User:Yellowdesk/tables

Source: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 110

Note that the below chart does not allow ~~~~ signatures to be used. You must copy/paste or hand-edit your signature. For assistance in writing your signature, you may copy the time below in red from the preview window after clicking on “Show preview” while in edit mode:

14:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

0 = Complete opposition
1 = Could be much better
2 = Ambivalence
3 = Could be improved, but I support this
4 = Complete support
DEGREE OF SUPPORT FOR OPTION 
Editor   A     B     C     D  
Greg L 0[1] 2 4[2] 2
JavierMC 2 4 0 0
Teemu Leisti[3] 1 0 4 1
Truthanado 0 0 4 0
Sapphic[4] 0 0 0 0
Powers[5] 0 0 1 0
Pete 0 0 4 4
Kotniski 3 4 2 1
Jimp 3½ 4 3 0[6]
Anomie⚔[7] 3[8] 0[9] 0[10] 0[11]
Donald Albury 0 0 2 0[12]
GregorB[13] 4 3 2 1
Septentrionalis 3.5 3[14] 0[15] 0
Alexf 2 0 4 0
Aervanath 4 4 2 1
SharkD 0 0 3[16] 2
NerdyNSK 0 0 3 4
Remember the dot 3 4[17] 1 0
Jeandré du Toit 0 0 1 0
MJBurrage 0 1 4[18] 1
Occuli 0 1 4 1
Deb 4 1 1 4
Arthur Rubin 3 1 0 4
Danorton[19] 0 0 2 0
Woodstone 2 1 4 3
SMcCandlish 4 0 0 0[20]
Professor marginalia 4 3 2 1
Twas Now 1.5 4 3 0
Mdcollins1984 3[21] 3[21] 1[22] 2[23]
Edison 4 1 0 1
Christopher Parham 4[24] 4 0 0
Askari Mark[25] 4 4 3 2
Ohconfucius[26] 1 0 4 1
Necrothesp 0 0 4 0
Orderinchaos 0 0 4 4
Hiding 0[27] 2 4[28] 2
ChrisDHDR 0 0 3 3
OwenBlacker 3 2 3[29] 1
Total 66.5 56 86 46
Average 1.75 1.47 2.26 1.21

The average scores, as of the 0-0-3-3 vote by ChrisDHDR, are as follows:

Option A = 1.76
Option B = 1.50

These are invalid statistics, since A and B are actually the same thing, and even averaging them will produce incorrect numbers, since some respondents rated one higher than the other, not realizing they amounted to the same concept in different wording. Discarding the lower values of the two, the real stat is inserted below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting logic. How do you account for editors giving different levels of support for options A and B? It seems that people perceived them as different. (Later) In fact, looking at your own vote, you have "Complete support" for Option A and "Complete opposition" to Option B. --Pete (talk)

Option A/B = 2.01 Option C = 2.24
Option D = 1.22
See Run-off poll below.

  1. ^ My opposition to option A (Engvar, or “English variation”), is that I am an American and use American English in all my contributions. I also routinely use international-formated dates in articles that have no strong ties to the U.S., such as Kilogram. Note that the French are more closely tied to the development of the kilogram than any other country and the kilogram clearly has no strong national tie to the U.S. So it makes no sense in my book to require that dates in the Kilogram article follow the U.S. convention (“February 2, 1799”) just because the article was written using American English. Greg L (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. ^ I don’t see the need for using international date formats in an article on a U.S.-related subject (like a U.S. national forest), just because a UK author was the first major contributor and used the spelling “colour” in the article. IMO, it should be one, simple rule: There’s no legitimate need for any more complexity than that. If we are to start keying the date formats used in articles to the dialect of English the editor happened to use while writing the article, all the articles I’ve been writing (science-related topics, such as Kilogram) would have U.S.-style dates because I used U.S.-style spelling in those articles. That makes no sense. Keep it simple. Dragging English-language dialect complexities into this discussion seems totally unnecessary.

    The whole point of making it country-based is to make the article read as smoothly as possible for the likely audience. If it is an article on a U.S. National Park (likely a readership dominated by U.S. citizens), then use U.S.-style date formats to make the article as natural for that audience. For everything else, use the international date format. This should all be about making Wikipedia better for our readers; we needn’t be so concerned about hurting the feelings of editors. Greg L (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

  3. ^ I completely agree with Greg L's comment. Plus, as bad as basing the choice upon the variety of English used in the article is, I dislike even more having to go through the article edit history to find out which format the first editor used. The choice should impinge depend only on the subject of the article, not on historical accidents of that sort.

