Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Numbers

Under the Numbers section, it states:

"Generally, in article text:

Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."

I wonder why is "from zero to nine" instead of "from zero to ten"? We humans have ten fingers, we learn how to count from one to ten since we were little kids. If we learn a foreign language, the first thing we learn is words like hello, thank you, good bye, and count from one to ten. It doesn't make sense that only integers from zero to nine shoulde be spelled out in words. It should be integers from one to ten. 120.16.218.233 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but cats have nine lives, so it makes perfect sense actually. GiantSnowman 17:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

LOL. You must be joking. 120.16.218.233 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

...weren't you? GiantSnowman 17:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope. I really think that in article text, integers from zero to ten should be spelled out in words (i.e. ten years ago not 10 years ago). 120.16.218.233 (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't say that "only integers from zero to nine shoulde be spelled out in words". We do say that Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words and proceed to qualify that in several ways, allowing for either "10" or "ten" to be used as appropriate. NebY (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I’ve thought this for a long time, so agree with you. Numbers expressed as words are easier to read and don’t visually interrupt a sentence in the same way as does sticking figures in the middle of it. IMHO figures should only be used when multiple words are needed to express the quantity. MapReader (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"Numbers expressed as words are easier to read". My experience is the opposite. I find it much easier to express numbers as numerals always. I only express them in words when English convention says Thou Must Use Words For Small Numbers but I never liked it. Mind you, I spend most days writing software and doing engineering stuff, so I may not represent the typical reader.  Stepho  talk  11:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We should be looking to REDUCE the instances of "numbers as words", not increase them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

While I have no strong preference one way or the other, adding ten to the numbers for which words are preferred would be fine with me. Ten is indeed just one more character than 10, so it's the number easiest to spell out. Gawaon (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Some other style guides:

• The BBC News Style Guide has "For the most part, we use words for single-figure numbers, digits for anything above nine (ie eight, nine, 10, 11)" followed by various exceptions.[1]
• The Guardian and Observer style guide has "Spell out from one to nine; numerals from 10 to 999,999 ...."[2]
• According to this 2005 discussion here in WT:MOSNUM, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 25#Numbers written as words, the Chicago Manual of Style has (or had) "According to Press style, the following are spelled out in ordinary text: Whole numbers from one through ninety-nine; Any of these followed by hundred, thousand, million, etc."
• According to the same discussion, the Oxford Style Manual (2003) had "In non-technical contexts, OUP style is to use words for numbers below 100."
• Fowler's Modern English Usage (4th edn) has "Figures should be used when the matter consists of a sequence of stated quantities [e.g.] The past 12 months show an increase of 5 tons" and "In descriptive matter, numbers under 100 should be in words, but write 90 to 100, not ninety to 100."

I haven't tried a proper search in MOSNUM's history – I doubt a straightforward Wikiblame search would help – but it looks as if the core one-to-nine rule's been stable since Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 73#Proposed revision of "Numbers in words" in 2007. NebY (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal The IP user brought up an interesting point. Why "from zero to nine"? Why not "from zero to seven, eight, ten, or eleven"? I propose that we change the rule to "Integers from zero to twenty are spelled out in words". If we can express a number in a single, simple English word, then use the English word. If more than one word or a hyphen is involved (e.g. twenty-one, one hundred and one), use the numerals. N. Mortimer (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Against - Existing form (words for single digits, numerals for more) works fine. Examples for each:

1. There 14 reasons to object.
2. There are fourteen reasons to object.

The numeral form is so much more compact, quicker to type, quicker to read, requires less effort to understand and the quirks of spelling for 11-19 are avoided for our English as a second language audience (why is 11,12 different to 13-19; why is 13-19 different to 23-29, etc?). Keep it simple.  Stepho  talk  01:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

So you also support my proposal of adding "ten" to the mix? Thank you. Ten is a very simple word, I think all people with a basic understanding of English know this word.

By the way, even if we use "14" instead of "fourteen" in your sentence example, we can't really omit the "are", but I agree with you that numbers greater than ten should be written in the numeral form. 120.16.218.233 (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to type in "are" for the first example. My mistake.

Oh dear, it looks like only 1 of us knows how to count up to 2. "10" is not a single digit, so "words for single digits, numerals for more" means I support "10", not "ten".  Stepho  talk  10:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you support "ten"? "Ten" is shorter than "three", "seven" or "eight". People like to group things in even numbers, not odd numbers (because they are odd 😂). 120.16.218.233 (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Because "10" is not a single digit. Am I saying this wrong? Should I type slower? Should I use words with one syllable or less?  Stepho  talk  00:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Spelling out such simply words is already allowed, it shouldn't be required. It's very hard to see why 17 should be treated differently than 27, and if this rule were adapted, it would logically have to apply to thirty, forty etc. as well. Gawaon (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it should logically apply to thirty, forty etc. And the reason is obvious; single spelled words are easier to read than interrupting a sentence with digits, but that advantage weakens when multiple words are required to spell out a number. MapReader (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I find "The applicants' ages ranged from seventeen to seventy" harder and less convenient to read than "The applicants' ages ranged from 17 to 70". Especially, in latter sentence the numbers stand out, making them very easy to detect when one skims a text quickly, which is not the case in the former sentence. Gawaon (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

That's why we should make "ten" the cut-off point:

Zero

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

Eight

Nine

Ten

11

12

13.... 120.16.218.233 (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No. As spelt out in the very next sentence after Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, we already allow that Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words, both subject to and extended by the following notes and exceptions. This is appropriately flexible; the mere fact that single words exist for some numbers does not meant they are always the best way for readers to take in quantitative information, even when reading the text closely rather than skimming it for key points – as many encyclopedia readers do. Our manual is in keeping here with at least some other major style guides, and has served as stable guidance and a sound reference point for Wikipedia editors for many years. NebY (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't care whether the boundary is at non, ten, or eleven. Tony (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a question regarding numbers. What if a number below 10 is part of a larger number that is partially spelled out? For example, 3 million, 4 thousand, 6 hundred, etc? Also note that numbers below 10 are not spelled out in {{Convert}} which is inconsistent with this MOS. Volcanoguy 17:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Just happened to see this pop up; I'll record that, while I don't think it's a big deal, it would make sense to me to include "ten" as the last use-words number. I think that's what I learned in typing class. Also the English names up through ten all have five letters or fewer, whereas from eleven on they generally have six or more (the exceptions I can think of being "forty", "fifty", "sixty" — I think that's it? unless you count mega, which few people would). One thing we should emphasize in any case is to avoid mixing; don't say the winner got 13 points and the loser got seven. But I assume without checking that this is already mentioned. --Trovatore (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

And I know without checking that it is. EEng 18:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hyphenation in spelled-out fractions

Per MOS:FRAC: Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated.

