# Talk:Robert Dover (equestrian)

Editor Dana keeps on reverting, creating (as I have pointed out to her) inconsistent date formats within the footnotes (let alone between them and the rest of the article).  That is neither helpful, nor supported by policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is supported by policy. The discussion is currently continuing on my talk page; therefore I see no reason to post here on a dead talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
How is it supported by policy?  And why do you not see a reason to post here -- this is a "live" talk page.  The talk page of the article in question.  All who follow the page can follow the discussion here.  You can link to it here (or to this one on your page), but why in the world are you suggesting that it is anything other than eminently appropriate to comment on the talk page of the article in question?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Uh, the policy that I quoted to you on my user page? And, if you want to have the discussion here, that's fine. It's just that there is an ongoing discussion on my talk page, so it seems a little pointless to bring the discussion here. Your choice, though. Dana boomer (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Stop with the snarkiness, please.  The format used initially in this article is the one that you keep on reverting the article from.  That is clearly not appropriate.  And a violation of policy.  As the very guideline you quotes states quite clearly, which you are repeatedly ignoring, as you edit war and warn me to let your inappropriate edits stand,  "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic."  In short, you are edit warring, to create a date format that is inconsistent with that of the original usage.  And to create an inconsistent format within the footnotes.  On top of that, your tone is perhaps short of what wp:admin has in mind.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Last I checked, the MOS wasn't policy, it was a guideline. Am I wrong? And you're the one who ignored the BRD cycle.... correct? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
(R to Epeefleche)It's not snarkiness when I point out a policy in one discussion, and then you bring the discussion to another venue and ask what policy. I'm actually the one who put the original date format there in the first place (see this), when doing a quick cleanup. Then, the next day, when doing a further expansion, I began to expand and format the refs (see this). Before that, there were no references in the article at all. So, therefore, I was the first major contributor and chose the date format, and therefore, by your own statement, it should remain. Dana boomer (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Guidelines are a form of policy.  The original format was the format I applied.  Which you consistently reverted away from.  Creating a format other than the original one.  And creating an inconsistent format.  Those are both not appropriate, per the guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Epeefleche, you aren't understanding: I created the initial format, which you are trying to "revert" to, and then almost immediately changed my own format - that is completely acceptable. Per MOS, it is not an "inconsistent format" - MOS gives an example that is exactly like what I use in this article. So there is nothing that I am doing that is against MOS. Dana boomer (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
We can discuss the civility issue later.  The salient facts, as I see them, are:
You twice, here and here, edited this article to create inconsistent date formats within the refs (where, before your edits, consistent styles existed).  Your edits also did not follow the first format used in this article's refs.  And your edits undid use of the US date style, in an article with strong ties to the US.
The original format used in this article was the American, "MM DD, YYYY" format.  The same format I used.  You admit that.
As the guideline WP:DATESNO indicates, the original format should continue to be used.
There is an exception to the "use the first-used-format" directive.  But the exception also militates in favor of the American date format.  The exception overrides the format first used, if there are strong national ties to the topic that suggest another format.  There are strong national ties here.  The subject of this article is an American.  Who is notable in significant part for competing on behalf of the US.  Thus, even the exception to the guideline militates in favor of using the American format.
WP:STRONGNAT also indicates as much.  It states:  "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day ..."
The format earlier today, before my edits, was an inconsistent mixture of the American format and a numerical format.  It was inconsistent within footnotes.  (As an aside, the article text itself uses the American, MMM DD YYYY format as well.)
The guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources states, as to date format styles:  "nearly any consistent style may be used".  (emphasis added).  You are violating that when you continue to revert to a clearly inconsistent style--inconsistent in that even the same refs are not using a consistent date style.  Why you would insist on changing the article refs so that inconsistent formats are used, within the refs, escapes me entirely.  Guidelines aside, even tapping into common sense, I fail to see why you think you are helping the project by insisting on inconsistent formats within the same footnotes.
This focus on consistency is in line with the over-arching purpose of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers.  Which states, up front:
 Use common sense in applying it... This part of the Manual of Style helps editors to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of ... dates ... Consistency in style and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion ... Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.... revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.
