use the YMD format instead. So, in reality, the world has three formats: the American MDY format, the European DMY format, and the Asian YMD format. The ISO 8601 standard is compatible with the Asian date format, so it is what is used by a large portion of the world's population. Since it is set by the International Standards Organization (ISO), the global reality is that the International date format is YMD, not DMY. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I take your point on ISO being an international format. However. China, Japan, and Korea use a different way of presenting text. It's not a phonographic system such as we and many other cultures use–Indian use of Devanagari, for example–where each character represents a specific sound, more or less. We use Roman characters and an English alphabet, and we don't present dates in text as number strings. In the USA and one or two other places, it is August 8, 2015. In the rest of the world, it is 8 August 2015. In some places, where they use other ways of writing, it is 2015-8-8. But we need not bother about those other places, because we are not presenting our encyclopaedia's text in those characters. I call DMY "international format" because that's what it is, when compared to US format. If you ae arguing that we should use ISO dates in our English-language encyclopaedia because the Chinese use it when writing a different language in a different character set, then I hear what you are saying and regard it as irrelevant to our work here. --Pete (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Yes, humans don't use "2015-08-05" in regular conversation or reading - if you exclude the Chinese, of which there are 1.4 billion ..." We do exclude them from consideration here, because this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Chinese language Wikipedia. —sroc 💬 14:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And more importantly, RockyMtnGuy, please stop claiming Canadians use that date format on a regular basis in normal writing, because I can tell you as a fellow Canadian, you are completely wrong. Reso lute 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What you are really saying is that Canadians use other date formats in informal writing. Business writing is a different issue. I know Canadians use YYYY-MM-DD on cheques because I was Treasurer of a not-for-profit organization for 8 years. It was the preferred format for the Canadian Payments Association so it was what I used. I know it is used in business writing because I was a Business Analyst working and/or consulting for several companies, and many of them mandated the YYYY-MM-DD format for all written documents. I know Canadian governments, particularly the ones I dealt with, often used it on forms, although governments are mostly consistent in their inconsistency. And, whenever I designed computer systems, I used YYYY-MM-DD. It saved my employers and clients a large fortune when the Y2K imbroglio hit, because everything I designed from the start of my career was Y2K compliant, from 1970 forward. Being non-compliant with standards and catering to everyone's personal whims costs companies money, and ISO 8601 is clear, unambiguous and foolproof, unlike DMY and MDY. The main obstacle was Microsoft, whose programmers didn't even know what ISO 8601 was. Some organizations came close to suing them over their date handing in Y2K. Some organizations I worked for actually did sue them, but over other things they screwed up. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

What format is used on cheques, on forms, in computer systems, is immaterial here. We're talking about writing dates in text. If you could provide links to some samples of contemporary Canadian prose with dates in iSO format, that would be helpful here. --Pete (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. None of the cheques I was paid with when I lived in Canada were in YYYY-MM-DD form. That's something that a large business entity would do, at the request of their bank, their own account dept, or (most often) because a payroll company did it that way. It would be done that way for automated data processing reasons, in other words, not because it's an everyday Canadian human preference, not even in business writing. When I lived in Toronto, the preference, for dates everywhere (on signs, letters, TV listings, whatever) was somewhat toward "6 August 2015", but "August 6, 2015" was also encountered (among more wordy constructions like "August 6th, 2015", "the 6th of August, 2015", etc., in journalism and other less clipped contexts). In compressed form, people did all kinds of things, but it was pretty rare, in my memory anyway, to encounter "06-08-2015" or anything like that, because of the innate ambiguity. People would almost always use something clear like "6 Aug 2015" or "6-Aug-2015" or "Aug. 6 2015" or whatever suited their preferences, but not all-numbers, in any order, including ISO order except among the programmers I was working with (who lean toward that format worldwide, just as they also often put slashes through their zeroes in even in handwriting). There seemed to be an uneasy, default assumption in TO that "06-08-2015" or "6/8/2015" meant an August date not an American June date (probably because a majority of e-mail, blog, webboard, and other software does it this way, worldwide, when not using YYYY-MM-DD format); but urban, south-border Canada does so much business with urban north-border US that people genuinely seemed to avoid this kind of date format in everyday life. I wasn't in Montreal, the Martimes, the Prairies, Vancouver, the Yukon, etc., so I can't generalize about Canada, only report what I noticed in the GTA in the 2000s. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Death date and age#Proposed change to template - Aged or Age

