Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

MOS:DATEUNIFY allows DMY and MDY in the same article?

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Consistency (MOS:DATEUNIFY) says:

Dates in article body text should all use the same format: She fell ill on 25 June 2005 and died on 28 June, but not She fell ill on 25 June 2005 and died on June 28. Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be the format used in the article body text, any other format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, or the format expected in the citation style being used (however, all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided). For example, a single article might contain one, but only one, of: Jones, J. (20 September 2008) Jones, J. (September 20, 2008) Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) (among other possibilities). Access and archive dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be: the format used for publication dates in the article, the format expected in the citation style adopted in the article, or yyyy-mm-dd For example, a single article might contain one, but only one, of: Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 5 February 2009. Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved February 5, 2009. Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 5 Feb 2009. Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 2009-02-05. (among other possibilities). When a citation style does not expect differing date formats, it is permissible to normalize publication dates to the article body text date format, and/or access/archive dates to either, with date consistency being preferred.

The highlighted text implies that the dates can be in DMY format in the body and MDY format in the publication and access/archive dates, or vice versa (as discussed at Talk:Microsoft Office 2013 § MOS:DATEFORMAT. This seems to be a mistake. It is understandable that publication and access/archive dates may take an abbreviated form that would not be allowed in prose, but the date elements should be in the same order (unless using YYYY-MM-DD). For example:

• DMY dates:
  • Body: She fell ill on 25 June 2005 and died on 28 June
  • Reference: Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 5 Feb 2009
• MDY dates:
  • Body: She fell ill on June 25, 2005, and died on June 28
  • Reference: Jones, J. (Sep 20, 2008) ... Retrieved Feb 5, 2009
• Mixed use (should not be allowed):
  • Body: She fell ill on 25 June 2005 and died on 28 June
  • Reference: Jones, J. (Sep 20, 2008) ... Retrieved Feb 5, 2009

To this end, I propose amending the MOS:DATERET as follows:

1. amend the words 'any other format from the "Acceptable date formats" table' to read 'an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, provided the day and month elements are in the same order'
2. delete the example 'Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved February 5, 2009.' or perhaps even use it to illustrate a bad example.

—sroc 💬 13:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I'm not sure why this example is permitted either:

• Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 5 February 2009.

In this case, the access date is not in the same format used for the publication date, nor is it yyyy-mm-dd. If it is "the format expected in the citation style adopted in the article" then this should be made clear, as it is impossible to tell from the information given what citation style is adopted and why a particular date format is required. In any case, I query whether the various examples are even necessary if the rules are made clear enough. —sroc 💬 14:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Just because you don't understand behind the rationale behind something, it doesn't mean that the said thing suffers from spelling mistakes. It only means you don't understand why. This manual of style's aim is to cultivate diversity in distinct areas of one article and facilitate different global styles to be employed without any arbitrary favoritism toward one. That's foundation's way of work: Neutral towards all arbitrary styles. Fleet Command (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What I would like to know, does any one (paper) source mix styles? I didn't get at first that some people prefer having DMY and MDY in the same article. Is there a better way for cultural diversity and/or consensus on this? How hard would it be to make a user preference setting work? comp.arch (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The existing user preference setting can only customise dates that are stored in the database as a Unix date, such as those in your contributions, or in a page history. It cannot do anything at all about dates stored as text, which is what we're dealing with here. At one time, it was possible to enter dates into the Wikitext using a format like [[28 January]] [[2015]] and dates linked like that would be formatted according to user preferences: but the feature was removed over six years ago. I strongly suspect that it will not be reintroduced. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Comp.arch: Automatically converting dates is also quite hard because MDY dates usually require a comma after them depending on context, and it is not simple for computers to work out whether the comma should be inserted/removed in a particular context (e.g., a sentence might require a comma anyway even if the date is converted to DMY to suit the reader's preference). [See User talk:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates § Commas after MDY dates.] —sroc 💬 18:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but most cases are easy? Seems to me a template around DMY dates would work, that does nothing if you do want DMY (or no changes) but converts and adds a comma for MDY. Note you would only use it for the exceptional cases. Maybe they are (almost) never required with some heuristics that add a comma without a template, if "On", "In" or "Since" (or in lower case) is in front. Most readers wouldn't be bothered by MDY only or DMY only in articles and the MOS could then require either choice but for readers that are fuzzy, they would enable the conversion. It seems to me at least changing an article to DMY shouldn't bother anybody then? comp.arch (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Firstly, chastising me on not understanding something is not nearly explaining why. Secondly, we're not dealing with spelling mistakes, so I'm not sure why you'd bring that up. Thirdly, the MOS does not aim "to cultivate diversity" but rather to promote consistency of style across Wikipedia. Now, can you point to any reason why a section headed "Consistency" which states that "Dates in article body text should all use the same format" should allow contradictory DMY and MDY formats within a single article? —sroc 💬 18:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, God I am not "chastising" you. Why is everyone dramatizing everything out of proportion? You made a mistake, I pointed out. But of course, there is nothing else in your message to which I reply because your "thirdly" says that you disagree-period, and your last sentence with question mark is a trick question built on the assumption that I agree with your "thirdly". So, to summarize: You don't even want to listen to opposition. Fine. I have nothing more to say. My "Oppose" stands. Fleet Command (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: To address the third point, which remains a point of contention, what is your basis for your claim that: "This manual of style's aim is to cultivate diversity in distinct areas of one article"? In any case, I note that you have not elucidated on any reason why both DMY and MDY dates should be permitted within individual articles (aside from honouring citation styles) which would seem to contradict the underlying principle of MOS:DATEUNIFY. —sroc 💬 13:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sroc: A person convert 87% of dates in one article from DMY to MDY, the opposing person does not receive fair treatment, someone offers a compromise based of the current reading of MOS and to defuse that compromise, you start this topic. You want elucidation: I have one word for you: WP:GAME! As for my own belief, you shouldn't have asked it because you don't like it but here it is: I believe all of Wikipedia must adhere to one unified date style and let everyone customize its own view. Fleet Command (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Please. The conversion was to change the dates in the refs to match those in the article, in the expressed belief that an article about Microsoft Office had strong national ties to the U.S. Given that GF belief, the change was not improper. (It's been argued that Microsoft does not have strong national ties to the U.S., a position I find bizarre, but that's not the point here.)

And there is nothing wrong with coming here to ask about, or even challenge, perhaps with the result of changing, a point of MOS that's been brought up on an article talk page. That's how and why a great many things in MOS get changed.

And you didn't answer sroc's question. What is the basis for your claim that "This manual of style's aim is to cultivate diversity in distinct areas of one article"? (emphasis added - jeh) Was this "aim" ever discussed and agreed upon? I always thought that the point of having a house style was to show consistency. And is there any evidence that allowing date formats in different parts of the article (specifically body vs. refs) to differ actually cultivates or shows support for diversity? Or is it just someone's belief that it does? (I'm asking these questions in GF.) Jeh (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Straw man! Straw man! Straw man!

"The conversion was to change the dates in the refs to match those in the article" Why? The refs were more numerous. Their style was the prevalent one. With or without sroc's proposal, changing 87% of dates in one article to another format is a violation the MOS that exists today, the MOS that existed in 2012 and the MOS that existed in 2006.

"It's been argued that Microsoft does not [~snip~]". Why it was argued in the first place? Microsoft wasn't the subject of dispute at all. Office was.

"What is the basis for your claim that [~snip~]". A manifesto of some sort from Jimbo Wales. But that's besides the point: When someone asks my personal opinion, what I give is my personal opinion. You don't have to agree with it; you just have to stick to MOS. And that's why Comp.arch and I had this discussion in my talk page, not article talk page.

Fleet Command (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Did the "manifesto of some sort from Jimbo Wales" include the words "in distinct areas of one article"? (Please provide a link so we all can see what you're talking about.)

Re. "opinion": your claim "This manual of style's aim is to cultivate diversity in distinct areas of one article and facilitate different global styles to be employed without any arbitrary favoritism toward one" appears over your signature on this talk page, not your user talk page. No one here had asked for your opinion, personal or otherwise, and nowhere here do I see anything that disclaims your statement as "just my opinion". Taken as written on this page, it appears to be a claim of fact by you. Indeed, your phrasing ("just because you don't understand the rationale behind something") implies that this is the rationale for allowing different date styles in article body vs. refs. I see that you are now stating that it is just your opinion. Well OK then. Jeh (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: New policies and policy changes stem from people's own personal reasoning and nothing else. (Otherwise, the first founding policies are never created.) Also "my talk" stands the opposite of "Talk:Office 2013", because in the latter, the policy must be used. This talk page is excluded from my original clause because of the sentence subject "Comp.arch and I". Are these things so difficult for you to understand? Quite frankly, it seems you are just trying to get back at me for that small mistake that I pointed out a in Talk:Office 2013. I'd gladly have dug out the manifesto thing from Meta if I didn't think your next reply is some other form of denial. Fleet Command (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: I'm not saying you have no right to your opinion or personal reasoning or that these have no relevance to the discussion. But on this page, you stated "This manual of style's aim..." as if it was "the rationale" for the current guideline that permits mixed date styles. If that had been the case, then any attempt to change the support for mixed date styles would have to address that point. You now have stated that no, it's just your opinion that that's the rationale. Don't you think that it is useful to have established that perspective? Now, I would like to read the referred-to manifesto, if it isn't too much trouble for you to find. (I've tried searches - too many hits to go through.) And I frankly don't remember what "small mistake you pointed out" at Talk:Office 2013. Jeh (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've searched the MOSNUM archives for the word "diversity", which I feel should be reasonably specific to this issue. I find no support for your claims. There are only 18 page hits, with one or two hits per page. The closest I find to anything that comes close to supporting your position is this acknowledgement that diversity is one of WP's goals, so different styles are accommodated, here: "Wikipedia rightly strives for both consistency and diversity in usage. In some cases this means making a choice between competing usages; in other cases, the differing usages are accepted. So, the differences between British and American spelling is accommodated, while, sensibly, the rules state that individual articles should be internally consistent." (emphasis added - jeh) But (note the last part) I find no support in any of the archives here for differing styles within an article, nor any claim that this would promote an impression of diversity.

