Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Proposal on international date format

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date Format for Non-English Countries

[edit]

Under Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic, should the words "English-speaking" be removed? Thus for non-English-speaking countries, like France or Germany, the date format will be in day-month-year, similar to the native language of the country. For Asian countries that use year-month-day, either day-month-year or month-day-year formats can be used. Here's how it currently reads:

  • Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.

Wikky Horse (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If a Spanish reader knows a date as el 1 enero, or if a French person would normally read 1 janvier, that is good enough reason to keep the mdy in the same format as the natives. It's not like were asking the format to be in 二零零八年一月一日... Ohconfucius (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, you just now came across to me as a rosy-cheeked kid in a school uniform wandering into the toughest neighborhood in town suggesting “why don’t we all just pull together and clean this place up?” Isn’t that just so cuuuuuuuute? Wikky Horse: please go visit the nearest MOSNUM equivalent of Arlington National Cemetery and pay your respects at the graves of all the brave Wikipedians who have laid down their lives for this noble cause. The inhumanity of it all… Greg L (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is this the toughest neighbourhood in town? and is this another dilettante being unreasonably niaive and unwittingly picking a fight with the street kids? I know we've been there before, but I actually think the suggestion makes plenty of sense. I hate the idea of combing through edit histories to find out who was the 'first significant contributor' to any given article before I go to work with the reformatting script. Actually, it's an understatement - it's a real pain in the butt... Ohconfucius (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • O I totally agree with you Ohconfucius and Wikky Horse. Once again, I must profess that I agree with nothing PMAnderson has to write on this subject. It *should* simply be an issue of who is the likely readership (an article about a national park in the U.S. will predominately be visited by Americans so it should use American-style dates). I agree, it shouldn’t be an issue of what style of date the first major contributor used; not in the least. But some editors don’t want one teensy bit of what they’ve ever done changed. That, or they just think that how they do things must be the One and Only True Way. If you check this page’s edit history around the area of 20:00, 13 December 2008, you will find that there are some damned stubborn editors who work here. Greg L (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We cannot tell who the likely readership is; we can guess in extreme cases (an obscure park in Nevada or NSW). But Greg L would impose his One True Way on the vast majority of articles based on mere conjecture; but then he boasts of his stubbornness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patience, not stubbornness. Get your facts straight. And (*sigh*) trying to get back to some logical arguments, you wrote “We cannot tell who the likely readership is”. That is absurd and totally false. It doesn’t pass the “grin test.” Common sense (not PMAnderson declaring what is and is not possible to know) suffices. If the article is about a U.S.-centric subject, like Spokane River Centennial Trail or Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, it is much more likely to have a predominately American readership that would articles not closely tied to the US. You can poo-poo the logic of that, but, I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I take great pride in promoting points of view you can’t see. I am really speaking to others. Greg L (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish to make it easier to edit, the suggestion from Wikky Horse won't help, because under that suggestion, editors would have to be familiar with the language and dating customs of the non-English-speaking country that the article is tied to. So it would just substitute one difficulty (knowing how dates in the country are usually formatted) for another (knowing what the first significant contribution to the article that condtained a date was). If you want editing to be easy, just specify that the format for articles not strongly connected to the US or Canada use the dd month yyyy format. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerry, you write that it is difficult to require that editors figure out what type of date format a country uses. On many occasion before, I have proposed a guideline that spelled out precisely the few countries that use U.S.-style dates. It is largely the U.S. and its territories. Canada is a mix. That would have taken the burden entirely off the editor of needing to do any research. The most important benefit to Wikipedia and its readership is it would have all articles being written in a way that is most natural for the predominant audience. Greg L (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See: Calendar_date#dd.2Fmm.2Fyyyy_or_dd.mm.yyyy_.28day.2C_month.2C_year.29. Lightmouse (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying Calendar_date#Usage_issues shouldn't be relied upon? Sure beats combing through every edit history... Ohconfucius (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it shouldn't. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Combing through the edit history of an article takes about 15 seconds. But, of course, if you are trying to set an AWB-assisted-editing world speed record with date delinking and date formatting tasks, then the edit history really is too much of a bother. There's no way to average editing an article every 4 seconds doing that! And any mistakes you make aren't really your problem, anyway. Tennis expert (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it takes 15 seconds belies the fact that you've never done it. One must go through every edit from the beginning until you find the first addition of a date, then for no really substantial reason, other than being there first and editors not wanting to make a rule on this issue, that is now the rule for the article. Attacking the contributions of other editors because they are fast and effective is rather weak as well. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I have done it often. The latest example is my compilation of the list of mistakes that Ohconfucius made, which I cited above but will do so again for your reading convenience: this. I don't "attack" other editors for their fast contributions. I simply note their flagrant disregard and disrespect of the Wikipedia rules of use concerning AWB. But maybe you don't like rules.... Tennis expert (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, why would you state it takes about 15 seconds. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is my experience. But maybe I am simply more efficient than you in this task. If you need pointers about how to do it, feel free to ask on my discussion page. Tennis expert (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and a stopwatch. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way is to leave such things alone and go find something useful to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(*pssst*) Hey Wikky Horse, see what I mean? Greg L (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree PMAnderson. The “easiest” way is to leave it alone. That’s certainly not the best way though. Funny, the way you diminish the heart-felt suggestions of others by back-handing them with a “go find something useful to do.” If it is a proposal that you like, it is useful. If you passionately disagree with what others propose, others must be nothing more than fools wasting their time on unimportant things. Everyone sees through your profound arrogance and petty slights. I don’t believe I will share with you, how you come across to others since I doubt you could even see my point. Even though it would undermine my efforts once in a while, I would be ever grateful if I actually saw a rational argument out of you once in a while. Greg L (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I hold with WP:ENGVAR: we do not decide which variety of English is "more correct". I would oppose a guideline which pretended to enact Month day, Year, with equal determination. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unnecessarily incivil and hostile comment, Greg L. Tennis expert (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PMAnderson: Do you refuse to *get* it or do you actually get it and are acting like you don’t? WP:ENGVAR has nothing to do with this. We’re not saying that one variety of English is *better* than the other and deserves to predominate. We’re not suggesting that “color” is better than “colour”. We’re saying 1) there are more people who speak English as their first and second language than there are Americans, and 2) almost all of them use Euro-style dates, so 3) use Euro-style dates if the subject is about or is closely tied to a country that uses Euro-style dates because such articles will predominately have a non-American readership, and 4) use American-style dates if the article is about or is closely associated with the US (like San Bernardino, California) because those articles will have a predominately American readership. This position has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:ENGVAR.

