Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:34, 9 May 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hip-hop Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Miami High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

70.60.93.151

Naming Names should be cleaned up. Combs should be called by his given last name. All informal nicknames or performance names such as "Puffy", "P. Diddy", and "Puff Daddy" should be replaced with "Combs" where possible.

That would be quite repetitive. Combs could be used in the first instance in each paragraph, and then the artist name of the time. --Erri4a - ] 22:36, 25 Sepember 2006 (UTC)

RafikiSykes (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Lox publishing dispute

Perhaps the Controversy section should include something about The Lox's dispute over publishing rights with Combs, which was recently settled, see .

RafikiSykes (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammys

The wiki indicates that he won 9 grammys, but shows only 3 specific wins. Grammy wins are important enough to be listed in completion in a biography.

RafikiSykes (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

For some reason...

For some reason, whenever I come to this page, it's vandalized in SOME way. I'm going to put it on watch. If any more vandalism occurs, I'll see to it that the page gets locked. DrowningInRoyalty

Heh, I thought to myself how hilarious it would be to write an entire section on his "Proactiv Solutions" commercial. Something like "P. Diddy is a big supporter of Proactiv Solutions acne medication, and quote 'Didn't want no bumps on my face. I'm going to be straight up with you. You know what I mean?' and additionally likes it because it enables him to 'preserve my sexy, you know what I'm saying?'" Just a thought. I guess that would be vandalism though.

Even though this is kinda off topic can someone help the new list of best-selling remix albums worldwide with its structure.

RafikiSykes (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

is this a fan club page or an encyclopedia??

i think this page should get the

This article contains promotional content. Please help improve it by removing promotional language and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic text written from a neutral point of view. (March 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

treatment. please.

RafikiSykes (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/2007-10-24-1368831046_x.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking

There's some hideous overlinking in this article. It isn't as big a deal as a copyvio but my attempt to take it out was reverted by a date warrior. Would anyone else like to have a go? --John (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You claim "there's some hideous overlinking". This is the only edit that User:John has made recently. That edit has a lot of parts, but I only see one link removed: New York City, New York. So one link is "hideous overlinking"? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. New York City, New York redirects to New York City as there is no need to disambiguate, but why would this article need to link to the NYC article let alone a ponderous redirect to it? This is the problem with making blind reverts, it damages articles. --John (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Date format change proposal

The format of the dates in the references used in this article should be altered to be in a format of "May 4, 2012" (as per this edit).

• Dates in the format of "May 4, 2012" are unambiguous and are easier for readers to quickly comprehend than are dates in the "2012-05-04" format.
• The {{Cite web}} template (which the references should, and will one day soon, be using) recommends using the "May 4, 2012" format.
• The dates already in the main article text are in the format "May 4, 2012" so without the proposed change, more than one date format is used in the article. This proposal will increase consistency in the article.
• From WP:CITEVAR: "when adding citations, to try to follow the system and style already in use in the article". This can be interpreted to apply to date formats—which means that it would have been better to use the familiar (and existing) format of "May 4, 2012".
• WP:CITEVAR states that YYYY-MM-DD format "may be used", but doesn't insist on it.
• WP:RETAIN is not of primary importance here because its intention is to provide consistent formatting within the main article text (e.g. so that a combination of mdy and dmy formatting doesn't develop).
• However if WP:RETAIN is to be considered, please note that the article used "May 4, 2012" formatting for referencing prior to the use of the "2012-05-04" format (as demonstrated by the article in this state).
• In my experience (and I add/format a lot of URL references using {{Cite web}}) the format of "May 4, 2012" (or "4 May 2012" where required) is far more commonly used these days (than is the format of "2012-05-04").
• Apart from arguments of "it exists", there has been no proffered argument that demonstrates a tangible benefit to the article by using the "2012-05-04" format.