So, once again: Citation is Needed for your claim. I find nothing in MOSNUM's archives that arrived at the conclusion that "This manual of style's aim is to cultivate diversity in distinct areas of one article" (i.e. allowing one style in one "area" and another style in another), nor any that simply assumed that "aim" as a "given". In fact, I don't find that the concept has been mentioned previously at all! Might it be somewhere other than MOSNUM's archives? Jeh (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Out of order, refuse to discuss. This is not a well advertised RFC. Also, the discussion should be in Wikipedia talk: Citing sources because the "Manual of Style" and its subsidiary pages do not control citaitons. There should also be a notice in Wikipedia talk: Manual of Style. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: I didn't set this up as an RFC because I didn't think it was controversial. Not everything needs an RFC and some changes are made boldly, but I thought I would flag it here first to test the water. Anyway, it is best practice to discuss proposals before launching an RFC in order to settle appropriate wording. Now, do you have anything helpful to add on the issue or not? —sroc 💬 18:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, a stable version from 2013 stated:

Dates in article body text should all have the same format: Correct: Julia ate a poisoned apple on 25 June 2005. She died three days later on 28 June. Incorrect: Julia ate a poisoned apple on 25 June 2005. She died three days later on June 28. Publication dates in article references should all have the same format. Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD. For example, in the same article, write Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) Smith, J. (Sep 2002) but not Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) Smith, J. (September 2002) Access and archive dates in references should all have the same format – either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD. For example, in the same article, write Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 5 Feb 2009. or Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 2009-02-05. but not Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 5 February 2009. Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved Feb 5, 2009. Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved February 5, 2009. These requirements do not apply to dates in quotations or titles. Date formats in quotations or titles should not be changed, even if this causes inconsistent formats in the same article. It is acceptable to change other date formats in the same article to provide consistency, so long as those changes would otherwise be acceptable.

I believe that the words "nearly any consistent style may be used" suggested that the format for publication dates should be consistent with dates in the article (i.e., don't mix DMY and MDY) but this nuance was lost in various edits in 2014. I was a culprit in implementing this edit based on this discussion between User:EEng, User:Jc3s5h and myself – but I don't think that we realised that these edits could be used to support the idea of mixing DMY and MDY dates within the same article. This this edit by User:SMcCandlish further muddied the waters by changing some bad examples to good examples, perhaps misunderstanding why they were originally put there. With these and other edits, I think this section has gradually eroded to a point where it has departed from what was originally intended without any discussion on mixing DMY and MDY dates as far as I am aware, so it's time this was addressed. —sroc 💬 18:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think sroc is probably right that this section has unintentionally eroded, as he says. Certainly I, for one, didn't scrutinize all its changes the same way I did changes elsewhere on this page, because (a) its provisions are so contorted, the result of angry compromises years ago; (b) too many people are inexplicably dug in with one or another position; (c) I don't care sufficiently to make me deal with (a) and (b). So other than this comment, I think I'll stay out of this one. EEng (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC) An exception to what I just said: if somehow it comes out that an abortion like 2015, January 28 (see Jc3s5h's comment below) is acceptable, then I'll be reaching for my pistol. EEng (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In the sense of preparing an RFC, I will make the following points:

• If two guidelines contradict each other, the contradictory provisions in both are null and void. If WP:CITE and WP:MOSNUM disagree on dates in citations, there is no guidance at all on dates in citations.
• WP:CITE says any consistent citation style may be used; that includes dates within citations, except all-numeric formats other than YYYY-MM-DD are forbidden.
• There is good reason to be flexible with dates in citations, because editors using some tools such as Zotero to format dates for some citation style other than CS1 or the Citation template will want to be able to use the output from the tool without having to fix the dates.
• There is at least one citation style, APA, which uses mdy in the body of articles but, for example, "2015, January 28" in the publication date field, so it will be easy to find a citation in the "Works cited" list when several publications by the same author are cited; the "Works cited" list is sorted alphabetically by author, and in case of ties, chronologically by citation date.
• I am not aware of any recognized citation style that uses mdy in the article body and dmy in the citations (or vice-versa). The problem is, Wikipedia is the only publication I know of that uses MOS for the article body and "anything goes" for the citations. So if WP:Ties says to use mdy for the article body, but the citation style chosen uses dmy, then those two styles will be mixed. MLA seems to be an example of a style that uses dmy for dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The (only) mixed style with "2015, January 28" is an interesting case, but that isn't an allowed format. YYYY-MM-DD is but neither would order so it seems mixed format wouldn't emulate any (paper) source. I thought the latter style was some compromise or for cultural diversity, but that has issues if the date is missing. comp.arch (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2015 UTC

For the horrible history of YYYY-MM-DD see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Date Linking RFC, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Three proposals for change to MOSNUM. Your statement "The (only) mixed style with '2015, January 28' is an interesting case, but that isn't an allowed format" is not correct, the guideline states "Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be...the format expected in the citation style being used...." Jc3s5h (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting.. but that APA style requires citations to be in order(?) Well, I haven't seen this used in Wikipedia, but I assume then as always citations must all be in the same format, and they must all be "manual" as WP would not order. I wander if you can change citation style if you do it for all of the article.. comp.arch (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Your argument is invalid: there can be no conflict with WP:CITE because MOS:DATEUNIFY specifically allows the use of any date format expected by a particular citation style. The issue here is that, even where there is no mandate for a particular date format in a particular citation style, it is still permissible for editors to choose any date format from the MOS:DATEFORMAT table. Allowing DMY dates in the body and MDY dates in references (or vice versa) without any mandate for a particular citation style contradicts the very principle of MOS:DATEUNIFY (i.e., keep the date formats within a given article consistent). —sroc 💬 13:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The practical problem with the guideline is that it allows the use of the date format called for by the chosen citation style, but WP:CITEVAR allows any citation style, including an ad hoc style invented for a particular article. So if an article has a consistent style, the date format is allowed (unless it's something line 1/31/2015). I once proposed at WT:CITE that only recognized style guides like APA or MLA be used, but that was not adopted. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• What's the problem? (I'm just responding to the OP, not having read all the intervening material.) The accessdate field is not visible to the casual reader, so who cares what order it's in, or indeed if "20 September 2015" and "September 20, 2015" are both used in the article, for accessdates? Not me. The only firm rule should be to forbid ambiguous formats, such as "10-12-2014". As long a person can read it and understand it, it's fine. Herostratus (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Herostratus: The whole premise of "Consistency" (MOS:DATEUNIFY) is (spoiler alert) to promote consistency in date formats within individual articles. This is undermined if it permits using DMY in the body and MDY in references, or vice versa. —sroc 💬 13:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Concur with sroc: It's pointless, confusing and a source of continual strife to permit multiple date formats the same article. Use one, end of issue. WP:ENGVAR already permits the format to be flexible to suit the English dialect begin used in the article, and that is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Concur with sroc: Seeing mdy in one place in an article and dmy in another is like encountering spelling or grammar errors—or encountering speedbumps while driving: I can still get to where I'm going, but I'm distracted from my main task. This is why WP:ENGVAR states that although national styles are allowed, even encouraged, to differ from one article to another, that they should be consistent within each article. I have seen no good reason for making an exception of date styles in the references. Besides creating inconsistencies that, if noticed, call attention to themselves and therefore distract the reader, this exception increases editing workload (since editors have to "switch gears" between text and refs) and leads to editing disputes: editors who encounter these conflicting date styles often feel that the right thing is to change either the text or the references to make everything within an article consistent. The ensuing reverts, etc., help no one.

I wish to re-emphasize: My position is not at all contradictory to supporting different national styles in different articles. I simply think that this odd, counterintuitive exception that allows for conflicting date styles within an article - I'm not impressed by the "different parts of the article" claim - should be removed.

FleetCommand writes: "This manual of style's aim is to cultivate diversity in distinct areas of one article and facilitate different global styles to be employed without any arbitrary favoritism toward one. That's foundation's way of work: Neutral towards all arbitrary styles." My opinion is that this aim is perfectly well achieved by support of different national styles in different articles. If it isn't, then why stop at date styles in refs vs. text? Why do we ask that styles (including spelling, grammar, etc.) be consistent within an article? Why don't we allow "color" in one sentence and "colour" in the next? Wouldn't that do even more to show that Wikipedia cultivates diversity? No, it would just look amateurish, as if we are even more sorely in need of copyeditors than we already are. Consistent style within an article is the right thing. The exception that allows mdy in text and dmy in refs, or vice-versa, should be removed. Jeh (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

