Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
r
Line 121: Line 121:
:Benefits of this proposal appear difficult to discern, but I suppose this would at least prevent my several-times-a-year rant at some editor (a different one every time) not to use the script that "fixes" articles that have been deliberately written to use numeric access-dates by converting them to long form dates. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
:Benefits of this proposal appear difficult to discern, but I suppose this would at least prevent my several-times-a-year rant at some editor (a different one every time) not to use the script that "fixes" articles that have been deliberately written to use numeric access-dates by converting them to long form dates. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
::Since this proposal was placed in "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" and not in "[[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]" we must presume that this is intended to apply to all parts of articles, not just citations, even though the example given was about citations. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 19:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
::Since this proposal was placed in "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" and not in "[[Wikipedia:Citing sources]]" we must presume that this is intended to apply to all parts of articles, not just citations, even though the example given was about citations. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 19:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Indeed, for the sake of consistency, I propose this across all facets of Wikipedia. [[User:Rokejulianlockhart|Tag me if you are responding to my content or wish to notify me, because I may not be subscribed.]] ([[User talk:Rokejulianlockhart|talk]]) 23:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
:I wholly support the transition to one, unified date format! It is high time people everywhere start using it to avoid confusion, and the more they get exposed to a good calendar format the more natural they will find it to use.--[[User:ThePiachu|ThePiachu]] ([[User talk:ThePiachu|talk]]) 21:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
:I wholly support the transition to one, unified date format! It is high time people everywhere start using it to avoid confusion, and the more they get exposed to a good calendar format the more natural they will find it to use.--[[User:ThePiachu|ThePiachu]] ([[User talk:ThePiachu|talk]]) 21:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
::It seems to me an encyclopedia's prose is for the human reader rather than for computer sorting. Asking for all the human beings who consume this work to get accustomed to a format they very rarely see in their newspapers or online articles seems to be quite an ask. [[User:StefenTower|<span style="color: green;">'''Stefen <span style="white-space: nowrap;">Tower<sub>s among the rest!</sub></span>'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:StefenTower|Gab]] • [[Special:Contributions/StefenTower|Gruntwerk]]</sup> 21:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
::It seems to me an encyclopedia's prose is for the human reader rather than for computer sorting. Asking for all the human beings who consume this work to get accustomed to a format they very rarely see in their newspapers or online articles seems to be quite an ask. [[User:StefenTower|<span style="color: green;">'''Stefen <span style="white-space: nowrap;">Tower<sub>s among the rest!</sub></span>'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:StefenTower|Gab]] • [[Special:Contributions/StefenTower|Gruntwerk]]</sup> 21:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:48, 7 December 2023

WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Lead mention that a player is a free agent

There is currently a discussion underway at Talk:Colt McCoy § Free agent on how (whether?) to mention that a player is currently a free agent. Feel free to join. Paradoctor (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a MOS:DATED matter. I wasn't sure at first how this was relevant, but that seems to be it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Sorry for having been unclear. Paradoctor (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... Wouldn't DATED be more appropos Colt McCoy#Personal life? EEng 02:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS style for odds

Curious: Do odds like "2-to-1" in horse racing follow MOS:RATIO ("2:1") or MOS:ENDASH ("2–1")? I see it expressed as "2-1" with a hyphen and that seems incorrect. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 01:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The en dash markup wouldn't be applicable because this is not meaning "2 through 1" (as would be the case in 2–1 BCE). So, "2:1", though I have to wonder whether writing out "2-to-1 odds" or "two-to-one odds" would not be better in sporting contexts instead of the maths-leaning "2:1 odds" format. I don't do enough sports betting to know whether "2:1" is a format the average reader familiar with that scene will recognize.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense but our current MOS text prescribes en-dash "In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between", so we see it in text like game scores ("Celtics earned a 39–26 victory") and vote results. So, the 'to' in "2-to-1 odds" should be seen as a different kind of 'to'? Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 06:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I can't think of a way in natural language to encapsulate every nuance of something like this in a one-liner rule. The fact that ratios have their own rule about colons basically precludes them being covered by a different rule about dashes that seems like it could have applied if not for the colon rule that is more specific to the case. And "2–1" isn't used in source material (either specialized or general-audience, as far as I know) to mean "two-to-one", so MoS would have no reason to impose it. MoS is generally derived from usage found in other (academic-leaning) style guides, not just made up out of nowhere. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: MOS:RATIO already addressed this anyway, including not using an en dash for this, and in wording consistent with what I said above about using a colon or preferring written-out words: "Dimensionless ratios (i.e. those without accompanying units) are given by placing a colon between integers, or placing to between numbers-as-words: favored by a 3:1 ratio or a three-to-one ratio, not a 3/1 ratio or a 3–1 ratio."  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: And this was also already covered at MOS:DASH, too: "Colons are often used for strictly numeric ratios, to avoid confusion with subtraction and division: a 3:1 ratio;  a three-to-one ratio". Maybe it could be clarified by adding the word "odds" somewhere, if we think that "two-to-one odds" is not obviously a subset of "two-to-one ratios".  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should prevent the confusion happening again.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Self-reverted that, given the material below.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since gambling odds are not ratios, this requires them always to be expressed as words e.g. six to four on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How are they not ratios? If there are 6-to-1 odds against me winning a race againt you, this appears to be directly analogous me and you having blemishes in a 6:1 ratio, or me having 6 times more cats than you do.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but if I bet you a cat at 6-1 and win, I will have seven cats to your none. NebY (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the outcome of the bet could change the possession ratios (like unto transplanting all your belmishes onto me in a weird dermatological experiement).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For horse-racing in the UK, the BBC website and the Guardian use x/y in tables but x-y in prose (e.g. 9/2 Fav, 5/1, etc, had hit 999-1, 11/2, at around 6-1). The Guardian's style guide uses x-y in prose discussing betting odds eg 2-1 on, sometimes expressed as 1-2 The first and fourth editions of Fowler's don't touch on it. NebY (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is the standard form in Australia too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, hyphens then? And why is BBC News using two conflicting formats?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect x/y is the style used first when chalking odds at racecourses, then at bookmakers when off-course betting was legalised, but a different prose style was established as an abbreviated form of "x to y". A larger survey might well show this apparent inconsistency is the norm throughout UK usage and for all I know, US usage too. NebY (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just look it up on Wikipedia, of course. :) The end of the lead of Odds lists the many different notations of fractional odds, tote boards and US Moneyline, while Fixed-odds betting differs slightly and has a handy conversion table. NebY (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there are "many different notations", i.e. wide inconsistency, we can't depend on our readers understanding any of them, so should probably advise writing out "two-to-one odds".  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks everyone for the above enlightening discussion. So I guess this really boils down to whether we should have a Wikipedia guideline for the presentation of odds. We've made so many other things have a consistency via the MOS, so why not for odds? And if we went with something like "x:y" in prose, is that complicated for the general reader compared to "x-to-y"? And should we then say "x/y" or "x:y" is preferred in table formats? By the way, I live in the home of the Kentucky Derby, so I kind of get confronted with this quandary perhaps more than most editors. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 18:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    why not for odds? – Because see WP:MOSBLOAT. This is exactly the situation The Wise One (that's me) was aiming to prevent. A thread that opens "just curious" should never end in a new guideline. When there's a thread that begins "For a long time there's been dispute about how to present odds in various articles ..." -- that's when we should talk about a guideline. EEng 19:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How the discussion begins is irrelevant. If we are producing an encyclopedia, then it stands to reason we have a standard for how we show particular types of information. We're not talking notes we send to our bookie (heh) or the various ways other publications show it. How is the Wikipedia going to present these values? This is an important question and I take umbrage at the question being so belittled. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 19:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record: How the discussion begins is very relevant, for the reason I just gave (which is elaborated at MOS:BLOAT). And while it stands to reason that some types of information should have a standard presentation project-wide, it does not stand to reason that project-wide standardization is needful or even desirable for all types of information; some things are better left to editor discretion. EEng 18:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My stance since I joined in 2004, which I believe to be consistent with project history and norms, is that we're here for the reader, and if this is considered a single work, consistency in its presentation is something to strive for. Also, WP:APF suggests we shouldn't be challenging others' motivations for asking questions, especially a fair question as what should be the consistent style we use for odds (and I think I already explained what brought me here anyway - I work on horse racing articles). Last, an eventual little note in guidelines about odds hardly bloats anything. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 19:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of eventual little notes in guidelines about nitpicky micro-topical things, especially little notes trying to make exceptions against general principles, is exactly what MoS bloat, a pervasive form of WP:CREEP, is. We already have a general principle that applies here, a guideline on how to write ratios, and odds are ratios, so there has to be a really compelling reason to not use the ratio format for them. The fact that a few UK publications use different formats for them (different formats even within the same publication!) is not at all a compelling reason.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this isn't a question I need resolved today, but just that I come across presentations of the values that don't have an encyclopedic consistency. How's it's ultimately resolved is something for which I hold a lot of patience. Also, complaints of "too many rules" (like "too many laws" or "too many regulations") generally have plenty of folks sitting on either side of the question. Really, what's necessary here is determining what is our ideal technical resolution, whether or not it makes it into the guidelines. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 19:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show any particular benefit that would result from uniformity in this? Wikipedia doesn't have a principle that "it stands to reason we have a standard"; we have considerable flexibility, some of it explicit in our policies and guidelines (eg WP:ENGVAR, WP:RETAIN, WP:ERA), and the encyclopedia thrives nevertheless and even in consequence. The process of forming dogma can be argumentative and alienating (cf First seven ecumenical councils), its imposition likewise; we don't want to lose editors and our admin corps is stretched thin. Poor guidance brings the MOS into disrepute, generally weakening the uniformity you seek. The brief discussion above has demonstrated that several different notations exist and are appropriate with some variation in a variety of circumstances, but no-one, yourself included - indeed, yourself especially as the person proposing we should have a rule - has been able to quote any style manual or handbook's guidance on the matter and hardly anyone, not even you yourself as the person raising the question and claiming familiarity with "this quandary", has provided any survey of usage within or outside Wikipedia or shown that readers are likely to be confused. As to what's necessary, if we aren't going to write guidelines then there is no necessity to determine an ideal technical solution. We have at least found that what you thought was incorrect is not; let that suffice. NebY (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Can you show any particular benefit that would result from uniformity in this?" – See my comment above: if there are "many different notations", i.e. wide inconsistency, we can't depend on our readers understanding any of them, so should probably advise writing out "two-to-one odds". There appears to be no international standards body that has issued a standard for how to do this, so we don't seem to have something at-least-arguably-authoritative to fall back on in picking between things like "2/1" and "2-1" and "2:1". It would thus be best to avoid all of them as certain to be unrecognizable to some (probably large) subset of editors, meanwhile anyone competent to read English well enough to use our site (or even just feeding our material into a machine translator) will not be confused by "two-to-one odds".  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the UK, one of the most RS for horseracing is the Racing Post. A typical result page is the 2:35 at Aintree today; the odds here are given using the slashed form - i.e. 1 1 Inthewaterside 4/7F (winner, runner no. 1, at starting odds of four to seven favourite, or seven to four on); 2 10 Jagwar 7/2 (second place, runner no. 10, at seven to two); 3 4 Rich Spirit 50/1 (third, no. 4, at fifty to one), etc. Notice that on each row are other numeric items using hyphens, such as 11-4 or 11-2 - these are the weights carried, in stones and pounds, so using a hyphenated form for the odds could be misleading. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that explains why a particular publisher is using that format, when they have other stuff to disambiguate from in the same table, using the other format. It doesn't really do anything about other formats being used in the same country, including two conflicting ones by BBC at the same time. I still don't see a rationale for MoS to favo[u]r a particular format with digits, even in BrEng articles, instead of using words. Maybe if there were ever a cause for WP to have a table with a bunch of odds in it, but even then if we had to use digits for space reasons, we'd probably need to include a note somewhere that "7/2" (or "7-2" or whatever) was an expression of odds.