Should this always be so? I noticed One half doesn't abide in its title, and there are potential ambiguities in use. Remsense诉 05:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

See existing (but closed) discussion at Talk:One half, on a failed proposal to move it to one-half. In particular, there, jacobolus wrote MOS:FRAC is straight up wrong here, and should be changed. Whether to add a hyphen depends on the grammatical context. Some others (myself included) agreed. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Right, it seems to make more sense to add a hyphen when they are used as modifier (adjective), but not when used as noun. Gawaon (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

On this basis there is clearly no consensus for the rule as stated, so I removed it until there is agreement on what it should be replaced by. My view is that of Gawaon. For example

• A one-half octave is one half of an octave.
• Seven eighths of a mile is 1,540 yards.
• Three tenths of a kilometre is 300 m.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Hyphenate a spelled-out fraction used as a modifier" or similar seems like a fine rule to include. –jacobolus (t) 16:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I had WP:BOLDly edited the page and suggested the following wording: "Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated before a noun (They won a two-thirds majority), but not when used stand-alone (The distance was seven eighths of a mile)." That change was reverted so it seems more discussion is needed. Gawaon (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the latest Fowler's Modern English describes real-world usage of the hyphen as "chaos", notes it's on the wane "even in British English", identifies some main uses (creating a single unit of meaning (dry-clean); phrases in front of nouns (up-to-date record, well-known man); with prefixes (ex-husband, re-cover); in lists (two- or three-fold); to avoid misinterpretation (extra-marital sex); with phrasal verbs, as a mistake; in printing,to break a word) but doesn't address this question directly.

Two-thirds majority fits Fowler's first and second usages; I think seven-eighths of a mile fits Fowler's first, a single unit of meaning, especially considering its other representations (0.875, ⁠7/8⁠). NebY (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think I've got the energy to stick with this discussion, but let me point something out. In he walked three quarters of a mile, I'm not sure the phrase "three quarters" is a fraction; seems to me it's 3 quarters, if you get my meaning. EEng 17:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  I do, but though that works in I ate three quarters of the quattro stagioni (but not the mushrooms) or even he ran three quarters of the mile (but walked the third one), by itself he walked three quarters of a mile is no more than he walked ⁠3/4⁠ mile. NebY (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just throwing this out: "he played three quarters of the basketball game" (it has four quarters), versus "he watched three-quarters of the movie". Just wondering. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Would you really write them differently? I would tend to write them the same (both without a hyphen). Gawaon (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  What would you say if the sentence is, "he played in three quarters of the basketball game"? To me, that reads that he played in at least part of each of three quarters of the games (say, from the middle of the second quarter to the middle of the fourth quarter), but not necessarily for a full three-quarters of the games. A bit contrived, but edge cases test rules. Donald Albury 16:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  True, I'd say that "he played in three quarters of the basketball game" might mean that he played less compared to "he played three quarters of the basketball game", which is more likely to give the total length of his play. However, I'd say if the use or non-use of a hyphen should depend on such subtleties, we're overcomplicating things. According to the rule I favour, no hyphen should be used in either case. Gawaon (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Would it make a difference with fourths instead of quarters? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure. To be honest, I was quite sleep-deprived when I made that post and I'm not sure now how exactly I thought it would clarify anything. :( What about the case of "one half"? There's no "one twoth". EEng 07:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  "One half" is somewhat an exception because it is used so commonly (cf. first, second, third, instead of oneth, twoth, threeth). The same goes for "one quarter" (though "one fourth" is an accepted alternative). I don't see anything wrong with the phrase "three quarters of a mile", that's just 3*(1/4) mi = 3/4 mi. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 10:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't say there's anything wrong with it. I was just pointing out, since this discussion is nominally about fractions, that it may not be clear that "three quarters" (and so on) actually is a fraction. EEng 20:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's clear that a "quarter" is 1/4. A quarter of an hour is 15 min. A quarter of a dollar is 25 cents. I'm sorry, I'm not sure where the confusion lies. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 09:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, since you press the point: no, it's not clear. "Three quarters" might be a fraction (3/4), or it might be three times a fraction (3 · 1/4), but not itself a fraction. EEng 09:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  3/4 and 3(1/4) are both the same, just expressed differently. One can choose interpret "three quarters" as the former and the problem would be solved. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 09:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC); edited 09:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  • 3/4 and 3(1/4) are both the same, just expressed differently – Wow, and to think I spent all that money on a degree in applied math from Harvard, and they never taught me that. If what you're saying is really true, then I'm going to ask for my money back! Next you'll be telling me that (1/x) · x = 1.
  • One can choose interpret "three quarters" as the former – You're contradicting yourself. If the two things are the same, then choosing between them makes no sense, since (says you) they're both the same -- there's no choice to be made. But they're not the same. That's the point. One's a fraction and one is an integer times a fraction, in which case the question of "how to write fractions" doesn't apply to it.

  EEng 09:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying that "one eighth" is a fraction, but "three eighths" isn't? That would be a highly original interpretation of "fraction". Gawaon (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  No. If we interpret "three eighths" not as a fraction, but rather as an integer followed by a fraction, then "one eighth" is also not a fraction. EEng 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  How silly of me! All those Aristotlean logic I learned for nothing! ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 10:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  All those grammar, too! EEng 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not necessarily. The fraction 3/4 can be seen as indicating a cohesive part. While 3(1/4) would equal the same amount, it might not be a single "thing". For example, imagine a cake cut into 8 equal parts (labeled 1-8 in clockwise fashion). If I eat pieces 1-6, then I can be said to have eaten 3/4 of the cake and also to have eaten 3 of the quarters of the cake. However, If I eat pieces 2-4 and 6-8, then I can be said to have eaten 3/4 of the cake but not to have eaten 3 of the quarters of the cake. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  ^ This guy gets it. EEng 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think rarely in articles, you would dig into the nitty-gritty of how it came to 3/4. In the original example (he walked three quarters of a mile), no reader would be perplexed as to if he walked three (quarters of a mile) or (three quarters) of a mile. If you really want to specify that he either walked in quarter miles, taking breaks along the way, or walked 0.75 miles in one go, then say it.