    Now please come back with an argument that A) doesn’t backhand others who disagree with you with the suggestion that they are promoting a cause which is beneath you and is unimportant, and which B) actually addresses the issue of making Wikipedia’s articles more natural reading for the likely readership rather than simply grandfather in inappropriate date styles “‘cause I did it my way in that article and don’t want it messed with.”

    I was originally intent on ignoring this God-forsaken topic until I saw you write, above “The easiest way is to leave such things alone and go find something useful to do.” Nope, sorry, I’m not going to let you get your way pulling that sort of bullshit when another, well-intentioned editor comes here with a suggestion you just happen to disagree with. Cease with the bullying of others and let’s see some logical arguments that speak to the issues more often. Greg L (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • People who speak English as their second language use the Wikipedia of their first language; that's why they exist. Making this English Wikipedia into a creolized mishmosh would really help hardly anybody, and would harm those whose first language is English; a net harm to the encyclopedia.
  • ENGVAR begins by saying "The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language." Greg's entire position consists of taking a preference against a major variant of the language (on unproven and irrelevant grounds); his proposal depends on Month day, Year being characteristic of the United States and a few other countries. I do not find the distinction sufficient; few do.
  • I set aside the abuse; the rest of this is Greg's wish to pick and choose the arguments on both sides of the discussion. Under those conditions, he might indeed prevail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to gear date format to article content

[edit]
  • As to your first bullet point: Yes—I think—I agree with you about non-native speakers of English using en.Wikipedia. That has been my point all along: there are a lot of them coming to en.Wikipedia. As to catering as best we can to our entire audience, not just those who speak English as their first language, I think it’s clear that we not be afraid of turning en.Wikipedia into “creolized mishmosh”, as you put it.

    As to your second bullet point: WP:ENGVAR (ENGlish VARiation, or dialect) has nothing to do with this and takes no position whatsoever as to what guideline ought to be used in choosing the most suitable date format to use in articles. That much is left to MOSNUM; ergo, the consensus of the greater user community here. Consensus can and is changing.

    As to your third point, if you are going to bully newcomers coming here with a proposal (because it just seems so damned sensible and straightforward to them and they have no clue of the vitriol that has transpired here in the past), and tell them to go find something useful to do, then don’t whine here about the slings and arrows of great misfortune heaped upon you when I call you on these tactics; it is extraordinarily rude of you and that is not how you influence others and win arguments.


    Finally, our MOSNUM guideline governing which date format to use in our articles should be simple:

  1. As per Ohconfucius said above, editors should not have to go figure out which previous editor should be considered “the first major contributor” to an article, nor should there be arguments here or in RfCs or at ANIs over this issue over and over. It should not be so complex. Further, the personal practices of some previous editor two years prior isn’t even germane to what produces the best-reading article and shouldn’t be a factor in our considerations, and
  2. Whereas there is a greater number of readers of en.Wikipedia who speak English as their first or second language who are not American than there are English-speaking Americans, and
  3. Whereas this world-wide, English-speaking audience uses international-style dates (13 December 2008), and
  4. Whereas articles not closely associated with American topics such as Italy, Austria, Basilica di Saccargia and Kilogram have a pronounced non-American readership, and
  5. Whereas articles articles on, or closely associated with American topics, such as Spokane River Centennial Trail; Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; American Revolution; and New York Yankees have a preponderance of American readers, and
  6. Whereas Americans use American-style date formatting (December 13, 2008), and
  7. Whereas Americans—who are insular and have *relatively* little knowledge of the customs of other countries (two big ponds on both sides, you see)—we probably do Americans some good by exposing them to the fact that the rest of the world formats their dates differently by having, for instance, our Italy article use Euro-style dates, and
  8. Whereas Gerry Ashton, above, raised a good point that the burden should not be on editors to figure out what country uses what date format…
Hereby, my proposal is simple, as follows:

1. For articles on, or strongly associated with, the following countries and territories: The United States, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Wake Island, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic of Palau; editors should use the U.S.-style date format (“February 2, 2008”), otherwise, editors should use the international date format (“2 February 2008”) in articles.

Bear in mind that I am an American. But I simply think it is wrong that editors here are so territorial that we simply grandfather in random-ass date formats based upon a nebulous notion of who was where firstest with the biggest and mostest. None of that has anything to do with making Wikipedia a better place. Such an attitude has everything to do with mollycoddling vociferous editors who SHOUT loudest and resort to uncivil backhandings and insults to well-meaning editors. As for articles pertaining to Canada (which uses both date formats), I would propose that we invite Canadian editors (no one else) to come up with proposed guideline wording that they think is best. Greg L (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This misstates what our present guidance is: 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. The only mention of first major contributor is for the early stages of writing, when no record of stable agreement is to be found.
  • I deplore the attitude we need to do our readers "good" by exposing them to this, that or the other - instead of communicating with them.
  • Greg's rule is indeed an example of the utterly useless legalese he thinks he is parodying.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Awe… shucky darn (for you). The inconvenient truths:
The preamble to MOSNUM: If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
And this:
  • 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.
  • In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".
As for your bullet point #2, that’s your opinion that it is “deplorable” to *expose* readers to facts. I happen to think that the job of an encyclopedia is to educate; in this case, in the most benign manner possible. Silly me. Perhaps you would have us benignly educate readers that Wikipedia has no rhyme or reason to choosing date formats other than who was the first volunteer editor to pound away furiously on his or her keyboard?
As to your third bullet point: “Greg's rule is … legalese” : Clearly not. The preamble perhaps; but the guideline itself (it is not, as you say, a “rule”) is as simple as can be. As to my intentions (“parody”), I caution you about conjecturing on such matters; I am quite pleased to pronounce that you and I do not think at all alike. Greg L (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to Greg's bottom line. The one part of his reasoning that I question is whether just because most countries put the day before the year in their native languages, does that mean that residents of those countries prefer to see day before year when reading in English? I never had occasion to discuss it among the people I know who learned English as a second language; I would guess the place where they learned English would have an influence. In any case, my view is that a publication has every right to adopt a house style, and if Wikipedia wants to make it fairly easy, and use day-first for everything except a short list of countries or territories, that's fine with me. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We had a comment on that, by a native Swede, who expected to see in English what he was accustomed to seeing in English, which happened to be month-day. The idea that "13 September 2008" should somehow feel more natural than "September 13, 2008" because I consistently read and write "13 september 2008" in my native Swedish never crossed my mind. Why should it?
The case for someone used to septiembre should be at least as strong. The tendency to claque phrases like that is a mark of lack of fluency. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has little, if anything, to do with the issue. It is not about writing in Swedish. The point is that there ought to be a simple, justifiable, and consistent rule and several editors say that the somewhat random choice of the first editor is not such a rule. One alternate rule proposed here is that articles related to countries that prefer one format, use that format. Other rule proposals are quite possible. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is not about writing in Swedish; it's about writing in English. Greg's proposal would require that our articles about Sweden imitate Swedish, whether or not that is good or natural English. Following the first editor is a red herring; our present rule is to leave a consistent article alone. This is how we have resolved all similar controversies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? You were the one (04:01, 14 December post) who pointed out that Swedes use American-style dates. Again, stick to *logical* arguments and please don’t zoom around like a logical housefly playing ‘Catch me if you can’. As for your whether or not [Swedes using American-style dates] is good or natural English, that’s not a judgement call that you get to make; American-style dates are most natural for the Swedes (or so you said). Bad Swedes, BAD. They should have come to Anderson for a benediction on their choice of date style they use in English.

