Revision as of 12:13, 22 September 2008 editTony1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors276,604 edits →US Military articles← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:58, 22 September 2008 edit undoHateless (talk | contribs)10,095 edits →Dates are not linked unless...Next edit → | ||
Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
*Although I don't mean people to clutter LM's page with comment, there's an interesting little debate on "skilled linking" and solitary year-links at ]. ] ] 14:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC) | *Although I don't mean people to clutter LM's page with comment, there's an interesting little debate on "skilled linking" and solitary year-links at ]. ] ] 14:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
I think there's a demonstrated lack of consensus for "Dates are not linked unless there is a particular reason to do so". Can we remove it? '']'' 14:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
== this odd "change" box == | == this odd "change" box == |
Revision as of 14:58, 22 September 2008
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Poll
The recent "final" poll on date formats has expired and been moved to /Archive 111. For comments see below.--Kotniski (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it was time to archive it, but I think generally once an archive page has been created, its contents shouldn't be changed, but rather, a new archive page should be created.
- In this case, bot User:MiszaBot II and you added text to /Archive 111. MiszaBot might have got confused because when I created Archive 111, I didn't update the counter variable in the invisible template for the bot's information at the top of the page. But neither did the bot when it moved sections to Archive 111. I'll have to contact the bot's owner and ask what's going on.
- Note: I have edited some of the archive pages, but for things like adding the {{talkarchive}} templates, warning that the page is a talk archive, to the bottoms of pages, and such administrative work that doesn't touch the content. Teemu Leisti (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Bots and user pages
I would like to suggest that the bots that happily wander through pages and change wikilinked dates to plain text be prohibited from making any edits to pages in user space. Autoformatted dates work correctly for logged-in users, and if a user specifies a date preference, they should get what they asked for in pages that they control. Put another way, the deprecation of auto-formatted dates should not apply to user space. Truthanado (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Teemu Leisti (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support if true but I have never seen any specific example of a bot changing dates in the userspace. If somebody really did this then it's very very bad. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Who would bother running a script (not a bot) on a user page? Tony (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Truthanado and Teemu, don't worry. You can assume that no bot does such a thing, unless you have a specific example. In any case, autoformatting is not used outside article space. You can see that all the signatures on this page use just one WYSIWG format and users seem happy with that. Lightmouse (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
k versus K for metric/binary kilo
There is a section in the MOSNUM about using K/M/G rather than Ki/Mi/Gi. K is never a proper SI prefix; it should be lowercase k. I changed that, assuming it was an uncontroversial typo correction, but apparently I have to go through a procedure of discussing it here. Well here I mention it; change it or leave it as it is. I'm not wasting more time on it, but in the latter case I will take MOSNUM a lot less seriously in the future. Han-Kwang (t) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Earlier in the development of computer terminology, some people used k in it's SI meaning of 1000, and reserved K for 1024. Around the same time, some computer displays and printers still lacked lower-case letters, so some people were forced to use K to mean 1000 due to this technology limitation. Later, kilobits and kilobytes came to be seen as so small, they're hardly worth worrying about. Also, the option of switching the case to indicate binary or decimal meaning does not apply to M, G, T, etc.
- All in all, I see no reason we should accept the use of K to mean 1000 in Misplaced Pages. Although bit and byte are not SI units and therefore are not strictly governed by SI, the prefixes are often extended to non-SI units and I don't see why the method of extension should be any different for bit and byte. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- What's used in the computer industry? If K is in widespread and accepted use, then no reason for us to disallow it.--Kotniski (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- When this was discussed in relation to using IEC prefixes for the binary meanings, if I recall correctly, the case of the k was mixed. It isn't that easy to find examples since there isn't much call to write about kilobits or kilobytes anymore. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, the IBM 029 didn't do lowercase characters, so it wasn't until keypunches, COBOL, and FORTRAN IV were mostly forgotten that computer users and writers started to pay attention to case. Recall that even after case-sensitive Unix systems had been in use for years MS brought out several case-mangling generations of DOS. General usage was and often still is sloppy. LeadSongDog (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- When this was discussed in relation to using IEC prefixes for the binary meanings, if I recall correctly, the case of the k was mixed. It isn't that easy to find examples since there isn't much call to write about kilobits or kilobytes anymore. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
If you read the technical literature of the 1950s and 1960s you will notice that case did not matter. Frequency was measured in kilocycles and megacycles (this was before hertz). You will see 10 mc and 10 MC for 10 megacycles. Capacitors were measured in microfarad abbreviated as "mfd" or "MFD". Picofarad was not used; micromicrofarad was used instead and abbreviated as "mmfd" or "MMFD". This worked because no one broadcast on 10 microcycles and you could not make a 10 megafarad capacitor. Here are some references to k and K.
- Real, P. (September 1959). "A generalized analysis of variance program utilizing binary logic". ACM '59: Preprints of papers presented at the 14th national meeting of the Association for Computing Machinery. ACM Press: pg 78-1 - 78-5. doi:10.1145/612201.612294.
On a 32k core size 704 computer, approximately 28,000 datum may be analyzed, … without resorting to auxiliary tape storage.
{{cite journal}}
:|pages=
has extra text (help) The author is with the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. (Note: The IBM 704 used binary addressing, K = 1024.)
- Sonquiest, John A. (December 1962). "Fixed-word-length arrays in variable-word-length computers". Communications of the ACM. 5 (12). ACM Press: pg 602.
The following scheme for assigning storage for fixed-word-length arrays seems to meet these criteria and has been used successfully in working with linear arrays on a 4k IBM 1401.
{{cite journal}}
:|pages=
has extra text (help) (Note the IBM 1401 used decimal addressing, k = 1000.)
- Gruenberger, Fred (October 1960). "Letters to the Editor". Communications of the ACM. 3 (10). "The 8K core stores were getting fairly common in this country in 1954. The 32K store started mass production in 1956; it is the standard now for large machines and at least 200 machines of the size (or its equivalent in the character addressable machines) are in existence today (and at least 100 were in existence in mid-1959)." Note: The IBM 1401 was a character addressable computer.
- Amdahl, Gene M. (1964). "Architecture of the IBM System/360" (PDF). IBM Journal of Research and Development. 8 (2). IBM.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) Figure 1 gives storage (memory) capacity ranges of the various models in "Capacity 8 bit bytes, 1 K = 1024"
- Control Data Corporation (November 1968). Control Data 7600 Computer System: Preliminary System Description (PDF).
One type, designated as the small core memory (SCM) is a many bank coincident current type memory with a total of 64K words of 60 bit length (K=1024).
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: year (link)
- IBM (1972). "System/370 Model 158 brochure" (PDF). IBM.
All-monolithic storage ... (1024-bit NMOS) This new improvement of processor storage makes system expansion more economical. Real storage capacity is available in 512K increments ranging from 512K to 2,048K bytes.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)
SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Some newer ones.
- ANSI/IEEE Std 1084-1986 IEEE Standard Glossary of Mathematics of Computing Terminology. October 30, 1986.
kilo (K). (1) A prefix indicating 1000. (2) In statements involving size of computer storage, a prefix indicating 2, or 1024. mega (M). (1) A prefix indicating one million. (2) In statements involving size of computer storage, a prefix indicating 2, or 1,048,576.
- ANSI/IEEE Std 1212-1991 IEEE Standard Control and Status Register (CSR) Architecture for Microcomputer Buses. July 22, 1992.
Kbyte. Kilobyte. Indicates 2 bytes. Mbyte. Megabyte. Indicates 2bytes. Gbyte is used in the Foreword.
- Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (2000). The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms. IEEE Computer Society Press. ISBN 0-7381-2601-2. "kB See kilobyte." "Kbyte Kilobyte. Indicates 2 bytes." "Kilobyte Either 1000 or 2 or 1024 bytes." The standard also defines megabyte and gigabyte. There is a note that an alternative notation for base-2 is under development.
SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The uses cited by Swtpc6800 don't really solve the issue of what Misplaced Pages should use for kbit when we mean 1000 bits. SI was not created until 1960, and we have to allow a few years for it to catch on, so the only journal article from the list above that tells us anything is the one from 1972, and that refers to the binary meaning (1024 bits). Since there is no clear use in the industry of K for 1000, I believe Misplaced Pages should use k, and the "Manual of Style (dates and numbers)" edited accordingly. Does anyone disagree? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- The IEEE Computer Society Style Guide indicates that K means 1024 while k means 1000. I couldn't find anything relevant in the general IEEE Editorial Style Manual or the IEEE Standards Style Manual. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Han-Kwang, in the real world the uppercase K is commonly used and the JEDEC memory standards organisation, which is followed by nearly all manufacturers of transistorised memory, also states "kilo (K) = 1024", note the uppercase K. For this subject you have to ignore what SI say because for Misplaced Pages according to WP:RS we use secondary reliable sources for the contents of articles and in the real world the reliable secondary sources mostly ignore what SI has to say. SI is a primary source but according to WP:RS we don't use primary sources unless we have secondary sources to verify that the primary source is notable. Since the SI point of view is in the tiny minority WP:UNDUE also applies where the minority point of view is not given equal weight with the majority common point of view. Basically, Misplaced Pages reports the world how the secondary reliable sources say it is, not how SI thinks it should be. Fnagaton 02:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- SI is not a source at all, it is the result of an international collaborative process that is very comparable to the peer review process used in the best secondary sources. It is also, strictly speaking, irrelevant, because neither bit nor byte are SI units, and SI only says what to do when applying SI prefixes to SI units. Whether it is OK to borrow the prefixes for other purposes has not been addressed in any universal, authoritative manner.
- Fnagaton is probably right that when K means 1024 bits or bytes, it is usually capitalized. Usage is mixed in cases where k means 1000 bits or bytes; I would suggest using lower-case k in those cases because it agrees with SI and agrees with the IEEE Computer Society Style Guide. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- While the use of k or K to mean 1000 bits, 1000 bytes, 1000 words, 1024 bits, 1024 bytes or 1024 words is unquestionably widespread in trade press, it is beyond doubt that its meaning is unclear without further amplification. For this reason alone, it should always be amplified for clarity. Surely we've been over this topic enough to establish that.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Fnagaton is probably right that when K means 1024 bits or bytes, it is usually capitalized. Usage is mixed in cases where k means 1000 bits or bytes; I would suggest using lower-case k in those cases because it agrees with SI and agrees with the IEEE Computer Society Style Guide. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Month abbreviations
It struck me that I cannot see anything (at least obviously) that suggests or disallows use of month abbreviations (eg "Sept." for September), a fact that is often used in tables where there is date information but the table has gotten rather wide. Presuming that in line with "which format", is there a standard?
