Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 56

message: Section 1.2 of Manual of Style (dates and numbers), concerns the linkage of dates that contain the months and the day in that month. I would like to propose amending this section to include the correct English day/date format.
I would like to point out that there is some major bias towards the US in this Manual of Style (as with many articles and other guides). It uses many examples of how the date is formally written or spoken, that are very rarely used in many English speaking countries other than the United States.
For Example:
* In the UK, Australia and New Zealand the majority of people say: The 5th of March, 2006. It is very rare to hear somone say 5 February 2006, as the later does not make any sense, it implies that there are 5 seperate Februarys. This also is the same for February 5, implying there was a February 4 and a February 3, etc, but this makes no sense either as there has been millions of Februarys since the begining of the Georgian callendar and there is no use in counting them all.
* The use of these other formats make no sense, are inapropriate to use to determine a date in time, and are somthing that is used primarily in the US. The majority of the English speaking world can speak English in a way that hasnt diviated from the English language enough to result in ambiguity or inaccurateness, so thats the way it should be in the English Wikipedia, the correct way.
The aim of this proposal is to change the way that the day and the month are written in articles, especially biographical articles. (The article on the late Steve Irwin, has a date format that hardly anyone here in Australia uses: 22 February. I changed it to 22nd of February, and someone changed it back to 22 February. My brother pronounces the word' mirror' as though he is saying 'merra', he watches alot of americanised TV. I personally, feel that I have a responsibility to ensure that 'American English' stays in the country that it originated from, just as 'Australian English' must stay in this country. I don't want American English infiltrating one of the worlds largest encyclopedias, because it is the English Wikipedia not the Polish Wikipedia, not the Japanese Wikipedia, not the American English Wikipedia, not the Australian English Wikipedia.
Proposed Changes:
*That 22 February and February 22 be changed to 22nd of February or the 22nd of February.
*This implies that it is the 22nd day in the month of February. There is no ambiguity, it is more universally accepted amongst english speaking countries, and maintains the English language in the English Wikipedia.
It should be noted that date formats such as dd/mm/yy, mm/dd/yy, yyyy/mmm/dd, etc, are a seperate issue and not included in this proposed amendment.
Thanks for reading and lets hope we can set things straight and do things the right way. Nick carson 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think this format should be allowed, as it is the way it is read and it is acceptable formal English. —Centrx→talk • 07:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But of course I am a transplant from the 18th century. —Centrx→talk • 03:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  It's acceptable only in formal (i.e., archaic) English in the UK, anyway.  (We're tour guides for visitors from the UK and Germany at the moment, and that's their opinion.)  If you can get the developers to accept that as a date format for wikilinking, and it really is commonly used in Australia, neutral. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but I shouldn't have to get anyone to accept the fact that 22 February and February 22 don't make any sense, its insane. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. On the basis that the present system has the merit of brevity, that too much angst has already been caused over dates and introducing another is a bad idea. I also agree that it looks archaic. --Guinnog 13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that the current format looks childish. Angst felt in the past is no excuse to dismiss an issue. If you actually read my proposal you would have realised that I didn't propose to add another format. Now go and read it. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, for two reasons. First, I think you've failed to distinguish between spoken and written English; it's the normal spoken form, but not the normal written form. Secondly, such dates do not respond to users' date preferences, which is the whole point of this section. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, I should have distinguished between written and spoken. But what is written, I read, Reading somthing that is not written is just making things up. Written and spoken are, therefore should, be the same thing. As for user preferences, there is no option to display the correct '3rd of June' format, that is why I am proposing this amendment, same as above, make sure you read before you oppose somthing, go and see for yourself in your preferences. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I've never heard such rubbish. Tony 14:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right back at you. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The proposal confuses spoken Australian English with written Australian English.  Powers T 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't know what your talking about. In Australia we write dates as dd/mm/yy, and we speak dates as '4th of September', it is inapropriate incorrect american english to write a date as '4 September' or 'September 4'. It is apropriate in an encyclopedia to write it the way it is spoken because it reads far far easier, neater, tidier and professional. It also makes sense. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there's a difference between spoken and written English, which the proposal does not allow for.  We say "the 22nd of February", but we normally write "22 February" (moreover, we (or rather, I) read "22 February" as "the 22nd of February". Neonumbers 05:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you or sombody you know writes '22 February' you or they have been influenced by American English. If you take time to think about it, the formats '4 May' and 'May 4' make no sense as they imply multiples of the month of May, not a day in the month of May. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Pitty is not required. And you are incorrect, a single comment is not enough to prevent any proposal from being implemented. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one comment pointed out that at the moment your proposal is technically unworkable. It should be obvious that with this being the case, the proposal is pretty much dead until the technical barrier is overcome. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, and I apologise for my harsh comment. I, too, have been caught in the same way, where I started a vote (on the basis of misinformation), and it achieved nothing after the first comment. Tony 06:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies; I did not see it as a vote, but rather as a collection of reasoned views.  I have therefore removed the word "Oppose" from my post.  At least it seems like we're almost all in agreement.  Neonumbers 06:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People, you all must read through my proposal again, imploy sommon sense (if you can manage it) and do things the right way. Nick carson 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Amendment to Section 1.2

message: I just noticed this in an article: June 9 (Old Style)/June 19 (New Style), 1619.
Is it really necessary to link dates when they are in this complex sort or format? Rmhermen 02:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's necessary so that they appear as "June 9" for Americans and "9 June" for Brits etc. The rule is "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work". Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone ever say 9 June (Old Style)? Old style would not have written it that way. Rmhermen 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how old style would have written it, but I would certainly write it that way. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date linking