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

There is a template called {{Death date and age}} it calculates someone's age given DOB and DOD. One of the parameters alters the ordering from MON DD, YEAR to DD MON YEAR to cater for the differences between US and UK date formats (see MOS:DATETIES). At the moment which ever date format is used the template use "aged nn". The proposal would change that so that if a US format is used the template will use "age nn" but keep "aged nn" for UK date formates. There are two questions being discussed:

Is "age" the correct syntax for US style date?
If so should an change be made to the template to implement a switch from "age" to "aged" depending on the date format chosen?

-- PBS (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I've long counseled that templates shouldn't "enforce MOS" by forcing the output to conform to MOS' current ideas of e.g. that this date format goes with that choice of age vs. aged. Consensus on such things can change, and it's intolerable that what should be a technical tool (the template) becomes a defacto encystment of an old decision which makes it difficult to change that decision at a later time.

In particular, as to "If we can agree on 1. above, then let's do 2.", I guarantee that's a bad idea‍—‌rank-and-file editors HATE that kind of silent, involuntary mass change based on a discussion among a relatively few editors. This is true even if the change is a default that can be overridden.

Unless someone thinks age is always "wrong", we can implement the following change right now:

make age/aged simply another parameter, with the default being the only current possibility i.e. aged.

This will change nothing in current invocations, but editors will have it available. Maybe (maybe) someday there it will be appropriate for MOS to say something about which of age/aged to use, when. EEng (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think "age" is always wrong, and I'm in the US. One might say "died August 4, 2015, at age 77." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that! One less linguistic division. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

I don't particularly care about this, I simply advertised it here so that editors who do care (like EEng and AR and RF) can express their view in that debate (it seems futile putting views here, as it will not affect the outcome of that debate). -- PBS (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's best not to tie one thing to another on the basis that Americans do x and y whilst normal people do i and j. Hey, Canadians might just do x and j. This kind of thing has plagued {{convert}} for years (e.g. "US"/"U.S." linked with "~re"/"~er" ... somewhat my bad but in spite of my attempts to undo it's hard to stamp out). I'd suggest keeping these separate. Note also that usages change anyhow. Jimp 16:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Age/aged is not an ENGVAR matter, it's purely syntactical; as Arthur points out, "age" can be used after a preposition like "at". But the construction "died age 77" or "died, age 77" is substandard telegraphic writing, and is properly "aged" not "age", in any major dialect. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Pure year–year ranges

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

"A pure year–year range is written [..]

 •   1881–86;  1881–92 (not 1881–6;  1881 – 86)

[..] But both years are given in full in the following cases: [..]
different centuries: 1881–1903; not 1881–03"

I don't know, this may have been discussed before. This just seems to be a bad rule.. 2000–2001 seems better as some might misunderstand 2000–01 as YYYY-MM (note, that would use a hyphen, not a distinction to many.

The real trouble however begins if say 1998–2000 needs to be introduced (say another section title). Do we want to mix YYYY-YY and YYYY-YYYY ranges? We can never know what needs to be added later to an article.. comp.arch (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Many (most?) other publications would use 2000–01 rather than 2000–2001 to mean the the year range. I don't know of any English-language prose publication that uses 2000-01 to mean January 2000, although one might see it in databases. Since people manage to figure it out in all those other publications, I think they can figure it out in Wikipedia too. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In all countries and contexts, where the ISO 8601 date format is the recommended date format or even mandantory to be used, 2000-01 would be normally interpreted as January 2000, not as 2000-2001, regardless of language. Even more so since abbreviated year numbers are broadly deprecated since the millennium for all those Y2K bugs they caused. The good news is that it is possible to learn from past mistakes. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Help is at hand. The MoS does not make the two digits mandatory. There is another rule - we use the most common construction. People generally write as they speak - they say, for example, "nineteen sixty-six to seven" and they write 1966 - 7, not 1966 - 67.