(Edit - added:) Also, WP is not "neutral to all arbitrary styles". There's a whole column full of "unacceptable" styles in the table (WP:BADDATEFORMAT). Jeh (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Concur with sroc: we should return to the version from 2013. Changing from this did not result from discussion and consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have to say that I prefer some aspects of the presentation (like the table "unacceptable date formats" table) in the current version to all of the text in that version. What I am supporting is to just change the current version to state that date style (and the rest of ENGVAR, for that matter) should be consistent between body text and refs. (Of course, the current allowance for yyyy-mm-dd in refs for brevity should be retained. References are obviously a terse format and it makes little sense to require a "prose-like" date like "February 23, 2012" in them.) One thing at a time - more likely to make progress that way. Jeh (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• So Jeh, do you plan to remove "the format expected in the citation style being used (however, all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided)"? If you do WP:CITE and WP:MOSNUM will contradict each other, so they cancel out and there is no guidance. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• My impression is that adherence to any "citation style" gets pretty short shrift on WP and I really wasn't thinking about that. But it seems to me that simply dumping the second major bullet under "Consistency" and changing what was the third one to "Publication, access, and archive dates in an article's citations" will do. However I am not really interested in being distracted here with noodling over the exact wording changes that would be required. Jeh (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Concur with sroc In fact I strongly agree. Why have different formats in the citations. In fact why can't we just get rid of YYYY-MM-DD date formats altogether. They prove nothing. No English speaking country uses them. And they only cause problems among editors.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: YYYY-MM-DD dates are a completely different issue. They are used by some English-speaking countries, e.g. official Canadian forms require them. There's no consensus for getting rid of them, but there does seem to be for avoiding MM DD, YYYY and DD MM YYYY in the same article, even between text and citations. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I still say that we should get rid of them. I think they are pointless and have no possible use within any citation.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD is no more or no less pointful or useful than any other date format within a citation. You can say WP:I DON'T LIKE IT, but that's no reason to get rid of it. Others do like this format; it's brief and it puts the information in order of importance. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I don't like it. I don't like anything that serves no purpose other to appease the wants and needs of a few editors. Most of us have moved on from this outdated date format in the English language world. It only survives due to the determination of a few editors who continue to stand by it for unknown reasons. I know its unpopular among some editors for me to hold this opinion, but facts are facts. There is no reason for the YMD date format any longer.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you should have written "my opinion is my opinion", not "facts are facts". "Outdated?" Are you aware that it's an ISO standard? "No reason"? yyyy-mm-dd is brief, unambiguous, takes the same amount of width in a table regardless of the date value, sorts in date order by simple numeric sort (edit-added: i.e. easily sorted by eyeball), etc. All good things in citations. Do you want WP page histories (example: [1]) to use dmy or mdy too? Hey, maybe times there should likewise be written out as e.g. "15 minutes past 4 o'clock". No? Yeah, I didn't think so. yyyy-mm-dd is nothing more than the principles of the common numeric time format (all numbers, with most significant parts on the left) extended to cover dates. If you're fine with HH:MM but not yyyy-mm-dd, I think you're being inconsistent. Anyway, allowing use of yyyy-mm-dd is not what got this started. If you want to get rid of yyyy-mm-dd completely, that should be a separate proposal. Jeh (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well whatever we believe individually, it is "My Opinion" that there is no need to use YMD over the more highly accepted formats of DMY and MDY. And I would propose to get rid of yyyy-mm-dd altogether if I thought it would have any chance of passing. But, Again My Opinion, too many people still want to use it and will defend its use to the last, even when there is no logical reason to keep it around.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: You say "Do you want WP page histories ... to use dmy or mdy too?" - anybody who wants these formats for dates in page histories (also user contribs, watchlists, etc.) can set them very easily. For me, they are already in dmy, and that is because I have the third selection enabled at Preferences → Appearance → Date format, so I'm guessing that you have the fifth selection enabled there. The dates and times in page histories are stored as Unix times, and can be converted by software into almost anything that resembles a date, but the MediaWiki software restricts us to a choice of four (not five: the first of the five options, "No preference", is the same as the third, on English Wikipedia at least). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I'll be darned! I must have made that setting so long ago I forgot about it. Thanks. (I still think the comparison to "prose-style" times is apt!) Jeh (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, JOJHutton, I prefer YYYY-MM-DD for citation formatting because it is clean, simple and easily understood by everyone. The use of the YYYY-MM-DD format does not cause problems among editors. Pedantic editors that needlessly try to force changes to "February 4, 2015" instead of "2015-02-04" are the ones that cause problems. Resolute 23:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• I always thought it's a nice touch (when I remember) to use words (February 2, 1982 or Feb. 2, 1982) for the date in the citation proper, and YYYY-MM-DD for the access date, if any. Access dates are sort of modern and technical, and so is YYYY-MM-DD, so it fits. And that way the eye immediately distinguishes them. EEng (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Section break

Given the raft of "Concur with sroc" responses above, I made the change which was promptly reverted (along with another subsequent edit) by FleetCommand. Despite being in the clear minority, FleetCommand has not been clear in explaining their opposition, to wit:

• "This manual of style's aim is to cultivate diversity in distinct areas of one article and facilitate different global styles to be employed without any arbitrary favoritism toward one." Despite repeated requests, FleetCommand has not provided any evidence to support this claim. In any event, the proposed change do not seek to favour any particular style but to promote consistency, which is, after all, the point of a section headed "Consistency" which explicitly states that dates within an article "should all use the same format".
• "A person convert 87% of dates in one article from DMY to MDY, the opposing person does not receive fair treatment, someone offers a compromise based of the current reading of MOS and to defuse that compromise, you start this topic. You want elucidation: I have one word for you: WP:GAME!" I do not advocate for either DMY or MDY, but for consistency. I attempted, in good faith, to fix what seems to me (and others) to be a glaring error in the current wording of MOS. FleetCommand has apparently assumed the worst of me instead of focussing on the issue at hand, namely, closing a loophole in MOS which is being use to support illogical arguments elsewhere.
• "Why [change the dates in refs to match those in the article]? The refs were more numerous. Their style was the prevalent one. With or without sroc's proposal, changing 87% of dates in one article to another format is a violation the MOS..." Actually, MOS says: "When a citation style does not expect differing date formats, it is permissible to normalize publication dates to the article body text date format, and/or access/archive dates to either, with date consistency being preferred."
• "As for my own belief, you shouldn't have asked it because you don't like it but here it is: I believe all of Wikipedia must adhere to one unified date style and let everyone customize its own view." Feel free to propose it, but know that it is fraught with difficulty and was removed as a feature many years ago. In the meantime, it's no justification to oppose a perfectly good change to MOS or to revert it when it is supported by the majority. —sroc 💬 03:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, sroc, cut out the fo-cussing. It's rude. EEng (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, EEng, I genuinely don't know what you mean. I assume the hyphen in "fo-cussing" is a clever play on words but it's gone over my head. —sroc 💬 12:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You wrote of "focussing" on something. See... focussing ... fo-cussing ... cussing? A small joke perhaps, but mine own. EEng (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So you weren't really reprimanding me as I'd originally thought? I didn't think I was doing any faux cussing, let alone any genuine cussing. —sroc 💬 16:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I was faux-reprimanding you. EEng (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see the fauxny side now. —sroc 💬 16:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sroc:

• That's not my reason for revert. The reason for the revert was the ill-publicized nature of the discussion that makes it not binding. But let's have a non-bureaucratic compromise: Let's ask a non-involved admin to close this discussion and explicitly spell out the compromise. That way, the closure is binding. I am sure he or she will close it in your favor. Method of contacting this admin is unimportant: Talk page, IRC, IM, email or even the crowded Request for Closure noticeboard; all are okay to me.
• Very well. Let's accept that you are acting in good faith and are attempting to eliminate a glaring error, shall we?
• Double-standard alert! If your proposal is to be accepted, the "permissible to normalize" part of the sentence that you quoted may only and only be taken to mean: (a) contracted MDY dates become expanded MDY dates, (b) contracted DMY dates become expanded DMY dates, and (c) YYYY-MM-DD dates become expanded DMY or MDY dates depending on what the article's prevalent date format is. The quotation must not be taken to endorse changing the prevalent date format of the article, which WP:DATESRET opposes.
• Duly noted.

Fleet Command (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Sorry that I am late to the party, having just found this discussion while reviewing my watch-listed MOS pages. Late though I may be, I feel the need to express my opposition to any form of MOS sanction, permission, approval or prescriptive mandate in favor of multiple date formats within the same article, and especially within individual footnotes. This is a long-time pet peeve of mine, and the careless or intentional insertion of ISO formatted dates for linked footnote retrieval dates is an ongoing aggravation to those many editors who work to maintain stylistic consistency within our articles. My primary objection? The use of multiple date formats in the same article makes Wikipedia look like the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight. It's one thing to vary date formats from article to article on the basis of national ENGVAR usage, or common use within a given subject area, but to insert machine language date formats (e.g., 2014-01-31) side by side with American MDY (e.g., January 31, 2014) or British/Commonwealth/military DMY dates (e.g., 31 January 2014) in the same article -- and especially within the same footnote -- looks amateurishly inconsistent to our readers. Let's please put an end to this. There is no valid reason not to be internally consistent in our use of date formats within any given article (and individual footnotes), and, contrary to assertions above, that is not inconsistent with the existing language of WP:DATESRET. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Thanks for your reply. Regarding the first point, as I stated in my reply to Jc3s5h above, I didn't think this was so controversial as to require more widespread publicity, but feel free to request third-party closure. Regarding the third point, I always understood WP:DATESRET to be about the selection of DMY or MDY format in individual articles (and they are the only acceptable date formats for general use) to avoid reversions back and forth based purely on individuals' preference, so the "permissible to normalize" comment does not conflict with this rationale as I see it. —sroc 💬 13:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as citations go, it doesn't matter what WP:DATESRET calls for; WP:CITEVAR calls for a citation style that has been established for a particular article to be retained. I think that should be modified a bit; I would only retain recognized styles such as CS1, CS2, MLA, APA, Chicago, etc. Also, I would do away with YYYY-MM-DD in citations. But in a number of very long RFCs in the past my preferences did not win out. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Okay, I disambiguated my "it" by replacing it with "the quotation" and changing my sentence to negative. Does it address your concern? Fleet Command (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sorc: I can't contact any admin. Let's just say they hate me. (And let's just say you wouldn't blame them if you knew why.) Also, there is a form of drama I've seen before: I do a change, and cite the MOS; someone says "oh, look, this change is made on such and such date and the editor who made it twice said he wasn't looking for consensus", and they reject authenticity of the change. Fleet Command (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolution

Absent further dissent, would anyone care to implement the revision? EEng? —sroc 💬 09:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So my reward for having the sense to stay completely out of this is to be dragged in as the fall guy at the very end? What have I ever done to you??? But OK. Honestly I've paid no attention to this at all I'll need a bit to review. And I'll do it only under one condition: you have to join the discussion at #Arbor-treeish_break. EEng (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. I was simply hoping someone would do the sensible thing and I instantly thought of you! —sroc 💬 11:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm now about 1/2way through the debate. There was a call at some point for an admin to close -- you do all realize I'm not an admin, right? -- though you may be forgiven for mistaking me for one, given my noble bearing. I hope that doesn't impair my qualification for the important role I've been assigned here. EEng (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• (A) OK, am I wrong in concluding that what's been settled on is a reinstall of this edit [2] (and BTW I support doing so)?
• (B) If so, I have one worry, to wit that one of the "prongs" for Publication Dates --

an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, provided the day and month elements are in the same order

-- is ambiguous. Do we mean --

• (B1) ...provided the day and month elements are in the same order in all publication dates (but not necessarily as in dates in the article body)

or

• (B2) ...provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body

--? I'm guessing it's B2.

