→DATETIES vs. DATEVAR: Reply
|
|
||
(106 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
{{br}} 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 <small>(the exceptions I can think of being "forty", "fifty", "sixty" — I think that's it? unless you count [[Steinhaus–Moser notation|mega]], which few people would)</small>. One thing we should emphasize in any case is to avoid mixing; don't say {{!xt|the winner got 13 points and the loser got seven}}. But I assume without checking that this is already mentioned. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
{{br}} 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 <small>(the exceptions I can think of being "forty", "fifty", "sixty" — I think that's it? unless you count [[Steinhaus–Moser notation|mega]], which few people would)</small>. One thing we should emphasize in any case is to avoid mixing; don't say {{!xt|the winner got 13 points and the loser got seven}}. But I assume without checking that this is already mentioned. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:And I know without checking that it is. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 18:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
:And I know without checking that it is. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 18:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
== "[[:Mos:DOB]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px]] |
|||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mos:DOB&redirect=no Mos:DOB]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25#Mos:DOB}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Utopes|Utopes]] <sub>('''[[User talk:Utopes|talk]]''' / '''[[Special:Contributions/Utopes|cont]]''')</sub></span> 21:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Hyphenation in spelled-out fractions == |
== Hyphenation in spelled-out fractions == |
||
Line 181: | Line 177: | ||
:The answer is yes, we should use the local date format regardless of the language spoken. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
:The answer is yes, we should use the local date format regardless of the language spoken. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
== DATETIES vs. DATEVAR == |
=== DATETIES vs. DATEVAR/DATERET === |
||
I agree with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers&diff=prev&oldid=1229617603 Eeng's edit] to make it even clearer that DATEVAR 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=178368663 this guidance was first added] that the two parts are meant to be harmonious. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
I agree with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers&diff=prev&oldid=1229617603 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=178368663 this guidance was first added] that the two parts are meant to be harmonious. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|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. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 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. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
Line 211: | Line 207: | ||
::::The usual Japanese format appears to be Y-M-D, written out in numerals, with kanji after each number specifying what it is [https://www.japanesewithanime.com/2017/03/dates-japanese-date-format.html]. 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. {{u|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. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 20:47, 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 [https://www.japanesewithanime.com/2017/03/dates-japanese-date-format.html]. 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. {{u|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. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 20:57, 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? [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[List of date formats by country]]? [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 20:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
::::[[List of date formats by country]]? [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 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. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 20:59, 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. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 20:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::To the list, or to this MOS page? [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 21:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
::::::To the list, or to this MOS page? [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 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. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 21:53, 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. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Jc3s5h, unsure if you're trolling or having AI write your responses for you? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I understand {{u|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 {{u|David Eppstein}}, that using local date formats could introduce non-dmy or non-mdy date formats, such as Japan's yyyy-mm-dd. |
I understand {{u|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 {{u|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 {{tq|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 [https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/ NHK], [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/ Japan Times], [https://mainichi.jp/english/ Mainichi], [https://www.asahi.com/ajw/ Asahi Shimbun]and [https://english.kyodonews.net/ Kyodo News] all use it.. What do you think about this suggestion? [[User:Ckfasdf|Ckfasdf]] ([[User talk:Ckfasdf|talk]]) 03:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
To address both viewpoints, we could add a new sentence to the manual of style, such as {{tq|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 [https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/ NHK], [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/ Japan Times], [https://mainichi.jp/english/ Mainichi], [https://www.asahi.com/ajw/ Asahi Shimbun]and [https://english.kyodonews.net/ Kyodo News] all use it.. What do you think about this suggestion? [[User:Ckfasdf|Ckfasdf]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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... |
: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 <u>not</u> 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. |
:Beware that Japan does <u>not</u> 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. |
||
Line 230: | Line 228: | ||
:::Yes. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 07:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
:::Yes. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 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? [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 07:36, 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? [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 07:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::I don't see it as that problematic? Something like {{xt|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 {{xt|clear}} as a qualifier that will just be argued over, but I think it works as a safety valve here? [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 07:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{midsize|Oh no, I've just realized that both English People's Daily and Xinhua use MDY. What have I done! SCMP uses DMY though.}} [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 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? [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 08:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Aye, I think I've now come around to EEng's formulation. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 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 comma|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 language|Tucano]] or [[Khoekhoe language|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. [[User:Doremo|Doremo]] ([[User talk:Doremo|talk]]) 07:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{Tq|The status quo at MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATERET has worked well for years and should be retained}}{{snd}}Amen. There are two issues here: |