Thus 2001 - 2 is perfectly acceptable, and avoids the 2001 - 02 construction which some would think means February 2001. 213.123.194.188 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Another way round this is to use the slash. You could write 2000/01 for example and I don't think anyone would mistake that for January 2000. 213.123.194.188 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Matthiaspaul:, I don't accept your implication that there is an English-speaking country that requires, or even recommends, ISO 8601 in prose. Indeed, English-speaking countries aren't even in the business of telling their inhabitants how to speak or write. Can you prove that such a recommendation from the government of an English-speaking country exists, and if so, that the recommendation carries any weight with the inhabitants? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Christ, this ISO crap again??? ISO 8601 is a data exchange standard and has nothing to do with everyday writing. And as Jc has pointed out, no English-speaking country, AFAIK, commands its inhabitants to read, write, and speak in certain ways. EEng (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (all) for answering. I'm sorry for starting with the minor point. Nobody has addressed my main point ("real trouble"..). [2001–2 wouldn't really help there, 1991–2002, might happen (or just 2001–12), besides, 1991–2 is just as ambiguous as 1991–02 is that case.] comp.arch (talk) 30:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It simply isn't true that most other publications would use 2000–01; many informal and journalistic sources would do this, especially in compressed spaces, but it introduces a hopeless ambiguity if the number after the dash is under 13, and will be interpreted by many as a month. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Overview of date formatting guidelines

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 152 § Interaction between DATEFORMAT guidelines §§ Essay that petered out, I humbly suggest the following hatnote under the heading for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Chronological items §§ Dates, months and years §§§ Formats:

Formats
See also: Wikipedia:Overview of date formatting guidelines

Thoughts? —sroc 💬 07:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think a "Hitchhiker's guide to date formats", to help editors tie together the various date-format advice scattered here and there, fills a niche. EEng (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Such a link seems dubious. To the extent your essay is just a restatement of the guideline it adds nothing new, and there is not point for the link. To the extent that it goes beyond a mere restatement and strengthens a particular interpretation, but without acknowledging that strengthening ("clarification"), linking it into the offical guideline amounts to a covert modification of the MOS. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And we-rrrre off! EEng (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope not. Sroc asked for thoughts, and I have provided them. I think he will understand that I am not trying to instigate a re-argument of what the proper interpretation should be. He may understand why I think his essay is not the kind of "Hitchhiker's Guide" you contemplate, and why I think a link would be improper. He may think otherwise, in which case we can agree to disagree. He may even have doubts, in which case I might be able to help resolve some aspects. We will see. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I totally see JJ's point here in blurring the lines between guideline and essay. The only I reason I brought it up is because others had suggested (in the earlier discussion) incorporating the essay into the guidelines somehow and I thought this might be a simple way to do so, but I'm happy to let sleeping dogs lie. At least I hope the essay serves as a useful point of reference to show my understanding of the interaction between the listed provisions—an understanding shared by others, but not purporting to be a proper guideline—as it may be a useful re-statement to link in discussions from time to time, whether others use it or not. —sroc 💬 13:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the existing provisions (quite aside from their goodness or usefulness, or how they might be improved) derives from your understanding of their interaction. It might be useful for future discussion to explicitly identify those interactions, and distinguish them from alternative understandings of same. But that is rather a "meta" discussion, and not, I think, useful for anyone going to MOSNUM for guidance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

We should not be linking to essays for guidance; this will (rightly) be interpreted as inappropriate deference to one editor's opinion. If such a page is seen as needed, it should be vetted as an MoS subpage guideline, i.e. proposed as WP:Manual of Style/Date formatting overview or the like. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

8-digit (XXXX-XXXX) year ranges for sports

Latest comment: 9 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion

Current wording "A date range may appear in 2005–2010 format if it is a range of sports seasons in an infobox."
Proposed change "A date range may appear in 2005–2010 format if it is a range of sports seasons ~~in an infobox~~."

Rationale in a nutshell: The intent is to establish that compact 8-digit year ranges (XXXX-XXXX) are acceptable for a range of sports seasons. In all other respects, these sports ranges should be subject to the same general usage rules as the compact 6-digit year range (XXXX-XX).

Current use in FAs: Rudolf Caracciola (motor sport), Thierry Henry (assoc football), Karmichael Hunt (rugby union), Otto Graham (American football), Joel Selwood (Austrailian rules football), Grey Cup (Canadian football), Michael Jordan (basketball), Jackie Robinson (baseball), Wayne Gretzky (ice hockey)

Background: My bold edit was reverted with the edit summary of "oh, no, no, no. There's WAY too much history to the current wording. I understand what you're trying to do but this will need to be discussed".