Namely: if abbreviations are ok, we should fix on one set of abbreviations (either all three letter, or the more common: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, June, July, Aug. Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec set.) and make sure what punctuation we should use, eg "Sept. 15, 2008" vs "Sept 15, 2008" and "15 Sept. 2008" vs "15 Sept 2008" (note lack of abbreviation period). If they are not ok, we should be stating this. --MASEM 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Since Misplaced Pages is an online resource and the most common online date abbreviation convention for months is three characters (Windows, Unix and Linux all use it), I suggest that 3-chars be adopted. Specifically: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec. Truthanado (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Abbreviations are fine in charts and the like where full months make the thing too big or distract from more important data, but abbreviations in text are informal and produce ugly prose. -Rrius (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, abbreviated months should only be used if space is a premium, which is pretty much limited to tables. I just think it would be worth while to standardize these. --MASEM 04:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Of course we should only abbreviate when space is a premium; but why should we spend our editors' attention on standardizing these? I commend Erachina's point above:
- We can think of the editors as something that must be controlled, expand the manual of style with a new rule every time a conflict emerges, update that rule whenever an exception is pointed out, add a caution to the exception when a wikilawyer starts abusing it, and repeat this cycle ad nauseum. The other way is to treat them like intelligent humans and write a manual of style that gives general guiding principles and trusts the specifics to page editors. I, for one, believe Misplaced Pages is not written by idiots. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Point taken, though I do find that we are generally very explicit on punctuation use (moreso in the general MOS than here); irregardless of using 3 or 4 letters in the abbreviation, we should at least make sure if the month abbreviation should or shouldn't be followed by a period (and if that changes when one goes from m/d/y to d/m/y date format). --MASEM 13:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- No thank you; that's a question of idiom, and of the space involved. Periods are more common in American English, which comes under ENGVAR; on the other dimension, if the table has 24 months horizontally, and the entries are single letters, good editors of any nationality will use Jan and Feb because they're short. Where is the necessity to rule on this? Because we can? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- The whole argument against linked ISO 8601 dates was based on usage in prose, yet it has also (predictably) spilled over into citations, where structured metadata unquestionably has value. Whatever goes in should be amenable to automatic parsing in a "date", "accessdate", or similar field. Superfluous punctuation is inconsistently executed by human editors and makes a citation harder to read. The KISS principle still holds.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- No thank you; that's a question of idiom, and of the space involved. Periods are more common in American English, which comes under ENGVAR; on the other dimension, if the table has 24 months horizontally, and the entries are single letters, good editors of any nationality will use Jan and Feb because they're short. Where is the necessity to rule on this? Because we can? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Point taken, though I do find that we are generally very explicit on punctuation use (moreso in the general MOS than here); irregardless of using 3 or 4 letters in the abbreviation, we should at least make sure if the month abbreviation should or shouldn't be followed by a period (and if that changes when one goes from m/d/y to d/m/y date format). --MASEM 13:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, keep in mind there is a vast difference between a date field and an accessdate field. The timespan covered by date is about 600 times greater than the timespan covered by accessdate, so the date must accomodate dates covered by Julian, Gregorian, and other calendars, some of which cannot be accurately associated with dates in modern calendar systems. They must also accomodate negative years or BC. Also keep in mind that citation templates are entirely optional. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I get that. I've previously argued that when it might be ambiguous we should explicitly state the calendar used. Almost everything is optional on WP, but well structured content does have more value than unstructured. WP:BUILD is based on this principle. WP is not just a collection of linear text. Anything that strengthens the assisted/automated verification of bibliographic data will ultimately better articles. Who has never clicked through an ISBN or PMID to get to a source?LeadSongDog (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Dates are not linked unless...
The last bullet under the Dates section could use some clarification. It currently states "Dates are not linked unless there is a particular reason to do so". What is considered a good "particular reason"? Notable historic events – surely. Birth/death of a notable person – maybe. What else? Should linked dates only include those events back referenced from the date pages?
Also, I noticed that there is a movement by some editors to remove existing date links. For example, this edit to the Usain Bolt article removed a link from the subject's birth date, even though the subject is listed on the date pages. Is it the intent of this policy to remove such links?
I'm sure if I dig through the discussion archives I'll find some answers, but my point is that the specific guidelines should be on the MOS page. Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point. I'd have thought a linked article would be worthy of such because it contained extra information or context about the subject, not a mere mention. If this reference to the subject in the other article is indeed novel, it should probably be included in the article in question. If the larger context in the linked article is important enough for the reader to view as "secondary" information (I doubt it, given the fragmentary lists that make up almost every year page—have a look at them), it might be better to summarise that context neatly for the reader in the article on the subject. That will give greater cohesion and focus to the article, and free up the link space we need to allocate strategically (to avoid dilution) for a high-value link. Tony (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I already raised this issue not long ago (but it's been shunted into an archive). I've noticed people going around with bots removing ALL date links, which is surely quite wrong. I would argue that dates should be linked in infoboxes, for example, as a link to a date gives the reader the opportunity to see the wider context of what happened on a particular date or year. I'm not sure what is meant by free up link space I wasn't aware that 'link space' was limited? G-Man 02:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Link space"—the more you link, the more you dilute the individual high-value links. I think we seriously overestimate the number of links that readers actually follow; part of optimising the features of wiki is to use linking strategically—to put it crudely, to ration the links to the good ones. I'm unsure how "June 9" could be a good link. Can you point to a date link in an infobox that adds to the reader's understanding of the subject? I put it to you that in the unlikely event that there was a fact-fragment of the remotest relevance to the subject at such an anniversary date for each year, you'd want to put it in the article at hand rather than sending the one-in-ten-thousand readers who do click on that link through what would be almost a wild goose chase. If the purpose of the link to the date is to facilitate discretionary browsing, I'm sorry, but WP has moved away from bright-bluing textual items for that purpose. Discretionary browsers simply need to type a destination into the search box—it's not hard. The same applies to year-links. There's possibly one exception—the years of the two European world-wars in the 20th century, although again, such a larger context is probably better supplied through a direct link to a world-war article, where it would provide focused information—and probably to a section of one of those articles, not the general article. Tony (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also 1776, 1789, 1492, 1815....Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think even the world wars or the French revolution merit a link to the years concerned. If a link is needed, it should be to the specific article on World War 2, on the French Revolution, or what have you. I see very little reason to ever link to a date article or to a year article. Teemu Leisti (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- But we are not all editors and are not required to see all reasons. That is why MOS should prescribe only in very clear cases.Robert A.West (Talk) 12:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a minute - I thought the idea of wikilinking a date was to format dates as per user preferences. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- We are discussing what linking of dates should exist even if autoformatting were to disappear tomorrow. My position is some, but less than there is; we should link to dates, when clicking on them will add significantly to the reader who clicks on them, just like any other word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a minute - I thought the idea of wikilinking a date was to format dates as per user preferences. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- But we are not all editors and are not required to see all reasons. That is why MOS should prescribe only in very clear cases.Robert A.West (Talk) 12:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Link space"—the more you link, the more you dilute the individual high-value links. I think we seriously overestimate the number of links that readers actually follow; part of optimising the features of wiki is to use linking strategically—to put it crudely, to ration the links to the good ones. I'm unsure how "June 9" could be a good link. Can you point to a date link in an infobox that adds to the reader's understanding of the subject? I put it to you that in the unlikely event that there was a fact-fragment of the remotest relevance to the subject at such an anniversary date for each year, you'd want to put it in the article at hand rather than sending the one-in-ten-thousand readers who do click on that link through what would be almost a wild goose chase. If the purpose of the link to the date is to facilitate discretionary browsing, I'm sorry, but WP has moved away from bright-bluing textual items for that purpose. Discretionary browsers simply need to type a destination into the search box—it's not hard. The same applies to year-links. There's possibly one exception—the years of the two European world-wars in the 20th century, although again, such a larger context is probably better supplied through a direct link to a world-war article, where it would provide focused information—and probably to a section of one of those articles, not the general article. Tony (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed: sadly, date autoformatting is mechanically entangled with linking, and in some respects needs to be discussed in a similar light (i.e., overlinking, dilution of high-value links). I'm trying to get to the bottom of why people would think that dates of birth and death should be linked; the argument appears to be that you can link to day-month article and year article. No one has shown why they're useful to understanding the topic. Anderson, can you point me to an instance where linking "1776" is useful to understanding a subject, and whether it would not be preferable to include any scraps of info in the year page in the actual article at hand? (Perhaps this is possible—it's a good-faith question.) Tony (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- For a real example, the quote from Henry Laurens: "presiding officer of that congress from June until March of 1776." It would be off topic to include the political history of South Carolina at this point; but as with WWII, some readers will benefit from checking what was going on. They will find that SC had not yet declared independence, but had made demands to which even the local Loyalists were willing to subscribe; and that the British were about to evacuate Boston.