  In User:Khajidha's example, there is a fraction in both cases: said to have eaten 3/4 of the cake and also to have eaten 3 of the quarters of the cake (here, 3/4 is "three quarters"); and have eaten 3/4 of the cake but not to have eaten 3 of the quarters of the cake (also 3/4 aka "three quarters"). So "three quarters" is a fraction either way. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  I.e., basically what Chicago is saying in the passage I quoted below? (And using the same example, incidentally!) Graham (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  As for "used stand-alone", that is when the denominator of the fraction is not an attribute, that's when it shouldn't be hyphenated (according to the discussion). An attribute is optional, so if you remove it, it still makes grammatical sense. For example, They won a three-quarters majority (not standalone), if you remove "three-quarters", it makes grammatical sense; whereas They won a majority of three quarters (standalone), if you remove "three quarters", it makes no sense. Thus, NebY's example above (seven-eighths of a mile) should not be hyphenated because there, the attribute is "of a mile". ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 10:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  That was my proposal (also suggested by others), and I still think it makes a lot of sense and reflects widespread usage fairly well. EEng, if you think the used wording was unclear, maybe you have a suggestion on how to improve it? Gawaon (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  We could explain it linguistically and note that hiding attributes would still make grammatical sense: Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated when it is used as an attribute (They won a two-thirds majority), but not when used stand-alone (The distance was seven eighths of a mile). Rule of thumb: hyphenate if removing the fraction would still make grammatical sense. Instead of "when used stand-alone", we could dig deeper into linguistics and say "when the denominator is used as the head noun of the phrase", but I doubt that would be any more clear. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC); edited 11:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm. I might not hyphenate if the emphasis was on the denominator, but that's a more narrow exception and perhaps more traditionalist. NebY (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  The suggested wording sounds fine for me. Gawaon (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Lol1VNIO's suggestion makes sense to me too. I would just replace "when it used" with "when used". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

If we were writing here for The New Yorker or some other highfalutin publication, we could, perhaps, follow a more complex style, but in the encyclopedia anyone can edit, simple rules are better. It's like the comma after a mdy date. Sometimes there is no need for a comma after May 20, 2024, but it is so much easier to always use it and it doesn't hurt anything. Let's stick with the hyphen in written out fractions. One half may or may not be correct, but we can live with some inconsistency.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  11:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with others that I don't think it makes sense to hyphenate fractions where they are being used as compound modifiers. However, to maintain consistency with MOS:HYPHEN, I would suggest that we further specify that we only use hyphens with fractions where it is being used as an attributive or substantive modifier (which is what I think most of us have in mind anyway) rather than a predicative modifier. Graham (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That matches my intuition. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Our manual of style has to be plain and direct, providing easily understood guidance to all editors who need it, not only those who are trained in the use of high-falutin' terms like attributive, substantive, predicative and modifier. NebY (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we amend MOS:HYPHEN? Graham (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The Australian style guide says Use a hyphen in fractions written out in words (eg two-thirds). I oppose any change to the MOS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

What's "the Australian style guide"? Anyway, our old rule stating the same has already been thrown out. The question is now what to replace it with. Gawaon (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That's here, along with Write fractions in full in running text, and use a hyphen. The Australian govenment's style manual has Hyphens link parts of a fraction.[3] NebY (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The BBC News Style Guide has simply three-quarters (and other fractions).[4] NebY (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Purdue has a collection of style guides; I only found Use a hyphen with compound numbers: forty-six, sixty-three, Our much-loved teacher was sixty-three years old.[5] NebY (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not really relevant to fractions. Graham (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant when the only guidance on compund numbers is to hyphenate; that includes fractions. Back in 2007, we stated it as Spelled-out two-word numbers from 21 to 99 are hyphenated (fifty-six), as are fractions (seven-eighths)[6] (it may have been on some other MOS page before then). NebY (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"as are fractions" are the key words there, which are absent from the cited article. Graham (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Graham11 reports The Chicago Manual of Style also prescribes the hyphenated form, even when the term is used as a noun.[7] NebY (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The most relevant passage is 9.14:

9.14 Simple fractions. Simple fractions are spelled out. For the sake of readability and to lend an appearance of consistency, they are hyphenated in noun, adjective, and adverb forms. In the rare event that individual parts of a quantity are emphasized, however, as in the last example, the expression is unhyphenated. See also 7.89, section 1, under fractions, simple. For decimal fractions, see 9.19.

She has read three-fourths of the book.

Four-fifths of the students are boycotting the class.

I do not want all of your material; two-thirds is quite enough.

A two-thirds majority is required.

but

We divided the cake into four quarters; I took three quarters, and my brother one.

Graham (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In short, Chicago supports our Spelled-out fractions are hyphenated with one minor exception. NebY (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Collins English Dictionary's entry for two-thirds begins with two-thirds of.[8] NebY (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster online gives for three-quarters Three-quarters of the class will be going on the trip and three-quarters of an hour, plus many "Recent Examples on the Web", each using three-quarters of, hyphenated: nearly three-quarters of those using the feature (WSJ); three-quarters of lawmakers (Anchorage Daily News); three-quarters of a percentage point (Los Angeles Times) and more.[9] NebY (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Full, unambiguous signifier" for currencies

Do we have a list somewhere of "full, unambiguous signifier[s]" for currencies? MOS:CURRENCY links to List of circulating currencies, but nowhere can we find "A$" or "US$" there, which MOS:CURRENCY recommends us to use. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 10:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@LightNightLights: See Currency symbol#List of currency symbols currently in use. That article deviates heavily from the World Bank Group's editorial guide (p. 134) that lists uncommon symbols like $A. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 11:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@LightNightLights: I've just discovered that templates that are titled after ISO 4217 codes standardize the signifiers on enwiki. Use {{AUD}}, {{CAD}}, {{USD}} etc. or {{Currency|value|code}} with codes at Module:Currency/Presentation ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC); edited 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lol1VNIO Thank you. I do not consider myself as someone who writes or contributes to style manuals so I do not know the answers to these questions, but:

• Should MOS:CURRENCY link to Currency symbol § List of currency symbols currently in use?
• Should MOS:CURRENCY recommend editors to use the templates (instead of checking a list?) in the MOS?

LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@LightNightLights: The guide already links to Currency symbols, specifically to #dollar variants, though a link to the page after "full, unambiguous signifier" wouldn't be a bad idea. As for templating every currency, not really. It makes sense in some (฿100) but others you can just enter on your keyboard. Often, you're familiar with a set of currencies that you don't need to look up, anyway. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lol1VNIO I swear that I fully read MOS:CURRENCY multiple times, but I didn't notice the Currency symbols link. I am not sure how to correctly add the link after "full, unambiguous signifier", so I am okay with you adding it. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 10:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps add suggestions to consider using {{currency}}, {{USD}} and similar.  Stepho  talk  06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on other talk page and project

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)‎#MOS on date format by country and Talk:Lisa del Giocondo‎#Edit warring about whether the date format customary in a non-English speaking country has any bearing on what date format should be used in an English Wikipedia article. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The answer is yes, we should use the local date format regardless of the language spoken. GiantSnowman 17:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

DATETIES vs. DATEVAR/DATERET

I agree with Eeng's edit to make it even clearer that DATEVAR/DATERET is referring to DATETIES when it says "strong national ties". This was already clear to me, but it seems like the change will help avoid an interpretation that would put the two in parts of the guideline in conflict with each other. It has been evident since this guidance was first added that the two parts are meant to be harmonious. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally think it's pretty silly to have MDY set on articles whose topic doesn't touch North America. It's just awkward to work with when most quotes and literature will be in the other format. Remsense诉 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

"most quotes" is an interesting one. I could see that being a strong basis for change based on talk page consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There's also cultural reasons when terminology used in the article is usually tied to a certain order. I do feel this is a distinct issue from ENGVAR. Remsense诉 18:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what you mean here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This all started with Lisa del Giocondo using MDY, even though Italy used DMY and all related significant articles to that one use DMY... GiantSnowman 18:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I meant examples of "terminology used in the article" that is "tied to a certain order". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll retract this for now, as I can't actually think of a good example. I'll update this if one pops into my head. Remsense诉 19:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't actually really care if you want to tweak the wording here. However, my strong position remains that we should use the local date format regardless of the language spoken. Remove "English-speaking countries" to reflect this. GiantSnowman 18:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not at all opposed to changing the guidelines collectively so that they match your preference here. It's just that I do conceive of that as being a substantive change, and I'd like to see it run through the proper process. In the meantime, I think it's important that we have language in our guideline that is internally consistent. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I too think that EEng's change (which was reverted by GiantSnowman) is constructive – it's very clearly just expressing what the current guidelines are meant to express, just didn't quite as clearly because (I suppose) nobody thought that the brief backreference to the more detailed language in DATETIES would be misinterpreted. Gawaon (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that EEng's change was a good one that added clarity to established style. Doremo (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with this, which reflects my impression of how most articles already are, except where someone has decided to make date format an issue. MapReader (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

"English-speaking countries" is appropriate in the guidelines. There is no reason why English-language material on Wikipedia should be subordinated to a pattern in a non-English language—whether this is date format, punctuation, alphabetization, calendrical system, numbering system, first/last name order, or any other language feature. Doremo (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there are pretty clear distinctions there: some concern how a specific language is written, and others are invariant of the language being written. Also wait, name order? Are you suggesting we put every biography by default in given-family order, assuming there's not an existing English-language COMMONNAME? That's loony.Remsense诉 18:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That's right. Looking at a non-English language to decide how to write English is loony, as you put it. Doremo (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you are painting with the world's broadest brush and conflating a lot of different things into "English vs. non-English", and it sounds ridiculous. It's not how any other publication on Earth would do things. Remsense诉 18:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, this would result in new biographies of Chinese people being written in an order that is used by no one except us, and then we would always have to change it to the right way around when we notice that other English-language sources are doing the natural, obvious thing. Inane. Remsense诉 18:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, since you seem most committed to getting this changed, could you suggest a rewording to MOS:DATETIES that you would prefer? To discuss this, I think it would help to know what specifically the alternative would be – and when I look at DATETIES, it doesn't seem all that trivial to find one. Gawaon (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no issues with EEng's proposed wording, minus "a particular English-speaking country", which instead should just be "a particular country" or "particular date format" or similar. GiantSnowman 19:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not want to see us make a change that would cause us to use 2024 June 18 (nor 2024-06-18) as the main date format for articles about Japan-related topics. For this sort of reason, I prefer to continue to restrict this guideline to only apply to English-speaking countries, and I would prefer to reinstate EEng's edit to clarify this continued restriction. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not what anyone wants. DMY is preferable to MDY since we naturally don't use YMD. Remsense诉 19:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the date formats used are DMY or MDY. In my experience Japanese topics tend to use MDY. GiantSnowman 19:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, that's currently the case (since your suggested rule modification is not yet in force), but can anyone of us say with any certainly which date formats are usual in arbitrary non-English-speaking countries? If it's YMD or YDM or something like that, that would be quite awkward to try to mimic in English. Hence I think just striking "English-speaking" is not going to fly. Gawaon (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The usual Japanese format appears to be Y-M-D, written out in numerals, with kanji after each number specifying what it is [10]. If we were required to follow national ties for non-English-speaking countries, some kind of Y-M-D format would be the one. Probably YYYY-MM-DD since that's the only one in that order that matches our MOS. GiantSnowman, if you want the guideline to be "follow national ties only for countries that have M-D-Y or D-M-Y format and otherwise do something else" then you need to be more specific rather than focusing the current discussion on following national ties more generally for all non-English-speaking countries. It sounds to me like your intended proposal is really "allow Americans to use M-D-Y and force all other topics to use D-M-Y", regardless of whether that is relevant for the nation in question. Your experience of what we have historically tended to use for our articles on topics from those countries is not particularly relevant. National ties means ties to a format used by people in that nation, not accidents of past Wikipedia editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Since, for good reasons, the "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" only allows the YYYY-MM-DD format for dates from the year AD 1583 and onward, and only for Gregorian dates, some articles with strong ties to some countries in eastern Asia would not be able to use the YYYY-MM-DD format. And what about other than dates containing the year, month, and day. How would a date like June 18 be formatted? Where would an English-speaking editor find that information? Jc3s5h (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting we use YMD, given that that is not an established format on English Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 17:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

List of date formats by country? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Since "List of date formats by country" was written and is maintained by the same editing community that inhabits this talk page, except editors seem to pay less attention to it, I pay no attention to it. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

To the list, or to this MOS page? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I pay no attention to the article, because I have no confidence in its factual correctness. I pay attention to the style manual because style manuals are arbitrary decisions by a publication. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, unsure if you're trolling or having AI write your responses for you? GiantSnowman 17:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand GiantSnowman's concern about using the local date format regardless of the language spoken. However, I also recognize the concerns of other editors, such as David Eppstein, that using local date formats could introduce non-dmy or non-mdy date formats, such as Japan's yyyy-mm-dd.