As seen by the above sampling of Feature Articles from various sports, the 8-digit format is already being used in places where a compact format using en dash is more suitable than using words i.e. "from XXXX to XXXX". Aside from infoboxes, this is already used in cases like section headers or tables. For sports year ranges, the 8-digit year range is not in practice used any differently than if the 6-digit format were chosen. This is consistent with WP:PROPOSAL: "Most commonly, a new policy or guideline simply documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to them."

The previous discussion to add the 8-digit format can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 144#Date range redux. As a background, the 8-digit format was preferred in for some sports where a single season straddles two years, and is typically expressed with a 6-digit range. While quite a few of the comments were with respect to infoboxes, the spirit of the discussion was allowing 8-digit sports year ranges where the MOS previously allowed only the six-digit format, which was contrary to actual practice. The discussion was closed with consensus to accept the 8-digit form on February 3, 2014. The MOS was not updated until March 7, 2014, when I added it with the overly restrictive limitation for infoboxes.[7]—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've modified some text which may or may not have caused confusion (to SMcCandlish below?). Removed text has been ~~struck~~, while inserted text is in red and underlined: "As a background, the 8-digit format was preferred in for some sports where a single season straddles two years ..."—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't change my position, just reminds me that some people are treating "generally" as if it meant "always". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, that red correction help. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Support proposal per nominator's rationale. Rikster2 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Partial support with clarifications: This should be used in "infobox-like" compact presentation, such as section headings, lists, tables, and navboxes. Limiting this format to exactly infoboxes was a consensus-assessment error. It's also permissible in running prose, but only in reference to specific, individual seasons, as in the 2014–2015 season, or some favor the 2014–15 season. It should not otherwise be used in running prose, when referring to a span of multiple seasons (use the 2008–2009 through 2013–2014 seasons), or just some date range unconnected to seasons, e.g. played for the team, 2010–2014; that's unencyclopedic telegraphic writing, a news style as used in headlines (same goes for a "...2010–14" version); instead, use played for the team from 2010 to 2014". This is surely central to why the incautious change to a blanket statement in favor of eight-digit style was reverted. The purpose of the 2014–2015 line-item is to cover a conventional, specific usage that is used as a shorthand in particular constructions, not to play some "sports wikiprojects are exempt from date formatting rules" favoritism that scraps basic rules of good writing. There are a few other things with regard to date-range formatting that should probably be re-examined and may need tweaking, but I'll address that separately in the #Discussion section below. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Clarified. 15:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

the eight-digit format should never be used to describe a specific season, as in your example. If specifically referring to a sports season (vs. a range), it should be 6 digits (example "the 1993–94 season"). The 8-digit format is only used to express a range (essentially standing in for prose like "Smith played for the Tigers from 1991 to 1996"). Otherwise I agree with your statements. Rikster2 (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Rikster is correct about referring to individual seasons. Per WP:DATERANGE: "Periods straddling two different years, including sports seasons, are generally written with the range notation (2005–06)."—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Rikster is not correct, because "generally" does not mean "always" and thus does not translate, in the inverse, into "never". The six-digit format is problematic, because it's easily misread as YYYY-MM in many situations; this is one reason why it has the "generally" caveat, I'm pretty sure (another is that there are sports in which it is not conventional). We shouldn't be using it at all if you ask me, for the same reason we don't do this with page number ranges (it's pp. 239–272 not pp. 239–72). We should not make the situation even worse by swapping out plain English Smith played for the Tigers from 1991 to 1996 for telegraphic gibberish like Smith played for the Tigers 1991–1996. WP is not a newspaper. Actually, even a newspaper wouldn't do that except in a headline. So, I'll support this for compact presentations (infobox, nav, heading, table, list) only, not running prose unless it's in ref. to a single season. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your comment on usage in compact presentations as opposed to running prose. However, that applies to the six-digit format as well, and is not unique to eight-digits. Thus, the proposal was made to strike "in an infobox" from the eight-digit note. No prejudice if the MOS is enhanced separately to generally discuss common practice regarding compact form vs prose to cover both six- or eight-digit formats. If you agree that is can be handled separately, please consider changing your !vote from partial to full support. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"generally" does not mean "always": True, MOS is a guideline, and WP:GUIDES says "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines". So in that sense, there can always be common sense exemptions.—Bagumba (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you wrote and support the proposal, however, to me it does not make sense to restrict the yyyy-yyyy range to sport seasons. yyyy-yyyy is the normal form to express a range of years in compact form (that is, when the long form "from year yyyy to year yyyy" is undesireable to be used for some reason). Therefore we should allow it whenever the abbreviation yyyy-yy is allowed at present.