- For a hypothetical example, consider: "In the century and a half from 1620 to 1776, New England ". Most readers will understand what the dates are, and why they are being used; some readers will find the links valuable. It may be possible to recast the sentence, but just substituting the settlement of Plymouth and American Revolution may make an already complex sentence unbearable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- As another actual example, I have just come across an offhand reference to an increase of royal control in New England in 1682. One way to find more about this would be to go to 1682 and either find it (which did not happen) or search the What links here for the page; but the second will only work if years are actually linked. (Searching on "New England" and 1682 turns up mostly survey articles broad enough to include both New England and the founding of Pennsylvania.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- What is the harm being prevented here? How does linking of dates that are significant to the article make Misplaced Pages worse? Some people like to know what else happened on a date, and especially so when the date is not within their personal memory. If reading about the First Anglo-Dutch War, it might provide a particular reader with useful perspective to see what else was going on in that year. For example, tea, coffee and cocoa all first arrived in London during the year 1652. While there is no immediate relevance to the war, that fact gives some perspective on the growth of world trade in the period. Even if the year article mentions nothing of interest or value now, that should change over time as Misplaced Pages improves. Obviously, you don't read that way, but Misplaced Pages is written for the readers, not for us editors. Personally, I think that linking years and dates is a service to readers and should be, if anything, encouraged. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I also think that linking the birth and death dates would be good and have mentioned that numerous times although I cannot seem to vocalize exactly why. But by this logic then we shouldn't be linking to places of birth, death, burial, etc. Are those to be the next targets of our hatred of overlinking.--Kumioko (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would react with some horror at the extensive wikilinking of birth and death dates. The vast majority of biographies I have come across have these dates linked, and I just feel that these links add nothing to any of the articles. What I am talking about includes EIIR, where the only date I have chosen to retain is the date of coronation; I might also consider linking the dates of death of Mao Zedong and John F. Kennedy and other leaders who died in office, or other world figures who died at the height of their influence - for example John Lennon. However, that's probably where I would stop. I would say that even Albert Einstein's birth and death dates are but biographical facts which add little significance to the world if linked to date and year articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- For some readers not wikilinking dates creates problems: for example, I like to know the wider historical state of the world for each date referred in an article, and wikilinking the date allows me to quickly have a look at the date articles, but deleting the wikilinks injures my reading experience, as I cannot as easily check the state of the world on a particular date. I know other users may not be as interested in history, though, and I also accept the fact that too many links make the "primary" high-importance links difficult to distinguate, although I maintain that deleting what some people see as "secondary" links is not a solution. By the way, if you read a recent CACM journal issue, there is an article in there in which a researcher (if I remember correctly then it's someone who is also a Wikipedian here, but I'm not sure whether I remember correctly) found that Misplaced Pages growth is related to its links, and especially its red links (ie red links make people write an article), which implies that being reluctant to link, especially for red links, could slow the growth of Misplaced Pages. For years (most of which are existant articles), this would mean that non-wikilinked year articles may receive less contributions than wikilinked year articles (many times reading an article then clicking a date wikilink there allows a reader to spot historical events that are noted in the article but not in the year articles, thus this may enable them to add these in the year article). In general, I believe that the benefits of wikilinking outweight the disadvantages in most situations, if done in the right way. NerdyNSK (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, our year and date articles could use a lot of improvement. We could use more global perspective (though the prospect of {{globalize}} stuck on every one of them fills me with horror). There are events that we can pin down to a year, but not a specific day, should be listed. Major developments and milestones should be listed on the main year article, and not in "yyyy in xxxxx". But, I suppose I should take that up with Wikiproject years in my "copious" (i.e. nonexistent) spare time. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I also think that linking the birth and death dates would be good and have mentioned that numerous times although I cannot seem to vocalize exactly why. But by this logic then we shouldn't be linking to places of birth, death, burial, etc. Are those to be the next targets of our hatred of overlinking.--Kumioko (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Are there any plans to replace the meta data applications linked dates provide? The mass delinking is breaking those options. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-16t20:54z
- What applications? —Remember the dot 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Semantic web. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-18t08:31z
Is it actually suggested here that it would be OK for an article (like the Queen's) to consistently use "21 April 1926", "29 May 1926", "6 February 1952" etc., plus one "2 June 1953", which will for some users be presented as "June 2, 1953"? Isn't that a little too inconsistent? (Then, it might get people to turn off preferences, which is probably a good idea anyway.) Also, how about linking to the specific date article for the date when the subject matter occurred, came into being or ceased to exist ("the competition was held on August 9, 2004", or "the competition was held on 9 August 2004")? These articles only exist for a few years however, and whether or not they should exist is probably a question for Category talk:Dates. An article listing the events of August 9, 2004 feels like trivia, but hardly any more so than listing lots of events that happened on August 9 in the main August 9 article. (Note: I'm not saying we should be linking any dates, I don't feel strongly either way about that. Just asking how we should link, if at all.) -- Jao (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dates aren't consistently linked now; anybody who autoformats does so at his own risk, for he is choosing to have more dates in his preferred format at the price of inconsistency (and sometimes bad grammar or factual error). The question here is "are any links in dates valuable as links?" I think some are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the value of a June 2 article or a 1953 article? I presume many people think they are valuable since there are hundreds of such articles. What kind of article should link to them? Self-evidently if all dates are de-linked then all those articles will become orphaned. So back to Tcncv's original point: "Dates are not linked unless there is a particular reason to do so" should be followed by a statement of what constitutes a good reason; and his other point: the dates of events, births, deaths etc. in those articles should always be linked. Scolaire (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Tony1's comment: I haven't seen one good reason why dates of birth and death should be linked. They are linked only because of an appalling decision in the programming design of date autoformatting to entangle it with the linking mechanism. "9 June" etc was never intended to function as a link to the corresponding anniversary article: magic bright-blue buttons for diversionary browsing are discouraged in a serious encyclopedia, for all of the reasons trotted out ad infinitum on this page and its archives). Neither was the other other date fragment in autoformatted dates intended as a wormhole to a year-page, and most casual readers would be unaware that it links separately to such.
Having surveyed many year-pages, all I can say is that they're poor. When they approach the standard of 1345, we might start to promote them in the project. But for the most part, they're rag-tag threadbare lists of fragmentary facts. The quandary raised by 1345 is that it sucks in much of the suitable information for the surrounding years, too. What would be more suitable is decade articles before the last few centuries. They could make a fascinating addition to WP's historical articles. But the chance that this will happen is slender, I suspect. I note PMA's arguments above, and apologise for not yet responding. Surely the exceptional year-link is allowable under the current guidelines ("not normally"), where editors want to put a case for the benefits? I'm referring to odd years such as 1776 in the context of the American revolution, and years in the two 20th-century world wars. Tony (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- How can an editor feel motivated to improve a year article if they know that someone will quickly step in to almost turn it into an orphaned article, thus the good work done becoming invisible to the readers? How can someone feel motivated to improve an article that people don't even want to see links towards it. De-linking dates means keeping them in their current poor state forever. This is unwiki. NerdyNSK (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm content with not normally, provided FA and GA will listen to cases for the benefits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Greetings,
Let's not forget that the TWO most important things about Misplaced Pages are that:
A. Anyone can edit, which leads to potential for the most up-to-date information
B. Wikilinks, which allow a user to get from one topic area to a related (but tangential) topic very quickly. In short, Misplaced Pages has become a collective "brain" of humanity, and building these links increases Misplaced Pages's brainpower.
Therefore, it doesn't make sense to unlink dates. WHY are dates used? To place events in historical context. Links allow us to investigate that context. No links reduces and devalues one of the two main pillars of Misplaced Pages's purpose and success.Ryoung122 10:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- And let us not forget that templates like {{Cite web}} and others automagically wikilink dates. I'm sure the job queue will have a heart attack if someone or somebot stats an edit battle over that. — MrDolomite • Talk 11:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Although I don't mean people to clutter LM's page with comment, there's an interesting little debate on "skilled linking" and solitary year-links at . Tony (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a demonstrated lack of consensus for "Dates are not linked unless there is a particular reason to do so". Can we remove it? hateless 14:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
this odd "change" box
I've removed it again. I see no consensust for its placement there in the first place. It damages the status of the whole page, sending a message that it's unstable. Policy and style pages are inherently unstable—it'a a wiki. There's no "This is an unstable mess" posted in a huge box at the top of WP:NFC, even though WP:NFCC#8 has gone back and forth and back and forth month after month for most of this year. Tony (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Timing
This article is currently going through a peer review. The point that that all numbers under 10 should be written, but are unsure how "1 minute 23 seconds" should be written as it's referring to time. Should it stay how it is or be written "one minute 23 seconds"? Thanks, --Jimbo 07:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Jimbo, thanks for your inquiry. Like most style guides, WP's MOSNUM hedges its preference for the spelling out of small numbers with exceptions: there's no easy way out in English (thus five .22-calibre rifles, among many niceties). These exceptions are listed in Numbers as figures or words. Generally, measurements are stated in figures, so your suspicion that "1 minute 23 seconds" should remain entirely in figures is born out. If there were lots of such time expressions in the article, as in a current featured article candidate, one might be tempted to abbreviate to 1'23" (in parentheses on first occurrence); but there aren't lots in that article. Tony (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up Tony. Much appreciated. --Jimbo 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- What's the best approach at Akira (manga)? If I write 6 volumes rather than six volumes in the lead, it catches my eye as wrong, but by the time I get into the meat of the article, I'm mixing them rather badly. Hiding T 09:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are several considerations. My own rule of thumb, not I think presently represented in the guideline, is to use numerals when the quantity is a lot of something. For anime, from my experience, six volumes is not a lot; 13 might be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to you and Tony, we seem to have it solved. Hiding T 10:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are several considerations. My own rule of thumb, not I think presently represented in the guideline, is to use numerals when the quantity is a lot of something. For anime, from my experience, six volumes is not a lot; 13 might be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Decades (again)
Call me petty-minded, but I'm still bothered about the fact that some of the decade articles are misnamed. (We've discussed this before, and more or less agreed to make the change, but there were always more pressing things to do.) The problem concerns the decades which begin centuries (or end them, if BC), such as 1100s, 1800s and so on. We know, of course, that in real life 1100s refers to 100 years, not 10, but Misplaced Pages has decided differently. If you agree (or disagree) that this decision should be reversed (i.e. the decade article at 1100s should be renamed 1100–1109, etc.), then please comment at the discussion I started at what seems to be the most relevant page - namely WT:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Decades.--Kotniski (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support, replied there. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Move text from WP:JARGON?