To address both viewpoints, we could add a new sentence to the manual of style, such as For articles about non-English-speaking country, the date format used should generally match the one most commonly found in English-language sources from that country. For example, in the case of Japan, the mdy format is used because English-language sources from Japan such as NHK, Japan Times, Mainichi, Asahi Shimbunand Kyodo News all use it.. What do you think about this suggestion? Ckfasdf (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No, no, no. First of all, a provision addressing articles "about a non-English-speaking country" is useless, because it would only apply to the articles Japan and Russia and Rwanda and so on. Second, changing "ties to an English-speaking country" to just plain "ties to a country" is an absolutely terrible idea, as I will describe below. EEng 08:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why we are duplicating the discussion that is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#MOS on date format by country. Anyway...

Beware that Japan does not have a default English language format. They use whichever format they have business partners with or whichever format the individual person learnt from his/her teachers. If they deal more with Brits/Aussies then they use DMY. If they deal more with yanks then they use MDY. The sources you listed are all closely tied to finances and the US leads the world's economy (rightly or wrongly), so therefore they follow MDY. Plenty of other sources from other industries in Japan use DMY too.

I'm in favour of adding an extra rule something like For topics closely tied to a country that uses DMY or MDY (the 2 formats used in English) then that format should be used.

And we continue to avoid local formats that are not DMY or MDY from prose, using the existing first-come rule for anything else.  Stepho  talk  06:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be fine with me too. Broaden the "close ties" rule, but only for cases where DMY or MDY are locally dominant. Gawaon (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

As for duplicating discussions: I think this is the best place to have this discussion, since it's the talk page of the page where the rule is formulated. Gawaon (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this would be fine. Remsense诉 06:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean the proposed "should generally match the one most commonly found in English-language sources from that country" wording? Gawaon (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Remsense诉 07:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, the more I think about it the more I think that that particular wording would be highly impractical to actually use. We know that DMY is dominant in Italian-language publications, but it would shift the burden to English-language publications coming out of Italy. Which are those, and how do we find them? Do we have to make statistics on English-language publications from (say) Ethiopia before we can write about topics related to that country? Gawaon (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as that problematic? Something like If there is a clear preference in English-language publications from the country, use that. If not, defer to the choice of the first main contributor. Maybe you see clear as a qualifier that will just be argued over, but I think it works as a safety valve here? Remsense诉 07:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, I've just realized that both English People's Daily and Xinhua use MDY. What have I done! SCMP uses DMY though. Remsense诉 07:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, so there we have one publication that uses one style and two that use the other one. Is that a "clear preference"? Almost certainly not – just find another publication and the score might be balanced. Also, do you know which date style English-language publications from Italy prefer? Even if you know (certainly only after doing your research, since you can't know without) where would the results of this WP:OR be documented so that others can know too? And why should we suddenly be expected to do OR here, which in Wikipedia is otherwise forbidden? Gawaon (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Aye, I think I've now come around to EEng's formulation. Remsense诉 08:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• This suggestion ("a country that uses DMY or MDY") is flawed for several reasons. First, it would make the English dependent on the patterns of a non-English language (i.e., follow the patterns of Korean, Finnish, etc. when writing about Korea, Finland, etc. in English). Second, many countries are not monolingual, and so the editor would need to choose which foreign language to imitate in English (note that it is languages that use DMY, MDY, YMD, etc., not countries per se). Third, it raises additional issues involving subordination of English to foreign languages (for example, Slovenian does not use the serial/Oxford comma, and so by analogy the English serial/Oxford comma would be forbidden in articles about Slovenia or Slovenian topics). Fourth, this places an onus on editors to conduct original research on languages: who really wants to study date format in Tucano or Khoekhoe before editing English-language articles about them? If the suggestion refers to "English-language sources from that country", this raises the additional burden of more original research (determining which English-language sources from county X are representative or dominant) and the problem that English-language sources produced in countries where English is not a native language are not reliable sources of standard English usage. The status quo at MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATERET has worked well for years and should be retained. Doremo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  The status quo at MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATERET has worked well for years and should be retained – Amen. There are two issues here:

  • Question 1: Was my edit [11] a substantive change, or merely a clarification of what was undoubtedly both the intent of the guideline and the (almost) universal understanding of it?
    Answer: Gawaon (commenting above) has it right: my change was (if I do say so myself) very clearly just expressing what the current guidelines are meant to express, just didn't quite as clearly because (I suppose) nobody thought that the brief backreference to the more detailed language in DATETIES would be misinterpreted.
  • Question 2: Instead of changing DATEVAR/DATERET's "country" to read "English-speaking country" -- thereby making its wording consistent with DATETIES -- should we instead change DATEVAR's "English-speaking country" to just "country", so that everything now just says "country"?
    Answer: This would be a disaster. The reason DATEVAR/DATERET and DATETIES are what they are (i.e. the test is English-speaking country, not just country -- even if DATERET is elliptic on that point) is this:
    • American editors (for example) find it dissonant to read that Roosevelt died "12 April 1945", while British readers feel the same about Churchill dying "January 24, 1965". The strong-ties provision says what to do in those cases, and edit-warring is avoided.
    • But what about Philip II of Macedon? Should he die "21 October 336 BC" or on "October 21, 336 BC". Should we use strong ties to figure that out? If so, are his ties to Macedonia, which doesn't exist anymore? Greece, maybe? OK, let's say we eventually settle on Greece -- then we have to research, and maybe argue about, which date format is used in Greece. And for what? Greek readers are reading the Phillip article on the Greek Wikipedia, not ours. We're not going to get a lot of editwarring over Phillip's date format.
    • This is why the guideline recognizes only ties to English-speaking countries: it's a restricted set of articles where "strong ties" are relatively easy to determine, where the associated country's date format is well known, and where editwarring to "correct" any Roosevelt-Churchill dissonance previously described is relatively likely. None of that applies to Phillip, and that's why the "first major contributor" test is the path of least resistance for that article (and other articles with no strong English-speaking country ties). (This isn't the best explanation I've ever given in my life, but it's the best I have time for.)