EEng (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BUMP???? HELLO??? EEng (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. (A) Yes, that's right. (B) Yes, (B2) is the intended interpretation. The point is that if the article body uses DMY dates, the publication dates should too (whether in full or abbreviated form), and likewise with MDY dates. We don't want a mix of DMY dates in the body and MDY dates in references, or vice versa. —sroc 💬 15:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with sroc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the edit advocated by EEng, I noticed a phrase that was introduced by User:SMcCandlish on 25 October 2014 in a flurry of other edits, and didn't receive any discussion:

When a citation style does not expect differing date formats, it is permissible to normalize publication dates to the article body text date format, and/or access/archive dates to either, with date consistency being preferred.

I am concerned this could be interpreted to mean that, for example, if the body and publication dates are in the MDY format, the access dates are in the YYYY-MM-DD format, and the archive dates are in the YYYY-MM-DD format, it is permissible to change all the access and archive dates to the MDY format, "date consistency being preferred". I have no objection to chucking YYYY-MM-DD entirely, but I don't believe this passage has genuine consensus. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is most how our policy and guideline pages are authored – someone notes a best practice already in play, and records it. Four months is certainly long enough for objections to have been raised, especially given that this is one of the most-watchlisted projectpages on the whole system, and subject to a greater degree of nit-picking scrutiny even than other MOS pages. Even you don't appear to be objecting, but simply noting that someone added it, and expressing a concern that doesn't seem to raise an actual issue. Does anyone really dispute the idea that we prefer a single date format in articles over two conflicting ones, and absolutely over three of them? If you agree we don't have any use for YYYY-MM-DD dates, then you appear to be making an argument for people intentionally using DMY format in the references section of an MDY article. Why would anyone do that? Just because they're American and like them that way and want some corner in which to force that format on the rest of the world, no matter what? [I write this as an American most familiar with MDY, by the way.] Does anyone seriously expect to see the date format reverse itself confusingly just because we're looking in the "References" or "Notes" section instead of some other section? And could they possibly expect to see access/archive dates differ from publication dates, in turn differing from dates in main article text? Of course not. It logically, necessarily follows that a) if it's permissible to normalize publication dates to the same format as the dates in the main text, and b) it's desirable to have only one date format in the references section, then c) in the course of normalizing publication dates to the date format in article, the access/archive dates would be given the same format as well. The only other alternative would be to force publication dates to have the different (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD) format that someone decided to use for access dates, on the supposition that random editor preference with regard to access/archive dates is the #1 concern of date formats on Wikipedia, consistency of dates within the refs section secondary, and consistency within the article doesn't even rate. That's completely backward.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm completely serious. Some editors are in love with the YYYY-MM-DD, and will raise a ruckus if anyone changes access dates to DMY even though the body of the article and the publication dates use DMY. If I remember correctly, one article I tried to change to all-DMY was Anno Domini, but I got reverted. Why don't you go over there and change the dates, citing the passage you put in MOSNUM, and let us know if your change stuck (that is, if you don't get blocked). Jc3s5h (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing at blocking policy would appear to apply to such a situation, so I'm having a hard time taking this seriously even if you are "completely serious". I'm sorry you got reverted, at one article, by someone who doesn't pay attention to MOS. [shrug] I normalize dates in the refs section to the format used in the article on a fairly regular basis, without controversy, as part of other generally WP:ENGVAR-related cleanup (e.g. fixing later-added "-ize"/"-ise" spellings to match the rest of the text, and so forth). The only time I can recall ever being reverted on such a date change, it was by someone who was reflexively revertwarring against virtually every edit I ever made to any of the articles that "belong" to "his" wikiproject; it was personal antagonism, not a principled position about date formatting. I certainly don't encounter ISO date reversion on a regular basis, and if you watch WT:MOSNUM, you know that the format is falling increasingly into disfavo[u]r here. I think you ran into a fluke situation. :-)    — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'll just sit quietly while y'all work this out. sroc? EEng (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

<bump again> sroc??? EEng (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: Sorry, I don't recall getting the previous ping. As far as I'm concerned, the issue at hand about (A) and (B2) has been settled and should be implemented; will you do this? The issue regarding YYYY-MM-DD is altogether separate and I don't have a view on it; it certainly need not delay finalising the original issue, I don't think. —sroc 💬 13:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, done. Please check me. EEng (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are ordinal dates unacceptable?

Standard formal written English uses ordinal dates, yet our poor Manual of Style proscribes them. Why? They make prose smoother, and more natural. They avoid the stilted news-style journalistic writing that "20 January" et al. forces upon us. Encyclopaedias ought be written to the standard expected of an esteemed publication. There are many instances where "20 January" is necessary and proper, but likewise, ordinal dates are also useful for writing good prose. Application should be based on context. I see no reason why a standard English-language usage is blanket forbidden. It is rather absurd, come to think of it. I propose we remove the proscription, encouraging application as suits a particular context. RGloucester — ☎ 06:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"He was born on 20 January 1940" will be read aloud as "he was born on the 20th of January 1940" by most English speakers. So what's the case for writing "20th January" rather than "the 20th of January"? None. "20 January 2015" or "January 20, 2015" are simply two conventions for writing dates in text, independent of how they are read. I don't see that we need more conventions. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hart's Rules (Oxford) specifies cardinal numbers, e.g. "16 August 1960". Some British journalists (The Economist?) may use ordinal numbers (and may use the American order and/or different punctuation), but I would regard such journalistic usage as less formal. I agree with Peter coxhead: it is a convention of written English; the definite article and the ordinal suffix are added when reading. --Boson (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Similarly, we wouldn't write each of the eighteen children received a 1/18th share. We'd write 1/18 but the reader would speak out one-eighteenth. I can vaguely imagine a construction like rent was due on the 3rd of each month, but (a) hard to see why you couldn't write third instead, and (b) that's not really a date anyway. If the OP has a particular situation in mind I'd like to hear it. EEng (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely incorrect, and goes against centuries of good English usage. We write out the ordinals. "20 July" is read as "twenty July", not as "20th of July". I'm not asking for more conventions, merely removing the proscription on standard English usage, at once. Formal English usage demands the use of ordinal dates in prose to assist in writing proper and pure-sounding English. RGloucester — ☎ 15:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that some readers read 20 July as "twenty July" -- and perhaps others read it as "twentieth of July" or "the twentieth of July" or "July twentieth" or ... So what? It's understood no matter what. Outside writs of replevin and royal decrees and the letters of Lord Beaconsfield I haven't seen anyone actually write out July 20th in decades. Do we have to fuss about absolutely everything? Once again I ask: do you have an actual article editing situation in which this has come up, or are we just arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? EEng (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do. That's why I'm here. The problem lies in the cadence of the prose. There are many instances where using an ordinal would smooth out a sentence to give it a finished lustre. Without them, one is left with sentences that sound unprofessional and un-English. One must be able to use the tools given to one by the English language. To proscribe standard English usage is a travesty, as is to prescribe choppy prose. I do not know of your origins, but in Britain, ordinal dates remain the standard when writing English formally. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm an American, and I'm all for luster, or even lustre. Can you please cut to the chase and tell us in what specific article-editing situation this has arisen – particular text, in an actual article, which you think would be improved via use of st, nd, rd or th? EEng (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't usually base our MOS on what was considered standard several centuries ago, or standard by outliers like you. But if you have modern guides that recommend ordinals in dates in some contexts, please do share them for our consideration. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The modern is unacceptable. Only the traditional will suffice. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Uh, oh. Trouble ahead. EEng (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The English Wikipedia is not just for usage by the English. Rather, in an act of inverse imperialism a great many countries have descended upon the English language and now claim it as their common language. Thus, the century long English monopoly on the English language have ended. At least with regards to Wikipedia. Terribly sorry, old chap. Lklundin (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? I'm a native speaker, but when I parse your example, "He was born on 20 January 1940", I would definitely read and speak it as "he was born on twenty January nineteen-forty". Transforming it to "the twentieth of January 1940" feels weird. Not exactly wrong, but perhaps overtly formal. Curiously, if you had given me "He was born on January 20, 1940", I would have instinctively said "January twentieth nineteen-forty." Anyway, I certainly can't agree with the contention above that the definite article and ordinal suffix are automatically added when reading. I simply don't think that is true of the dialect of American English I grew up with. Dragons flight (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm perfectly fine with using cardinal numbers when writing dates. I am merely disagreeing with the specific contention that they would somehow be implicitly converted to ordinal numbers by the reader. Dragons flight (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Good. As I said in a post above, I don't think it matters how the reader "reads it out", as long as it's understood, and within the radius of normal convention. EEng (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Writing 20 January 2015 allows it to be read in any dialect. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, we might as well start writing in dialect, with "ain't", "thou", and "outwith". Sure, the same information will be conveyed. However, will it be conveyed in a cadence befitting an encylopaedia? No. We must have brilliant prose. RGloucester — ☎ 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, because ain't is outside the bounds of acceptable serious writing; 20 June and June 20 are inside bounds. It was in anticipation of your raising such a strawman that I was careful to say, above, "I don't think it matters how the reader "reads it out", as long as it's understood, and within the radius of normal convention." EEng (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Guess what, the normal convention is to use ordinals, and has been for centuries. RGloucester — ☎ 20:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And so we arrive at the nub of the problem (or your problem, anyway): you think good usage is a single point instead of (as it is in most cases) a radius of options. EEng (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what a "radius" is. However, if by "radius" you mean a platter with assorted cakes, then I agree. I agree that we should have many options available at our disposal, and I believe that there is no good reason for the MoS to exclude a commonly used standard variety for no apparent reason. I never said I would mandate ordinals, nor would I even use ordinals most of the time. I'd use them when they add a lustre to a sentence, or seem appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 21:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The logic is precisely the opposite. We write in a standardized style, determined by the MOS, so that readers are not distracted by dialect differences (so far as this is possible, given the differences between the ENGVARs allowed here). I can read "born on 20 January 2015" as "born on the 20th of January 2015"; an American can read it as "born on 20 January 2015". Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a question of register, not of information conveyed. I fear there are too many rationalists hiding in these woods. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Snore. I'm asking you in a new subsection below to give us an actual example of what you're talking about. Otherwise this is going nowhere. EEng (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

One exception that comes to mind is phrases like "He died on the 5th". If a day is given without explicitly including the month (presumably because the month is implied by context), then I'm pretty sure the ordinal form is standard. I don't think the present MOS really address that circumstance. Dragons flight (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's very much along the lines of the rent was due on the 3rd/third of each month example I gave earlier. I think that's OK, and note that the guideline as written doesn't forbid it -- what is says is to write e.g. June 9 or 9 June but not June 9th or 9th of June. I'd also be OK, if the context was right, with Originally rescheduled from June 3 to June 5, then again moved to the 8th/eighth, the meeting was finally held on the 10th/tenth (though I think I'd prefer eighth/tenth to 8th/10th). EEng (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As an American who learned to read and write in England, and also lived in Canada, I concur with Dragons_flight here; I read that in my head, and would read it aloud, as "twenty January", and it seems perfectly fine to me (though not an American usage). RGloucester's preference for sounding it out in modified form as "the twentieth of January" is certainly insufficient reason to change MOS to favor ordinals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason is historical. In the dim and distant past every date was wikilinked, because firstly we had a lot less pages and it did not seem unreasonable, secondly there was some vague idea about "metadata" i.e. semantic mark-up, and thirdly it allowed preference formatting. This would have been more clunky with ordinals, especially as the presentation layer could make them ordinals (at least in theory).

