Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

An unlikely tale

I've started a general discussion on the Manual of Style talk page under the above heading. The issue, for example, is that the manual says that dates in British (and therefore American) history between 5 October 1582 and 2 September 1752 should not be converted to Gregorian. An editor is claiming that if consensus can be achieved to convert them they can be - just like that. I don't think that can possibly be right and should be grateful for comments on the matter. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

With MOS as with all guidelines, exceptions apply where consensus decides there's good reason for them. Discussion leading to such a consensus should explicitly engage the intent of the guideline and why an exception is appropriate. In the case you describe, assuming there's a reason -- e.g. detailed tie-in with events on the Continent -- to give the date in Gregorian, seems like that should probably be in addition to Julian (perhaps Julian in main text, Gregorian in parens). But those are just my thoughts -- this should be worked out on the article Talk among editors interested in the particular article. EEng (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Military dates, round 2

Hello.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiresome EEng repeats himself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Talk:John R. Allen § Date format
• Talk:Raymond T. Odierno § Date format
• Talk:Peter Pace § Date format
• Talk:Larry O. Spencer § Date format
• Talk:Michael J. Williams § Date format

—sroc 💬 09:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say that there should be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@J. Johnson:

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

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

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

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

• Can some helpful person track down the discussion, if any, behind the adding of the "US military" provision? I gotta get to bed. EEng (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 1 Note that back in the day we used to link dates, so they would appear per the users' preferences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A digression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resuming !voting

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

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

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

Proposal for DATETIES on US military topics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian Standard Date Format

This debate gets too tedious for words, but let me state the basic facts:

1. There is a Canadian standard date format
2. It is ISO 8601

The decision to use ISO 8601 was originally made back in the 1970s when Canada converted to the metric system. At the same time as Canada abandoned the (British) Imperial system of measure, the conversion committees decided to standardize on a date format, and that format was ISO 8601. It was mandated by the Treasury Board of Canada, and was confirmed by the Canadian Standards Association: Canadian national standard CSA Z234.5:1989.

Of course there are numerous people that will deny that this ever happened, but it did. I was a systems analyst for a major oil company and worked on the metric conversion process. At the same time as metrication occurred, our computer systems started blowing up on date errors. Oil companies write a lot of 25-year leases for oil well sites, and when 1975 rolled around, the 25-year leases started expiring in the year 2000. BOOM! went the computer systems. The company decided that the only rational solution was to accept the government mandate, and use the ISO 8601 standard for all dates. It saved them millions of dollars 25 years later when the calendar date rolled around from 1999 to 2000. Other companies spent millions of dollars fixing their software in the Y2K imbroglio, my old company spent a few thousand.

There are a lot of people who will argue until they are blue in the face that this isn't true, that there is some kind of other Canadian standard, but in reality they just don't like any date format other than their favorite (which could be either British or American, or possibly French), or they just don't like governments, or they just don't like anybody's rules other than their own. They should move to the US, use the American date format (MDY), move to the UK and use the British date format (DMY), or move to France and use the French date format (DMY, but in French). The only one that really works for Canada's multilingual, multiethnic environment and doesn't blow up when you change centuries is ISO 8601. Trust me, I've tried them all.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