GFHandel ♬  00:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. GFHandel ♬  00:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This article has developed over a period of about 6 years. The reference style, from earliest times, has been publication dates in Month dd, YYYY, and accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD. It currently has 77 references in this consistent style, representing quite a bit of prior editorial work. From the edit history, it appears the first accessdate was indeed in YYYY-MM-DD, and newly added references have followed the existing style of the article. On to some of your specific points (is this a templated text?)

• Distinguishing one type of reference information (publication date) from another type, arguably less important (accessdates), aids the reader, by helping them not to read one date as the other.
• I don't see that {{cite web}} recommends anything, and I'm not sure why it would be relevant. Cite web appears to omit to show any examples with one of the acceptable styles; if this is taken to suggest something contrary to MOSNUM, then the examples may need to be revised.
• The article already follows a consistent style, as far as I am aware. "Consistency", in MOSNUM, does not mean a single style in both the article and the references. MOSNUM explicitly allows YYYY-MM-DD formats in the references.
• The style of references has been followed; although WP:CITEVAR did not exist in 2006 in that form, references have been pretty consistently added following the style as specified (publication dates in Month dd, YYYY, accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD).
• I agree WP:RETAIN is not of primary importance; WP:DATERET is the more relevant guideline
• The first use of accessdates, as far as I can tell, were in YYYY-MM-DD format , so even the "first major contributor" clause of WP:DATERET argues for retaining the style with which the article has developed
• I'm not sure what "commonly used" means here. Most developed articles I'm aware of use YYYY-MM-DD formats, though some were changed (see WP:FAITACCOMPLI). I know of relatively few articles (some, but comparatively fewer) that developed from earliest times without YYYY-MM-DD style for either publication or accessdates.
• Distinguishing the publication dates and accessdates is a benefit. Some may not agree, I'm aware, but that's why we have a guideline about not changing arbitrary style options. It's also more compact. I don't see any benefit to removing YYYY-MM-DD accessdates from this already consistent article.