I have also had a few qualms about "20 July" vs "the 20th of July" recently, but not enough to bring the matter up myself. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC).

Since Hart's (Oxford) and Butcher's (Cambridge) specify the use of cardinal numbers in dates, I find it hard to accept that formal (British) English usage demands the use of ordinal dates". --Boson (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not demand their usage, but it does demand that they be allowed to remain in the toolbox of the proseman. RGloucester — ☎ 01:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The proseman??? How Shakespearean thou art. EEng (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No. I fight battles on many fronts. RGloucester — ☎ 03:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's disgusting, and above all, retarded. | **robot voice** - "PLEASE INPUT CURRENT DATE" | **human voice** - "20 February" | **robot voice** "DATE INPUT ACCEPTED, THANKS HUMAN" *bleep bloop bleep bleep* --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Angels on the head of a pin

• I'm asking RG, out here in the open, to give us an actual editing situation in which this issue has arisen, so we can stop wasting our time in the abstract. EEng (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I refuse. I will not submit to rational analysis. We must have brilliant prose. RGloucester — ☎ 20:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Then you're just stirring the pot for no reason. EEng (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I've been forced to write plain dates when an ordinal would make a more pleasant sentence for far too long. These rationalists who privilege data above beauty and tradition must be pushed out. RGloucester — ☎ 21:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I suggest you start working on the Irratiopedia and leave Wikipedia to us rationalists. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning! Unhide only in an environment where bursting out in uncontrollable laughter will not lead to embarrassment or danger of physical harm. Do not drive or operate machinery until you know how the hidden content affects you.
Perhaps we need an "Irascipedia"! --Boson (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"I'd use [ordinals] when they add a lustre to a sentence, or seem appropriate." Subjective notions would only lead to edit-warring over what seems appropriate in individual cases. We need, if anything, fewer standardised options, not more. "We must have brilliant prose." This is an encyclopedia for objective recording of facts; brilliant prose is for authors and poets. "I will not submit to rational analysis." Then there is no benefit in arguing with you logically. —sroc 💬 02:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

We already have "subjective notions" with MDY and DMY and the like. No reason not to include another perfectly acceptable "subjective notion". If you'd like to settle on one particular date format, I'd be all for that. Until then, however, there is no reason not to accept ordinals. RGloucester — ☎ 02:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

When you have an actual example of where you'd like to do this, discuss it with your fellow editors on the talkpage of the article in question, citing MOS' oft-forgotten "use common sense/subject to occasional exceptions" provision. If after that you're still aggrieved, then bring your example back here. For now you're demanding a tool for which you refuse to give even a single use case, other than your lustre thing (or, as we Americans would put it, luster -- a word that seems a bit naughty now that it look at it). EEng (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That would be an amenable solution. However, no one has yet justified the proscription, and hence it isn't. I shan't talk about "single use cases" on the grounds that I don't want people following me to places where they don't belong, as often happens in these cases. RGloucester — ☎ 03:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"We already have 'subjective notions' with MDY and DMY and the like." We can have objective arguments of whether MDY or DMY should be used in individual cases based on the considerations enumerated in MOS:DATETIES. If you can justify using ordinal rather than cardinal numbers in dates based on something less vague than "lustre", you might have more than a snowball's chance of forming consensus for your proposed change. —sroc 💬 04:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I shall hang on a tree before that happens, I fear. Enjoy your poorly sounding dates. RGloucester — ☎ 04:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• RG, are you all right tonight? In all seriousness, let's all take a breather. EEng (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Standard formal written english uses ordinal dates, yet our poor Manual of Style proscribes them. Why?". TBH, I don't understand the queston. Isn't the MoS matching formal written english? GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to what some editors keep insisting, there is good deal of variety and flexibility in formal English. In many cases MOS reflects (explicitly or implicitly) that flexibility, while in others it prescribes one, or a few, of standard alternatives. EEng (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• And then, as quickly as they had come, they were gone. EEng (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlike these tasty ordinal traditional dates, with a tree for RG to hang on. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Superscript Ordinals

[Moved here from a new thread opened elsewhere on the page -- somewhat related]

I need some things EXPLAINED and good arguments coupled with those explantions. This dialogue took place and you're the people apparently who can clear it up... User_talk:Magioladitis#Yobot_Query

David-King (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's just "house style" -- arbitrary choices made long ago. I know such rules can be grating when one is used to some other style, but for better or for worse it is what it is. You're entitled to begin a discussion about changing it -- presumably you'd like MOS to allow superscript ordinals (I note your particular concern was about ordinals arising outside the context of dates, unlike the discussion earlier in this thread) -- but you'd have to have very, very strong reasons that readers will be better served by such a change, not just that you think it looks better etc. Trust me on this; to see what you'd be getting yourself into, click here -- if you dare! EEng (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The most likely reason is that any text that is super-scripted can mess up line spacing. The various style guides around are mostly based on many years of experience of print publishing (Chicago and Oxford) although the Microsoft MOS has a section on web content. Sometimes the reasons for any guidance in a style guide are explained, but often they are not. Other considerations, apart from line spacing, may include readability, accessibility, and whether a feature is available in a wide range of fonts. Robevans123 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no care for ordinals in dates. There are many formats for dates and why one should be picked over another is simply arbitrary. I would simply be arguing that we should superscript ordinals when referring to a position in a chronology or a position in a race for example. As I've stated before, Microsoft Office programs' default is to superscript ordinals. I really can't imagine there will be any issues of readability and accessibilty or such like or even any issue of font compliance. David-King (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the perceived benefit of using a superscript? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the perceived benefit of the alternative? David-King (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the considerations Robevans123 already mentioned (which are real, whether you can imagine them or not) the benefit of the current guideline is that it's the guideline we've got, and absent some quantum of indication that there's a benefit to changing it, time that would be spent rehashing it should be invested instead in working on articles. So the ball really is in your court, D-K. I hope this doesn't come across as dismissive, but if you follow the link above you'll see that this point, like every other goddam thing in MOS has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed to death, for no apparent reason except that different people are stuck on different arbitrary conventions. EEng (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

So what, you're saying we don't superscript ordinals because of accessibility and readability issues as well as because of font difficulties? I've never heard such spurious sanctimony emanated from an apparent expert in all my born days. Thus far, you have all come across as dismissive and contrary to what I said I wanted, you have only given me personal assertions which have not been evidenced by anything substantial. It's insulting. David-King (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Spurious sanctimony emanated from an apparent expert? Gracious! I've never heard such unconscious consonance and all-out alliteration in all my born days. And who said anything about being an expert?

To repeat: the rule is (likely) largely arbitrary and (quite possibly) partly motivated by technical and accessibility considerations, and (almost certainly) no one still hanging around knows specifically. But (also again) dropping in and expecting everyone to reopen the question with you, when you pointedly refusing to give even a hint of what you think the benefit would be, is inappropriate. Follow my link above to the past discussions of this issue, and if after you think you can shed light that hasn't been shed before, by all means let the rest of us know. EEng (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're not repeating yourself. You're making yourself clearer to compensate for your lack of coherence in your previous responses. The benefit is that it looks more professional and indeed in schools, pupils are taught to adhere to the standard which is to superscript ordinals. There isn't a great amount I can 'shed light' on as it is a relatively peripheral and poxy issue in the first place so let's not make this something it isn't. Reopening it is no big deal especially given that it obviously wasn't sufficiently discussed originally. David-King (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As you'll soon learn if you hang around here for any length of time, those confusing something Miss Snodgrass taught them when they were 12 for "the" standard to which all "pupils" (how quaint!) are taught to adhere are setting themselves up to be made fools of. In the present case, I note that Chicago and AP, at least, say no to superscripts, as does, apparently, the practice in American legal work [3][4]. And this very thoughtful short discussion [5] sends them up this way:

Microsoft Word and its ilk reintroduced this fetish from the Victorian era and made it the default, so any ordinal number (1st, 2nd, etc) gets the ordinal indicator as a superscript instead of the normal 1st, 2nd, etc. ... the use of the superscript form seemed to have disappeared around the 1940s and 50s — until its corpse was reanimated by Microsoft.

So just how are you going to turn superscripting into "the" universal and professional standard? EEng (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Chicago and AP don't set the international standard; perhaps they do the American standard but not the international standard. Funnily enough, Microsoft stipulations are more internationally widespread due to its wide use and so if anyone sets the universal standard, it's Microsoft. It's not quaint at all; the standard taught in most schools worldwide is that ordinals be in superscript. The world doesn't revolve around America you know. There is China for example who own the US debt. David-King (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Pupil adhering to worldwide international professional superscripting standard

<rolls eyes> Other than your personal experience of world educational systems, can you point to anything actually recommending superscripting? You'll pardon us for not accepting the word of someone who doesn't know a hyphen from a dash, and thinks that "Professors of English always say it is preferable to keep hyphens out of prose" [6].

EEng (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Martinevans123, I'm guessing you will have something incisive to add at this juncture of the narrative.

Followup: Oh, look! Here's what the Oxford Style Guide [7] says:

Spell out words for ‘first’, ‘second’ and so on up to and including ‘tenth’; use numbers and ‘st’/ ‘nd’/ ‘rd’/ ‘th’ for larger ordinal numbers. Don’t use superscript (to prevent problems with line spacing).