At WP:JARGON, we have: "... as a rule of thumb, if expressing an equation requires LaTeX (as most do), do not assume the reader will understand what it means. It is also considered polite (but not always necessary) to explain how the symbols are read, e.g. "A ⇔ B means A is true if and only if B is true". Much of the hassle and redundancy can often be mitigated by providing a link to the extremely helpful table of mathematical symbols and providing a simple warning/disclaimer, such as at the top of the prisoner's dilemma article." I'd prefer that this material be here (in whatever tweaked form we prefer) rather than WP:JARGON because the typical users wondering what to do about numbers and symbols will probably be searching here or at the math MOS, not WP:JARGON. If you guys agree that this is a better page for that, I'll remove it there and we can start discussing it here. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's advisable. Richard Feynman's publishers warned him that every equation he included would halve his sales, but that's not the criterion we should go by. This should be merged, if anywhere, with the mathematics MOS; but you should consult the math wikiproject first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- WP:MSM seems to focus on articles about math, rather than on how to deal with math symbols in science- and technology-related articles, but if you guys don't want this, that's my next stop. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's the only guide to LaTeX I know about, though. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- WP:MSM seems to focus on articles about math, rather than on how to deal with math symbols in science- and technology-related articles, but if you guys don't want this, that's my next stop. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
long decimals
What about a way to break up long sequences of numbers after a decimal point? For instance, at Earth a distance is given as 1.0167103335 AU. At Charon, the period is 6.3872304 ± 0.0000011 days. These can be rather difficult to read.
What about a convention of breaking up such sequences? Commas might prove confusing, but we have at least one numerical template that adds spaces:
- 1.016 710 333 5 AU
- 6.387 230 4 ± 0.000 001 1 days
Commas, for comparison:
- 1.016,710,333,5 AU
- 6.387,230,4 ± 0.000,001,1 days
kwami (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- This has been discussed before, and no consensus was reached. Some people didn't want to use spaces as separators to the left of the decimal, and some people didn't want to see numbers like 123,456.789 012. No one wanted to use commas to the right of the decimal point --Gerry Ashton (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Uppercase/lowercase for unit abbreviations
Over in the automobiles project, the question has arisen of uppercase or lowercase expression for adverbial unit abbreviations. We've no convention on the matter within the project, and I find no explicit provisions anywhere in MoS. Grammar authorities seem to agree that noun abbreviations (NHTSA, RDA, IQ, THC, UFO, HIV, and so forth) get uppercase, while adverbial abbreviations (rpm, mpg, mph, and the regionally-preferred kph) get lowercase. See here, here, here, here, here (search page for rpm), here (search page for rpm), here (search page for mph), here (search for mph), and here (search mpg) for example. Can anyone think of a reason this convention should not be adopted here on Misplaced Pages? —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have not thought of it as noun and verb but I use lower case for units by default. My unit script actually enforces consistency in articles by changing 'MPH' and 'RPM' into lower case 'mph' and 'rpm'. Common units tend to be lower case (lb, kg, s, m, ft) but upper case is easy to find e.g. (°C, °F, MW). Lightmouse (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- The law does not give a rat's ass about what is written in encyclopedias, but the case of SI symbols (sometimes loosely called abbreviations) is defined by law for use in commerce. KG is wrong, S is Siemens, M is wrong, and MW must be upper case if you mean megawatt; the only other option case-wise is mW, which is milliwatt. Do what you want with American customary units, but there is only one right way to write SI symbols (except that litre may be either l or L).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry Ashton (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2008 September 20 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that Scheinwerfermann’s examples for “noun abbreviations” are more correctly acronyms, for which it has long been tradition to use capitals. Likewise, common units of measurements have generally been lowercase except where tradition (‘°C’ or ‘S’) or – as Gerry notes – standards’ prescriptions for clarification (‘MW’ vs. ‘mW’) have called for capitalization (which has most often followed cases where the unit symbol was derived from a person’s surname). Askari Mark (Talk) 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
year month day
In chronological listings, historical summaries, scientific archiving, etc., it's generally the year that needs to be prominent. Is the MOS now saying that the rational order, year-month-day (actually, millennium-century-decade-year-month-day-hour-minute-second) is no longer acceptable? Having the day first and the year last when the year is more relevant than the day doesn't make sense. kwami (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think we always allowed this format in its proper place. Has something changed recently?--Kotniski (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope not. Lightmouse (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The poll
Well, the poll has run its course according to its pre-announced running time. I've moved that whole large section to the archive; apologies if there were side-threads that people wanted to continue, but they can bring them back if they (really) want. I don't think anyone will dispute that the poll confirmed that there is no consensus to change the present wording of the section at this time (at least, not in the way suggested there, i.e. by making day-month the preferred format over month-day basically in any article not U.S./Canada-related). Other proposals for improving this section of the guidance are now awaited (though not very eagerly, I suspect).--Kotniski (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- "I don't think anyone will dispute that the poll confirmed that there is no consensus to change the present wording of the section at this time..." I suppose you're right. But at least that ] thing is now deprecated, which is good.
- So, is User:Lightbot continuing to unlink dates? Teemu Leisti (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Using templates for dates and date ranges
---
Could we have a date template which, rather than require the specification of YYYY|MM|DD and format as four separate parameters, instead simply wrapped around already fully MOS formatted dates.
The point of this would be for those users who have date preferences set up, so that:
- If user preference was for International date format, then {{dte|May 9, 2001}} would render as 9 May 2001.
- If user preference was set for US format, then {{dte|9 May 2001}} would render as May 9, 2001.
- Ideally I'd like the template name "date" rather than "dte", but "date" is already taken with this buggy thing. Perhaps this could be resolved in future, but I'd encourage keeping things simple for now.
To clarify all the combinations, and to suggest keeping it simple, I'd recommend allowing only the following MOS formats in the template:
Format in template | Rendering for user: | |
---|---|---|
International date preference | US date preference | |
9 May | 9 May | May 9 |
May 9 | 9 May | May 9 |
9 May 2001 | 9 May 2001 | May 9, 2001 |
May 9, 2001 | 9 May 2001 | May 9, 2001 |
Users without set date preferences would of course just get what's in the template.
This way both the user's preferences and the editor's intent (with respect to MOS) would be taken into account.
--SallyScot (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- This would return us to the most unsatisfactory situation where it's almost impossible for WP to manage its date formats properly. Editors need to see what their readers see. And as has been pointed out above, it's a lot of work to key in, and not intuitive. Why all the trouble over whether month or day come first and second in order? Tony (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow the argument of how such a template would make it almost impossible for WP to manage its date formats. Could you explain? As I see it such a template's intent would simply be to give editors the option of catering for user date preferences. I'm not suggesting it ought to be mandatory, but I would ask why you'd deny such choice? It's not as if the question of why all the trouble over whether month or day comes first or second is a newly invented issue. The template would simply resolve linking context issues around the pre-existing date autoformatting approach. If anything, the pre-existence of that autoformatting approach, the fact that it was being used despite its linking issues, clearly indicates that some editors would like to be able to cater somehow for user date preferences. --SallyScot (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Some, perhaps, but the vast majority used it (or had it inserted for them) just because it was the recommended thing to do at the time. Had there been a widespread desire to cater for readers' preferences, editors would have been banging on the devs' doors all these years asking them to implement something along those lines for IP users (which nearly all readers are).--Kotniski (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't think I quite follow the argument. I don't see how editors would've been asking for date autoformatting preferences for IP users to be taken into account, because I don't see how such requests would make sense. Maybe I'm missing something, but as I understand it, you'd need to be a registered user in order to have set up preferences. I think this is how most editors would understand the situation, and as such they wouldn't have been banging on devs' doors asking for the implementation of something that couldn't be done for IP users. --SallyScot (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are two ways that I could see IP users and users without a preference set handled. One is to support a per-article default. The other is to base it on the country associated with the IP address of the user. PaleAqua (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- What Tony meant is that if there's a way to format dates according to preference, then many editors will use it. I know I did, for four years. That's not a huge problem if there is a default format for unregistered users (possibly on a per-article basis), as PaleAqua suggests. But if "users without set date preferences would of course just get what's in the template" (just as they do in the present, deprecated, system), then we are in a lot of trouble. If an article contains the text "The meeting was held between {{dte|9 May 2001}} and {{dte|May 13, 2001}}" and we, the editors, see "The meeting was held between 9 May 2001 and 13 May 2001" (or the other way around), then who would fix it? Who would know there was even something that had to be fixed? That's exactly the mess where auto-formatting has left us in the first place. If somehow editors could be prohibited from using the feature, then catering for non-editor reader preference might be nice; but how many non-editors have a date preference set? And there would still be the date-range problem and the possibly needed extra comma after middle-endian dates to be addressed. And we would effectively have four date formats to choose between: now each article must either consistently use "9 May 2001", "May 9, 2001", "{{dte|9 May 2001}}" or "{{dte|May 9, 2001}}", as they would all be incompatible, any mixing leading to inconsistent results for at least some users. -- Jao (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Date format preferences
Thanks for the clarifications here. I wasn't really considering the issue of article default date formats. I'm just making the point that IP users can't expect to have their own overriding date preferences without becoming registered users.
The date template I've suggested would simply resolve the linking context issues around the pre-existing approach to date autoformatting (now apparently deprecated). That pre-existing autoformatting approach was to cater for registered user date preference rather than article default date preferences.
Tony's point that "Editors need to see what their readers see" is at the expense of having user date preferences. It necessitates the removal of a long-established and pre-existing choice.
I would rather suggest that registered users (readers/editors) continue to be allowed this choice.
Perhaps some users would rather see dates in their preferred format. That is, rather than feel they're under any particular obligation to spend their time 'fixing' mixed date instances.
With it working this way, if an editor feels on the other hand that the issue of mixed dates formats is their overriding consideration, then they can choose to specify "No preference" as date format option on their preferences page.
Editors need to understand the implications of having their date preferences set, but they certainly ought not to be "prohibited from using the feature" as Jao suggests.
Another thought that occurs is that a date template may even be unnecessary for fully-formatted dates (ones that include day of month, month and year). It ought to be possible to recognise dates in article text; therefore it ought to be possible to recognise and format 9 May 2001 and May 9, 2001 in accordance with user date preferences (i.e. without the need to wrap either full date format in a template in the article text).
--SallyScot (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Consensus on date formats?
Honestly, I can't see any real consensus coming out of the series of polls, except maybe that all but a few people are getting tired of discussing this. Counting noses is all very well, but given the changes in proposed wordings during the series of polls, no wording has overall approval. More than that, no philosophy has overall approval.
The comments of individual editors in discussion or when casting their !votes are more useful in gauging the mood of the community, and perhaps I can attempt to summarise my perceptions of things we have consensus on.
