Talk:Sharon Johnston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date format[edit]

WP:STRONGNAT states "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." The first major contributor in these early stages, User:Be in Nepean, used DD MM YYYY in the infobox at the creation of this article (and again when adding references three minutes later). Thus, the date format should not be changed, as was done here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first date format is listed in the reference in the very first edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharon_Johnston&action=edit&oldid=372439388 . October 7, 1998. Restored. The one in the info box was later removed at which point the majority format was American. It was your edit that made the change M. Please don't impose your date format preference to the article which was clearly in American format before you started tinkering. Also, take it to 3rd opinion and the Canadian list now because I don't have time today to play your political games. Thank you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly two date formats in the first edit, one in the infobox (DD MM YYYY) and one in the reference (MM DD, YYYY). However, WP:STRONGNAT says "the date format chosen by the first major contributor", not "the date format chosen in the first edit," and if you look here, the first major contributor used MM DD, YYYY twice, but DD MM YYYY three times. Your comments on that? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The editor appears to have modified existing templates to insert the information. Interesting that there is no consensus in first editor's additions.
  2. There were four editors within the first twenty-four hours and then nothing for over two weeks. So it's really the article at this point where it's stabilized. At that point all the dates are in the references. Four dates are in the American format and one in British/International format.
  3. WP:STRONGNAT The "article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it". To-date, it's been primarily American date format. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What date format did the first major contributor predominantly use? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first editor was not a major contributor. He used both formats. He contributed one paragraph that in its references used the American date format and an infobox, which according to you shouldn't have been added, which included the British date format. That date editor also used the British date format in the references. No consistency. The majority of edits are made to correct errors made. Therefore not a major editor. The first major contributor was anon who added only American date references. The next editors on the first day of that article made no effort to unify the date formats. How would you define a major editor? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In order of appearance at this page, prior to this date format dispute:
User:Be in Nepean: 6 edits.
User:67.69.104.66 : 7 edits.
User:Rmachenw: 2 edits.
User:Bearcat: 2 edits.
User:Miesianiacal: 2 edits.
User:206.53.153.121: 1 edit.
User:Dowew: 1 edit.
User:Walter Görlitz: 2 edits.
Given that evidence, are you still going to try to seriously contend that Be in Nepean was not the first major contributor to this page? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics aren't evidence.

Within the first day these are the edits and their nature

Be in Nepean
Anon (67.69.104.66)
Anon (99.237.156.139)
Rmachenw
Miesianiacal
Anon (206.53.153.121)

In short I don't think it's the number of edits made, particularly when they are fixing the original material, it's the total of the edits. Most of the edits don't address the date format and only two editors do. One doesn't show a preference for one format or other while the other does. Given that evidence... . Particularly since Be in Nepean isn't the first major editor, anon is making seven changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Be in Nepean was the first major editor, both date formats are present so which is the preferred? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently "statistics aren't evidence" unless they're statistics compiled by you. Regardless, the statistics you've gathered (minus all the speculation) still affirm that BiN was the first major contributor. The article follows the format predominantly employed by the first major contributor and, as I already pointed out, he put in MM DD, YYYY twice, DD MM YYYY three times. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote "statistics aren't evidence" I should have clarified: just showing raw numbers isn't sufficient evidence. I don't think I added any speculation when I listed the edits. I still contend that the stub is in growth mode.
Be in Nepean wasn't the first major contributor, just the first contributor. I suspect the next step is to count bytes added. Based on your "statistics" anon was the first major editor.
Regardless, as I pointed-out, the editor didn't have a preference. 60/40 split. And the fact that you deleted one of those date formats as not being valid makes it a 50/50 split. Anon was the first editor to show a clear preference. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the edit history, it's clear (as no matter which way you look at it) there have been two major contributors to this article so far: the anon and BiN. BiN came before the anon, so he's the first major contributor.
Why I deleted the infobox was already explained in the accompanying edit summary; that it took out a date in the process means nothing to this discussion. WP:STRONGNAT makes no mention of the subsequent deletion of infoboxes with dates in them by individuals who are not the first major contributor to the article.
If you're going to hold firm to the argument that the first major contributor's use of one format more than another has no bearing on this matter, then you leave MM DD, YYYY with no more valid reason for use than DD MM YYYY, which leaves us still at an impasse. I suppose this can only be broken, yet again, by outside input. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really needing third-party input since you assume first major editor was Be in Nepean when it could be, and has been, argued that it's anon. Also the tie-breaking procedure should then fall to the other guideline: "article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Let's see. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is the date even the right date (same as her husbands), or do we just have the year that was originally there 1943)? Connormahtalk 22:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Seems to me that BiN was the first major edit of the article, though they didn't definitively pick a side. The anon did, though, and chose to use the American-style date formatting. I'd continue with that. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously not completely how I see it, but I understand the need for compromise and how you're aiming for it. So, okay; let's leave it as it is. Thanks for the input. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always use yyyy-mm-dd (all numeric) format for retrieval dates, and being British, dd mm yyyy format elsewhere. However, this article is about a Canadian, so I would suggest using the Canadian format within the text and to consider using yyyy-mm-dd for retrieval dates. If you find the yyyy-mm-dd format distasteful, then again, use the Canadian format. Martinvl (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that because of both British and American influences both date formats can be seen to be used in Canada, although the British format is falling out of favour is not seen as frequently. The official policy on Wikipedia is that either may be use, but one must be dominant within any given article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since all the dates are connected with article retrievals, may I suggest standarising on yyyy-mm-dd. Otherwise I would suggest that it is up to each editor to enter the in whatever way they see fit - after all it is the date in their time zone. Martinvl (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not sure that complies with the manual of style. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Examples in WP:CITE/ES show differnet styles of date representation, but the format yyyy-mm-dd is the most common one for retrieval dates. Martinvl (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If any of you use RefTools, the autofill for retrieval date is DD MMMM YYYY (e.g. 9 August 2010). — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharon_Johnston&oldid=1207847483"