Don't worry‍—‌maybe Cambridge wants superscripts. Why don't you check and get back to us? If not, try China.

EEng (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Enjoy this marvellous educational video. It has a super script. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No superscripts, I note for the record. EEng (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC) "It has a super script." You crack me up.

Don't impose experiences upon me; I never said I had "personal experience of world educational systems". I was just stating something I'd read. Back in the day, when Britain was a colonial power, people were taught British English overseas and I read, although I can't find exactly that which I did read at the present time, that students were taught that ordinals be in superscript. As generations have passed, standards have slipped and what is taught in schools has changed by consequence.

Actually, I do know the difference between a hyphen and a dash and as a training lawyer at a Russell Group institution, being adept in using all punctuation is quintessential. However, my A* in my English Language A-level speaks for itself really. To have got anything less would have not justified the £14K spent per year on my secondary education at a school which prides itself on academic excellence and the upholding of its magnificent academic record but there you go. I however didn't care for the correct use of the pertinent jargon in that instance because I didn't realise that I was being tested. I should think twice now in future I suppose. I however do concede that I made a mistake and that I was sloppy for which I apologise.

Before you start extrapolating, I should tell you that context is important and that which you quote me verbatim is hyperbole. I merely wanted to potently enforce my point. I did rounds with a survey asking English professors at my university whether it was acceptable to use dashes in prose. The consensus was I found that it is acceptable to use them but If YOU CAN phrase your sentence without them, THEN DO SO.

Finally, you come with some PROOF instead of blind assertions evidenced by nothing!!!! As Oxford, AP and Chicago do indeed say there are issues with line spacing when putting ordinals in superscript, I will now accept that point albeit reluctantly. In my mind, they do look more professional and were computers more advanced, issues of line spacing wouldn't prevail. Of course there will be a source which supports the superscripting of ordinals. It wouldn't be done full stop if there weren't any sources which supported it. David-King (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

To summarize:

• A lot of MOS is arbitrary, as is true of all style guides
• My link way back gives the discussions that led to the no-superscript choice
• Authoritative usage guides (American and British) deprecate superscripting
• Nothing has been offered supporting the idea that superscripting is more "professional" or is what "is taught in schools", despite your ALLCAPS, your bolding, and your expensive and therefore impressive credentials.

EEng (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• As EEng notes, a choice has to be made one way or the other, and maintained for consistency. Some people like superscripting; others don't (it seems to me old-fashioned now). No good reason has been offered to change the existing MOS. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @David-King It seems to me that, while there might be arguments for and against superscripts, there is no knock-out punch either way. The important thing to achieve the harmonisation that is MOS's main goal is to choose one of them, however arbitrary that choice might seem. MOS made that choice eons ago. Without a good reason to change them, a good enough reason to keep things the way they are is that changing them would result in instability. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• You just can't debate well can you EEng; take another look at my reply and please tell me how ALLCAPS, BOLDING and the citation of my credentials was used to enforce any of my points on superscripting ordinals. You invoked an issue you had with my misuse of jargon in an entirely separate discussion and I responded to that specific point by citing my personal education history as well as using BOLDING and ALLCAPS. Not anywhere did I use them to enforce any of my assertions on superscripting ordinals. Dondervogel 2 is right; there is no knock-out punch either way. However, I will accept maintaining the status quo is an easier option and by consequence the preferable option. British and American usage guides don't deprecate ordinals in superscript; they just don't decree them ideal because of font and line spacing issues which we here on Wikipedia may or may not run into. David-King (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night. EEng (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh believe you me, I have far far more important things keeping ME awake at night. I'll be back though... David-King (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Representing controversial population statistics

What is the proper way to represent a controversial city population statistic if the total city population count in RSs includes areas not often considered part of the city? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 18 Adar 5775 15:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueller? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Adar 5775 01:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like a broken record (see elsewhere on this page), but this question should be threshed out with your esteemed fellow editors on the talk page of the article concerned. This isn't a MOS matter unless you think something should be added to MOS to handle this situation -- and I would counsel against that unless and until it's become a recurring problem in multiple articles. EEng (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It's more like we were wondering how this question should be handled according to the MOS as we couldn't find anything ourselves. I asked at the Help Desk originally and was directed here. This is a unique situation as no other city had this status, but the original representation of the numbers had parentheses and we couldn't figure out what purpose they served and reckoned there might be something about it in the MOS.... On a side note, don't you think it might be a good idea to put a sign at the top saying this page is for discussions of changes to the MOS only, not referencing? Someone coming here, particularly a person who was directed here, wouldn't know otherwise until you told them, which seems dreadfully inefficient. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Adar 5775 03:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed off-putting. I followed your link to Help Desk, and unless I missed something there's nothing there pointing to the actual article so we can tell what you're actually talking about. And that's the problem with these kinds of inquiries -- they're abstract, lacking all the little details that might point to one solution or another. So I counsel you (and your fellow editors on the article) to have faith in your own judgment and work out a solution that seems good to you, for the situation at hand. From the looks of things this doesn't seem to be a point of contention so revel in that! EEng (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

UK metric first

I know there was a big fuss about this, and WP:UNIT states that for non-scientific UK articles the primary unit for height is feet/inches. Can someone indicate how much of a "guideline" that is. Also, MOSNUM does not seem to specify whether templates such as {{convert}} and {{height}} should be used. My opinion is that a template is highly desirable to avoid nonsense when editors subsequently edit one number but not the other (if a template is not used). I'm asking due to a difference of opinion with MetricStronk (talk · contribs), for example, diff1 and diff2. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

After a quick review of MetricStronk edits, this appears to be a single purpose account to change primary measurements to metric. The town of Cairns, California was 11 miles northeast of Lincoln, it is now 17.7 km.[8] This edit to KFNW (AM) is vandalism.[9]- SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

First, with this editor, if he's systematically changing units on UK-related articles without consensus since this warning, then you can now call on the general sanctions at WP:AN.

Second, the rule is that personal height should be feet-first, in the absence of any good reason in specific circumstances to do anything else. At the same time, the general sanctions as written mean that you can't necessarily rely on this guideline for changes to the order, without also getting a local consensus for the specific changes. It's a little contradictory, but it's what was agreed at the time and it's what we'll have to cope with for the foreseeable. The fact that the guideline is here, though, should guide the consensus toward it in the absence of a good reason in specific circumstances.

On the US-based stuff, act as though he changed the language to use British English. It's the same thing.

I would urge editors not to restart the whole discussion as to what the rule should be, that will last months and go nowhere. We have a rule, we have a corollary in the general sanctions. Wasting everyone's time repeating the same discussions over and over again helps nobody. Kahastok talk 18:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNIT could point to the templates a little more clearly. It already says "For details on when to provide a conversion, see the section § Unit conversions." and that section does mention {{convert}}. Might WP:UNIT say "on when and how to" and MOS:CONVERSIONS mention {{height}}? Many editors may be unaware {{height}} exists or just appreciate the reminder. NebY (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This is maybe a dumb question, but why are there two separate templates for this? I'm not aware of what functionality the height template provides that the convert template does not. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the history of the templates, but I'd imagine some editors might well find {{height}} more straightforward to use, with less parameters to wonder about and documentation focused on that one use. NebY (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Like Archon 2488, I question the need for {{height}}. Proliferating templates just makes maintenance more difficult. There wasn't a discussion leading to a consensus to include it in the MOS page, so I've removed it for the present. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

{{height}} has already proliferated. There are over 98,000 uses on en.wikipedia. That's not surprising; it's a clearly titled template with a straightforward set of options and it's useful. Far from just making maintenance more difficult, it probably makes pages easier to maintain because it's a little more transparent than the one we do mention, {{convert}}. NebY (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: do you still question the need for {{height}} to the extent that you believe it should not be mentioned and would revert me if I re-instated that mention? @Archon 2488: do you think it should not be mentioned? NebY (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say the height template should not be mentioned. Indeed, it might already have proliferated so far that it would be hard to deprecate it, and if editors will encounter it in article-space it seems hard to justify removing it from the MoS. But it still seems to me a redundant template. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Proliferation isn't evidence for a consensus in a reasoned discussion. I don't think its use should be encouraged. Editors encounter lots of things in article space that are not encouraged in the MOS (and indeed many that are deprecated). If you look at many of the uses, {{convert}} is used in the same article (e.g. for weight in the case of sportspeople). Should we have another template "weight", another "speed" (for use in articles about vehicles), and so on? Each could be claimed to make it easier for editors, but the end result is ultimately not helpful. So I still believe there must be a wider discussion, with a consensus, as is normal for changes to the MOS. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've opened a separate section which might gather more attention; it's only a small suggestion, not worth an RFC. I haven't tried to summarise your case - I hope that's OK. NebY (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to the question. Using {{convert}} properly feeding it feet and inches you get this displayed '1.85 metres (6 ft 1 in)'. That has the advantage of keeping the sourced number and avoiding reconversion errors. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Military date format in biographical articles

This discussion is moved here from Talk:Audie Murphy#Date format (again). Apologies if this means re-hashing things again. In my opinion, a single sentence in the guidelines – "articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage" – seems to be widely over-interpreted. If you look at wikt:military#Noun, it doesn't mention persons. In particular, the word "modern" indicates to me that it is not about persons. What is a modern person?

So what do we do with persons, whether or not they (like Murphy) were more than soldiers? Was this single sentence really supposed to override WP:STRONGNAT when it comes to biographical articles on American people. I think not.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There must be a fundamental misunderstanding of this thing with the "military dates", which applies to "modern U.S. military". So Murphy's a "modern U.S. military"?

This rule applies to U.S. military organizations, battles, history, ships, aircraft, equipment, decorations, etc, but of course it does not apply to people. Millions of Americans have some sort of connection to the military. Some have been officers, some have just been recruits. Many have gained notability and have an article here. Should the fact that there is some sort of connection to the military, if ever so slight, override the standard mdy date format? Of course not. I think this single statement in the guidelines is widely over-interpreted.

In contrast, Dwight D. Eisenhower does not appear to be a "modern U.S. military", despite the fact that he's one of very few five-star generals in the US Army, and despite that his military career is what made him notable, and made it possible for him to become president.

To me it's pretty obvious that the guideline does not apply to people.