- Two date formats are acceptable in written English within Misplaced Pages:
- American format (July 4, 1776) and
- International format (14 February 2008)
- Some editors objected that this isn't really an official international format, and I'd agree, because ISO 8601 is the official international format, but there are problems in using that format for Julian dates, and it doesn't look comfortable in written text, although it works well for tables and is excellent for sorting. Calling day-month-year British or European format only tells part of the story. The plain fact is that most countries of the world use day-month-year in preference to month-year-day. That's a huge majority in both nations and population. Incidentally, we all have a convenient and useful guide as to which nations use which format in the "control panel" of our computers: it might be called different things in different operating systems, but somewhere there is a way to select which national formats (in date, time, currency, numbers, keyboards etc) you want to use on your computer, and the formats chosen by Mr Gates, Mr Jobs, Mr Linux and so on are all pretty similar per country.
- For English speaking nations, we use the format in general use in that country
- Articles with strong ties to the USA should use American format
- Articles with strong ties to the UK should use International format
- There were some comments that the US military uses day-month-year and English-language newspapers use month-day-year (even in the UK), but by and large, we know which format is in general use. Canada aside. Those wacky Canadians use both.
- We don't want to compel or impose one usage over another. We have guidelines, not policies, and local consensus overrides the Manual of Style on this point.
- We don't want to have overly prescriptive or detailed guidelines.
- Articles should use the same style consistently.
While not consensus as such, we have the ArbCom desicion on Jguk for high-level guidance. Summed up, this makes changing one existing style to another without good reason, and an example of good reason is given: 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.
Where we don't have consensus is in how to treat articles without clear ties to an English-speaking country. These fall into two types:
- Articles with a clear tie to a particular country. Examples would be Italy, Rome and Pope Benedict XVI.
- Articles with a global or universal focus. Examples would be United Nations, Mathematics and Pig
There are four approaches:
- Where there is a clear tie to a nation using a date format, use that format. This follows on from the guideline on English-speaking nations and the ArbCom decision on Jguk.
- Use International format everywhere apart from articles with a clear tie to a nation using American format. This has the advantage of clarity and simplicity, but is bitterly opposed to those who personally prefer American format.
- Use the date format most closely associated with a national variety of English:
- The variety used in the country. Fine for the USA and the UK, ambiguous for Canada, anomalous for countries such as Japan or Venezuela.
- The variety used in the article. Rare for any article to display a consistent style: "or/our" and "ise/ize" word endings can be found sprinkled throughout most non-trivial articles, mostly dependent on which editor wrote which bit.
- Use the format chosen by the first major contributor. This gives inconsistent results for similar articles, depending on the preference of whichever editor first introduced a date.
With the deprecation of date autoformatting, resulting in editors seeing the same mix of date formats as readers, it would give Misplaced Pages a more professional and uniform look to have some consistent guideline in place. As it stands, all four of the above approaches have been used, with predictable results for consistency. --Pete (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's an excellent summary of the situation at this point. Teemu Leisti (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) You seem to be trying to start the same huge discussion process we've just been through all over again. We've established that the present wording of the guideline (which doesn't try to impose consistency, except within any article and among articles relating to a particular English-speaking country - not Canada) is preferred over wordings that would tend to impose one format consistently. (Just as with US/UK spelling.) If you have a wonderful new idea, let's hear it, but I think people are soon going to get very tired of discussing this.--Kotniski (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- My point is that there is neither consensus nor overwhelming preference for any of the four approaches listed above. That's where we're at. --Pete (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Pete for an excellent summary - one which suggests to me that we should just drop the matter. Before I come back to this point let me add two things: first, an official usage does not preclde familiarity. A country can haveone official language where virtually everyone is conversant if not fluent in another language; a country may have an official standard for dates, but what does that mean? That its use is required on all pulbic documents? that it is the prefered style of all citizens of the country? Or that it is the only style anyone ever uses? I do not know the answers to these questions; my point is we should not take any answer for granted. This is relevnt because i would oppose our using any date style that a signifcant number of English-reading people wouldn't understand. This is a different threshold than what the official style of those people's government is. Second, and I bring this up only because i don't thnk anyone else has, but I think the style should be that prefered by most of the editors doing most of the editing on that article - they are doing the work and should use the style they are comfortable with (and they are as good a sample as any of general readers who would be interested in the topic - I am not saying this works perfectly all the time, but in lieu of other data ...). Of course when we have conflict among editors we do need guidelines to help resolve conflicts and I think consistency and priority (which style was used first - or which has been in stable use the longest) are good ones. What if these are not enough? I now have a default response to any situation where conflicts over style seem irresolvable, and it is a question I pose to all people involved in the conflict: why would you rather spend time arguing over this rather than reading recent books published by academic presses, peer-reviewed journal articles, and any other kind of reliable source that would helpo you make a substantive contribution to the encyclopedia? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, that’s a good summary, Pete – thanks for adding it. It fairly captures the range of issues and preferences espoused and I think it’s a good place for editors to start with the – unfortunately – next time this debate arises. In fact, it would have been handy for many of the late-arriving participants in this debate. (I hope this gets archived with the final poll for that reason, rather than separately with unrelated material.) One other point that I think should also be captured (although it was not polled over) is that there was considerable support for a coding or template approach that would permit any reader – not just registered editors – to choose to see dates in the format with which they’re most comfortable. This whole debate has inevitably arisen out of the lack of such a means and the inability of editors to implement one on their own initiative; any standardization we can pursue and implement ourselves requires developing a clear consensus among the choices Pete notes above. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC).
- One place for discussing date templates and such might be WP:WikiProject_Dates. Its currently stated tasks are to (1) "compile a comprehensive list of all articles with dates in them" and (2) "develop a set of criteria for standard date formats for articles". Since (2) was handled in the just-closed discussion, which had no resolution, the project currently seems to have no purpose. Teemu Leisti (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom jguk ruling
Considering the recent discussion, I think it is pertinent to quote what passes for law around here, which is the ArbCom ruling on jguk:
Style guide
1) Misplaced Pages has established a Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style for the "purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format," see . The prescriptions of Misplaced Pages's manual of style are not binding, but it is suggested that with respect to eras that "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." .
- Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
Optional styles
2) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages 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)
Courtesy
3) Courtesy between Misplaced Pages editors is important, especially with respect to matters which are in dispute.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
Revert wars considered harmful
4) Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
Sincere disputes are unlikely to be resolved by forcing the issue
5) At times the proper implementation of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy will be a matter of dispute between reasonable editors who sincerely wish to uphold the principle. In these cases, no attempts to dictate the proper solution, whether coming from the Arbitration Committee or from a mechanism such as a poll, will be helpful. All that can be done is to insist that the participants in the dispute remain civil and respectful.
- Passed 4 to 1 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
Clearly the ruling allows format changes to be made for good reason, and a national tie to a topic is a good reason.
Perhaps the final statement is the most telling. We can't expect the ArbCom to rule on a specific date format in an specific article. In fact I'd expect such a request to be tossed out, with the injunction that the involved editors should sort it out themselves and be civil to each other. Likewise a poll won't solve matters, if the dispute is between reasonable editors. --Pete (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- We can, however, expect ArbCom to rule on a continual and disruptive practice of Date Warring. I trust there will be no need to bother them about this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Two formats
Looking at this edit by Gerry Ashton, he gives an edit summary of Revert attempt to defeat consensus reached on talk page; assertion is unproven and irrlevant.
No consensus was reached on the talk page, let alone over this point. Nor is the assertion unproven: a glance at Calendar date gives a list of countries where "day before month" is the predominant format. Checking this via a computer control panel gives the same result. The language spoken is irrelevant. --Pete (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see no comprenensive study of all countries. Even if such existed, it is unclear whether the main consideration is the number of countries, number of languages, or number of people. There is a consensus that date-order in an English language article does not depend on the date-order in a non-English speaking country that is closely related to the article. I see this edit as a way for Pete to incrementally change the guideline towards his preferred position. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I see it the same way. NO changes to the current wording should be made without consensus on THIS talk page. We just went through a very long and pointed discussion and now that the previous poll issue has closed, edit warring ensues. Editors should refrain from further pushing a personal POV on the main space article and discuss such changes here to avoid a repeat of previous edit wars conducted to no ones benefit, especially that of other editors referencing MOSNUM for guidance.--«JavierMC»|Talk 01:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Please show me the diffs that support your assertion of consensus, Gerry. I see no such consensus - instead I see you and a couple of others expressing your strongly-held personal opinions, for which you are apparently prepared to revert war. The plain fact is that day before month is the preferred order in most countries of the world. For every nation you can name that uses a different format, I'll show you three that use day before month. On the basis of population, let's see:
- China, year-month-day, 1,326,220,000
- India, day-month-year, 1,138,270,000
- USA, month-day-year, 305,210,000
- Indonesia, day-month-year, 228,322,555
- Brazil, day-month-year, 187,720,600
- Pakistan, day-month-year, 164,387,000
- Bangladesh, day-month-year, 158,665,000
- Russia, day-month-year, 141,815,000.