In short: 1) the date format first used was the American MM DD, YYYY.  Per WP:DATESNO, that militates in favor of using that format.  2) The article has strong national ties to the US.  Per WP:STRONGNAT, that militates in favor of using the American format, even if had that not been the first format used.  3)  Your insistence on using a mixture of inconsistent date formats within refs violates Wikipedia:Citing sources, which requires consistent date format usage. It also IMHO violates common sense. I'll invite editors from the relevant guideline discussions to chime in here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

C'mon folks - this has got to be one of the silliest disputes I've seen in a while. Readers care little about the date format in citations. It is among the least important parts of an article. Someday, when editors are preparing this for Featured Article status, the date formats can be regularized. Until then, I suggest we ignore the problem and find more productive things to argue about.   Will Beback  talk   07:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
But it looks messy and ridiculous. Makes fools of us. I don't agree with having ISO gobbledy numbers in refs against the date formats of the article text, but if it must be, then please not TWO systems at once WITHIN the refs. Tony (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Except that what I'm doing is completely legit per the MOS, which I have pointed out before. Per Wikipedia:DATESNO#Dates: "Publication dates in article references should all have the same format...Access and archive dates in references should be in either the publication date format, or YYYY-MM-DD...[for example] Jones, J. (September 20, 2008) ... Retrieved 2009-02-05." The article is internally consistent to this MOS-approved format. As for Epeefleche's insistence on the first date format issue, as I have said multiple times before: I am the one who first put references into the article (and yes, I used month day, year, because I was in a hurry and not formatting refs), and then the next day, when I had a chance to do more work on the article, changed the format to the current scenario. If I am the editor who created the initial format, and the editor who changed the initial format, there is no issue with "changing styles" because editors are allowed to do that when they are the primary contributor to the article. If I were to go into one of Casliber's articles and change all the date formats to my preferred style, that would be a bad thing - I understand that. However, if I want to go back through one of the articles I took to FAC and change all of the dates, then there is no problem with me doing that - although I'm not really sure why I would want to. Dana boomer (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
And I agree with Dana here, although I gotta agree this is a tempest in a teapot. It's a start-class article, folks. This is why the MOS is in such ill repute - this type of fight and the flinging around of "against policy" when MOS isn't policy, it's a guideline. I'm usually in favor of the MOS being applied, but in a common sense approach. The reader is the point here, and they really don't care. No, this isn't a format I use, but it IS consistent and it IS in conformity with the MOS, so why doesn't everyone let Dana get on with improving the article, which she says is on her improvement list. Remember, content is our goal here, informing the readers about the article subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
A few points of information here: Epeefleche has left a pointer to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, though I would have preferred it had his message been more neutrally worded. This conversation is happened simultaneously both here and at User talk:Dana boomer - please stay in one forum, jumping around makes the conversation hard to follow. Leaving aside the issue of who's "right" in this discussion, the correct sequence of events would have been 1) Epeefleche edits 2) Dana reverts 3) Epeefleche opens discussion here per BRD. Granted that didn't happen - both editors began edit-warring - but given that discussion has now begun I'm inclined to overlook that for now. However, I would advise everyone not to attempt to edit the date format in the article until consensus has been reached. In regards to Epeefleche's comment above, I'm not seeing any incivility issue here, but just in case I'll remind everyone to keep the discussion strictly policy-based. Have I covered everything now? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It has been established that dates in reference sections are governed by WP:CITE, not by WP:MOS or WP:MOSNUM. If an article is following an established style guide, dates may conform to that style guide, even if it differs from what is used in the running text, or what strong national ties suggest. I wonder if Dana boomer is following an established style guide, or just making it up. In any case, WP:CITEVAR applies the concept that absent a consensus on the talk page, "defer to the style used by the first major contributor." But the first major contributor does not own the article. Once the style is established, the first major contributor must seek consensus to change it, just like any one else.
Another point is that all style guides I have seen call for a comma after the year, so the first sentence should read "Robert Jeffrey Dover (born June 7, 1956, in Chicago, Illinois)...." Jc3s5h (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Where has it "been established"? The MOS page I've quoted above specifically discusses references (it's under the header "In references"), and it specifically says that this style is OK to use. And I am the first major contributor to this article, and per the diffs I posted above, it was an initial two-day series of edits made by me (with no intervening edits by any other editors), that established the current data format. Yes, the first edit I made had the dates in a different format - it was a quick cleanup and I didn't feel like formatting everything properly. Then, as soon as I had the time, I completed more cleanup on the articles, polished the formatting (including reference/date formatting), and generally put the article in a decent state. The citation style was not "established" until I had finished cleanup of the article over a two-day span of time. The citation style used in this article can be seen in many featured and good articles, and not just those written by me. I know I don't own the article, and I realize I shouldn't have reverted the second time, but I am unhappy with being accused of acting uncivil (I have said nothing uncivil related to this discussion, although some of my frustration with an outside editor who has never worked on the article before attempting to impose a format style may have bled through) and being accused of acting counter to policy, when in fact I am well within MOS guidelines (and am in fact using a citation style that is used as an explicit example by the MOS). Dana boomer (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Update - Jc3s5h, after more digging, I'm assuming you're talking about, which established exactly nothing. Half a dozen editors (who aren't even in agreement with each other) discussing a major change to over-ride the MOS, with no notice to the community (RfC, etc)? Definitely not consensus. I would also point to this RfC, closed less than a week ago as no consensus for changing/removing the specific example to which I am pointing as a template for the date formatting in this article. The community is split on this, no consensus has been decided on anything, and so the format in this article is currently approved by the MOS. If that changes, I promise to go through all of the articles I have been a major contributor to and change the date formatting - at the moment, my actions are completely legit based on the MOS being the "style guide for all Wikipedia articles" (WP:MOS). Dana boomer (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Which_Wikipedia_guideline.28s.29_should_establish_citation_format is the discussion I a referring to. Although the RFC template has since been removed, it was a properly advertised RFC, as demonstrated by this permanent link. The consensus for this view is reflected by WP:MOS describing WP:CITE as the main article regarding citation format.