If you ask me, I would also support to go further and deprecate the yyyy-yy form (except for in citations and where a range needs to be expressed in 7 characters for space reasons). It looks like a leftover from the past century to me. As I wrote earlier, there was a lesson to be learned from the Y2K nightmare, and this is to avoid abbreviated years. In fact, I very rarely see this form being used outside the English Wikipedia now, perhaps once or twice a year, whereas I see the 4-digit year form almost on a daily basis. Most people now seem to stick to 4-digit years.

Generally speaking, the purpose of the MOS is to assist editors in chosing a writing style which is non-ambiguous, easily accessible, consistent (where possible), and logical (hopefully). At present, the section on pure year ranges recommends the form yyyy-yy and then lists a long lists of conditions and exceptions when yyyy-yyyy should be used instead because yyyy-yy causes ambiguity. So, why don't we just swap this around, and recommend the easier to parse form yyyy-yyyy as the default compact representation and specifically allow yyyy-yy in those cases where we know that it does not cause confusion? Sounds way more consistent and logical too me.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask that a new thread be started with your proposal to remove "if it is a range of sports seasons" as well? I don't want to sidetrack from this (hopefully) simpler proposal already here. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to "hijack" your thread. I just thought the proposal would be related enough to be discussed in tandem in order to reduce the general overhead and free everyone's time for more actual article editing. Anyway, you have my support... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd rather see us approach this more programmatically, but need to review the exact present wording before getting into the details of what tweaks may be needed. I'll post a followup here later. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: I agree we're talking about multiple different things, above, and have attempted to outline all of them:
1. YYYY–YYYY is the normal way, in good writing, to express a date range where compacting (in a table, etc.) a phrase like from YYYY to YYYY is necessary.
2. This is not exclusive to sports, but across all topics.
3. YYYY-YY should be avoided everywhere, because it's sloppy, and it produces confusing results like "2008-09" which automatically means "September 2008" to many readers, and is ambiguous to all others. Same goes for YYYY/YY.
4. In running prose, the YYYY-YYYY season is a normal way to express a single sport season that spans the Dec. 31 / Jan. 1 year boundary.
5. This is also true of some other things, e.g. television seasons that span a year (the YYYY-YYYY season again), a serial publication issue that spans a year (the winter 2008–2009 issue), and literal seasons that span a year (a population that dropped precipitously in winter 2008–2009 or ...summer 2008–2009 in the southern hemisphere); it is often not the only way to write it, e.g. the winter of 2008–2009. So, again, we have no reason to limit this to sports specifically.
6. There are some [potential] exceptions to – formatting, contexts in which / is traditionally used and is the majority use in reliable sources on that topic. Some sports conventionally use the 2014/2015 season or even season 2014/2015, given in compact form (tables etc.) as 2014/2015. Whether MOS wants to "honor" that or not is an open question; an argument can be made that it's totally harmless ("an acceptable alternative style which MOS should not prohibit" is how we usually approach such things), while another can be made that it's the WP:Specialized-style fallacy. I lean toward the former, specifically because it would have to directly conflict with normal usage in a way that confused people, in order to be an SSF, and I don't see any evidence of such confusion. Even the winter of 2008/2009 is common in reliable sources, probably more common than the dash version. I can break out the pile of style guides if necessary; I have a suspicion that a slash may be recommended in place of a dash by many of them, for two consecutive years.
7. In running prose, willy-nilly use of YYYY-YYYY and YYYY-YY are substandard, informal writing, for sports and all other topics: played for the Tigers 2008–2015.
8. One sports-journalism usage in particular, which seems to be the genesis of this thread, is also substandard writing: the halfassed-compressed form played for the Tigers in the 2008–2015 seasons. It's gibberish. There is no such conceptual entity the 2008–2015 seasons. They are separate things, and what is meant is from the 2009–2010 through 2014–2015 seasons (or from the 2009/2010 through 2014/2015 seasons, depending on the sport's season naming conventions). If it there's no in-context need to mention seasons specifically, this can be compressed to from 2009 to 2015.
9. Some conceptual date entities do span more than a single year boundary, as in seeking the 2016–2020 US Presidency.
10. A side point not discussed here yet, this time, but worth reaffirming is that we should never capitalize as Season (in TV, sports, climate, or anything else), per the general MOS:CAPS approach: If in doubt, do not capitalize. The external sources do not uniformly capitalize this, even for sports or TV, so we don't either, as a zillion WP:RMs and other previous discussion demonstrate. An obvious exception would be in titles of published works, e.g. a DVD box-set called The X-Files Season 9.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:: Given your general support for XXXX-XXXX across all domains, can I assume you support the premise of allowing XXXX-XXXX for sports when a compact form is needed, and not exclusively for infoboxes (as it is currently worded)? If so, I would propose to incrementally make the minor change originally proposed here, and start a separate discussion on expanding XXXX-XXXX for use beyond sports, which I imagine might need more discussion. Thanks for your consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've already given that, above: 'This should be used in "infobox-like" compact presentation, such as section headings, lists, tables, and navboxes. Limiting this format to exactly infoboxes was a consensus-assessment error.' — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