How do you think your fellow Canadians will feel about writing that Quebec City was founded 1608-07-13? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Is that on the Gregorian calendar or the Julian calendar? Do you know which one you are citing? On the different calendars, there was up to an 11 day difference, and due to religious disagreements, England and France used different calendars. For that matter, Scotland was on a different calendar than England for about 100 years. If it is standard ISO 8601, then it would be on the Gregorian calendar by definition.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I won't deny that YYYY-MM-DD may be the official date format, but MDY date format is also prominently used. I have done business with a Canadian law firm that exclusively use MDY dates in correspondence. I have also observed Canadian websites that have used either MDY (e.g., Toronto Star) or a mix of MDY and YYYY-MM-DD dates (e.g., CTV). Personally, I prefer DMY, but I haven't seen it used much in Canadian media from afar. —sroc 💬 18:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Other than ISO 8601, there is no Canadian standard date format. Having worked for decades as a systems analyst and business analyst for Canadian companies, I found there was no consistency whatsoever in date formats. In the US, I did a straw poll of oilfield workers to find out if they thought the standard American date format was MDY, and found out that about 50% agreed. The other 50% weren't sure. If you quizzed British workers about DMY, you'd find the same proportion. So, the only real solution is just to tell them what to do and give them no choice. In the military, that's even more true because nobody knows what is going on but everybody is trained to follow orders. I used to recommend the ISO 8601 date format to all my clients because it was least likely to cause confusion. Anger, maybe, but not confusion.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? I use ISO 8601 all the time for reference formatting, but in prose, nobody will ever agree with using it over MDY or DMY. Resolute 20:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. RockyMtnGuy seems to have overlooked that his context is information processing, and that ISO 8601 is entirely about numeric representations of dates and times, and (to quote ISO 8601) avoiding misrepresentation "when data are transferred between countries with different conventions for writing numeric dates and times.". It is in no way a style guide for prose or other mundane usses. I believe it has nothing to say about non-numeric dates, which is what all the debate above is about. It is not relevant here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Using the ISO standard avoids language issues, not to mention the the big-endian, little-endian, middle-endian imbroglio, which is the source of the American/British disconnect. The French system is actually closer to the British one if you skip over the language issue. People who don't deal with international markets don't understand that, whatever their national biases are, they aren't universal. There are lots of other people in other countries - or as in Canada, the same country - with different biases.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe ISO 8601 or any relabeled Canadian version of it is an official standard in the sense of being imposed on the general public, or even being strongly recommended for the general public, as a general purpose date format. Countries don't usually legislate about language for general use. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show us the proof. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I am tempted to undo sroc's reversion on the basis that "unnecessary commentary" does not constitute a "necessary" reversion. A better basis for the reversion is that the commentary was about numeric dates, which is irrelevant to that section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• If only all the ink spilled about date formats could be rebottled and sold and the proceeds donated to the cause of world peace. We could probably clear up the Mideast and maybe the Basque thing as a bonus. Also Ebola. EEng (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nah, we'd just waste it on something else. —sroc 💬 13:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You might as well say "There is an American standard system of units; it is the metric system."; after all, the US was one of the original seventeen signatory nations to the Metre Convention. We're not beholden to what some 1970s bureaucrat in Ottawa came up with. Sure, you may be able to find a few counter examples here and there but the formats that Canadians actually use are dmy and mdy. Jimp 01:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't some bureaucrat in Ottawa that was pushing metrication, it was industry. Canada was on the BRITISH Imperial system, and NONE of the liquid units of measure are the same as the American system. The Canadian quart, gallon, and barrel are all different than the US units. We were always converting our quarts to their quarts and our gallons to their gallons and vice-versa. It drove us nuts. Converting to metric saved us a fortune. A litre is a litre even if Americans spell it liter.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I handle a lot of cheques (note spelling) as Treasurer of one of the larger sections of the Alpine Club of Canada. The banks use fixed format cheques but give their customers a choice of DDMMYYYY, MMDDYYYY, or YYYYMMDD format on them. I would say that about 75% are YYYYMMDD format, about 15% are DDMMYYYY format, and about 10% are MMDDYYYY format. I prefer YYYYMMDD because I can look at the date, and if runs 20150405, I know it's April 5. If it runs 04052015, then I have to stop and ask myself, is that April 5 or May 4?RockyMtnGuy (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Re J. Johnson's P.S. a few comments back, I don't think that the material removed by that revert belongs in the Manual of Style. It (and most of this discussion) would be more appropriately located in the Date and time notation in Canada article. Supporting source candidates might include [1] and [2]; [3] might also be of interest. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