    Nevertheless, if you think your 04:01, 14 December post was in error and Swedes don’t really use American-style dates, you are welcome to remove Sweden from my above proposal. Similarly, I suppose, if you really think Swedes should be forced kicking and screaming into using “good and natural English” (which, I suspect is the date format you always use), then go ahead, again, and delete Sweden from my above proposal; (we’ll try to *force* them to change). I didn’t know this was about *fighting the Good fight*, Anderson, and that you were all that stood between “good and natural English,” and utter barbarian talk. Greg L (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Greg has not understood Jao's post. Swedish uses European dates, as Jao said, and a look at the Swedish WP will confirm. But a Swede who is literate in English will use the dating system he has learned for English, as Jao does. (That's how anybody fluent in a foreign language will treat foreign conventions; anybody who tried to capitalize all English nouns should be gently redirected back to the German Wikipedia.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I understood the point perfectly well. This is en.Wikipedia. If there is an article about Gotland or Johan Tobias Sergel, it is safe to assume that a disproportionate number of readers will be Swedish. The basic principle here is to gear that content towards the date format English-speaking Swedes are accustomed to. If a more thorough analysis shows that this isn’t the right thing to do, then we take Sweden off the list. What we don’t do is get caught up in a PMAnderson Catch-22 where he mentions how English-speaking Swedes are accustomed to American-style dates in his effort to impeach the proposal, and when I add Sweden to the list, he mentions non-English-speaking Swedes don’t use American-style dates in his effort to impeach the proposal. Shit-piss! Dealing with that guy for a day can make you want to smash your head into a cinder-block wall for ten minutes. Greg L (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) And we can add Sweden to the list too (and I just did): If the article is about or is closely associated with Sweden too, then use USA-style dates. Not only is it a damned simple guideline, it is easier than hell to tweak it without undermining its basic, common-sense foundation. If we later find that most Swedish readers don’t feel as that one Swede felt (which I suspect might be the case), then we delete it.

    Those Swedes seem to have a very flexible nature about themselves. David Göthberg once wrote here that they have three systems for delimiting numbers in Sweden and they taught him all three in school. He wrote that they were (and I quote)

  1. English: 1,234,567.123 456
  2. Swedish1: 1 234 567,123456
  3. Swedish2: 1.234.567,123 456 or was it 1.234.567,123456
Very worldly and flexible, those Swedes. Greg L (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to not get misinterpreted, I want to point out that my September reply to PMAnderson was about my very personal experience, which I used to argue that we should not require a dmy format for Swedish topics on the grounds that Swedes use this format in Swedish and thus should use it in English; this is the logic which I find flawed. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if I'm in a minority among Swedes on this issue, and if it can indeed be shown that most Swedes, when writing in English, do use dmy (which is quite probably the case), that might be the basis of a guideline. Finding these things out will prove difficult though. Plus it would be a little inconsistent to use such a guideline for dates but not for spelling: most English written in Sweden not only uses dmy dates, but also BE (or International English). Why treat them differently? -- Jao (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That flaw was all I intended to quote you for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That’s fine. I deleted Sweden from the list. This just speaks to the principle how how we approach this solution: gear the non-autoformatted dates to what the likely readership expects. My initial instinct was that English-speaking Swedes probably don’t usually switch to md,y, so taking Sweden off the list passes my *grin test*. Thank you for your post Jao. Greg L (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Staying on track

[edit]

No more horseplay trying to divert from the real issue. That task is to develop a better guideline that doesn’t waste editors time with arguments because some Australian editor waded in and significantly expanded New York Giants after three other American editors each expanded it moderately so. RfCs and consensus building to change a date format match the subject of the article? Beyond absurd. Some editors seem to just insist on doing it their way and don’t mind fighting tooth & nail to defend their practice even though it may or may not be a good fit for the subject matter. That must end. Greg L (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two, big RfCs are coming to an end on Christmas day. Clearly, date linking and autoformatting is largely toast. A better MOSNUM policy for deciding upon the non-linked date format to use in our articles will be part of the various revisions that are coming. Greg L (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back off track

[edit]
No need for arguments. The first game date was stably in the format October 4, 1925 since it was inserted in the article; and the Giants are strongly associated with the United States. On both accounts, the present text would settle the Australian intervention without waste of time. It would have been useful to revert the vandalism which made it October 9, a Friday; both sources disagree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. You’ve said your piece about how there is no need to discuss this dangerous proposal you so deeply fear. How about settling down and giving some breathing room to the other editors who have weighed in so far on this issue? And how about doing so without telling them to go find something more important to do and that they should apparently focus only on issues you think are important? Is that too much to ask? Greg L (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. That's not what I said.
    • The present guidance does not require great arguments (Greg's replacement text might). It could stand clarification, since Greg persists in misunderstanding it; but it would settle this issue (and almost all issues) without trouble. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine. That’s what you’re saying. Except you are obviously infinitely wrong. Grandfathering in the first major contributor obviously makes PMAnderson happy as a clam because it might take some American-related articles you contributed to, and those dates—which you say are the only “good and natural English”—could be turned into the “creolized mishmosh” you dislike. But others here (DoubleBlue, Ohconfucius) believe that the amount of effort necessary for deciding this issue in each of our articles (you will likely be involved in many instances) is a colossal, retarded waste of effort. So do I. We all seek a more sensible solution. “Sensible” here, seems like it will increasingly require ignoring you; we don’t perceive much value in the endless rant rant rant that has apparently stalled progress on this earlier. Greg L (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel it coming on again: a strong tendency to write what I believe to be the truth… (*sound of metal pipes rending*) (*sound of leaking air*)… Oh well. Truth is truth.