With regard to #3 I would disagree that 6-digit date format should be avoided "everywhere." It is the most common display for a split-year sports season like basketball or hockey ("the 2009–10 season") and should remain the default for that IMO. So I suppose that means I disagree with #4 and if the proposal is to change MOS to reflect this I would like more discussion on that point. I also don't think this proposal was suggesting #8, that in prose a range use the "–" instead of from/to. I believe the proposal has always been about compact usage and don't believe anyone was suggesting the MOS be changed to allow this. Rikster2 (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Update There seems to be consensus to remove the "in an infobox" text as proposed. Moreover, Matthiaspaul and  SMcCandlish have expressed an interest to expand the XXXX-XXXX format beyond sports, which they are encouraged to continue (possibly under a new thread that doesnt end in "... for sports", so as to involve other interested parties in the wider discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I am against' encouraging YYYY–YY usage anywhere unless it is done to meet width constraints on tables, but even then it should only be contemplated if there is no elegant alternative. Back in the good old days when Wikipedia was edited by real editors and not quiche eaters, editors used to link all years like this 1900-1905 (notice also the use of dash instead of ndash). Now although times have moved on and we have bots to change dashes to ndashes between such dates, I am against the change of using two digit years, because if people want to search the internet for a date, any pages using two digests formats are likely to be missed. As this is not a paper encyclopaedia, we do not have to save characters like they do in paper encyclopaedias by truncating dates or page range (as it will have a detrimental affects on internet searches). The old wording in this guidance was the typical neutral wording of a consensus compromise:

A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986). The full closing year is acceptable, but abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or three digits (1881–886) is not.

It was changed by this edit on 24 September 2010 by user:PL290. to

A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986).

I think that broke a compromise which exists in fact (it certainly did on the pages I edit which retain all four digests in such cases). AFAICT there was little or no discussion of that change in the archives. The no no examples were reinstated by user:EEng with this edit on 12 January 2014 but without the wording "The full closing year is acceptable" which I think was a mistake.

In the case of sporting seasons or school years (like night time bombing raids during World War II: "night of 17/18 May 1940" (eg Bombing of Hamburg#Timeline) then I prefer "1881/82 season" rather than "1881–82 season".