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I was under the same impression and was also basing the date format change on Dwight D. Eisenhower, Charles Pelot Summerall, and Robert E. Lee it seems like this person had a well established notable life outside of the military, so I wasn't sure where the line is drawn. It does seem though that MM/DD/YYYY is more widely used, perhaps clarification is needed. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, read threads above. And this was hammered out on the WP Military History, in various reviews and their talk page. I can't tell you how tired I am of this. You can't have two styles in an article. This is what the reviewers and others at the Military History project decided it should be. You are more than welcome to go over to their talk page and post all about it. — Maile (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, just want to make sure there is a single format, sorry about the confusion I hope it was understandable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll tell you where the line is drawn. "Modern US military" does apply to people, and by "modern", the 20th and 21st centuries are meant per WP:STRONGNAT. Any attempt to change the format of any article without strong consensus violates WP:DATERET and will result in a trip to WP:ANI. ArbCom held in the Infoxes case that gnomes can be blocked or banned for attempting to override the article creators. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at Wesley Clark and John McCain. They were born in 1944 and 1936 respectively. Are they politicians or are they military persons? Are they "modern"? Well, their articles are in the mdy format, and rightly so in my opinion.

Maile, consider this: if your interpretation is correct, howcome you end up in so many discussions that "[you] can't tell [us] how tied [you are] of this"? Does this possibly indicate that your interpretation is wrong? Just think about it. I mean, we have a host of articles with the dmy format, and a host of articles with the mdy format (such as those on Clark and McCain). Is this fortunate? Most of the former articles (hopefully) have some kind of military connection, but so do many articles of the latter category.

You don't say about people that they're "modern". Are you "modern", Maile?

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The term "modern" here refers to modern history. It's a technical term. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

End of copied discussion. Pinging @Valoem:, @Maile66:, @Hawkeye7:.

@Hawkeye7: care to elaborate on that post?

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• This talk thread is challenging the date style vetted by members of the WikiProject Military history in the FAC process. There is a thread on the Audie Murphy talk page above this one that says:

U.S Army manual on dates, capitalization, etc.

In regards to some recent well-meaning edits and reverts, please see the U.S. Army CMH Style Guide 2011.pdf.

• Regarding dates, section 6.1 specifically says "Use the military day-month-year dating system (without punctuation)."
• Regarding capitalization of ranks, section 1.47 specifically says "Lowercase military titles when standing alone, or when following a name."

Hope this information has been helpful. — Maile (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the examples given in the U. S. Army manual as proper date usage is:

"On 1 August 2003 General Schoomaker succeeded General Shinseki as chief of staff."

The Army applies it to people. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We're not the Army. Needless to say, the Army manual applies in Army paperwork, not (necessarily) here. And what about the other people who have served notably in the military, like Clark and McCain above, or John Kerry, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, James Stewart and Elvis Presley, just to mention a few? (Stewart was even a brigadier-general.)

Doesn't the Army manual apply for them? (Answer: yes, in Army paperwork it probably did, but not here.)

HandsomeFella (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Is someone proposing a change to MOS/Dates and Numbers? If not, this discussion doesn't belong here. If this is a chronic problem in multiple articles, then come back here with a proposed change to MOS which would clear up that problem. EEng (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is an attempt to gain guidance and find out how WP:STRONGNAT applies to those with military ties. IMHO, those who have a military connection during a period when the DMY format is used (by the service they have the military connection with), if it is already common practice at that article to use DMY, than the DMY format should be used through out. Otherwise, keeping with that persons nationality common date format should suffice.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand, but Talk:MOS isn't a court of appeals for interpretation, because what happens is that you get a lot of people with only a passing interest and familiarity drifting to a conclusion which then takes on a kind of precedent value. Again I say: work it out on the Talk of the particular article involved, where (presumably) editors are steeped in all the facts and circumstances that might come to bear on the issue. If this has been a recurring problem on many articles, then bring that here, with links to all those discussions, with a proposal for how a change to MOS can save time and trouble. EEng (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

EEng...You are absolutely correct. On all of it. At the top where this thread is copied from the AM talk page, it had been suggested to take this issue to the Military History project, where the Audie Murphy series had been through the reviews. A little background. Neither Hawkeye7 nor I decided on DMY. It happened in the various review scrutinies. The DMY was questioned later, and it was dealt with on the MH project talk page. And there it stayed until Audie Murphy was March 17 TFA. On that date, the above editor made his one and only edit to the Audie Murphy article, and it was not about the dates. His talk page posts started that date. He got his answer, as you can see above. Not what he wanted. Putting it here seems like gaming. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course I'm right on everything. You're just realizing that now? Jeesh! Anyway, we don't need to speculate on anyone's motives -- important thing is the discussion belongs back on the article Talk. EEng (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What can I say - when you're good, you're really good. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Maile66: accusing me of gaming for starting a discussion here, which struck me as a wider and more appropriate forum (I didn't think of WP:MILHIST) than the AM talkpage, is totally unfair and uncalled for, and fairly close to a personal attack. When you have re-read WP:AGF, I hope you will retract it. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Maile now understands that you are just looking for clarity. We don't need to go further down the road re motives. EEng (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't care if the subject individual was raised in a military family and spent their entire adult life in the military; the article about them is not "on the modern US military". Presumably the article describes aspects of their life that had nothing to do with the military, including childhood, marriage, offspring, and retirement. George Patton himself had interests outside his military career. The guideline is not "over-interpreted", it is misinterpreted. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If someone's biography was being written for a particular audience (say, perhaps, a military community, or even a military publication) use of "military" style dates would seem appropriate. But Wikipedia is written for a general audience, so should use a general style of dates. But here's the rub: is the issue here really about military style, or just MDY vs. DMY? In the present case, that Murphy was in the military does not meet the "military usage" exception of MOS#Choice of format, and seems irrelevant. The real issue seems to be MDY vs. DMY. And while the former is more traditional in the U.S., I note that the latter has become acceptable and even common in recent years, and presents no challenges of novelty. If an article is consistent, either format should be acceptable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

But what is often found is that those articles written by those who follow DMY are often changed to MDY, overriding local consensus, claiming WP:STRONGNAT. If that is the case that is in opposition to MOS#Choice of format.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This is but one of several matters where some editors have a monomanic focus on blindly applying some alleged "rule", quite regardless of any exceptions or local consensus, which merges into WP:IDHT. Seems like we ought to have a catchy tag for this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Just for sake of clarity: could someone please explain, as simple as possible, how the guideline works? It apparently prescribes that the article on Audie Murphy should use dmy dates, while that on James Stewart should use mdy dates. Both men had notable military careers. Both men had notable acting careers. They both lived in the 20th century. Where's the difference?

Thank you. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't change the existing date format just because you think you can. The chances are it will be percieved as contentious. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not changing the dates – I'm discussing the matter. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I was not suggesting you were. I was offering a clarification, as requested. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, telling me not to change the date format wasn't really much of a clarification of the guideline, was it? HandsomeFella (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the relevant provision is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Strong national ties to a topic (MOS:DATETIES):

• Sometimes 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 obviously refers to articles about US military topics in modern history. This issue is whether this should also apply to articles about people from the US military. I would think that, logically, this would apply to people who are primarily notable for being in the US military (whose articles would be mostly about that part of their life—e.g., Wesley Clark, Richard A. Cody, Martin Dempsey) but not to people who are primarily notable for other reasons who happen to have been in the military during their lives (e.g., George W. Bush, Elvis Presley, James Stewart). I would have thought that was obvious, but if that's not the case, then perhaps a clarification is in order in the MOS to avoid confusion and inadvertent "corrections" by well-meaning editors.

I'm not sure when DMY format because commonplace in the US military to know whether this should apply to older cases (e.g., probably Audie Murphy, served 1942–1966, but presumably not Robert E. Lee, served 1829–1865), so if this is a cause for confusion, perhaps "modern" should be clarified as well. —sroc 💬 11:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: By way of addressing your query, look at the difference in the opening of each article:

• Audie Leon Murphy (20 June 1925 – 28 May 1971) was one of the most decorated American combat soldiers of World War II, receiving every military combat award for valor available from the U.S. Army, as well as French and Belgian awards for heroism. At the age of 19, Murphy received the Medal of Honor after single-handedly holding off an entire company of German soldiers for an hour at the Colmar Pocket in France in January 1945, then leading a successful counterattack while wounded and out of ammunition.
• James Maitland "Jimmy" Stewart (May 20, 1908 – July 2, 1997) was an American film and stage actor, known for his distinctive drawl voice and down-to-earth persona. Over the course of his career, he starred in many films widely considered classics. He was known for portraying the average American middle class man, with everyday life struggles.

The former is primarily described for his military career, the latter is primarily described as an actor. —sroc 💬 11:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

To further clarify my previous, both DMY and MDY are acceptable formats. From the previous discussion, MDY is not exclusively used in the US (excluding US military usage). Provided an article is consistent in date format usage, there is no good reason to change the date format used - I perceive it is just asking for an argument and might be perceived as Gaming the system. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

But the guideline says "articles on the modern US military use day before month"; it doesn't say "may use" or "sometimes use", nor does it say "may use either DMY or MDY format provided the same format is used consistently within each article". If an article on modern US military matters uses MDY, MOS:DATETIES would call for a change. MOS:DATERET would not apply, as it says:

• If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

—sroc 💬 11:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cinderella157, please do not make personal attacks. It must be possible to question and discuss fuzzy guidlines without being accused of gaming the system. If you have no good arguments, please abstain from commenting, or at least do not make personal attacks. Sroc, thanks for your thorough and valuable input. I will reply later. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Wise counsel from sroc as usual, and everyone cool the accusations and warnings. There's no certainty to be found here on this page (some things on WP "just are") and the discussion should continue back on the talk page of the article in question, if at all. EEng (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC) sroc, I'll be attending to the DATEUNIFY matter later today.