My point in making the addition was that there is an official Canadian standard date format, it is ISO 8601, and it is in common use in the country. The Manual of Style should reflect that fact. From a practical standpoint, there are three, not two date formats in common use in Canada: MDY, DMY, and YMD, in both English and French. A lot of people (mostly non-Canadians I assume) seem to hate the YMD format, but a lot of Canadians use it. I would assume most of the YMD-haters are either American or British promoting their local MDY or DMY biases. A lot of the disconnect in formats arises from the fact that Canada is not, per se, an English-speaking country. Canada is truly a multilingual and multi-ethnic country. The majority speaks English, but the majority is not of English origin. The split of mother tongues as per the last census was 58% English, 22% French, and 20% "Other". (Canadians usually refer to them as Anglophones, Francophones, and Allophones). The largest group of "Allophones" is Chinese, and as it happens, Chinese commonly use the YYYY-MM-DD format. There are about a million Chinese speakers in Canada (the vast majority of whom also speak English), but they are not the only ones using the YYYY-MM-DD format because it is, after all, the same as the standard ISO 8601 format.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia, and what works in English text are non-numeric formats. Think about how you'd say a text if you were talking to someone. It would be peculiar to come out with a string of numbers - and dashes! - but in general practice we say the name of the month, rather than its number. --Pete (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a really good point. EEng (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ. We say "the 28th of May" but we do not write that. By the same token if we see "28 May" written on a piece of paper (or on a computer screen) and we are reading the text out loud, we do not say "28 May" (at least I don't). If some Canadian's have developed a habit of writing 2015-05-28, whose to say whether they read that as "the 28th of May 2015" or as "twenty fifteen, oh five, twenty eight"? It doesn't matter either way. What matters here is only how they write it. So, in an article about some aspect of Chinese Canadian culture, what is the objection of writing the date as the Chinese Canadian would have written it? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I beg beg to differ differ. I didn't mean to imply that there should be an absolute correspondence between what's written and how it would be read out, but what mental reshuffling we require should be within the realm of that to which people are accustomed. Reading aloud, for 12 August 2015 I might speak out "12th of August" or "August 12" or "August 12th" or even "12 August", and would do so with ease; if I see August 12, 2015 I would probably pick from "August 12" and "August 12th". But confronted with "2015-08-12" I'd probably stumble, "Oh, um..." while mentally thinking, "Wait, is Month 8 August, or September, I can never remember... Um, 30 days hath September... OK, wait, 2015-dash-...". It's unnatural. It might be natural someday, but here at WP we don't lead, we follow. EEng (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but perhaps they get as confused reading US or UK format dates as we do reading ISO 8601, so I repeat my own question "in an article about ... Chinese Canadian culture, what is the objection of writing the date as the Chinese Canadian would have written it?" . Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about Chinese language and culture (in Canada, China, or anywhere else) but I suspect it's only Quakers and maybe a few others who speak in terms of "First Month, Second Month" and so on (and I don't think even Quakers do that any more). To answer your question we should look (as in the next ===-level section) at publications. Know of any Chinese-Canadian newspapers? EEng (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not my neck of the woods I'm afraid. I'll try Google. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Well I don't think we're going to see a real lot of support for dropping strings of numbers into written prose. Data tables, maybe. --Pete (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

One objection would be that articles are generally written to facilitate the understanding and edification of readers who are not famiilar with the subject, nor of the customary usages associated with it. The implicit basis for DATETIES is that a "strong tie" (national or otherwise) anticipates where the most interest, and therefore the most readers, will come from. But in many cases the largest readership is not those who are familiar with the topic, but those who are not. So if something as mundane as date formatting really made any difference (it does not) usage ought follow the readership, not the topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You're putting an awful lot of yourself into a topic you insist isn't important, JJ. The fact is that DATETIES overrides DATERET, has done so effectively for many years, and I'm not seeing any strong agreement to change this. The loudest voice is yours. I'm seeing this discussion as more heat than light and perhaps we can all work on something else for a bit. --Pete (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What I am insisting isn't important (except as others make it to be) is the whole DMY vs. MDY debate. I am also saying that DATETIES is not as effective at quelling debate as you seem to think it is (witness the many discussions as to when a strong military tie eclipses a strong national tie), and no more effective than any other arbitrary rule. But we wander. My comment immediately above was in response to Dondervogel's question as to whether, "in an article about ... Chinese Canadian culture", a date should be written as a Chinese Canadian would have written it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@RockyMtnGuy: "From a practical standpoint, there are three, not two date formats in common use in Canada: MDY, DMY, and YMD, in both English and French. A lot of people (mostly non-Canadians I assume) seem to hate the YMD format, but a lot of Canadians use it." This Wikipedia seeks to accommodate English language speakers from all over the world. Outside of Canada, the rest of the English-speaking world uses either DMY or MDY date formats—different people in different regions have their preferences, but we've accepted that everyone can deal with both formats even if it's not their preferred—yet hardly anyone would accept the YMD date format in written prose, so we have agreed not to use it here. Even if the YMD date format is acceptable in prose in Canada (which is unclear), it's not anywhere else, so we're better off sticking to the other formats that are universally accepted (or, at least, tolerated).