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why you keep describing formats as conflicting that are contextual, conventional and appropriate, or for that matter why we should invent a MOSNUM way of expressing odds which is at odds with the expression of odds in the world outside Wikipedia and in Wikipedia articles too. I fear you underestimate the ability of "anyone competent to read English well enough to use our site" to recognise when numbers are being used to represent odds, to their detriment and the detriment of our editors (and thus of our MOS). NebY (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are conflicting formats if used in the same context (e.g. British sport reporting). Same with dates; "29 Oct 2023", "29th October 2023", "29th Oct. 2023", "29 October 2023", "29th of October 2023", etc., are all conflicting ways of writing a date that can be found in British (and other largely non-American) publications, and we don't permit them all here. I am not advocating that MOS invent a new format for this at all; I suggested nothing like that, ever. I'm skeptical that MoS should adopt any of these attested digit formats, because they are inconsistent (conflicting), and there is no standard on which we can rely (unlike for unit abbreviations, and several other categories of things covered at MOS:NUM). Your assertion that they are "conventional" is self-contradictory. Conflicting usages (ones that do not match, do not agree, are different, are inconsistent, are not formatted the same – however you want to express that, if you just somehow don't like the word "conflicting") by definition do not form a convention, a standard. Using plain English like "two-to-one odds" por perhaps "2-to-1 odds" if we prefer numerals for most sport purposes, is in no way an "invent[ed] ... MOSNUM way of expressing odds"; it's the everyday-English-language way to do it. The fact that various publications have, in fact, invented conflicting short-hand ways of encoding odds doesn't impose on Wikipedia a duty to adopt one of them, nor a duty to adopt all of them simultaneously and just left to random to editorial whim, page-by-page. In the end, I'm skeptical MoS needs to say anything about this at all, but if we do, it looks like we should advise using plain English, and if a table necessitates using a compressed form, make it clear that it is an expression of odds, since we cannot depend on any class of readers, even British ones, to recognize that "2/1" or "2-1" are necessarily an odds expression (though "2-to-1" is probably recognizable as one). PS: I had thought that "2:1" would be good enough, since it's our format for ratios, which are said exactly the same, "two-to-one", and odds appear to be ratios (someone claimed otherwise but did not back up their claim). But there's disagreement with the "2:1" idea, so I've abandoned it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Odds are ratios. If the bookmaker offers odds of 7/2 for Jagwar, that means that if I stake two pounds for Jagwar to win, the bookie will cover that with seven pounds making a prize pot of nine pounds which goes to me if Jagwar wins, to the bookie if it doesn't. But my stake need not be exactly £2.00, nor indeed a whole number of pounds - I might only be willing to risk fifty pence, so the bookmaker puts 0.50 * 7 / 2 = £1.75 into the pot, plus my £0.50 making £2.25 coming to me if Jagwar wins. The same goes for Rich Spirit: 0.50 * 50 / 1 + 0.5 = £25.50 in the prize pot; or for Inthewaterside: 0.50 * 4 / 7 + 0.5 = £0.79 (rounded to the nearest penny) in the pot. In each case the odds are a term in the calculation prize pot = (stake * odds + stake), and that term is a ratio. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I thought (in more maths than I thought it). Since they are ratios, and we already have a prescribed shorthand for ratios, the burden is on other editors to show that there is some special standard that applies to odds ratios that MoS should adopt for that case.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBC and the Guardian both use the same pair of formats, one for prose and one for tables and lists. This should not be decried as "conflicting" or "inconsistent"; their application of this convention is consistent, considered and appropriate. We would be quick to quote and consider being guided by Chicago or Fowler's; given their silence, it's observable conventions such as these that we should consider, not reinvent the wheel and watch it fall off. Still, we agree on one thing: we're both sceptical that MOSNUM needs to say anything at all about odds so unless consensus emerges that something must be said, I'll happily leave the question of what (I dare not say table it for fear of other transatlantic confusion). NebY (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You just don't seem to have an understanding of what "inconsistent" AKA "conflicting" means in relation to a style guide like this one. When a pair of publications can't even agree internally how to render this, and conflict further with other publishers within their own country, this is by definition not a "convention". I think the odds of you getting a consensus to add a special rule to MoS to use either of those formats for odds ratios are extremely low.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it sounds reasonable to recommend formatting them like ratios (x:y), if we want to give any recommendation. Both because they are ratios, or at least close enough, and because that style seems to be fairly common. The dashed style I would consider not ideal, since it looks too much like "minus" for my taste. Gawaon (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider either x:y or x/y to be reasonable for odds. For scores I would stick to x-y or spelled out as x to y. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Scores are supposed to have an en dash, but that's a different subject. :) Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 18:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, definitely a different subject, and we shouldn't mix them. Scores and vote tallies are their own MoS line item.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I've come back around to firmly supporting "2:1" format, because these are ratios, we already have a format for that, and alternative formats are not consistently used, even within a single country (sometimes not even a single publication), so there is neither a "there's a standard" argument to make nor WP:ENGVAR argument to make.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "2:1" would be my preference as well, although I think it's not unreasonable for an editor to consider an en dash to be superior to a hyphen, as the odds are pronounced "2-to-1". Spelling it out as "2-to-1" seems fair as well. No matter what is ultimately agreed upon, though, we're here for the reader, and if we consider the Wikipedia a single work, we should care about consistency of presentation. But I'd reiterate I'm not looking for a quick decision. By the way, I dropped out of the discussion earlier as it seemed my mere question opened up a hornet's nest, and I frankly still do not understand the vitriol over it. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 18:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