- That's both a majority in population and a three to one preponderance right there. Numbers from Misplaced Pages, formats from my Mac control panel. Let's stick with the facts. Please. --Pete (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Relevant facts, though. It looks odd to some (I know not to you) to claim that a format exemplified by "14 February" is predominant in any non-English-speaking country (where the word "February" is not used). We could argue about that, but it's not worth it, because for the purposes of the style guide, what's relevant at the moment is what format is used in what English-speaking countries. So no need to muddy the waters by making claims about other countries, which may well be true in a sense, but have nothing to do with this guidance. Please leave this alone; everyone's tired of this by now.--Kotniski (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- We've been through this before. Sure, this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, but we have articles about places and people with no ties to any English-speaking nation. If the date format used in a place where they don't speak English is day before month, then what on earth is wrong with using that format in written English? Am I missing something here? The only reason I can think of why people would edit-war and abuse other editors for the sake of using one date format over another is that they care very deeply about their own personal preference, and that's not the attitude of a reasonable person. --Pete (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong at all (with using that format...); but equally well nothing wrong with using the format used by the majority(?) of the world's English speakers. Hence the current guideline. I don't honestly care one way or the other (as long as the guidance is clear and rational), but the community has spoken on this; let's accept the decision and move on.--Kotniski (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- We've been through this before. Sure, this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, but we have articles about places and people with no ties to any English-speaking nation. If the date format used in a place where they don't speak English is day before month, then what on earth is wrong with using that format in written English? Am I missing something here? The only reason I can think of why people would edit-war and abuse other editors for the sake of using one date format over another is that they care very deeply about their own personal preference, and that's not the attitude of a reasonable person. --Pete (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Relevant facts, though. It looks odd to some (I know not to you) to claim that a format exemplified by "14 February" is predominant in any non-English-speaking country (where the word "February" is not used). We could argue about that, but it's not worth it, because for the purposes of the style guide, what's relevant at the moment is what format is used in what English-speaking countries. So no need to muddy the waters by making claims about other countries, which may well be true in a sense, but have nothing to do with this guidance. Please leave this alone; everyone's tired of this by now.--Kotniski (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The fact remains, Pete, that no consensus has been reached to change the current wording on the main space article concerning dating format and any such change is an invitation to engage in edit warring. The only clear outcome of the discussion over the past two weeks or more was the exclusion of the wording pertaining to countries formats with no ties to English-speaking countries. Again I reiterate, do not make changes to the mains space article concerning date format without gaining consensus on this talk page. It is an open invitation for edit warring.--«JavierMC»|Talk 02:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Surely we had the perfect solution with smart links which autoformat dates to the user's preference, and what we should do is stop/revert all the bots which are stripping links from dates. dramatic (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The fact remains, Pete, that no consensus has been reached to change the current wording on the main space article concerning dating format and any such change is an invitation to engage in edit warring. The only clear outcome of the discussion over the past two weeks or more was the exclusion of the wording pertaining to countries formats with no ties to English-speaking countries. Again I reiterate, do not make changes to the mains space article concerning date format without gaining consensus on this talk page. It is an open invitation for edit warring.--«JavierMC»|Talk 02:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- dramatic, apparently you missed the part about autoformatting not working for those who have not registered, which accounts for the vast majority of readers. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Gentlepedians, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. In truth, most countries do use the European style, and the point you’re editwarring over is pretty trivial. The simple fact is, the American format is (to be precise): “predominant in the US, and widely used in Canada and a few other countries”. If you’re going to point out that the former style is “common in most countries”, then it’s probably obligatory to note at the least the major exceptions, if not the full specific list (which I do not advocate). None of this is contrary to the consensus.
As for reverting back to the “original” version, I’ll point out that there’s an open question as to which that is, since edits to the section have continued unabated throughout most of the debate. In fact, what Gerry is reverting to is simply the first revision of the day (20 Sep.) by PMAnderson. His edit replaced a series of changes by Ckatz, JimWae and, lastly, DI2000 the previous day.
So instead of edit warring over “protecting” some “official” version, may I suggest that you come to an agreement here on just how many other countries besides the U.S. should be mentioned and then make the change to the MOSDATE text. As long as it doesn't contravene the sense of the consensus, no harm is probably done by such minor changes. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Need an opinion
Hope this is the right place ;) What is the best way to word the following: "On March 26–28, 1958, the NCLC held the first of many workshops..." Should it say "on" or "from" at the beginning, and should the dates say:
- March 26–28, 1958
- March 26 to 28, 1958
- March 26 to March 28, 1958
- Some other variation
Opinions? Kaldari (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- NYTM and AP Stylebook are silent; TCMOS says (6.83) "For the sake of parallel construction the word to, never the en dash, should be used if the word from precedes the first element; similarly, and, never the en dash, should be used if between precedes the first element." In American English, use: March 26–28, 1958; or "from March 26 to March 28"; or "between March 26 and March 28". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed replacement of "Strong national ties to a topic"
Given the state of tempers, I thought I would discuss this here, rather than being bold. I propose that we replace the "Strong national ties to a topic" section as follows. I use a level-3 section head to indicate a return to commentary.
Choosing a format
While the decision must be made by the editors of each article, the following principles should be observed.
- If a Wikiproject has achieved a consensus for the date format to use within a subject area, that format is strongly preferred.
- When the sources for an article predominantly use one format or the other, the predominant format is preferred.
- Otherwise, articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use whichever format predominates, assuming that one does.
- For the United States of America, use the month-before-day format.
- For most other English-speaking countries, use the day-before-month format.
- Canada uses both about equally, so either may be used.
Many non-English-speaking countries use a format that is very similar to one of the two acceptable formats. In such cases, the closer of the two should be used
Discussion
The concept that uniformity of date format will somehow increase Misplaced Pages's prestige strikes me as misguided. If we wanted uniformity, we would prescribe a particular variety of English and enforce its use in all articles. Exceptions would be limited to quotations and references to dialectical usage. Instead, we use various national varieties, including the use of "Indianisms" in some cases. The train has left the station, been boarded on ship, and the ship has sailed and is in International Waters.
Misplaced Pages covers a lot of fields. If the best sources in a field use a date format consistently, we want to follow the sources in style as we do in content. The best judges of that are active subject-matter Wikiprojects. Failing that, the matter is best left to the editors on an individual page. If having a link the reader from seeing "the color of the sulfur" to reading "the colour of the sulphur" is acceptable, I don't see why taking him from "April 1" to "1 April" is one iota worse.
As for a comprehensive list of countries, I see no need and little purpose. If the result is obvious, there is no need. If the result is not obvious, I do not see that this little band is more qualified than the editors of an article to make a decision. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I object to the last clause. There is no reason why articles on Sweden should use 22 September, just because Swedish uses 22 september; the only Swede to have commented here expressed puzzlement that we should do this. The Swedish WP is another matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that last clause is really just proposing something that's already been firmly rejected. The others may have some sense, but is this continuous debate over a triviality really what Misplaced Pages needs?--Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is no reason why articles on Sweden should use 22 September, just because Swedish uses 22 september. Ummm. That's actually a reason TO use it. I think you'd have to come up with a pretty good reason NOT to use Sweden's preferred format, all else being equal.
- Not if the Swedes don't see it as one; we are not helping them or anybody else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, make up your mind - you say they use 22 September in one breath, and then dispute yourself in the next. Easily solved - just set your computer preferences to Swedish and see what the preferred format is. That's something any computer user can do for themselves. The Swedes don't use American date format, so please don't insult our intelligence by implying that they do. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- What Jao said was
- 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 would it?
- That seems clear enough; why would it indeed? Adopting the forms of Language A into Language B, when they are not natural in both, is a sign of incomplete mastery of one or the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- What Jao said was
- Well, make up your mind - you say they use 22 September in one breath, and then dispute yourself in the next. Easily solved - just set your computer preferences to Swedish and see what the preferred format is. That's something any computer user can do for themselves. The Swedes don't use American date format, so please don't insult our intelligence by implying that they do. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not if the Swedes don't see it as one; we are not helping them or anybody else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- You two obviously feel the need to defend your preferred date format. So far as I can see you are both causing a lot of unecessary disruption over something that's pretty trivial really. Misplaced Pages is an international project. You should get used to working with people from diverse backgrounds.
- On the contrary, we support letting editors of various backgrounds use their preferred formats; Skyring has been continually revert warring to have this page dicountenance that. Then again, Skyring has been doing nothing but Date Warring for his preferred all over article space for some time now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- As for the wording of the proposal above, it's just common sense and courtesy. I like it. --Pete (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is neither. But I note the appeal to that all-prevailing rationale: WP:ILIKEIT; at base, Skyring has no other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Let me add mine to the many voices urging you to contemplate this as a useful source of guidance. --Pete (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is neither. But I note the appeal to that all-prevailing rationale: WP:ILIKEIT; at base, Skyring has no other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The rejection is here. That was Option D. By my count, 38 voices; 7 approved it, 5 were willing to tolerate it, 26 rejected it .
- On the substance: we have the present text (R), which sets a firm rule for only some articles, those with strong ties to English-speaking countries. We had three alternatives which extended it to a rule for all articles (B resembled R, but was longer and differed in detail):
- A would have required all articles in a national dialect of English to use the corresponding date format.
- C would have required that all articles not strongly tied to the United States, US possessions and Canada use the British format.
- D is a wording almost identical to West's clause.
- A and C did best, although none had a majority. There was then a runoff, which rejected A and had a hairline majority for C; C has then polled against the present text, and failed - despite widespread canvassing by Pete - to win even a majority.
- It may be worth tweaking the present text to insert
- If a Wikiproject has achieved a consensus for the date format to use within a subject area, that format is strongly preferred.
- When the sources for an article predominantly use one format or the other, the predominant format is preferred.