This isn't a Canadian Wikipedia; articles on Canadian topics are still written for an international audience, so the YMD date format is not appropriate here for the same reason that we wouldn't allow the article on Jean Chrétien to be written in French—even though it's a common language in Canada, and especially his native Quebec, it wouldn't suit our international audience on the English language Wikipedia. —sroc 💬 14:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• "I would assume most of the YMD-haters are either American or British promoting their local MDY or DMY biases." Oh, brother. You forgot to mention the conspiracy against French. EEng (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The irony of that bit of whining is that it implies most Canadians would be biased towards his position. Yet, RockyMtnGuy is certainly the very first such Canadian whom I have ever seen make this argument. Resolute 22:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    • In addition to Canadian, American and British companies, I've worked or consulted for Paris-based and Montreal-based companies. I did't want to get into this, but the French French and the Quebec French have disputes going between them that make the American/British gap between MDY and YMD seem picayune, and neither side will give an inch (or a centimetre). I went into a local French bakery last Christmas and asked for a tourtiere (a classic French Canadian meat pie they cook for Christmas). The clerk looked at me and said, "That is NOT the way we pronounce it in French". And then the customer behind me said, "Well, that's the way we pronounce it in Quebec!" And then a huge argument started about how to pronounce, "tourtiere". I said, "Look, I don't speak French well enough to even understand this argument, so could you give me my meat pie and let me go home?" I was on a barge tour in Holland last month, and the tour company put the French French and Quebec French on separate barges. The French French only had the tour guide and us English Canadians to talk to, but maybe they prefer it that way.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

We get it: you're super-cosmopolitan and have experienced lots of French snobbery up close. Your point being... what? Can we end this ill-begotten thread now? EEng (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, EEng, I appreciate a Roquefort bleu, a fresh croissant and a nice bottle of Bordeaux as much as the next Anglo wine snob, so let's not digress. That said, if their online newspapers are any indication, les Quebecois are not using ISO 8601 formatted date in prose, either. Nor is the Canadian government in documents on its website. This appears to be exactly what I expected: ISO 8601 is the "official" computer-readable date format for electronic files and hard-copy documents that need to be computer readable. Nothing more. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Roquefort bleu ... croissant ... Bordeaux -- that's the trouble with French. It's like they think vowels grow on trees. EEng (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Mais, oui, monsieur. But they do damn fine food products. Beats shepherd's pie and bangers and mash every time, although I must confess a certain weakness for English beer served at 14° C. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Canadian date formats, convenience break, no. 1

So, let's see what date formats the mainstream Canadian media are using in prose:

• Calgary Herald: "June 1, 2015", "May 24, 2015" and "June 30".

• CBC: "May 17, 2015" and "May 28".

• The Chronicle-Herald (Halifax): "Aug 4. 1914 - Nov 11. 1918".

• Edmonton Journal: "December 16, 2014" and "June 1, 2015".

• The Hamilton Spectator: "May 30, 2015" and "May 31".

• Journal de Quebec: "27 mai 2015" and "15 août".

• la Presse (Montreal): "28 Mai 2015", "30 Octobre 2005" and "9 Mars 2006".

• Mclean's: "May 15, 2014" and "April 23".

• Montreal Gazette: "May 28, 2015" and "June 8".

• National Post: "June 1, 2015", "June 1" and "May 8".

• Ottawa Citizen: "June 1, 2015" and "June 11".

• Ottawa Sun: "March 18, 2015" and "May 31, 2015".

• Regina Leader-Post: "May 28, 2015" and "May 13, 1987"

• The Star-Phoenix (Saskatoon): "June 1, 2015" and May 28, 2015".

• Toronto Star: "May 28, 2015" and "July 27".

• Toronto Sun: "May 19, 2015" and "June 11".