  The purpose of the guideline is avoid style churn and editwarring, not to have the "just right" format for articles about Ethiopia. The idea that we're going to debate the clear preference in English-language publications from the country is either a joke or part of a plot to destroy Wikipedia from the inside. I modestly propose that we adopt my extremely excellent edit (linked earlier) -- which doesn't actually change anything, but rather clarifies what already exists -- and drop this mad idea of changing "English-speaking country" --> "country", which would open a Pandora's box to no benefit at all. All in favor? EEng 08:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  In favor. Restore the clarification [12] by EEng and maintain the status quo. Doremo (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Support the status quo ante (DATETIES applies only to English-speaking countries and DATERET applies in all other cases). Also support date formatting choices for readers (like we had 20 years ago). —Kusma (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  In favour, let's keep the status quo, but including EEng's clarification which (while not changing it at all) makes misreadings less likely. I wasn't opposed to changing the rules to encourage DMY for countries where that's locally the default (many European countries at least), but making a clear-cut rule of out that seems more trouble than it's worth. Gawaon (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I say just so to EEng's edit at 8:45 in the morning on the 19th day of June in the year of our Lord 2024, Greenwich Mean Time. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Shirley you mean UTC. GMT went out with the horse and buggy. Jeesh. EEng 17:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  While I realise you are joking, Mr Feynman, just pointing out that Greenwich Mean Time is still a thing. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• As stated by others, the purpose of a style guide is to make arbitrary style decisions once, so they don't have to be debated repeatedly. The guidance on strong national ties and retaining the initial variant in one sense acts against this principle, but it tries to avoid needless churn by allowing editors interested in a given topic to use what would be a natural format for them. Having to evaluate the preferred date format on a country-by-country basis for English-written texts in that country just opens up the door further for more debate, with little benefit since all these formats are understood by all readers, even if it's not what they're most used to. isaacl (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Why couldn't you have posted your short, incisive explanation last night, thus preempting me from inflicting my long, rambling post on everyone? EEng 16:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's all part of the process—you ramble, I ramble, I realize I'm wrong, we all grow a little bit. Remsense诉 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  It takes a Wikivillage to raise an editor. EEng 22:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Going once... EEng 09:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Going twice... EEng 06:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I repeat - we should change "English-speaking country" --> "country", given that certain non-English language countries do have specific date formats which are appropriate for the English-language Wikipedia (see e.g. Date and time notation in Italy). GiantSnowman 06:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

How about actually engaging with the objections made to this idea by various editors above? Gawaon (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has explained why topics related to non-English language countries (of which we probably have at least dozens!) should not have sensible and appropriate date formatting. GiantSnowman 10:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Well of course nobody has explained why topics related to non-English language countries should not have sensible and appropriate date formatting, because nobody is advocating that topics related to non-English language countries should not have sensible and appropriate date formatting. What we are doing instead is discussing what constitutes "sensible and appropriate date formatting" -- except you, who just say over and over what you want.

So I'll repeat Gawaon: How about actually engaging with the objections made to this idea by various editors above? EEng 14:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to engage with people who accuse their opponents of being "part of a plot to destroy Wikipedia from the inside". GiantSnowman 14:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And if that accusation had actually been made, that would be understandable. For my part, I find it difficult to engage with someone who uses feigned (or -- worse -- actual) inability to grasp hyperbole as an excuse not to engage the detailed, careful reasoning of his or her fellow editors. EEng 21:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't normally participate in debates about date formatting, but something attracted me to this one because I can't help but agree with GiantSnowman's view, that MOSNUM can do better than say "choose whatever date format you want". It has been pointed out that the whole point of a style guide is to provide a norm, even when (or perhaps especially when) there is no precedent for that norm. "Why?!?" I here you all ask (all except GiantSnowman, that is). Well, because that is what the style guide is for. Its whole raison d'etre is to facilitate a harmonised encyclopaedia by specifying such norms. Why would that not apply to articles that have no clear attachment to an English speaking country? None. None at all. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's see...

• Why would that not apply to articles that have no clear attachment to an English speaking country? – Because it would require determination of the strong ties between 1,000,000 articles topics (literally -- and that's a conservative minimum) and countries, and 200 debates on what the right date formats are for the various countries, and a way to memorialize the result of those debates, and editors to consult that archive every goddam time they write an article related to some obscure country -- all to no benefit. See Gawaon's post just above, and my long post before that. EEng 21:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing for determining local customs in non-English speaking countries when writing in English. I accept that is unworkable. Just pick either DMY or MDY and apply it to all articles without a strong connection to one or other. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

My position on this has shifted since reading List of date formats by country, which suggests an overwhelming preference for DMY outside North America. A reasonable rule might be "pick DMY unless there is a good reason to prefer MDY". Permissible "good reasons" could then be listed, including subjects closely associated with USA. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for example Philippines uses MDY in my experience, due to historical links to US. But in Europe, I pretty much only ever see DMY. GiantSnowman 16:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• It has been pointed out that the whole point of a style guide is to provide a norm, even when (or perhaps especially when) there is no precedent for that norm. – False. As expressed by the brilliant author of WP:MOSBLOAT:

Something belongs in MOS only if (as a necessary but not sufficient test) either:

• There is a manifest a priori need for project-wide consistency (e.g. "professional look" issues such as consistent typography, layout, etc. – things which, if inconsistent, would be significantly distracting, annoying, or confusing to many readers); or
• Editor time has been, and continues to be, spent litigating the same issue over and over on numerous articles ...

The purpose of MOS is absolutely not to go out of its way to prescribe stylistic choices just to fill a vacuum.

EEng 21:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for inventing a rule where one is not needed. I had the impression that editor time is being wasted by edit warring between DMY and MDY. Was my impression incorrect? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes there has been editwarring -- by GiantSnowman [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18], based on his logically impossible interpretation that where DATEVAR/DATERET says "strong national ties", it means ties to any country whatsoever, rather than being an elliptical backreference to DATETIES's (immediately preceding) "strong ties to a particular English-speaking country". (BTW I'll just point out MOS:TIES, on the main MOS page, which also restricts its applicability to English-speaking countries only.) At this article talk page you'll see him asserting that "DMY is used for Italian topics" -- a statement for which there's no basis whatsoever, because for pages not tied to a particular English-speaking country, MOS doesn't ask editors to go research and argue about what format Italy or Botswana or Romania use -- it specifies first come, first serve. Giant Snowman apparently didn't understand that, and now that he does he wants to change it. He can propose that, but in the meantime I'm just trying to make the sure current guideline can't be misinterpreted as GS misinterpreted it. EEng 00:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Unsure if you are continuing to ignore Date and time notation in Italy deliberately??? GiantSnowman 10:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

But do we have similar pages for all the 200 countries of today's world? And what about historical countries that no longer exist, and their conventions? Gawaon (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

See Category:Date and time representation by country. If a country has no established format, then nothing changes, does it? GiantSnowman 10:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! And to make it perfectly clear, I am NOT proposing implementing just any date format - just the ones already established at en.wikipedia, being DMY or MDY. GiantSnowman 18:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