    Yes you are too supportive of grandfathering. You like the current guidelines and the preamble on MOSNUM and that is what it all amounts to: grandfathering; regardless of you want to call it. Admit it. You like the current (soon-to-be-obsoleted) guideline because you use Euro-style dates and you don’t want to see American-style dates darken the doorstop of American-related articles you have worked on. Your writings here about “good and natural English” and “creolized mishmosh” betray your underlying motives, which even you realize is not a sound reason so you keep it quiet. You shout “Leave such things alone” and suggest that editors who disagree with you should “find something useful to do” and use every trick in the book—including being as tenacious as a herpes infection—to forestall the inevitable. I find your arguments to be nonsense and your tactics tedious and uncivil to well-intentioned editors.

    Now, you are but one editor. Even though you can write nonsense at stunningly prolific rate, the other editors here will weigh in some more with their opinions and their voices will be heard. And if those other editors’ arguments make more sense than yours, their voices will carry even more weight than yours—even though they do so with much pithier writing than you. Doesn’t that just suck? Truth: Bad Greg. BAD. Greg L (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do you keep coming back for more? A common lab rat would have figured it out by now. So answer me this: If this is such an unimportant issue as you alluded to here, how come you are so animated and keep donning orange robes and setting yourself alight in protest at every turn? Methinks it is highly useful to work on this issue issue. It is a highly important issue in your mind, and you simply wanted to hound other editors into silence. Isn’t that right? It was a cheap stunt; the last resort of the holdout who has run out of sound arguments. Greg L (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the self-appointed straw boss keeps delivering more. Where else are there the protests against "shouting" in full caps and bold? Where else is there so loud a claim to majority consisting of a single person? Where else am I so confidently, and in such strident tones, accused of the evil positions with which I disagree? Now if this were to actually be extended to doing harm to Wikipedia, that might be a minor problem, but then there would be more editors here. In the meantime, it amuses me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real question

[edit]

As I see it, the real question that never gets addressed in these discussions is, who are the majority of our readers on articles that do not have ties to a particular English-speaking country? Most of our readers are from English-speaking countries. I would think, based on popouation, that the vast majority of them are American, so on an article like Steffi Graf or Jana Novotna, the date format should be what most of our readers are comfortable with, which would be mdy.

Now I understand that some editors think that the article should instead be the date format used in the country of the subject of the article uses instead, see GregL's proposal that he trots out ad nauseum, so the compromise between those two positions is to use the first major contributor's format.

And I would point out that this is not the rule just to be used in content disputes, it is the rule to be used always to prevent content disputes from happening in the first place.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Precisely: “to prevent content disputes from happening in the first place.” That’s the peace dividend for us editors. The most important benefit though, is having article content that reads as naturally as possible for the greatest portion of readers visiting any particular article. Greg L (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "having article content that reads as naturally as possible for the greatest portion of readers visiting any particular article" were the goal, then the rule would be to favor American date format unless the subject has strong ties to a Non-U.S., non-Canadian country.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't much care which format is used (I use all three frequently) but choosing by the first editor to add a date to an article is random, near ridiculous, and leads to inconsistency between related and sub-topics, which is just poor style. It seems less like a compromise rule and more like avoiding making one. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why WP doesn't actually use that test. In practice, we look to see if the article is stable in a given style, and if there is enough reason for a consensus to change it (the only one that has ever been suggested is that it is unwise to use Month day in an article on the Chilterns). "First contributor" is a stop-gap, to prevent edit wars on stubs; I wouldn't care if it went away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On stubs? then what about more significant articles? I've seen plenty of sizeable articles with ambiguous date formats of all combinations, although admittedly dmy and mdy the most common. How does one define 'first significant editor' anyhow, when an article has grown exponentially? And tell me, what about the cost of replacing edit-warring with article ownership?? Ohconfucius (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't define "first significant editor" in such circumstances at all; "first major contributor" applies only to "the early stages of writing an article"; please stop attacking a straw man. If an article is consistent, or largely consistent, extend the consistency to cover the whole article; if it isn't, form a consensus to decide which (an undisputed consensus of one is consensus for this purpose). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree completely with DoubleBlue. When PMAnderson writes …and if there is enough reason for a consensus to change, that’s what we trying to avoid here: the need for debate, RfCs, and consensus-forming to change a date format to one that is content-appropriate. Debate and RfCs should be relegated to more important policy matters and not salted all over Wikipedia on such a minor issue. It shouldn’t be so complex and eat up so much of everyone’s time! With this guideline (or any similar facsimile of it using the same logic), there will never be a need to argue over date formats if the initial authors follow this new guideline at the outset. Greg L (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)