ISBN RfC

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Standardizing ISBN formatting (and an end to editwarring about it)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date format for non-English speaking country

In Nintendo article, IceWelder changed its use of mdy dates in late September 2016 without consensus. The article has evolved using predominantly the mdy date format (since early January 2005, and here's first major contribution or first person to insert a date), and IceWelder's edit appears to have violate MOS:DATERET. IceWelder claims that consensus is needed for change as there has been implicit consensus for 7 years (for more information, see User talk: IceWelder). However, no matter how much time passes, it is not fair to say that the consensus on the date format change was achieved solely through observation alone, without any discussion.

My main question is whether consensus is needed to change this to mdy. I don't think this needs consensus. The reason IceWelder changed the date format was not clear, and even if it was clear, it is against the rule. Therefore, it should be changed to mdy without consensus. Anyone who wants to change the date format chosen in the first major contribution to other format should achieve consensus, according to the rule. Also, according to the IceWelder's seven-year implicit consensus rationale, IceWelder should have achieved consensus on the article's talk page. This is because over a period of 11 years, from early January 2005 to late September 2016, the article has evolved using predominantly the mdy date format. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been raised a few times in the past but there was no consensus. Most of us agreed that the date format should not be changed without a talk page consensus. However, it happened anyway and nobody care enough in the last 7 years to revert it. My opinion is that 7 years of the article using that date format is implicit consensus. If somebody care enough then they could have reverted it back when the change was first made. Waiting 7 years and then crying foul is far, far too late. Of course, others may have different opinions.  Stepho  talk  05:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"First major contributor" is a fall-back to default to when consensus cannot be reached, but no attempt to do so has yet been made in this case (that I know of – Stepho-wrs hints at some prior discussion, but it sounds like it was from before IceWelder's action). The first major contributor's choice is not a set-in-stone establishment that consensus cannot change, or we'd have some very crap results like articles on British subjects written by Americans and stuck forwever with American MDY dating, and vice versa. IceWelder did in fact provide a rationale for the switch away from American MDY format [1]: "date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script - Strong tie to japan, one of its largest companies". And it has remained stable in DMY for 7 years, which is a strong indicator of (though not absolute proof of) consensus. The switch probably should have been discussed by IceWelder first, especially since the rationale provided is questionable. The most common date format in the Japanese language is YMD, but our article at date and time notation in Japan is missing information on what format predominates in that country in materials written in English or in other non-Japanese-script materials, so the best that IceWelder's rationale seems, at least on the immediate surface, to have going for it is that Japan isn't the US and so US MDY format isn't appopriate. Various counter-arguments can be imagined, such as that the US has had more influence on Japan than any other Western country has; that since neither MDY or DMY are the norm there that both are arbitrary so it never should have been changed; and so on. But at this late a remove, there is no justification to "date-war" is back to DMY, only a very belated rationale to open a discussion on the article talk page about what the date format should be. Have the discussion now that should have been had back then.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Nintendo#Date format (without expressing any opinion in it), and "advertised" it to wikiprojects on Japan, video games, and companies.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who cares? Why is it such a big deal? Tony (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for WT:MOSDATE it's not; it's a routine thing to deterine at an article's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But on a talk page it will stall when one side says "it was illegally changed 7 years, so it must be changed back" and the other side says "7 years implies consensus, so it must not be changed back". And both sides are supported by policies. There is no way forward from that and that's why they have come here.  