I do not perceive that any 'personal attack' was implied nor was it my intent to do so. I was simply making an observation and answering a question that was asked. From the above discussion, it is apparent that it is increasingly less justifiable to assert MDY on the basis of 'strong national ties' and, even asserting this as a justification (if it were a universal national standard) might be perceived as sporting for an argument, particularly if it were not discussed first. Given that both MDY and DMY are acceptable formats for WP, if the article is consistent, I perceive no reasonable reason to change from one to the other (myself). However, I reiterate my former statement: I perceive that to do so is just asking for an argument and might be perceived as Gaming the system. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Will you please stop saying that? It serves no purpose. I see no evidence that HF is acting in anything but good faith. Let us please have an end to this thread now. EEng (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Did I say he was? No! Did I imply he was? No! I simply stated that this is how it 'might' be perceived. I also stated why. A personal attack (as some here are prone to) definitely serves no good purpose. An explanation, which explains how such actions might be perceived does serve a good purpose. I did not attribute these intents to HF and nor was it my intent to do so. I made a plain statement of how such action 'might' be perceived and I offered same in 'good faith' as a response to the question asked. To be very specific, I stated: "I do not perceive that any 'personal attack' was implied nor was it my intent to do so." Is it not reasonable advice that has been offered? 13:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The only "advice" offered by you here so far has been telling me not to change the dates – which I didn't – and claiming that the discussion might be perceived as gaming tactics. Valuable advise indeed. If you have nothing more, please stay off the thread. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• End this thread now, back to article development End this thread now, back to article development End this thread now, back to article development End this thread now, back to article development End this thread now, back to article development End this thread now, back to article development End this thread now, back to article development EEng (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your request for clarification on 'how the guideline works'. I have provided a pragmatic response, whereas, you have wanted to make sense of the guideline. My mistake!! In reality, there are probably diminishing reasons to claim 'strong national ties' for using MDY over DMY. There is little reason for choosing one over the other (for the US, though elsewhere, DMY is more prevalent) and to some extent, the choice rests with the first to make an edit using dates - unless there is a discussed consensus to change. The question to ask though, is why change? For non-US articles, it is clearer to change to DMY, because this is more universal. But the underlying question should be, why change at all? The guideline is perhaps potentially contentious. It could be made clearer with perhaps stronger advice not to change. But there are those that would resist any attempt to clarify or improve the guideline without at least ten rounds bare knuckles in the minor leagues (article talk pages) before even suggesting a change here. Good luck! Cinderella157 (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, there was a misunderstanding. No harm done. I may have used a somewhat ambiguous wording. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I haven't interpreted any personal attacks, but your claim that following MOS may be perceived as "gaming the system" is unjustified. The objective facts are:

• MOS:DATEFORMAT states that both DMY and MDY dates are acceptable in general.
• MOS:DATETIES states:
  • "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the United States, this is month before day; for most others, it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently." Thus, if an article is about an American person or organisation, MDY date would be used (and any that use DMY should be changed). I have not seen any evidence that both MDY and DMY dates are commonplace and acceptable in the US in general use;
  • "Sometimes 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." Thus, as an exception to the usual MDY format for articles with strong ties to the US, articles relating to the US military should use DMY instead (and any that use MDY should be changed).
• MOS:DATERET states that the existing date format should not be changed "unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." Thus, if DATETIES applies, DATERET doesn't.

To say "both DMY and MDY are acceptable formats" is an over-simplification which ignores DATETIES. The only issue here is clarifying the cases in which DATETIES applies. Your argument seems to be don't bother changing dates, it only leads to arguments (sorry if this is an over-simplification); this may be nice advice for keeping the peace, but it conveniently ignores the application of the MOS as it is currently written. If you believe that DATETIES ought to be removed to avoid debates over date changes or refined to restrict the cases in which it applies, then you can propose such a change and seek consenus. Until then, the guideline applies and simply saying "it is just asking for an argument" is unhelpful. —sroc 💬 15:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

To conclude that "if DATETIES applies, DATERET doesn't" is not only oversimplistic itself, it is quite arbitrary, and arises only from your rather skewed interpretations of MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATERET. That "both DMY and MDY dates are acceptable" (per MOS:DATEFORMAT) is quite correct in itself, and there has been no showing of actual problems with either usage. Your insistence that these guidelines must be applied strictly (with emphasis on the lack of a permissive "may") where there is no need or benefit of such strictness, even where there may be local consensus to use one form or another, carries a distinct whiff of wikilayering. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: Please explain. If DATETIES ("strong national ties") applies, then this makes the choice between DMY or MDY; in that case, they are not "both acceptable". DATETIES is an exception to DATERET ("unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties"). There may be occasional exceptions to disregard these guidelines (Wikipedia:Ignore all rules), but Cinderella157 is seemingly refusing to accept this: claiming that DATERET overrides DATETIES ignores the express exception within the wording of DATERET itself. —sroc 💬 14:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That you cannot demonstrate any actual problem or harm or any other basis for preferring MDY vs. DMY dates other than "the express exception within the wording of DATRET" - which is to say, insisting on a strict (and questionable) reading of the "letter" of policy, contrary to local consensus - certainly looks like wikilawyering. To the extent you are doing this deliberately to override a local consensus, and thus "avoid the spirit of consensus", amounts to (as others have noted) WP:gaming the system, and "is strictly forbidden". It is also becoming tendentious. A question that begins to loom is why you are "seemingly refusing to accept this".

I think the best good-faith construction that can be made of your comments is that some of our guidelines are not fully consistent, nor even accurate. However, it does not therefore follow that strict enforcement is mandatory. And as it does not appear that this thread is going to make any further progress I will echo EEng's that it be ended. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the "local consensus" you refer to? If there is a local consensus relating to a specific article or WikiProject, then I am unaware of it and my comments are directed to it.

My position remains clear:

• In general, both DMY and MDY date formats are acceptable (MOS:DATEFORMAT), provided the same format is used within each article (MOS:DATEUNIFY);
• Where a topic contains strong national ties to a particular English-speaking country, that will direct whether to use DMY or MDY format for that article (MOS:DATETIES);
• Don't switch arbitrarily between DMY and MDY formats unless it is to apply DATETIES or local consensus (MOS:DATERET)—thus, DATETIES overrides DATERET.

If you think that editors changing dates to comply with DATETIES (or local consensus) is a violation of DATERET, then you have misunderstood DATERET. DATERET says: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." If you somehow interpret this to mean that the date format should not be changed even if DATETIES indicates that a different format should be used to reflect the topic's strong national ties, then: (a) I do not understand how you could possibly interpret these words to mean the opposite of what they say; and (b) DATETIES would cease to have any effect on any article where an editor has used the wrong date format. Perhaps I have misunderstood your position, in which case you could enlighten me? —sroc 💬 18:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

MOS:DATERANGE for decades

Hiya, what's the appropriate formatting for this: From Gainesville to Boston: 1970s–1980s? MOS:DATERANGE doesn't seem to address this type of range (and if it does, I'm blind and apologetic)—Based on the guideline for normal date ranges 1970–80, my guess is that the proper formatting would be 1970s–80s (endash in the middle). Es correct? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone else is too busy arguing about feet and meters to bother with you. You're right DATERANGE doesn't speak to this specifically. However (here comes the broken record) I always recommend that new issues be hammered out on the talk page of the article involved, and that it be discussed here only after it's become a time-wasting problem on multiple articles. The one thing I can say for sure is that the little dash-hyphen thing in the middle should be an {{endash}}. EEng (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Are metric units compulsory when describing events from 18th/19th century Australia?

A user left a threat of sanctions on my homepage, stating that MOS does not allow me to change measurement units back to the more contemporary units after he has changed them to metric. The change concerned an 1830 event in Australia.

Is this really the case, as there are plenty of good articles which do not seem to comply with this bizarre sounding restriction?

Looking at the use of the complainant's account, "Archon 2488", it appears to exists solely and for no other reason than to metricate as many Wikipedia articles as possible. It has been used to systematically visit huge numbers of articles solely to undermine the work of the creative editors and to change the measurement units to metric, regardless of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh8 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am amused by this blatant bad-faith attack. Since anyone who has been around the block more than once knows perfectly well who we are dealing with here, I'll not address him directly; I'll just leave a few comments for others, to provide a bit more context.

It is not a "bizarre-sounding restriction" to require articles about a country's history to use the units in normal use in that country. The article in question won't be read by Australians from 200 years ago, for obvious reasons, so unless there are good article-specific reasons for preferring some other system of measurement (such as nominal values, which are already covered) metric should go first by default. To my knowledge, nobody has seriously disputed this.

The "threat of sanctions" was a reminder that revert-warring, especially when you are aggressively reverting to a MOS-unfavoured style for no good reason, is likely to result in sanctions. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it is bizarre to to require articles to reflect any characteristics of their subject. Should an article on Napolean be in French? Or use the calendar of the Revolution? I don't think so. Or should metric conversons in U.S. topics use different conversion templates depending on whether they are primarily before or after the adoption of the survey foot in 1959? (Perhaps, but would still be a bit bizarre.)

What I think is proper is that articles present information in a manner most suitable for the audience. That most of the world's population - and even most of the English-speaking population - is most familiar with the metric system is, I think, a strong argument for universally listing metric values first. That we tolerate variance in cases where editors have strong preferences where there is a "national" (also cultural?) basis is acceptable. But the basis for this (absent any special considerations) should be the usage of the current audience, not of the historical context of the topic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree up to a point – as a compromise we say that USA-related articles should use American English per ENGVAR, and so on. Likewise it would be natural to follow some conventions of the article subject when that is what reputable sources do; in the case of the French Republican Calendar, for example, we would speak of the Coup of 18 Brumaire VIII. But of course this is not an unlimited justification for using older conventions in general historical settings, such as insisting on giving all measurements in articles on Roman history in Roman units of measurement purely for the sake of historical authenticity. WP is a modern document and should follow modern conventions. Archon 2488 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Mention Template:Height in MOS:CONVERSIONS?

Should we mention {{height}} as well as {{convert}} in WP:MOSNUM#Unit conversions thus (insertion in italics): "Conversion templates can be used to convert and format many common units, including {{convert}} and {{height}}, which include non-breaking spaces"? {{height}} has existed since 2006 and there are over 98,000 uses of it on en.wikipedia. It's very similar to {{convert}} but with less options and more focused documentation, so it may be easier to use for some editors who might be put off by the power of {{convert}}. There's a brief discussion above in the second half of WT:MOSNUM#UK metric first (don't worry, this part isn't about metric/imperial), where you'll see that I did once go ahead and insert it and Peter coxhead reverted, so we're now in the discussion stage. NebY (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)