• Vancouver Sun: "May 27, 2015" and "June 16".

• Winnipeg Free Press: "Nov. 15"

Not an English-language publication:

• Singtao Toronto "2015 5 28", with intermingled Chinese characters (in Chinese)

• Canada China News "2015 5 15", with intermingled Chinese characters (in Chinese); "May 25, 2015"

Not a Canadian publication:

• China Daily "May 29, 2015"; "[2015-05-28 19:57]", "[2015-05-28 19:52]", "[2015-05-28 16:30]" ...

That should get us started. Other discussion participants should feel free to add to the list above, with linked examples from major Canadian media of their own. I'm not finding any examples of ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD formatted dates in article prose of Canadian news media.

@RockyMtnGuy: It is axiomatic on Wikipedia that we follow the published sources. So, how about it? Where is your list of mainstream Canadian publications that are use ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD formatted dates in prose? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@RockyMtnGuy:: What does ISO 8601 say about the use of non-numeric dates, such as when the month is spelled out? Or (harkening back to your previous comment) where is the "big-endian, little-endian, middle-endian imbroglio" when someone says or writes cinco de mayo? Or any of the dates presented above? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

ISO does not define non-numeric date formats since it is an international body and there are no non-language-specific non-numeric formats. Some companies I worked for, being multinational and multilingual, simply banned non-numeric formats. Others went with 2015 May 29 as their standard non-numeric date format since it is unambiguous and easily converted to numeric. The other companies really didn't have any standard, and everybody just did what they felt like. The various regulatory authorities usually mandated 2015-05-29 on the government forms since that is supposed to be the standard.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It may not have been some bureaucrat in Ottawa who was pushing metrication but YYYY-MM-DD hasn't got anything to do with metrication.

Dates on cheques (yes, I can spell normally too) and dates on pages intended for reading are two different things. I used to have an RBC account and, yes, the cheques were in YYYY-MM-DD, but there were instructions on the cheque making it clear that this was how to fill in the boxes. In an everyday piece of writing there are no such thing. Okay, RockyMtnGuy, you can look at the date and if runs 20150405, you know it's 5 April. What if your cheque runs "20102012", is that 20 December 2010 or 20 October 2012? Anyway, there is no trouble if all-numeric dates are avoided.

Yes, Canada is multilingual but it's hardly unreasonable to consider Anglophones exclusively on the English Wikipedia.

YYYY-MM-DD is just not user friendly (unless you're a computer) to the typical English speaker. By "typical English speaker" I intend to include Canadians. No, I haven't done a survey and I haven't lived all my life in Canada (some of it though) and I just don't buy the argument that YYYY-MM-DD is considered the normal or standard way of writing dates. We're not writing cheques or filling out government forms here, we're writing an encyclopædia. Jimp 10:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It's an ON-LINE encyclopedia. Lets try not to pretend we're illuminating parchment scrolls or that the users are computer-illiterate.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's not assume the readers are computer literate. Wikipedia may be on-line but it's one of the most accessed sites on the web. We should expect reader who have limited experience with computers. Why write exclusively for the computer-literate anyway? We should be writing to be understood. YYYY-MM-DD is an impediment to understanding.. YYYY-MM-DD should be banned from Wikipedia. Jimp 13:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Love your 20102012 example! EEng (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Binary terns

There was no explicit statement of base, so perhaps it's in ternary. :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but the ISO format is YYYY-MM-DD and the months only run from 01 to 12, so there's no such thing as 20102012. You could have 20101220, but that's unambiguous unless you're living in the 13th century. The banks also preprint the century, 20yy-mm-dd so it's doubly unambiguous. The trouble with cheque blanks that say xx-xx-20xx is that people sometimes fill them out wrong, transposing the month and day because they didn't read the fine print or didn't wear their reading glasses (stories from the treasury trenches).RockyMtnGuy (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, nice try, RMG. Do you have any examples of ISO 8601 dates in the prose of mainstream Canadian publications? Or would you like some more examples of the dominance of the MDY date format in English language Canadian publications? For the record, the French language publications are using DMY formatted dates. The only example so far of a Canadian publication using ISO 8601 in prose is written in Chinese. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and just for giggles, the Canadian government, which adopted ISO 8601 as its official date format, does not use YYYY-MM-DD dates in prose on its English language website. Here's an example [4], and there are plenty more from whence it came. It appears that the Canadian government uses ISO 8601 primarily in documents and files that need to be computer readable. Which is really not a big surprise. Are you ready to end this discussion? If anything, this little exercise demonstrates just how predominant the use of MDY dates in Canada really is. Perhaps we should be considering whether MOS should prefer MDY dates in Canadian English articles? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@RockyMtnGuy:: It also appears that there is no such thing as "January, February, .. December" (or their abbreviations) in ISO 8601. If you have information otherwise, or any information that 8601 has any applicability to non-numeric dates, please show us. Lacking that, ISO 8601 is entirely irrelevant to the DMY/MDY debate.~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Permanent break (I hope)