- although the first will run into objections from those who regard Wikiprojects as bumptious, with no right to object to the project-wide guidance here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at WP:CONSENSUS, I think you are reading to much into interpreting polls. I've summarised above the areas where we have consensus and where we don't. We've still got a way to go. --Pete (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- So can you at least please stop edit-warring on the policy page until we have consensus to change it. I've explained above why the word "English-speaking" that you keep removing is desirable; please at least answer the reasoning before continuing to repeat the change (I know it's not only you this time, but the same applies to others).--Kotniski (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- And there is no particular reason why we need those claims of fact at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we need them for the rule to operate; editors will determine which format is prevalent in Canada, or Jamaica, the same way they tell whether those countries use color or colour: by knowing the local variant of English. We should not decide that; as has been pointed out, we don't know the answer for Jamaica, and the answer for Canada has been questioned in the course of the discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh, I hate to be picky, but knowing the local English variant in Canada doesn't give you the date format. Canada bats both ways. English-speaking nations aren't a problem anyway. The current discussion revolves around how we treat non-English-speaking nations in Misplaced Pages. It's easy enough to determine the date format used in a specific - just set your computer preferences from the list provided and see what comes up. Anyone can do this. --Pete (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Pardon me, but this appears to be a suggestion that Microsoft (!) is a reliable source. Tell it to the Marines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm using a Mac. --Pete (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Pardon me, but this appears to be a suggestion that Microsoft (!) is a reliable source. Tell it to the Marines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh, I hate to be picky, but knowing the local English variant in Canada doesn't give you the date format. Canada bats both ways. English-speaking nations aren't a problem anyway. The current discussion revolves around how we treat non-English-speaking nations in Misplaced Pages. It's easy enough to determine the date format used in a specific - just set your computer preferences from the list provided and see what comes up. Anyone can do this. --Pete (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Skyring is, as often, seeing what others say through his idée fixe. We have said nothing more than that a rule which has no majority can scarcely be consensus (rules which do have majorities may or may not be) and that if a rule has no consensus, MOS should not require it. (Again, consensus claims may or may not belong here.) In short, we discuss necessary, not sufficient conditions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am not strongly attached to the point. I consider the national-preference clause to be better than a coin-flip, but not by much. The previous discussion and polls were quite lengthy, and I obviously misread them. I am strongly attached to following relevant scholars, so I regret muddying the waters with this point. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- So can you at least please stop edit-warring on the policy page until we have consensus to change it. I've explained above why the word "English-speaking" that you keep removing is desirable; please at least answer the reasoning before continuing to repeat the change (I know it's not only you this time, but the same applies to others).--Kotniski (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at WP:CONSENSUS, I think you are reading to much into interpreting polls. I've summarised above the areas where we have consensus and where we don't. We've still got a way to go. --Pete (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that Misplaced Pages is an international effort, but en.wikipedia.org does not bear the responsibility for the internationalization of all of Misplaced Pages. This is the English version of Misplaced Pages. See the list of all the other Wikipedias. To continually bring up formatting matters concerning non-English speaking countries in English Misplaced Pages is trying to broaden the responsibility of this MOS beyond it's scope. I'm sure the hundred(s) of other Wikipedias have some MOS guideline for their use, and highly doubt they debate imposing the English Wikipedias methods upon their editors. So why do we continue to debate this point? It has been rejected by previous consensus and to keep rehashing it distracts from improving the current wording of MOS on date formatting as it applies to English Misplaced Pages.--«JavierMC»|Talk 23:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've struck that part out of my proposal. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Mr. West's proposal contains "When the sources for an article predominantly use one format or the other, the predominant format is preferred." I can't agree with that, because (1) it can cause flip-flopping of the date format as sources come and go, and (2) if the sources are not online, no single editor may have access to enough of the sources to determine what format predominates. Also, one can probably argue that newspapers are a major source for almost any topic, and UK newspapers often use the mdy format (or so some editors have claimed in this discussion), so this proposal could be disruptive.
A variation of this proposal that I would support in an individual article, although it may not need to be in the guideline, is that if an article contains extensive quotations that use a particular format, it would be appropriate for the unquoted parts of the article to use that format too. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would take the clause as applying to articles like Frederick North, Lord North, which should not be sourced from newspapers. Predominant should prevent switching; if the sources are so evenly divided that a few sources would overturn the balance, neither side was "predominant" to begin with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the "Frederick North" article is a fine example. There are five sources, only one of which is online, and the online source is from 1867, so is not a good guide to date format in modern writing. If a question arose about the appropriate date format for the article, few editors would be able to determine which format predominates in the sources. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, all five sources are at Google Books. The American Tuchman is the only one to use the European style, presumably because her book is about more than the eighteenth century. But this is a reason to leave the question to the judgment of the editors who have actually consulted the sources; I would prefer acknowledging that they may wish to diverge from the norm to any rule permitting kibitzers to switch dates on their arbitrary judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the "Frederick North" article is a fine example. There are five sources, only one of which is online, and the online source is from 1867, so is not a good guide to date format in modern writing. If a question arose about the appropriate date format for the article, few editors would be able to determine which format predominates in the sources. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)Both fair points. How about, "When the scholarship on a subject predominantly uses one format or the other..."? That is more to my meaning in any case. As to the subject of quotations, I agree that it is reasonable to harmonize an article's style with its quotations, but that could lead to the sort of flip-flopping that Mr. Ashton so properly deprecates. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I would think the word "predominantly" in "When the sources for an article predominantly" should be enough to assuage Gerry's otherwise valid concern - would adding the words When "the most notable" scholarship ... help? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- This would have the interesting effect of making many British articles use American dates, as English-language newspapers, including The Times, typically use American-format dates. I think a lot of people would find this confusing. --Pete (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- If British newspapers predominantly use "American" format, on what basis do we say that "International" usage predominates in the U.K.? I would think that newspapers would be strongly motivated to use the format preferred by their readers. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is hard to phrase. I would go along with an individual article using the format that predominates in all the modern English-language scholarly sources on a topic, but not on which predominates in the subset that happens to have been cited in a particular article. Any editor who embarks on editing a decent article should consult several good sources (which might not be the ones that have been cited so far) and if one format really does predominate the field, the editor will see that. One problem with expanding this point from consensus on an individual article to a guideline for all articles is that some topics are just ignored by scholarly sources, and I shudder to think what the predominant date format might turn out to be for sources on those articles.
- As for extensive quotes, I suspect that will only come up when the subject of an article is a document, and most of the quotes will come from the subject document. Since the subject document won't change, there won't be a concern with flip-flopping. And anyway, I really think that should be decided by consensus for a particular article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- My concern is that if we leave "national ties" as the one guiding principle, and note that they are the reason to change an article's format, we may prevent just the sort of per-article consensus that should evolve. That result would make Misplaced Pages worse. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- How about When the sources on a subject predominantly use one format or the other, the predominant format is preferred? The minor premise that the sources actually used tend to represent the whole universe of sources will usually be true, but not always. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- This sounds constructive. I agree with Robert West's comment. As for Pete's - well, this gets back to a point I made a few days ago, what is wrong with listing countries where the official date system is x or y. That is like listing countries where the official religion is x or y. We just do not know whetehr it means that this is the system that the state requires used on all official documents, but is otherwise ignored by most people, or is it really what most people practice? We are giving the word "official" too much credit. Myabe it is all we have .... but lets not pretend that it necessarily means that thi is the only dating system people use, let alkone understand, in a given country. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- How about When the sources on a subject predominantly use one format or the other, the predominant format is preferred? The minor premise that the sources actually used tend to represent the whole universe of sources will usually be true, but not always. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- My concern is that if we leave "national ties" as the one guiding principle, and note that they are the reason to change an article's format, we may prevent just the sort of per-article consensus that should evolve. That result would make Misplaced Pages worse. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Robert, this is really just re-plowing old ground. While your suggestion of devolving the decision to individual Wikiprojects is a novel one, I’m not sure it’s altogether a wise one. First of all, the issue is not intrinsic to any Wikiproject’s purview, but rather it’s a general, encyclopedia-wide one; secondly, it is likely to result in more inconsistency and more edit-warring; thirdly, there are many articles not covered by any Wikiproject (and even more not covered by an active one). The second bullet, if it is meant to be second in importance, basically defaults to a universal “use whichever style was first introduced” and thus obviates the need for the remainder of your points. The last sub-bullet – the one most of those above are pointedly taking exception to – was, of course, the least-preferred option according to the polls (however valid one may feel them to be), despite having a few quite vocal champions. Nor is there likely to be found a scholarly consensus. An American scholar and a British scholar writing on the American Revolutionary War will each use their native style – and neither will be bothered by it. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, both are likely to use the format presently used in the United States, as with Lord North above; that's the format on primary documents on both sides of the Atlantic. Mark Askari forgets, I conjecture, how recently the European format was introduced in Britain and the Commonwealth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, Askari Mark does not forget how recently the European format was adopted; however, I have read a lot of scholarly works originating from both sides of the “Big Puddle”. There is also the issue that when a manuscript is submitted for publication in a journal based on the opposite bank, that journal’s style guide may call for re-rendering in the local usage. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I acknowledge my conjecture. Journal style guides would seem to strengthen the case for the proposed language; if one or the other is predominant after that randomization, then it must have been so common in MS. that it would be surprising to see it otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Askari, I believe that style is often field-dependent, and that Wikiprojects are precisely the groups that are most likely to make good decisions about style for each field. As for your criticism of the second bullet point, it is a decision based on the universe of sources. That is a far cry from "pick a style and stick with it." You are correct about the last point, and I have already apologized. I've struck it out to avoid having to apologize a third time. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, both are likely to use the format presently used in the United States, as with Lord North above; that's the format on primary documents on both sides of the Atlantic. Mark Askari forgets, I conjecture, how recently the European format was introduced in Britain and the Commonwealth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Robert, this is really just re-plowing old ground. While your suggestion of devolving the decision to individual Wikiprojects is a novel one, I’m not sure it’s altogether a wise one. First of all, the issue is not intrinsic to any Wikiproject’s purview, but rather it’s a general, encyclopedia-wide one; secondly, it is likely to result in more inconsistency and more edit-warring; thirdly, there are many articles not covered by any Wikiproject (and even more not covered by an active one). The second bullet, if it is meant to be second in importance, basically defaults to a universal “use whichever style was first introduced” and thus obviates the need for the remainder of your points. The last sub-bullet – the one most of those above are pointedly taking exception to – was, of course, the least-preferred option according to the polls (however valid one may feel them to be), despite having a few quite vocal champions. Nor is there likely to be found a scholarly consensus. An American scholar and a British scholar writing on the American Revolutionary War will each use their native style – and neither will be bothered by it. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Slrubenstein that the word "official" should be avoided in relation to date and time formats. As examples of official neglect of the subject, the Gregorian calendar is in effect in the United States because of the the British Calendar (New Style) Act 1750. In Britain, the Parliament has declined to decide whether GMT means Universal Time or Coordinated Universal Time.