    And as for the proposed "default" format being day-month-year: take a look at the dates produced by ~~~~ signatures. I haven't noticed objections to this. Teemu Leisti (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  4. ^ Dates should never be plain text. Autoformatting makes this entire poll irrelevant.
  5. ^ I would prefer options that don't require articles with strong ties to the United States to use MONTH DAY YEAR format, because while common, that format is far from ubiquitous in the U.S. -- Powers T 02:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  6. ^ How they write dates in another language has no relevance on en.WP. International date format juxtaposed with US spelling is no great shock—the US military does it. Similarly international spelling juxtaposed with US date format is not shock either—Canadians often do it ... some non-Canadians do so too. The distinction between new & old Canadian articles will be too hard to maintain ... indeed the idea that Canadian articles should be in international format is wrong-headed (much as I prefer international format): Canadian do use both. User:Jimp 10 Sep 08
  7. ^ !votes were solicited at WP:VPR, so here is mine. I will not watch this page for replies, as I am uninterested in arguing over this issue. IMO, too much of this months-long debate has been an exercise in WP:POINT for various points. I also do not look forward to the day when the date warriors decide all references must not use YMD format, as I greatly prefer that short format in the references list. Anomie⚔ 11:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  8. ^ Option A is the only consistent option. The rest are even more encouraging people to fight and editwar over the format. WP:ENGVAR might need updating to indicate which countries use which formats. Anomie⚔ 11:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  9. ^ Same a Option A, except it allows someone to come along to a random article with an established spelling but no dates and force a conflicting date format (for WP:POINT or WP:POV reasons). Anomie⚔ 11:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  10. ^ Frankly, Option C seems to be pushing some sort of "DMY is the best" POV, and invites insane levels of speculation over who this "likely readership" really is—most cases where the "likely readership" can really be determined can probably be more easily settled by applying the "strong national ties" rule. Anomie⚔ 11:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  11. ^ Option D: How they write dates in another language has no relevance on the English-language Wikipedia. Anomie⚔ 11:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  12. ^ As an American, I want to say that I think this issue has been overblown. I'm quite comfortable with using the 'international' date format everywhere, it is perfectly clear as long as we spell out the months instead of using numbers. User:Donald Albury 11:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  13. ^ A), as an extension of WP:ENGVAR, appears to be the most neutral and well-established solution. B) is effectively very close, as the first major contributor will likely use "matching" date format and variant of English. D) is barely passable: it is almost as if it prescribes using rhymes when writing about poetry. GregorB 12:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  14. ^ Needs a note about established styles --Septentrionalis
  15. ^ although I oppose both of them wholeheartedly, C is worse than D, because it is unclear what countries it applies to. (If the argument is that the Philippines is effectively an English-speaking country, the way to deal with this is to use A, and argue the point when it arises. But I doubt it is, and we do have a Tagalog Wikipedia for this reason; and a Spanish one too. -- Septentrionalis
  16. ^ Actually, I would prefer a fifth option: use the international format in all articles, about all countries, in all of English Wikipedia. -- SharkD
  17. ^ I like proposal B's flexibility when handling Canada-related articles, and think that proposals C and D are just going to make lots of people mad. I'd also like to point out that articles such as Acid2 use U.S. format for the prose, but international format in the timeline because international format is more logical in tables. -- Remember the dot
  18. ^ This is the best option presented, but to be honest I am an Americain who would prefer that all of Wikipedia just adopt "day month year" as its standard. All countries that use English use this format (including America), even in those few where it is not the most common it is easy to understand in prose etc. For tables the standard should be ISO (YYYY-MM-DD) for both space and sorting reasons. --MJBurrage
  19. ^ They're all profoundly vague and arbitrary, so we'll no doubt revisit this soon. You can't get much more arbitrary than "first major contributor," although I have to admit that it isn't vague. They're all vague as to how "country" relates to the issue. (What country does "Ocean liner" relate to?) For (A) and (B), "strong tie" is vague because most articles have "strong ties" to multiple countries. (Both the US and Australia have strong ties to Nicole Kidman). For (C), the TV soap "Dallas" is "related to the U.S.," but it's more popular outside the US than within. Few here would mind if you put the dates in Chinese. (And I live in Texas!). Similarly, for (D), what the heck does "country in question" mean, anyway? What's the question? -- Danorton (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  20. ^ Options A and B are identical, if you bother to actually read WP:ENGVAR! I have zeroed B because we already have ENGVAR and it has served us well; whatever MOSNUM says on this should also be repeated (not necessarily at full length) in ENGVAR, and the general advice at ENGVAR should not be contradicted in any way by MOSNUM without an incredibly good reason (KISS principle - editors will not follow guidelines if they become too convoluted). C is unnecessarily complicated, and is already covered by A/B except for the two countries that use US format dates but do not have strong ties to the US (they can simply be specifically mentioned if anyone feels this is really necessary). D mistakes the map for the territory, the menu for the meal. Whatever version prevails, ENGVAR should be updated to account for it, not just MOSNUM. PS: This complicated table is a really poor way to conduct a simple poll. SMcCandlish 22:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  21. ^ a b I'd like a combination of A and B really. I would prefer a three-tier system: "Use the style most appropriate if an article is strongly related (for example The White House for US, Tony Blair for UK). If, like kilogram, a country is not related, or if two countries boast an equal claim or a conflict will arise (Nicole Kidman was mentioned earlier), use the same format that ENGVAR implies. If ENGVAR hasn't been applied in the article, or isn't consistent, the status quo or first major contributor rule applies." –MDCollins (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  22. ^ Default to international will cause a lot of problems in my opinion. –MDCollins (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  23. ^ Can't see much difference to option B. –MDCollins (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [This is in reference to D.]
  24. ^ Option A is the simplest and is likely to produce the best reading prose in most situations. I think B is pretty much the same in most situations. - C. Parham
  25. ^ I see no essential difference between Options A & B; they just seem to be saying the same thing in different ways. - Askari Mark 01:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  26. ^ I believe we need International as a default. To keep falling back on WP:ENGVAR for the date format is a fallacious argument, as has already been evoked - the two are not mutually exclusive and could go together. Firstly, let's be clear about our concepts: the 'first major contributor' is not a default, but a variable; secondly, the situation exists already, and the proposal would strengthen people's belief that they owned any given article just because they created it, and as such I am totally opposed to proposal. The only important thing is that all date formats in the text of any article should be consistent throughout, the next is how we aboid edit wars over which takes precedence. The 'first major contributor' option is a recipe for further conflict. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  27. ^ Per Greg. I agree completely with his position. The article topic should guide to the date format used. Hiding T 09:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  28. ^ Per Greg. I agree completely with his position. The article topic should guide to the date format used. Hiding T 09:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  29. ^ C is my favoured option — OwenBlacker, 22:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.