Talk:Dylan and Cole Sprouse

message: Yesterday I aligned as many citations as I could with YYYY-MM-DD (ISO 8601/international all-numeric, basically) format since that seemed to be the style most dates on citations were using save some newer ones. I was doing this manually (and was sick) so I stopped to take a break without completing the job and ended up not coming back to it yesterday. This morning (last night? ...early March 29 UTC), Joeyconnick converted all the dates in citations to MMMM DD, YYYY (i.e. March 29, 2018, the format commonly used in the US) via a script. I don't think either date format has special merit over the other, but I felt the change warranted discussion. (I'm personally in support of YYYY-MM-DD, largely because the article ended up almost entirely consistent in that date format first and I don't think "some dates are still inconsistent" was a good enough reason to switch all the otherwise consistent dates to the format of the few that weren't consistent with them.) Does anyone care one way or the other? - Purplewowies (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically the reasoning is MOS:TIES... articles about American subjects (like TV and film in addition to actors) use American spelling so in the case of inconsistencies, it seems reasonable to default to mdy, which is the "American" date format. I did go back to the version of the page before  started standardizing on ymd... there was a real mix of dates, including ones in dmy, and mixes within citations between dates and access dates. I would argue yyyy-mm-dd is less easily "human readable" than dmy or mdy and we should be making choices that make it easier for readers to parse articles. Finally, if  was going to revert so we could have a discussion, they should have reverted to the version before their own date changes given those were just as bold as mine were. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Fair, regarding which version to revert to. I didn't realize MOS:TIES (or for an even more specific link, MOS:DATETIES) applied here (my understanding of it was rusty) so I was working from something more like MOS:DATEVAR. I suppose given that information I'll withdraw my own dispute here. (Part of me is a little curious as to others' thoughts on the subject, but... *shrug*) - Purplewowies (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh... I had forgotten about MOS:DATETIES. That is a bit more relevant. Yes, there is WP:CITEVAR, so no one should be wholescale changing the format if it's already consistent, so I guess when it's not it just comes down to do you go with the format most-used or something like MOS:DATETIES. Which is subjective and not governed by a specific guideline (that I know of). I do appreciate that yyyy-mm-dd is the least ambiguous in terms of numeric formats. I'm Canadian, so we deal with a variety of formats, but mdy tends to predominate as far as "written-out"/prose formats, whereas dd-mm-yyyy tends to predominate over the more American mm-dd-yyyy in terms of numeric ones. I could live with this article either way (mdy prose or yyyy-mm-dd numeric)—I just saw you were going in chunks and I was like, "Oh I know a script for that!" and then I thought about whether the numeric format was the right choice. I appreciate you being cordial and willing to discuss; if a bunch of people chime in and want yyyy-mm-dd, I will be similarly reasonable and let my objections go. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format in citations 

message: Hi, i noticed Riverdale is not listed in his work?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.92.126 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, 98.20.92.126. That's not included here because this article is about the period of their career in which they were frequently sharing roles. Cole Sprouse, a page just about Cole, does in fact list his work on Riverdale. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riverdale 

message: Hello everyone. I would like to clarify a doubt here. Has there been any discussion prior to this regarding the existence of the aforementioned actors' individual pages? This doubt has arisen in me due to the fact that the information given here seems to be somewhat similar to that of their individual pages. Please do clarify my query.
Thanking you in advance. 2409:4071:D9E:3A06:C807:CF00:1AF8:D622 (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Talk:Dylan and Cole Sprouse/Archive 1#Separate articles for each?; there was consensus to split their separate activities into individual articles for the two of them in 2017, and there is some duplicated content to those articles in the interest of summarizing their early lives and shared career just a tad before explaining their separate careers. (I think this was done so the article didn't just abruptly start in, like, 2017 with no explanation of anything that occurred prior.) But yes, there has been discussion before about separate versus shared pages, and it is currently deliberate and in line with consensus that both of them exist. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging of this page with their respective pages.