- I also have share the concerns about this bullet When the sources for an article predominantly use one format or the other, the predominant format is preferred. Does this imply that if the sources used for an article change or that enough sources are added that use a different format that the article should be changed? It seems to me that if a guideline is to be provided it should be one that can not easily be gamed and encourages stability. In many case one date format is no better than another, though all date formats will seem at least unusual to at least some of the editors, and most of the editors will find at least one format unusual. I think something akin to the first format used in article to be as good of rule as any, and makes a concrete point that can be used to prevent edit warring. PaleAqua (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Would you prefer sources on a subject, as suggested above? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- While that and the scholarship versions seem a little better they still seem like they present gaming risks. It is doubtful that the average editor would know most of the sources on a topic, which means that any set of sources revealed could be chosen with bias. Also they may be sources that could have both multiple additions, where versions that agree with a particular editors date format could be chosen. If such a call would be made it seems that a wikiproject involving the articles would be in a better position to make such a ruling, but that's already covered by the first point. I still think something simple that is easily determinable is the best guideline. Something like "If a Wikiproject has achieved a consensus for choosing a date format to use within a subject area, that choice is strongly preferred.", drop the "When the sources..." clause, and add at the end something akin to the retaining the existing format as the final option. PaleAqua (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Would you prefer sources on a subject, as suggested above? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
When to change an article
It would seem to go along with my suggestion about that "scholarly practice" should replace "national ties" as the reason for change par excellence. Otherwise, a carefully-made choice based on scholarly practice could be reversed on the basis of alleged strong national ties. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- While it would be nice to think of Wikipedians as scholars, in general we aren't, unless we accept Borat's definition. Any rules on date formats (or anything else) should have two features:
- Clear and easily understood by editors
- Producing consistent results accepted by readers.
- The reason for introducing date autoformatting in the first place was so that editors would see dates in the style they preferred. Combined with the strong national ties rule which acted to keep American articles in American format and British articles in International format, this system worked well for years. Making radical changes to a working system is something that should be approached cautiously. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's already been radically changed, when date linking at all was deprecated, so that a person's Preferences no longer matter. Corvus cornixtalk 20:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The system may have reduced edit wars over dates, but it did not do anything for the vast majority of readers, that is, those who are not registered. So it didn't work well for years, it swept the problem under the rug for years. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- So, who are the majority of readers? Are they not Americans? Your argument then should be to require American format. Corvus cornixtalk 21:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The system may have reduced edit wars over dates, but it did not do anything for the vast majority of readers, that is, those who are not registered. So it didn't work well for years, it swept the problem under the rug for years. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's already been radically changed, when date linking at all was deprecated, so that a person's Preferences no longer matter. Corvus cornixtalk 20:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
However, the script that is now being used to remove date-linking could easily be modified to make date format consistent, yet still leave date-autoformatting intact. I understand somebody also has a script that could remove date-linking & retain date auto-formatting. --JimWae (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, that was a patch to the wikimedia software, which was written and proposed, but not adopted. Since date autoformatting is depricated, I think it is unlikely that any date-autoformatting patch will be accepted. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, the headers for all discussion involving deprecation read "date-linking" and did not read "date-autoformatting" --JimWae (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- We are not by definition scholars, as Pete says, but we do rely on scholars and other notable, reliable sources when writing most articles; that is the point. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I would venture a guess that the "strong national ties" rule for formatting is unknown to most editors and to essentially all readers who are not editors. We don't make people pass an MOS certification exam before contributing. So long as date autoformatting was the norm, I gave the matter no thought, and I suspect that most editors were like me. As Mr. Ashton points out, that did not improve Misplaced Pages from the point of view of the unregistered reader, but it is the way it was. As for the casual reader, I would be astonished if more than a handful who link from George III of England to Boston Tea Party look at the difference in format and care one bit. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think most of the points above have been made previously in discussion. I thank my fellow editors for reminding me. Most of all I thank those who reminded me of the points that I had made. That was sweet. One new thing I really like is the notion that the various wikiprojects decide how to handle matters of style in articles. Who else is better placed to know themselves, their subject and their readership?
- Actually, I would venture a guess that the "strong national ties" rule for formatting is unknown to most editors and to essentially all readers who are not editors. We don't make people pass an MOS certification exam before contributing. So long as date autoformatting was the norm, I gave the matter no thought, and I suspect that most editors were like me. As Mr. Ashton points out, that did not improve Misplaced Pages from the point of view of the unregistered reader, but it is the way it was. As for the casual reader, I would be astonished if more than a handful who link from George III of England to Boston Tea Party look at the difference in format and care one bit. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- One of the points already agreed upon as consensus is that it doesn't matter which of the two formats is used - no confusion arises as to the date. The date-linking thing arose to prevent conflicts between editors, some of whom, as we can see, are strongly attached to their preferred formats. Using national ties as a determinant worked well. Of course date-linking did not and does not conceal date formats from editors working on an article; we see the raw text when we hit that "edit" button. Problems arise when we get chauvinists attempting to push American date formats, spellings, units of measurement and so on out into subject areas that do not normally use them. And vice versa, of course.
- The fact that English-language newspapers commonly use American date formats is a matter of convenience - the major syndicated news agencies all use American format and newspapers do not care to employ people to change one format to another, story after story, hour after hour, night after night. National usage is a different thing, and we don't have to go hunting down official sources to see what format Malaysia prefers - just look at the control panel in our computers, and we can see that Mr Gates, Mr Jobs and Mr Linux have done the work for us. Presumably they have researched their markets and know exactly what computer users in each country prefer.
- I'd prefer that the Manual of Style be as simple, fair and practical as possible. That way we minimise friction and disruption between editors. Asking editors to hunt through sources, or balance "ise" and "ize" word endings or trawl through the history is needlessly complex, and ensures that none but the most determined of nitpickers will do it. The most relevant wikipractice concerns which units of measurement we use, and here we use whichever system of units best suits the topic, a practice that works well for all except those troublemakers who wish metres and kilograms on Americans, and vice versa. Minimising conflict and disruption with clear, well-chosen guidelines is what we should be about. --Pete (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd prefer that the Manual of Style be as simple, fair and practical as possible. When did you change your mind? You have spent the past month arguing for complex and impractical rules which would allow you to bully as many articles as possible into your preferred dating format. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Anderson's right. Please give it a rest, Skyring. Tony (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Since Skyring/Pete brought up Microsoft, it is worth noting that Microsoft admits that many countries have regional variations, which is why it advises use of API's and permits the user to customize national settings.Robert A.West (Talk) 02:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Robert, that's just good programming practice. There are always people or groups of people who like things a different way and giving them the tools to personalise their experience sells more boxes. The big computer/software companies are excellent examples of internationalism, and we could learn a lot from them.
- I'd prefer that the Manual of Style be as simple, fair and practical as possible. When did you change your mind? You have spent the past month arguing for complex and impractical rules which would allow you to bully as many articles as possible into your preferred dating format. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd prefer that the Manual of Style be as simple, fair and practical as possible. That way we minimise friction and disruption between editors. Asking editors to hunt through sources, or balance "ise" and "ize" word endings or trawl through the history is needlessly complex, and ensures that none but the most determined of nitpickers will do it. The most relevant wikipractice concerns which units of measurement we use, and here we use whichever system of units best suits the topic, a practice that works well for all except those troublemakers who wish metres and kilograms on Americans, and vice versa. Minimising conflict and disruption with clear, well-chosen guidelines is what we should be about. --Pete (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and Microsoft's Australian English spellchecker got it horribly wrong with the s/z thing; they still haven't corrected it, so we have to use the BrEng spellchecker. Don't hold them up as an example. Tony (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, Anderson is dead wrong. I prefer a simple effective solution. The last thing I want to do is bully anybody. Maybe Anderson feels pressured, but that seems to be SOP for him, looking back over his contributions long before he ever heard of me. --Pete (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I beg to differ: Anderson's solution is much simpler, which is to respect the way in which an article is begun if it has no strong national ties to an anglophone country. Your system is complicated and requires research and often precarious judgement for many articles (can a Phillipine-related article be in international if the editors want? What about some South American countries? Have a look at the article on date formatting, which is enough to give you the chills—and it's not even referenced.) Besides, why can't US authors write about topics unconnected with other anglophone countries in US English and US date format? It's absolutely unreasonable to upset the apple-cart in this way, and inconsistent with our "first contributor" criterion for Engvar, which works superbly well. Tony (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Delinking dates
What is the policy on delinking dates that are linked for purely autoformatting reasons? When I first saw that date autoformatting was deprecated, I sighed (I like date autoformatting, though I understand the reasons for ditching it) and went about delinking when I came across it. Then I saw a side discussion on this page where a few people said we should hold off until some other issue (presumably what format to use) was handled. I decided to just heed that advice, but now I am not sure what to do. Should I be delinking and putting those dates in the appropriate ENGVAR format or not? -Rrius (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what others are doing. When I come across an artcle with inconsistent dates within the reference section, or within the rest of the article, I change them all to the most appropriate format, and unlink dates while I'm at it. I don't try to enforce consistency between the reference section and the rest of the article. I also remove date linking if any date in the article is before the year 1583. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to regard that sort of thing as part of the long queue of fixes that WP needs, less urgent than many I have not yet done. If I saw a particularly egregious case, I would leave a note on the talkpage, commenting that linking for autoformatting was no longer done and linking to WP:Autoformatting to explain why. If I were editing a passage and it had date links, I might well remove them unless they seemed valuable as links, especially if the links were grammatical in one format and not in the other; I am less worried about 1582 - anyone who autoformats into ISO accepts its problems. Doubtless you will find an approach somewhere between these positions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Gerry, yes, exactly. Rruis, you can also ask for a human-assisted script to be run through an article or a set of articles. This saves the manual labour of updating the formatting, and regularises all date formats. Tony (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to regard that sort of thing as part of the long queue of fixes that WP needs, less urgent than many I have not yet done. If I saw a particularly egregious case, I would leave a note on the talkpage, commenting that linking for autoformatting was no longer done and linking to WP:Autoformatting to explain why. If I were editing a passage and it had date links, I might well remove them unless they seemed valuable as links, especially if the links were grammatical in one format and not in the other; I am less worried about 1582 - anyone who autoformats into ISO accepts its problems. Doubtless you will find an approach somewhere between these positions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
US Military articles
While I do not think the MoS need specify under what exact circumstances DMY is appropriate for US military articles, such as this one, it probably should mention, before there's revert-warring, that such is sometimes acceptable and should NOT be switched without good reason. --JimWae (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I've audited the dates in many many articles, which has taught me that US military editors almost always prefer their articles to be in international date formats. I respect this when I audit. The provision was in some of the earlier proposals for rewording, but appears to have been lost. Tony (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've restored this proviso - feel free to improve my wording.--Kotniski (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Seems perfect to me! Tony (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've restored this proviso - feel free to improve my wording.--Kotniski (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)