And neither is anyone else proposing anything other than DMY or MDY. EEng 21:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. Someone has suggested YMD might be used. GiantSnowman 10:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, and inevitably, because it logically follows from your proposal to simply remove "English-speaking" from DATETIES. Apparently you didn't mean it, but that that time you hadn't clearly explained what you meant, and so far you haven't proposed a wording that would actually achieve what you're apparently trying to achieve, namely allowing TIES to apply to any country that uses DMY or MDY (but not to any other). Gawaon (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What's the issue with changing DATETIES from "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation" to "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation where that date format accords with the formats in common usage on English-language Wikipedia"? GiantSnowman 10:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Would be okay with me. Not sure if I would vote for it (since it would force a lot of changes with little obvious benefit), bit it's essentially the rule of thumb I use myself and I certainly wouldn't vote against it. But I guess a change of such magnitude would require an RFC or similar, and then we'll see how it goes. Gawaon (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there would be such huge changes as feared. The majority of articles use the 'correct' format already. It's only when you have things like Americans writing articles on Italian topics (which is what started all this), meaning the original date format is out of kilter with all related articles... GiantSnowman 12:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Example - Michel Fribourg being DMY for 7 years (including from article creation) even though topic is American... GiantSnowman 13:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's go back to just Question 1

Let me see if I can untangle this. Earlier I foolishly bundled resolution of both my Question 1 and my Question 2 (both above) into a single package, which is now hung up on GiantSnowman's preoccupation with Question 2. I'd now like to re-propose resolving, first, only Question 1 by making my edit [19], which as Gawaon said was just very clearly just expressing what the current guidelines are meant to express, just didn't quite as clearly because (I suppose) nobody thought that the brief backreference to the more detailed language in DATETIES would be misinterpreted

After that's resolved then GS can argue for changing the guideline. Pinging back everyone who's participated so far: Firefangledfeathers, Remsense, Gawaon, Doremo, David Eppstein, MapReader, Kusma, Jc3s5h, Isaacl, Stepho-wrs, Dondervogel, 2 GiantSnowman, Hawkeye7. EEng 21:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support for your edit regarding question 1: TIES should be considered only for English-speaking countries. (Americans writing about Cambodia should not be bound by whatever convention Cambodians use when writing dates). Ping @Dondervogel 2, @GiantSnowman as @EEng seems to have messed that up. —Kusma (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support from me too, as might be expected. Gawaon (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support from me for myself too, as also might be expected. EEng 01:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes on question 1: EEng's edit to DATERET to clarify that it only concerns English-speaking countries was not a substantive change, but an accurate clarification of long-standing consensus. Question 1 is only about the status quo ante, not about whether and how the consensus might change. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• I don't have a view on question 1. Happy to abstain. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support for your edit/clarification regarding question 1: TIES are considered only for English-speaking countries. Doremo (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support that the edit clarified the current meaning of WP:DATETIES and WP:DATERET. I think the current meaning should be changed but that's question 2.  Stepho  talk  03:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• I support EEng's edit, as stated above. I would be interested to see how future discussion on Question 2 goes, but the edit on the table now just clarifies the long-standing meaning of the guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any change unless it is removal of 'English-speaking'. Ignoring national date formatting conventions (as shown by e.g. Date and time notation in Italy etc.) which aligns with the established formats in use on en.wikipedia (i.e. DMY and MDY) is a nonsense. GiantSnowman 10:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a (substantive) change, though, just a clarification. Just saying. Gawaon (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Turning from 'country' to 'English-language country' is not just a clarification. GiantSnowman 10:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is, though, because it's clearly just a backreference to DATETIES (just above) which always had "English-speaking country". But I bet you know this as well as anybody here, you just don't like to admit it. Gawaon (talk) 11:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Why is DATERET being "clarified" to match DATETIES, and not the other way around? GiantSnowman 11:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Because DATETIES is the actual rule, and the other one just points back to it to make it clear that there is no conflict between what these two sections say. DATERET is about retaining the date style, not about changing it. Gawaon (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Then, as I have said, remove 'English-speaking' from DATETIES. GiantSnowman 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:IDHT. Why don't you hold your breath until you turn blue? That might convince people. EEng 18:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• As Doremo wrote, "Support for your edit/clarification regarding question 1: TIES are considered only for English-speaking countries." Jc3s5h (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support - this was simply a clarifying edit. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, GiantSnowman, do you agree that the consensus at this point is to reinstall my original edit? EEng 14:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. GiantSnowman 17:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And after only 140 posts totaling 45K! So it's not like huge amounts of editor time got wasted arriving at the obvious. EEng 22:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not fair. What was obvious to you was not obvious to others, including me. No one is disputing the consensus, but the editor discussion was needed IMO to achieve that consensus. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure it's fair. You're to be excused because, as you mentioned, you haven't been involved in date format–related issues much before. GS has, and should certainly have known (and, for all I can tell, did know) the meaning of the guideline. If he hadn't insisted on repeatedly reverting multiple other editors in order to block the clarifying change which all other watchers understood to be nonsubstantive, none of this would have been necessary. He should have known better. Then, after it was explained over and over why "Question 1" was separate (and precedent to) "Question 2", he insisted on using his butthurt on Question 2 to attempt to block what, by then, was perfectly obviously the inevitable outcome on Question 1. Bad job. EEng 00:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

And of course this [20] (though wisely withdrawn [21]) didn't add to the festive atmosphere either. EEng 15:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Why raise it then, other than to add to the sourness? GiantSnowman 16:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Because it shows that, in addition to wasting a huge amount of editor time in pursuit of your personal hobbyhorse, your perspective is so distorted that it actually occurred to you that I might have used some dumb trick to gain the upper hand in a discussion where, quite obviously, my hand was already so upper that the Hubble telescope would be needed to see it. "Ha! I'll just accidentally fail to ping these guys so maybe they'll forget that a discussion they posted to two hours ago is still going on." Right. I'm crafty that way. EEng 16:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Stow the 'tude please. GiantSnowman 17:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

'tude? You wanna see 'tude?

For years you've been told (and not just by me) that your stupid, broken date-fiddling script changes stuff in violation of MOS, but have you learned your lesson? Fixed the script? Found something useful to do? Nooooo. That's your hammer and for you article space is a collection of nails.

In 2020, you used your broken script to screw up a bunch of stuff in a particular article. In reverting you [22], I said (with amazing courtesy -- for me, anyway) ...