Stepho  talk  22:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those are good reasons for a change from one arbitrary form to another, so both of them should be discounted as not particularly meaningful (though the latter of the two is actually stronger per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY policies). Unless someone has a good and reader-facing reason to change the style now there isn't a good rationale to change it, no matter what might have been a reasonable argument 7 years ago. And this guideline talk page isn't going to change that, since there's not really a way around it. The higher-up MoS principle is MOS:STYLEVAR: if two styles are equally acceptable, don't change from one to another without a good reason. Vidictiveness and wikilawyering about a questionable decision more than half a decade ago is not such a reason. The info put forth on the article talk page so far is that English-language media in Japan don't seem to show a preference, and that Nintendo's own corporate publications seem to favor MDY. The first of these doesn't help and the second is basically meaningless for encyclopedic purposes. An argument not raised there yet is that DMY is more broadly expected by our readership, but this is also weak because date formats of both sorts are easily understood by everyone. At this rate, I would expect consensus to conclude there is no reason to change away from the format that's consistently been used for 7 years, since it makes no difference anyway.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you missed the point. One side will argue that the change 7 years ago was illegal as per WP:DATERET, and therefore they are fully justified and supported by WP policy to change it back immediately - case closed! And the other side will say that after 7 years of no reversion that there is WP:CONSENSUS and any such late reversion can be undone immediately - case closed! Both sides claim full justification and support from WP policies. Stalemate.  Stepho  talk  01:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If literally no one can come up with an actual reason to favor one form over the other and no consensus is possible, then we default to the style used in the first non-stub version of the article (or first one to have a date, anyway). We have that rule for a reason, namely so that stalemate is not possible. But there is really no reason to go there; consensus could easily form that 7 years is long enough for the style (which is arbitrary anyway) to be considered established and for there to be no reason to change away from it. Either there is sufficient support for that idea, and it stays DMY, or there is not and we revert to the MDY of 7+ years ago, and neither will actually make any difference anyway. And it isn't something to decide at WT:MOSDATE. There is no reason for this redundant discussion to continue here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will just point to the similar dispute at Talk:Sea Peoples#ERA just a month ago (in which I linked to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 226#MOS:ERA: dispute over what "established era style" means from last year). Rather than fighting over which policy or guideline rules, I think resolution of the dispute calls for a talk page discussion to establish the current consensus for what form to express the dates in. - Donald Albury 13:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Wu is using dmy format while Kris Wu rape case is using mdy format. If a reader reads both articles, the different date formats may surprise them. MOS:DATE is silent on whether to unify the format or have some form of consistency across such related articles. Nonetheless, should the date format be the same across the articles? If so, how should this be resolved? – robertsky (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a rule to have date formats match across articles on related topics; it's an article-by-article consensus. In your position, I think I would figure out what the most common date format is in Canada (something people have argueda about before; I'm not sure if there's a definite answer to that question), since the subject is Canadian, and propose at the talk page of the article that doesn't match that format that the article should be changed to use that format per national ties, and that while there isn't a rule about it, it would be better for readers, who are very likely to navigate between these two articles, to get the same date format at both, simply as a common sense matter rather than an MoS rule-thumping one. I.e., seek consensus to change to the article that doesn't match the most appropriate date format.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just found that Kris Wu's date format was changed by a sock master in 2020. Nonetheless, I have opened up the discussion at Talk:Kris_Wu#Date_format_consistency_across_multiple_articles. – robertsky (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singular Format Standardization

I believe that we should standardize all articles on ISO 8601, because it's easy to parse, and impossible to misinterpret. Additionally, situations like https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2600%3A8800%3AB00%3AB20%3A356B%3AB97%3A1D7%3AAAA3#c-Rokejulianlockhart-20231207174500-Date_Format_Consistency_Regression, where an editor modifies the dates to suit their preference of the options currently available (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Formats) would be entirely prevented. Tag me if you are responding to my content or wish to notify me, because I may not be subscribed. (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a brilliant suggestion. I wonder why no one thought of it before now. EEng 18:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for moving this before. Total mistake. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 20:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible idea. As with our discussion elsewhere of another ISO standard (for separating thousands with thin spaces, rather than commas or period), there is a very specific need for a uniform standard in transnational scientific and technical exchanges — in fields like astronomy — that just won't work for the average reader or editor — almost none of whom will have installed a template (unnecessary because few people need help understanding either July 4, 1776 or 4 July 1776 or 4th July 1776 or July 4th, 1776). But ISO 8601 would confuse a general reader (and flummox the vast majority of off-the street editors) by using astronomer-speak in sentences like "The American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain on 1776.07.14". —— Shakescene (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops!, perfect (though unintentional) example right there: I'm so unfamiliar with this format that I confused the ISO 8601 for Bastille Day (1789.07.14) with that for U.S. Independence Day (1776.07.04). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"1776.07.04" is not a properly formatted ISO 8601 date. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just proves my point: I'll have to go study ISO 8601 (which I hadn't known by name until today) more closely and report back to class. What is the correct ISO 8601 format for Independence Day and Bastille Day? —— Shakescene (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two correct ISO 8601 formats for US Independence Day are "17760704" and "1776−07−04". Two correct ISO 8601 formats for Bastile Day are "17890714" and "1789−07−14". There is debate about whether it is more correct to use the minus character "−" or the hyphen-minus character "-"; I used the former. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it should be a plain hyphen, so 1789-07-14. See ISO 8601#Calendar dates. Gawaon (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not refer to a Wikipedia article, all of which are unreliable. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to know is, what is the ISO 8601 format for a publication dated "Lent, Easter and Michaelmas terms, 1918–1919"? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable source provided there says "ISO 8601 tackles this uncertainty by setting out an internationally agreed way to represent dates: YYYY-MM-DD". While they don't say the word 'hyphen', those appear to be hyphens. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 21:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only way for people to learn and internalise a new date format is for it to be widely used. Wikipedia using it across the board would help! --ThePiachu (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rokejulianlockhart: A date before 15 October 1582 that is in the ISO 8601 format is most likely a falsehood, because the standard requires the use of the Gregorian calendar, and the first use of that calendar was 15 October 1582. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So when discussing ancient Rome we should use the Roman Calendar? Or when discussing ancient China we should use their calendar? Or not use any calendars at all when we talk about events from before the calendars got invented? --ThePiachu (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline already covers this at MOS:OSNS: "A date can be given in any appropriate calendar, as long as it is (at the minimum) given in the Julian calendar or the Gregorian calendar or both, as described below." Of course, in the case of ancient China or Rome, we might have an exact date in the Chinese or Roman calendar available, but be unable to precisely convert it to the Julian or Gregorian calendar. In that case we should indicate the conversion is approximate. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Benefits of this proposal appear difficult to discern, but I suppose this would at least prevent my several-times-a-year rant at some editor (a different one every time) not to use the script that "fixes" articles that have been deliberately written to use numeric access-dates by converting them to long form dates. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this proposal was placed in "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" and not in "Wikipedia:Citing sources" we must presume that this is intended to apply to all parts of articles, not just citations, even though the example given was about citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, for the sake of consistency, I propose this across all facets of Wikipedia. Tag me if you are responding to my content or wish to notify me, because I may not be subscribed. (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wholly support the transition to one, unified date format! It is high time people everywhere start using it to avoid confusion, and the more they get exposed to a good calendar format the more natural they will find it to use.--ThePiachu (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me an encyclopedia's prose is for the human reader rather than for computer sorting. Asking for all the human beings who consume this work to get accustomed to a format they very rarely see in their newspapers or online articles seems to be quite an ask. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 21:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion. In favour! 86.17.94.33 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware this is a discussion, not a !vote. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 22:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sortkeys

Upon further reflection, I did use a variant of this format in constructing invisible sortkeys to enable readers of a sortable table to sort birth and death dates of the Descendants of Queen Victoria so that (say) 23 May 1845 would (when sorting by date) precede rather than succeed 7 August 1848. But my home-cooked version used decimals, e.g. 1845.0523 < 1848.0807 (no particular events; just random examples). Would this still sort properly in ISO 8601 format with 1845-05-23 and 1848-08-07 ? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ISO format is designed for convenient sortability (alphabetic sorting and sorting by date being the same in that format). Gawaon (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]