  • Anderson. I’m not going to let you get away with shouting LOUDEST and l-o-o-o-o-g-e-s-t and slap other editors down by telling them to be quiet and do something that is important (which, apparently, is anything other than that which you disagree with). That has apparently worked for you on this issue in the past. All that is ending here. We’re going to get through this the right way once and for all. Consensus is formed by the weight of the sound and logical arguments, not by a simple show of hands where those with weak arguments carries as much weight as those of others. So far, you have tried exaggeration and stated that American-style dates are “creolized mishmosh” that isn’t “good and natural English.” Please, is this all you have? Because, once exposed, such a tactic isn’t a winning strategy. Greg L (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m not at all convinced that the rest of us can get into your head and understand it at all. I am going to start ignoring your posts as irrelevant ramblings and focus more on consensus building with reasonable and logical editors. It is clear that you will do everything in your power to prevent that. Too bad; the rest of us are moving along now. Greg L (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real REAL question

[edit]

Is why we don't simply enable auto formatting for all readers, thus rendering this issue entirely moot. People would see consistent dates in all articles not just within specific articles for specific subjects as WP:ENGVAR encourages. Coincidentally, this seems to be the way things are heading in the RFC, so perhaps we should turn our attention to coming up with a syntax that would be acceptable to editors. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Which part of overwhelming consensus to "Support" deprecation is unclear in the second, "detailed" RfC?
Strawman. I never said there was no consensus to deprecate. However, there is no consensus on the issue of auto formatting, which means we stick with the status quo (which is to auto format). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Which part of the two orders (day–month, month–day) confuses you? Are you confused by the colour/color, travelling/traveling and ise/ize couplets?
Strawman. There are more choices to auto formatting than just day-month vs. month-day. I have mine set to MM-DD-YYYY because that's how I personally prefer it to look. Ditching auto formatting is a step backwards, not a step forwards. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(3) Why are we still discussing this? Tony (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the matter is yet to be settled. Unfortunately you're intent on setting up strawman arguments instead of engaging in reaching some kind of solution that actually addresses the concerns of those for and against date linking/formatting. Pull your head out of the clouds and consider some compromise, or you may find yourself simply being ignored in favor of finding a final solution (instead of constant controversy as you seem to favor). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Useless”? Another well-meaning editor is “useless”?? DoubleBlue: Please ignore Locke Cole (and PMAnderson for that matter). I am thoroughly pleased to announce that their views are in the extreme minority on this and other matters. If they prove to be disruptive in the near future with tendentious practices, they will be dealt with accordingly. We can ignore their rants. I further take great pride in pronouncing that I share few—if any—of the values they seem to hold dear. WT:MOSNUM will no longer be held hostage by those who rant the most, and are uncivil, and are more tenacious that everyone else can stomach. Greg L (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would have said "absolutely useless" but that might have come off mean. So "useless" will have to suffice. There is a consensus to deprecate linking dates purely for the sake of autoformatting. There is no consensus to delink all dates. There is no consensus do to away with auto formatting. Since you seem to view this as some kind of game, let me put it in terms you'll understand: you lost, the game is over, it's time for you to move on with your life. Ditto for DoubleBlue unless he actually wants to join a reasonable discussion instead of stonewalling with "No thanks" responses (which are, again, useless). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, the WP:IDONTLIKEIT brigade again. The community can easily see that these are losers' tactics. It's clear that whatever the evidence, you'll never never accept it, and will continue to try to spin your way towards what you wanted in the first place. No go. As for Anderson, he's a reed that bends whichever way will attract attention. In doing so, he has debased his own currency; no one takes the slightest notice. Tony (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seriously need to spend some time looking in the mirror. The only people displaying the "I don't like it" attitude is you and your MOSNUM regulars (of which I'm proud to exclude myself because prior to this fiasco, I never paid attention to MoS because common sense should dictate the format of the encyclopedia, not a few power hungry editors trying to make things be the way they want them to be). I should have seriously listened months ago when I was told to ignore you and your ilk. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • …why we don't simply enable auto formatting for all readers(?): 1) It’s not so simple. It takes developer support and they don’t want to screw around wasting their time on something with minority support; they read RfCs too. And 2) It’s not in the least necessary. All we need is a drop-dead simple guideline that asks “What is the subject? New York Giants? American-style dates. The Pietà? Use international-style dates.” That is much better and easier than arguing and RfCs and consensus forming to answer the question “Should Dick be considered the first major contributor such-n-such article, (just one of the 6,911,997 articles on Wikipedia), or Jane?” All that colossal waste of everyone’s time shouldn’t be due simply to the shortcomings of a guideline here on MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely You have tried to avoid revealing your real driving motivation (one method is superior to the other) by hiding behind the apron strings of “grandfathering in whatever editors do.” Yet, you’ve spoken of how the Swedes using American-style dates isn’t “good and natural English”. Gotcha. Greg L (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have no evidence for this (or for anything else you have been saying); and it is not the case. My position is precisely and solely to leave things alone; and it should be possible to deduce my preferred style from my talk-page edits (hint: it isn't European). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Evidence. Proof. I refer you to your 15:54, 14 December 2008 post. Your meaning is clear. This is all about you getting your way and not having the date formats in articles you’ve written changed to something that is topic-appropriate. Isn’t it? Greg L (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To those who can read, my post of 15:54 objected to the mindless imitation of a foreign language, as unlikely to produce good English. I stand by that.
    • No, it isn't about "my" articles, so-called, at all. It's about thousands of editors finding articles changed to something which is topic-irrelevant. Most editors object to all forms of Date Warring; but some people do regard their vanity as Giver of Rules more important than civility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You intend to stand by saying that Greg's proposal was "mindless imitation of a foreign language unlikely to produce good English" because we would choose between 14 December or December 14? Which of those, in your opinion, is not good or natural English? I certainly hope most users rise above your definition of civility in discussion. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest waste of time would be to delink all these dates just to have to turn around to format them according to whatever syntax is added to support date formatting. Your own "objective" read of the RFC notwithstanding, it's clear to me that the status quo (continue with auto formatting) has consensus. And it makes far more sense to simply format dates for the reader than to force editors to suffer through wondering which format to use in their prose (or worse, preferring one format for articles they contribute to, but having bots and other uninvolved editors forcing their own format over them). I've no idea why the major link opponents are so opposed to formatting as well, especially considering it's no skin off their back (it's not like Greg or Tony are going to break down, buy "PHP for Dummies" and write it themselves), but that's the way it is. Someday somebody needs to explain tha kind of flawed logic to me... —Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real real real question