-- PBS (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly concur with "I am against' encouraging YYYY–YY usage anywhere unless it is done to meet width constraints on tables". It's sloppy telegraphic writing / headline style. "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year" is wrong. It's fairly (probably decreasingly) common in journalism, is avoided in academic writing, and is something we cannot do with any automated tool, or in any other circumstance where what comes after the hyphen might be under 13, because it produces hopeless ambiguity, and will be interpreted by many readers as a month not an abbreviated year. "The full closing year is acceptable" is an understatement; it's preferable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was just wondering whether anything had been done about this and was delighted to see this discussion underway. Although I agree entirely with the points made above in support of XXXX-XXXX format, perhaps the strongest argument of all is that the current guideline is practically never followed. The MOS should reflect usage not dictate it wherever possible, and the vast majority of editors are clearly using the full 8-digit format. If this needs to be formalised somehow I hope it is, but otherwise surely there is consensus above to make the change? Frickeg (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  - I am somewhat unclear what is being suggested here, but for the record I am against moving away from using the six-digit date format to denote distinct sport seasons that span a calendar year (like 2013–14 Dallas Mavericks season). This is the overwhelming manner in which these are displayed in reliable sources in the U.S. (as well as other countries) and directly discouraging the practice (in context of course) does not seem like something MOS should do. It seems like Wikipedia should reflect reality. Rikster2 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    - My comment, for the record, has nothing particularly to do with sports seasons, about which I know essentially nothing and am not qualified to have an opinion, really. It was in support of the 8-digit format being either the preferred format of date ranges generally, or at the very least as an equal option with the 6-digit format and preferred in tables. Frickeg (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
      - Ok, good, because if people tried changing single-season articles that span two calendar years to an 8 digit format, you'd have a war on your hands. "2015–16", as the upcoming NHL and NBA seasons will be, is a very common format and is completely expected by the reader. For date ranges exclusive of single seasons, I would generally support (and I wrote the Grey Cup article referenced above) making the eight digit format the preferred style, but not a mandatory one. Reso lute 00:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice on arabic vs. roman vs. spelled-out numbers for series and sequences

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

At WT:MOSTM it's been pointed out that we don't have a default. WP:COMMONNAME will tell us how to title the article (it's World War II, not World War 2, World War Two, or Second World War for this reason; titles of published works tell us just by looking at the published title; and regnal numbers are conventionally roman; etc.), this does not tell us what to do by default in running prose when sources are not consistent on a particular case.

I propose adding the following:

Series and sequences
When reliable sources are not consistent in their usage of the designation of things in a series or sequence, generally default to using a spelled-out, leading ordinal number: in the seventh grade. Where this is part of the proper name of something, it is capitalized: the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change. Default to trailing arabic numerals for abbreviated forms, but follow the majority of reliable sources' usage for a given case of abbreviation (e.g., the somewhat idiosyncratically hyphenated ICCC-10 for the previously mentioned conference). Numbers of volumes, episodes, sequels, and the like default to arabic numerals (e.g., vol. 7 and season 3), unless given in roman numerals by the published work to which they pertain, consistently across editions/releases (as in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope). Events are usually best distinguished by date (e.g., Harlem riot of 1964 or the 1964 Harlem riot), even if they also have formally numbered names (e.g. Super Bowl XLIX), unless the year is also given or is clear in the context. (See also § Regnal numbers.)

I think that should cover at least most of what needs to be spelled out, and will consolidate it in one place. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, This generally looks good, but I think the recommendation to spell out ordinals should be modified. the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change is fine, but what about the (fictional) presented at the 205th Conference on Species Names. Ordinals over some limit (many use ten, some 99) should not IMO be spelled out, and theis should be mentioend here, I think. DES ^(talk) 18:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes. We already have a rule about not spelling about bigger numbers, so we should cross-reference it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Format	Meaning & notes
660–685	between those exact years, inclusive
c. 660 – 686	660-ish to exactly 686
660 – c. 686	660 exactly to 686-ish
c. 660 – c. 686	660-ish to 686-ish
c. 660–670	around that decade; while essentially shorthand for c. 660 – c. 670, more concise yet as c. 665 in many contexts; possibly confusing in general. Deprecation suggested (i.e., merge into next example).
c. 660–685	Deprecated – uncertain meaning; instead use c. 660 – 686 or c. 660 – c. 686, as needed
fl. 660–685	between at least these years, both certain
fl. c. 660 – 685	between 660-ish and 685 for certain; probably better explained in words (easy to misinterpret as fl. c. 660 – c. 685, as well as possibly confusing in general)
fl. 660 – c. 685	between 660 for certain and 685-ish; probably better explained in words (possibly confusing in general)
fl. c. 660 – c. 685	between 660-ish and 685-ish; rare usage, probably better explained in words (possibly confusing in general)
fl. c. 660–670	somewhere in that decade probably; while essentially shorthand for fl. c. 660 – c. 670, more concise yet as fl. ca. 665 in many contexts; probably better explained in words (possibly confusing in general). Deprecation suggested (i.e., merge into next example).
fl. c. 660–685	Deprecated – uncertain meaning; instead, use fl. c. 660 – 685, or fl. c. 660 – c. 685, as needed