Talk:Clifford Barry

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Olympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Sport Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Swimming Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swimming, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swimming on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwimmingWikipedia:WikiProject SwimmingTemplate:WikiProject Swimmingswimming articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Water polo work group (assessed as Low-importance).

RFC: DMY or MDY

As originating editor of the discussion, am withdrawing my query. Rusted AutoParts 21:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Article at present is utilizing a DMY format when this is incorrect. Attempts to change to MDY have been refused. As this is of a Canadian subject it should follow the MDY format. Agree or disagree? Rusted AutoParts 17:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: There is no previous discussion on this page, and I cannot find any evidence that the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE have been exhausted. This is not yet ready for a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC, so I'm removing the {{rfc}} tag. Discussion may continue, and if you need to publicise it, you may drop a neutrally-worded note at the talk pages of the WikiProjects named above.

That said, per MOS:DATETIES either format is valid for a Canada-related article; but the article must be consistent. When Lugnuts (talk · contribs) created the article, they used DMY consistently; so per MOS:DATERET a discussion (which need not be an RfC) is necessary to change that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, per Rose. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It fundamentally breaks Wikipedia consistency when virtually every other Canadian utilizes the MDY format and suddenly here's one that doesn't. What's the point of structure if editors pick and choose when it's used. Rusted AutoParts 23:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATETIES says consistency within each article, it says nothing about consistency between different articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^^^This. I've created hundreds, if not thousands of articles on Canadian Olympians, cricketers and films, and no-one has taken umbrage on such a trivial issue before. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not trivial in the slightest, it’s consistency and it to me is a fair thing to highlight. If an editor changed the format, like say me switching to mdy and that change is a consistent one throughout the page, is Lugnuts then in the wrong switching it back, since as it stated “per MOS:DATETIES either format is valid for a Canada-related article” and as per Lugnuts this is “trivial”?. Because that was exactly what my edits were. If it’s trivial why is Lugnuts changing it back and disallowing it to be differently formatted, and is that not WP:OWN seeing he created the article? Rusted AutoParts 16:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there is a repeated line in MOS:DATERET that goes “unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic”. This article in particular is of a Canadian Olympian, who represented the country. This qualifies as a national tie, and feeds back into my point that the commonly used format for Canadian biographies is MDY. Rusted AutoParts 16:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It’s not trivial in the slightest". It's the very definition of trivial. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So then why did you revert me in the first place... Rusted AutoParts 17:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was busy building an encyclopedia. I seems you are not. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, what an incredibly toxic response. So I’m here for my own self interest because *checks notes* I am discussing changing date formats so it’s not being tug of warred over in the article? If you have zero interest in discussing this topic you don’t have to participate in it. You don’t have to make incredibly disingenuous comments like that and basically stonewall the discussion because you don’t want to discuss it. Point is, Barry has strong national ties that makes a switch of format justified, and given “both formats are fine either way” and you consider this whole thing “trivial”, what is your issue with the format being swapped around? Rusted AutoParts 16:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh wow, what an incredibly toxic response" Says the guy who was chucking around personal attacks about article ownership a few lines up. Sorry, sonny, but the date format isn't going to change, per the original reply from Rose. Best to move on and find something constructive to do with your time. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you aren’t giving me any actual responses as to why you feel status quo needs to be maintained, just brief jabs and needless condescension. The original reply from Redrose said “a discussion (which need not be an RfC) is necessary to change that”, which I’m trying to have right now but you’re clearly just trying to shut down instead of actually talk about it. I guess I’ll take this to the WikiProjects since you so disinterested in having any kind of discussion with me about it. Rusted AutoParts 17:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering there is no official date format in Canada, and the very commonly used one is YYYY-MM-DD ([1]), I don't believe all Canadian articles should use mdy dates, and I have seen no universal consensus for this. As neither dmy or mdy are official date formats for Canada, either is acceptable, and we don't need to default everything to the American way of doing things. Which has already been pointed out very clearly.... Joseph2302 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATETIES says Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. (see Retaining existing format). Rusted AutoParts please explain which part of that very clear, explicit guidance is so confusing? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I’ve explained that what I’ve seen from reading that is the “strong national ties” part and all I want to know is if that’s a sound justification on my part or if it’s rendered moot given there not being an official format. Like that’s really all there is to it if I’m told no, that’s not correct, I’m misconstruing it, I’ll move on. I was just not getting that part from Lugnuts so that’s why I went elsewhere for additional input. Rusted AutoParts 17:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And my additional swap of the format did maintain a consistent swap throughout the page given there’s only two uses of dates within the page. I had failed to see the “use dmy” part so I was swapping that to match my change. Rusted AutoParts 17:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.