[edit]

Do we really have nothing better to discuss whether to write 14 December 2008 or December 14, 2008? As long as the month is spelt out and the year is given with four digits, nobody with an IQ greater than their mass in kilogrammes is going to be confused by either format. (Of course it is desirable to write 14 December in The Rolling Stones and December 14 in Guns N' Roses, for consistency with the fact that we say that The Rolling Stones are a band whereas Guns N' Roses is a band; it is also desirable to use one format in each article, excluding quotations. But, IMO, saying anything more than that would be close to being instruction creep.) -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Greg? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. When so much time is spent trying to ensure some consistency within an article, it makes sense to pigeonhole things other than The Rolling Stones or Guns N' Roses for the simple reason there are Serge Gainsbourg and Hugh Masekela too. It's what to do with this no man's land which is what is driving this debate, as few people really understand the current arbitrary rules, or can properly justify to the average reader why it should say 8 August 2008 in 2008 Summer Olympics marketing and August 8, 2008 in 2008 Beijing Olympics. Perhaps we should just abandon this aim to achieve consistency anywhere. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Wikky Horse brought up the issue in good faith and this issue keeps coming up again and again. I suggested to him that this was a well-worn issue and a lot of water had gone under the bridge on it. Then Ohconfucius jumped into it. DoubleBlue too. But what really frosted my shorts was you, Anderson, slapping Wikky Horse down with your The easiest way is to leave such things alone and go find something useful to do. So…

    No, that is not the real question Army1987. I jumped in quick to help you on your proposal of “Should we mark examples with quotation marks instead of italics?” Does that sound like saving orphans from starvation to you? Still, Wikipedia, in my humble opinion, is better off for our collaboration on that issue. Editors acted like grown ups and collaborated in good faith on WT:MOS to explore and improve upon the suggestion. So don’t come here and try to shush debate on this issue by suggesting it not important (but the issues that are of interest to you are important). Greg L (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • He too got driven away? No wonder you persist with your tactics; they’ve worked for you in the past. No longer. And, by the way, here is that post of yours, in its original context. Indeed, you wrote that in direct response to Ohconfucius. It’s clear that the message was intended for all of us there who desired what you opposed—including WikkyHorse. Greg L (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WikkyHorse posted once - as anyone who actually read this page would see; Greg lies when he says I addressed anything to WH other than to answer his question. But I will leave Greg the last word - as I said I would. If he can manage to say something which is not a personal attack, I shall not reply.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well. Wikipedia’s journalizing/history tracking is a wonderful thing. I’ve provided the link, above, so others can make up their own minds as to what PMAnderson meant. Now that we’ve worked through “what various *real issues* are,” I provided a sub-section above (Staying on track) where we can *hopefully* discuss the issues in a logical fashion and come up with a guideline that actually gears date formats to article content and avoids having to engage in endless debate and RfCs salted across hundreds of articles.

    It is further, my hope that we can do so without declarations that editors should “go find something more important to do” and other such slap-downs. The two, big RfCs are coming to an end on Christmas day. Clearly, date linking and autoformatting is largely toast. A better MOSNUM policy for deciding upon the non-linked date format to use in our articles will be part of the various revisions that are coming. Greg L (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Although I largely agree with what Greg has said, there is one phrase which must be changed: "date linking and autoformatting is largely toast". While I wish it were not true, I must admit that autoformatting has a large enough following that it will stay for now. However, autoformatting dates by wikilinking them is definitely considered by the WP community to be a flawed practice, and must be amended. If the dates must be autoformatted, then hopefully a method that does not involve linking dates can be implemented ASAP. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from original poster

[edit]

Well, I roused up quite a debate. Greg L did a better job and actually explained what I was thinking by putting info in that bulleted list above. I would agree with the boxed proposal: For U.S.-related articles, use the month-day-year format; otherwise, use the international (aside: more logical) day-month-year format. Given that a change were made to the style guide, it doesn't mean we need to spend years going through old articles and changing formats. It'd just be the recommended style when making new edits.