|||
*:*'''Question 1:''' Was my edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1229617603] a substantive change, or merely a clarification of what was undoubtedly both the intent of the guideline and the (almost) universal understanding of it?{{pb}}''Answer:'' Gawaon (commenting above) has it right: my change was (if I do say so myself) {{tq|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"?{{pb}}''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 {{nobr|"12 April 1945",}} while British readers feel the same about Churchill dying {{nobr|"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 {{nobr|"21 October 336 BC"}} or on {{nobr|"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 {{tq|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? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 08:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::In favor. Restore the clarification [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1229617603] by EEng and maintain the status quo. [[User:Doremo|Doremo]] ([[User talk: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). —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 11:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::[https://m.youtube.com/shorts/DBswlZS8mFQ Shirley] you mean UTC. GMT went out with the horse and buggy. Jeesh. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 17:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::While I realise you are [[Surely_You%27re_Joking,_Mr._Feynman!|joking, Mr Feynman]], just pointing out that [[Greenwich Mean Time]] is still a thing. [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::It takes a Wikivillage to raise an editor. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od|4}} |
|||
Going once... [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 09:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Going twice... [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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]]). [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 06:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::How about actually engaging with the objections made to this idea by various editors above? [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 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.{{pb}}So I'll repeat Gawaon: {{tq|How about actually engaging with the objections made to this idea by various editors above?}} [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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". [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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 {{u|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. [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk:Dondervogel 2|talk]]) 18:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Let's see... |
|||
:::::::*{{tq|Why would that not apply to articles that have no clear attachment to an English speaking country?}}{{snd}}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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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. [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 16:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::*{{tq|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.}}{{snd}}False. As expressed by the brilliant author of [[WP:MOSBLOAT]]: |
|||
:::::::::{{tq|Something belongs in MOS only if (as a necessary but not sufficient test) either:}} |
|||
:::::::::*{{tq|There is a manifest {{lang|la|a priori}} need for project-wide consistency (e.g. "professional look" issues such as consistent typography, layout, etc.{{snd}}things which, if inconsistent, would be significantly distracting, annoying, or confusing to many readers); '''or'''}} |
|||
:::::::::*{{tq|Editor time has been, and continues to be, spent litigating the same issue over and over {{em|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. |
|||
:::::::[[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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? [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk:Dondervogel 2|talk]]) 23:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Yes there has been editwarring -- by GiantSnowman [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1229171802] [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1229208483] [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1229227029] [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1229411648] [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1229512278] [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1229596811], 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 [[Talk:Lisa_del_Giocondo#Edit_warring|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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 00:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Unsure if you are continuing to ignore [[Date and time notation in Italy]] deliberately??? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 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? [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 10:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::See {{cat|Date and time representation by country}}. If a country has no established format, then nothing changes, does it? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 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. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 18:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::And neither is anyone else proposing anything other than DMY or MDY. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 21:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Wrong. Someone has suggested YMD might be used. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 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). [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk: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"? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 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. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 12:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Example - [[Michel Fribourg]] being DMY for 7 years (including from article creation) even though topic is American... [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1229617603], which as Gawaon said was just {{tq|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}}{{pb}}After that's resolved then GS can argue for ''changing'' the guideline. Pinging back everyone who's participated so far: {{U| Firefangledfeathers}}, {{U| Remsense }}, {{U| Gawaon}}, {{U| Doremo }}, {{U| David Eppstein }}, {{U| MapReader}}, {{U| Kusma }}, {{U| Jc3s5h }}, {{U| Isaacl}}, {{U| Stepho-wrs }}, {{U| Dondervogel }}, {{U| 2 GiantSnowman}}, {{U| Hawkeye7}}. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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). <small>Ping @[[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]], @[[User:GiantSnowman|GiantSnowman]] as @[[User:EEng|EEng]] seems to have messed that up.</small> —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 21:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Support from me too, as might be expected. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 22:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Support from me for myself too, as also might be expected. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 22:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I don't have a view on question 1. Happy to abstain. [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doremo|Doremo]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">[[User:Stepho-wrs|''' Stepho ''']] <span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">[[User Talk:Stepho-wrs|talk]] </span></span> 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. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|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. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 10:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:It's not a (substantive) change, though, just a clarification. Just saying. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 10:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Turning from 'country' to 'English-language country' is not just a clarification. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 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. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 11:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Why is DATERET being "clarified" to match DATETIES, and not the other way around? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 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. DATE'''RET''' is about '''retaining''' the date style, not about changing it. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Then, as I have said, remove 'English-speaking' from DATETIES. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::See [[WP:IDHT]]. Why don't you hold your breath until you turn blue? That might convince people. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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." [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 00:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' - this was simply a clarifying edit. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 11:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
Hey, {{U|GiantSnowman}}, do you agree that the consensus at this point is to reinstall my original edit? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 14:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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. [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk: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{{ndash}}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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 00:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::And of course this [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1230547037] (though wisely withdrawn [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1230547160]) didn't add to the festive atmosphere either. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 15:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Why raise it then, other than to add to the sourness? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 16:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Stow the 'tude please. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od|:::::::}} |
|||
=== '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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phineas_Gage&diff=prev&oldid=978236877], I said (with amazing courtesy -- for me, anyway) ... |
|||
:{{tq| 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1137688412]: |
|||
:{{tq|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 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4CgQMJCpZI#t=1m3s 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1135444861][https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1137688531][https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1137835861][https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1137849145].) |
|||
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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 23:02, 27 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 <nowiki>{{Birth date}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Death date}}</nowiki>; 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 <nowiki>{{Date}}</nowiki>. If the "Date format" preference were enabled for the template <nowiki>{{Date}}</nowiki> (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. [[User:Doremo|Doremo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk: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 <nowiki>{{death date|1807|6|26}}</nowiki> (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 <nowiki>{{date|1807-6-26}}</nowiki> in the lede displays as "26 June 1807". I don't know if that's true for everyone that looks at that page. [[User:Doremo|Doremo]] ([[User talk: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 <nowiki>{{Birth date}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Death date}}</nowiki> 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. [[User:Doremo|Doremo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 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. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 01:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Thanks for the various feedback above; I accept that it's not a viable option. [[User:Doremo|Doremo]] ([[User talk: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.<br>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. - [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 10:35, 27 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 comma|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 language|Tucano]] or [[Khoekhoe language|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. [[User:Doremo|Doremo]] ([[User talk:Doremo|talk]]) 07:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Irrespective of context, to write『zero–six』of ''anything'' looks mighty weird. It should always be "zero to six". [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk: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 {{tq|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. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 10:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC) |
![]() | Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | It has been 10 days since the outbreak of the latest dispute over date formats. |
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)[reply]
Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in wordsand 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Two-thirds majorityfits Fowler's first and second usages; I think
seven-eighths of a milefits 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 mileis no more than
he walked 3/4 mile. NebY (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 attributiveorsubstantive 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The BBC News Style Guide has simply three-quarters (and other fractions)
.[4] NebY (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Graham (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]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.
Spelled-out fractions are hyphenatedwith one minor exception. NebY (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collins English Dictionary's entry for two-thirds begins with two-thirds of
.[8] NebY (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
{{currency}}
, {{USD}}
and similar. Stepho talk 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
For topics closely tied to a country that uses DMY or MDY (the 2 formats used in English) then that format should be used.
The status quo at MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATERET has worked well for years and should be retained– Amen. There are two issues here:
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.
clear preference in English-language publications from the countryis 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)[reply]
Going once... EEng 09:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going twice... EEng 06:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about actually engaging with the objections made to this idea by various editors above?EEng 14:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ...
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)[reply]
Hey, GiantSnowman, do you agree that the consensus at this point is to reinstall my original edit? EEng 14:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figuresand 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)[reply]