Please be more careful in the use of automated tools. None of these changes is appropriate: you've changed the established format of access dates in violation of WP:DATERET, removed a hidden note intended for future article improvement, and even changed verbatim quotations and titles of sources!

Let me repeat that: you changed verbatim text in quoted material and titles of cited articles, and even "fixed" the date inscribed on a physical object. Obviously you weren't paying attention. Then, unbelievably, last year you came back to the same article and did the same things. This time I was more forthright [23]:

User:GiantSnowman, this is the third or fourth time in the last year that I've caught you using some broken script to fuck up dates in literal quotations, tamper with articles' established date formats, and so on. What the hell do you think you're doing? You're an admin and should know better. And admin or not, I'm seriously considering proposing you be banned from making script-assisted changes.

It's like you have ONE job on this lousy project, it's stupid, but you're going to do it whether it improves anything or not. (And to sweeten the pot, you edit-warred with me and another admin -- one who takes the time to read and understand guidelines and documentation -- about the article subject's middle initial [24][25][26][27].)

And now here you've wasted a dozen people's time with your mixed-up reading of MOS. No wonder I'm pissed off at you.

There are many kinds of 'tude, dude. One of them is continuing to use your hobbyhorse script when you've had it rubbed in your face over and over that it breaks stuff. And you obviously aren't reviewing the script's changes before saving, in violation of the most basic rule for automated editing. So you stow the fucking 'tude, bro. Stop using your broken script until you can find someone to fix it for you; I'm sure there are plenty of soccer statistics you can occupy yourself updating. Peace out. EEng 23:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not my script, and I repeatedly raise improvement suggestions for it/flag bugs. That doesn't fit your agenda though, does it?

Secondly, the above rant (and that's all it is) reflects so, so poorly on you. I'm actually slightly embarrassed for you. There are far better ways of expressing yourself and raising concerns about a script than acting like this. GiantSnowman 11:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

As usual, you've used feigned shock at colorful expression to distract from the substantive issue, which is that your script (which is what it is when it's in your hands) makes changes against guidelines and policy, you've been told this for years, and yet you keep on using it. If you've asked for those problems to be fixed, and they haven't, please link to where that conversation is happening so I can participate.

Save your embarrassment for yourself. You need a full supply. EEng 18:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I hereby solemnly declare this discussion closed. Thanks everyone for your participation! Gawaon (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Templatizing date format

With regard to the discussion above on date format, I have a technical proposal. Under Preferences > Appearance there's a "Date format" option, allowing editors to select DMY, MDY, or YMD for their personal display. For example, this works with the templates {{Birth date}} and {{Death date}}; if the parameter df= or mf= is not specified, it will display based on the user's set preference. However, it does not seem to work with the template {{Date}}. If the "Date format" preference were enabled for the template {{Date}} (and the parameters df= or mf= deprecated, or overridden by the "Date format" preference), a bot could presumably templatize all dates, and users that prefer DMY or MDY would always see dates displayed in their preferred format—and this would presumably overcome the objections of anyone committed to a particular date format. There would be some details to work out, such as dates without years, ranges of dates, and so on, as well as protecting date formats in quotes. I am not technically able to work on this (and there may be pitfalls I haven't anticipated), but it seems like it could be considered as a solution. Doremo (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

See User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs. An earlier method to let users see dates in their preferred format was to link the date to the articles about the day of the year and the year, and the system would then attempt to display in the format set in the user's preferences. This was ripped out as an utter failure. One of the chief reasons was that readers with no account couldn't set a preference. Editors usually did have accounts. So the dates in an article would be a mish-mash of different formats, which would (presumably) annoy most readers but wouldn't be noticed by the editors who could fix it. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In addition, I challenge Doremo's claims "For example, this works with the templates Birth date and Death date; if the parameter df= or mf= is not specified, it will display based on the user's set preference."

But the Template:Birth date documentation for the Birth date template states "The default output of this template is to display the month before the day." Please prove that your claim is correct. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If a previous attempt was poorly executed, it doesn't mean that someone with better skills couldn't execute it better. I presume that readers with no account would view a consistent default template output if all dates were templatized. If I look at an infobox with {{death date|1807|6|26}} (e.g., here: John Smith (antiquary)) and my "Date format" preference is set to MDY, it displays as "June 26, 1807". At the same time, the template {{date|1807-6-26}} in the lede displays as "26 June 1807". I don't know if that's true for everyone that looks at that page. Doremo (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Jc3s5h is correct (I see now that I misread the part about the default output). I agree that the "Date format" preference does not affect the display of the {{Birth date}} and {{Death date}} templates. I do not know if "Date format" preference can be made to affect displayed output on a template; it's a technical matter beyond my skills. Doremo (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

IIRC certain templates (certain citation templates for sure) understand and obey Template:Use MDY dates and Template:Use DMY dates. Not sure what other templates do. Those features are a far cry from automagically formatting dates in running article text. Yes, it would be possible to wrap all dates, everywhere, in some special template, but see my comments lower down in this thread. EEng 21:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

People who were heavily involved in Wikipedia development were involved in the date linking fiasco and ultimately decided recognizing date preferences for readers who were not logged in would create an unacceptable performance degradation. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Trust me on this one. Nothing like this is ever going to happen. And if it did, it would represent a massive waste of development resources. There are many, many truly important things we've been waiting years and even decades for, and this isn't one of them. EEng 21:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• It would complicate caching, for little benefit: readers are not confused by seeing either format, even if it's not the one to which they're most accustomed. isaacl (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks for the various feedback above; I accept that it's not a viable option. Doremo (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Age ranges

An experienced editor has changed "2,251 children are in the age group of 0–6 years", to "2,251 children are in the age group of zero–six years" with an edit summary of MOS:NUMERAL. This seems extremely awkward, are children referred to as "Zero" years old?, but "nought-six" is also unnatural. However, it does seem to comply with the wording of MOS:NUMERAL, whereas 0-6 does not.
This may seem a minor point, but 0-6 is the range used in the census of India, and many other countries, so would affect tens of thousands of articles. Any comments/clarification of the guideline appreciated. - Arjayay (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest something like "age group of up to six years" or "... six years or less". Gawaon (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Irrespective of context, to write "zero–six" of anything looks mighty weird. It should always be "zero to six". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If the article is also considering other age ranges (eg children aged 7–14, students aged 18–25) then I'd say we should use numbers throughout, per Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures and for clarity in presenting statistics. If we're going to use words then it should be phrased appropriately per Gawaon or Dondervogel2 or "aged up to six" and suchlike, not with a mere replacement that's neither one thing nor the other. NebY (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)