The Manual of Style says to keep the style used by the first major contributor (the grandfather thingy) when there is no reason to change it. My interpretation of this is the following: If the reason for change is only for one style over another, don't make the change. If there is a reason (some logic), then consider it.

My request was to amend the manual of style such that the guideline be more logical, and that it (inexplicitly) contains a reason for the date style used. I don't like having a guideline that says to follow the first major contributor because (1) major contributor isn't well defined, and I don't want to look way back at the history, and (2) the style is arbitrary even if the first major contributor could be found. I like meaning behind the madness; thus, I suggested the removal of "English-speaking". When a guideline can be modified to be more sound, then have a discussion about it (which is what I started). Here is what I was talking about from the Manual of Style:

"Stability of articles

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1]

Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

That [1] is a link to references that include this.

"Optional styles

2) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)"

My proposed change to the style for dates is like a modification of this, changing "English spelling" and "American spelling" to "international date format" and "American date format" and stuffing that into the manual of style for dates.

The reason why I proposed the original change in the first place is that I noticed more and more articles had dates that were no longer wikilinks. I haven't followed the autolinking debate too closely, and I'll remain neutral on that issue. However, with the decrease in autolinking dates, autoformatting has gone away, so my preferred settings aren't very useful now. That is what made me sad.

The second, minor reason for bringing up this proposal was to make the style of numbers and date more consistent with styles for other areas. For example, the style guideline for units of measurement says to use U.S. units for U.S.-related articles, gives a choice for UK-related articles, and says to use international (metric) units for all others. Another example is the style guideline for currency, which says to use the currency of the article's country and to use the international currency (U.S. dollars) for other articles (I'm no economist, but this article says it's the main international currency). In other words, where possible, style guides should give certain exceptions to the rule, and then otherwise suggest the writer to use international standards.

Day-month-year tends to be the preferred international style when just looking at the sheer number of countries. As a side note, the quadruple tilde creates a signature with the date in day-month-year, the international, format.

My original post was just a suggestion. I haven't gone through the 100+ archived pages (only 12 for years and dates) to check the histories of this manual's discussion page.

It's difficult to have a civil debate, but let's try our best to do so. Please treat your peer Wikipedians (we all want Wikipedia to be as good as possible) with respect and also back up your arguments with reasons.

I'll give a brief summary of my thoughts. I'd like an amendment similar to that box above put into the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for the following reasons:

  • The style by the first major contributor is arbitrary, and the first major contribution may not be agreed upon.
  • The style for dates should be similar to other styles. For certain special cases, use certain formats. Otherwise, use the international format.
  • I like some sort of consistency and logic behind the style of the article. (Going by the first major contributor of each article lacks both of those qualities.)
  • If dates are no longer going to be autoformatted, more users are affected by the style of date used by the editors. The guidelines for dates should be as explicit as possible.

Of course, I am open to change my opinion. If you provide good counter reasons (whether facts or just strong logical opinions), I can reconsider portions of my post. Wikipedia is a thinking community.

Wikky Horse (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only skimmed the discussion here other than the original proposal, but it is a really dumb idea. We don't need a bunch of dot ordinals, Roman numeral months, and the like. This is the English Wikipedia, and we already have house rules which deal quite adequately with the formats we choose to allow here from among the varieties which might be used in English.
It is national varieties of English which are on an equal footing on Wikipedia; foreign formatting is irrelevant. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm mistaken, but this appears to be the first mention anywhere in this discussion about "dot ordinals and Roman numeral months" Ohconfucius (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is stable on one point: the only two formats for dates (unless dealing with direct quotes etc.) is for 1 February 2001, or February 1, 2001. We don't use 1/1/2001 in text, nor Roman numeral months, nor ISO dates. Not in text. Nobody is going to be confused by either format - what we are dealing with is consistency and comfort for readers and editors. --Pete (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot get excited over this

[edit]

I cannot get excited over this issue at all, to the point that I don't even have an opinion on it. Who cares?! I doubt that we even have one reader who wouldn't be able to figure out either of "April 15" or "15 April". Talk about much ado about nothing. Frankly, it's condescending and insulting to suggest that a mandated change is necessary. It presupposes that there is anyone out there who will benefit from changing date formats around. --Cyde Weys 01:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Is there a "who the hell cares and why are you all wasting so much time on this stupid shit" option, and if so, where can I sign? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted

[edit]

I've delisted this from WP:CENT as more or less dead with no real consensus to do anything. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Proposal_on_international_date_format&oldid=1116881729"