I do agree that the first major contributor, or the first major contributor to establish a citation format, will routinely make a number of edits over a fairly short period of time, so the format shouldn't be considered established by the very first edit with a citation, but rather, when the series of edits establishing the citation format has stabilized. That is, of course, a subjective judgement. It would appear the format established by Dana boomer should be followed in this article until a different format is established by consensus. I'll point out that if an editor came along asking for consensus to establish some format that has an actual printed style guide, or a defacto style such as the templates described in Help: Citation Style 1, that editor would have a pretty good case. When there are only a small number of properly formatted citations to illustrate an ad hoc style, how is an editor supposed to figure out how to cite a different type of source from those already cited? Jc3s5h (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, that was a good edit to MOSNUM, Jc3. But the issue of ISO gobbledy-numerals that only a tiny proportion of readers will find easy doesn't look like going away any time soon. Tony (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Repeated use of such language, Tony, may be interpreted as dismissive, divisive, and derogatory. Do you really think such language contributes to honest discussion? If so, please make your case on my talk page, and until them stop using such language. Keep in mind that there is comparable language to describe your position, Tony, but those discussing with you have elected not to use it. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that your post is personalised, and mine dealt solely with the issue. Tony (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't perceive your post as dealing "solely with the issue". Gimmetoo (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
(R to Jc3) But, that page (Help: Citation Style 1) contains the same wording as the MOS page: "Access and archive dates in references should be in either the publication date format, or YYYY-MM-DD." I realize this is a how-to page and not a guideline, but still. This article uses the cite family of referencing (with the exception of one ref that Epeefleche added that hasn't been formatted yet), and the dates are all internally consistent - there are under a dozen references in the article and four of them have both publication dates and access dates. This should be enough for any editor who is paying even the slightest bit of attention to figure out how to cite a different source: use the cite family and format the dates as shown. I'm going to say this again: I'm not the only editor who uses this dating format (so I didn't just make it up), it's given as an possibility/example on at least two guideline/how-to pages, and a very recent RfC failed to have this specific wording removed from the MOS. (R to Tony): Why are you saying that so many people won't understand the yyyy-mm-dd format? I assist at a weather monitoring station near my home, and we use the yyyy-mm-dd for all of our dates there, and I have often seen them used in other scientific areas (other weather stuff, astronomy, etc). It doesn't really seem like a complicated format to me... Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Until now, I was not able to pick out a specific version of the article that illustrated the established date format. I now see that this version from February seems to use the established style, and it is the style that uses templates beginning with the word "cite". So future editors would indeed be able to cite most kinds of works by choosing one of the templates from that group. One of the problems with this style is it does not have a widely accepted name, so you failed to use any words that made me understand what you were talking about. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies, I guess I should have made myself more clear. The use of cite templates (templates beginning with the word "cite", and yes, I agree that a common name for them would be nice!) has been in place since this point, which was the second in my series of cleanup edits at the beginning of my involvement with the article, and established the date format for the article (see the last ref added for an example of a ref with both publication and access date). Later edits, as I added information, such as this series, assisted in cementing the date format. At no point during over a year of on-and-off work on the article did anyone take issue with the date format (or really have any comment at all on the article), including Epeefleche when he made an edit to the article earlier this year. Nor has anyone (as far as I remember) had an issue with this on any of my other articles, even up to the level of GAN and FAC. Hence my confusion that this is suddenly a big deal on this article at this point in time. Dana boomer (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Dover (equestrian)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Grandiose (talk · contribs) 11:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've checked everything and made one very small change. I assume there is no appropriate image of Dover, I've had a quick check. Everything's fine, really: sourcing and referencing are good; there are no images; layout is standard; lead is short but in keeping with the article and does not overlook anything important and does not introduce any new material. Passing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs)  11:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review and the pass. I have not been able to find a free image of him to use, unfortunately, and since he is still alive and regularly appearing in public, I don't think that fair-use is really possible. I will continue to look for one, though, since the article really feels unfinished without at least some idea of what the guy looks like... The linking changes look good. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Dover (equestrian). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725192552/http://doversworld.com/blog/2009/12/15/a-special-issue-of-dovers-world-out-for-good-hero/ to http://doversworld.com/blog/2009/12/15/a-special-issue-of-dovers-world-out-for-good-hero/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120727115845/http://twww.fei.org/sites/default/files/file/EVENTS/GAMES/FEI%20WORLD%20EQUESTRIAN%20GAMES/Results/The_Hague_1994/WEG1994_Dressage_Team.pdf to http://twww.fei.org/sites/default/files/file/EVENTS/GAMES/FEI%20WORLD%20EQUESTRIAN%20GAMES/Results/The_Hague_1994/WEG1994_Dressage_Team.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)