Can we end this now? The newspaper data seems dispositive on the lack of uptake of YYYY-MM-DD in general use. EEng (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the first time anyone has complained for many years about the guideline that Canada-related articles can use either dmy or mdy in the main text. Tony (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It had to happen eventually. We ring all the changes sooner or later here at Dates and Numbers. EEng (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC) You don't still think I insulted you the other day, do you?

Me? Where? Tony (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

How quickly they forget. EEng (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Definition of mid-year range and more (example mid-1990s)

When someone says "mid-90s" am I correct in that it means the years 1994, 1995, and 1996, that with temperatures it means 94, 95, and 96, and in one year it means May, June and July?

Also, when someone for example says "mid-June" what days would they be referring to? --Jesant13 (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's a definite agreement on the precise meaning. I'd be inclined to include 93 for symmetry, though: early/low → {90, 91, 92}, mid → {93, 94, 95, 96}, late/high → {97, 98, 97}. Likewise: May, June, July and August (dividing the year into equal thirds). Similarly, mid-June would be the 11th to the 20th. But in reality, these are kind of vague concepts (often deliberately so I'd say). Jimp 11:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know there were multiple definitions. I wonder if one definition should be standardized on Wikipedia. Jesant13 (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not! This is the epitome of a solution in search of a problem. If you can show that lack of MOS guidance on this has caused time to be wasted on the Talk pages of multiple articles, then come back with diffs. Otherwise this is one of the silliest ideas I've heard here -- pardon me but it must be said I don't think this is a good idea. (And Jimp the Chimp ;P is right -- the term is deliberately vague.) EEng (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Concur with EEng. Terms such as "early", "mid-" and "late" are intentionally vague and it's not for us to define them. —sroc 💬 03:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jesant, I've modified my earlier comment, which I made when I was in a bad mood. EEng (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Query about gradient conversions

Units experts, I wonder whether you might have your say at DYK talk, where in my characteristically blunt way (I don't have much patience with the DYK process after all these years of slop) I've drawn attention to issues. Tony (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I predict an uphill battle here. EEng (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Also, road gradients are formally dimensionless, so we units experts won't have anything to say about it. ;P

I appreciate the humour, but I'm trying to be serious. SI has nothing to say on the expression of gradients, then? Tony (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Serious people don't keep their sanity here very long -- witness the ignoble fates of participants in the various date-format debates on this very page. I don't know for sure, and I've been unable to find anything on point in 90 seconds of looking, but I suspect SI thinks of e.g. a road gradient as just another ratio such as those I mentioned over at Talk:DYK -- m/km or ft/mi or whatever. EEng (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC) (I can think of a few people here who will likely have something more useful to say on this, so just stand by for a bit.)

@Tony I'd like to help if I can, but I'm not sure what not the problem is. Can you formulate the question more precisely? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Slop_job_again. EEng (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've read that twice now and I'm still unsure of the question. While stating gradients in metres per mile is bizarre, it is not incorrect. MOSNUM supports other bizarre conventions, so why not this one? If you are asking me how I would write a gradient (in the sense of a steepness of a slope), the answer would probably be "1:10" for a one in ten slope, with a conversion to a percentage ("10 %"). If I wanted to adhere to SI rules I would write it as 0.1 m/m or 0.1 km/km, again with a conversion to a percentage ("10 %"). Does this help? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Tony, did this resolve your concern? EEng (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)