Gimmetoo (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support The only reason that accessdates ever existed in YYYY-MM-DD format was that the citation mechanism created them in that format at the time when users could set the displayed date format in their preferences. Following the unlinking of dates, that mechanism disappeared, and we were left with the underlying accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD format, despite them being added without any actual editor preference being made. That seriously weakens arguments about respecting original authors' intentions, and leaves us to consider what is best for articles now. The argument that a mixture of date formats helps the reader distinguish between date of publication and date of access makes sense, but I don't find it convincing, as their positioning by all of the citation templates is so very different. The overriding arguments are that DMY and MDY are much easier to comprehend at a glance ('September' is clearer than '09'), and that consistency in the format of dates throughout an article is desirable - and that includes the references. The only place where YYYY-MM-DD dates have a place is in tables and infoboxes, where space is at a premium. --RexxS (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Your technical history does not appear correct. The first accessdates added to this article were in YYYY-MM-DD format, without any autoformatting. (If I recall correctly, autormatting wasn't used with the mdy publication dates, either.) I am glad you recognize that distinguishing types "makes sense". Thank you. In my experience, the confusion resulting from the differing positions of dates in the references is helped, rather than harmed, by having two types of dates in different formats. It allows the reader to quickly identify the publication date and accessdate in the reference, whether they are at the start, middle, or end of the reference. It aids the reader. I am aware you may not find that benefit convincing, but others may not find the benefits of another style convincing, either. We have gudielines to prevent arbitrary style changes based on such arbitrary preferences. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. RexxS has provided a reasonable summary of the history behind the date format wars to which I will add two points:
  • Gimmetoo hints at "technical advantages" in favour of the yyyy-mm-dd format. But in fact there's only one, that it's sortable, which is irrelevant for citations. The technical advantage it did once have disappeared with date delinking, as RexxS says.
  • Documentation for the {{citation}} template specifically says in reference to the accessdate parameter: "use the same format as other dates in the article". It's time to put this date format nonsense to bed once and for all, and for Gimmetoo to drop his stick. Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  PS. Perhaps an administrator could fix that rather irritating "in in" error in the citation template's documentation. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  Please avoid making this personal, MF. Was "drop his stick" needed or helpful? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, it was. Malleus Fatuorum 06:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support per GFHandel, RexxS and Malleus. It seems blindingly self-evident that most editors would find September 9, 1998 easier to parse than 1998-09-09. I am not sure how the bee entered the bonnet here, but the sooner it flies off and does something more useful the better for us all. --John (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This has been answered many times. You claim that most editors would find one form easier to parse than another. Your unstated premise is apparently that this factor so overrides any other consideration for readers (including the benefits of distinguishing, etc.) or anyone else, that ISO-style dates must be removed. But this is contradicted by the guidleline, which explicitly authorizes ISO-style dates, including explicitly for the accessdates. I would generally agree that formatting should benefit the reader, but between a benefit that would violate guideline and one that is explicitly in accord with guidelline, I think I would go with the latter. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per RexxS and MF.PumpkinSky talk 10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the above. "We've always done it this way" seems to be the counterargument. Let's let the readers read, not decode.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Explicilty allowed by guideline, and for which no substantial, evidence-based reasons have been provided to change. Let's aid the readers to read, not confuse them. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Rexx's comments, especially. Plus I find these ISO dates difficult to parse, and I bet our readers do too. External tools such as WP:Cite4Wiki do not offer ISO dates, only the other two options, so using one of the other options makes articles easier to maintain. -- Dianna (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per everybody, this looks like a clear improvement to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, because there is no good reason for this disruption, and ... why has the entire Merry Band of Jack Merridew and Rlevse Supporters in the FAC Matter shown up suddenly on this particular article. If at first you don't succeed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Sandy, do you have any reasons for your oppose that relate to the article itself, or to the technical issues we are discussing? -- Dianna (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  The Chewbacca defense. Sandy is also relying on the "if you have no argument, smear everybody you disagree with" school of debate. Let's not cloud the issue with facts, eh? Since when have Malleus, John, GFHandel and I been "Jack Merridew and Rlevse Supporters in the FAC Matter"? That's pretty laughable, isn't it. It's commendable that Sandy wants to stand up for her chum, but it's only helpful when there's something constructive to say. The ad hominem BS is far too obvious for anybody to take it seriously. --RexxS (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Why, I would never stoop so low as to smear everyone I disagree with, if for no other reason than the lack of enough hours in a day-- I'll have to content myself with just those who travel in roving bands of bullies trying to enforce their views of ... well ... everything they hold in common and sacred, with is ... everything they hold in common .. which is ... cabalism. On the citation matter, I happen to agree with our guidelines that they are a matter of consensus, and I also hold that those who work on articles should determine the consensus for the citation style for those articles, not those who show up to bolster their buddies to win a meaningless argument. Whatever floats your boat, some get gratification building articles, others get it bringing them down. May whomever prevails be sure to stick around after the little turf war is over and actually maintain the article you now seem to care so much about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  I have had little or nothing to do with the other editors in this debate, and I have only made one communication to another editor regarding its existence. I (and most others) have retained a polite and non-personal perspective in this debate, so I'm saddened to see the level of discourse diminished with personal attacks such as "Merry Band", "cabalism", and "roving bands of bullies". For the record: are you applying any or all of those epithets to me? GFHandel ♬  08:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Wow Sandy, that's extremely unexpected. We are discussing date formatting here, and which format of dates best serves our readers. It's incredibly inappropriate of you to make these allegations here. It leaves me worried for your well-being, to be honest. --John (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  "Extremely unexpected" for Wehwalt, Diannaa, RexxS and Rlevse/PumpkinSky who are all supporters of Alarbus/Merridew and his band of socks and who together took a minority position in the FAC wrecking crew, when Alarbus/Merridew is known to have plagued Gimmetrow for a long time over citation style, to all suddenly show up for the first time, at the same time, on an article they have nothing to do with and have never edited, to argue something that doesn't belong here anyway, is not unexpected; it's quite the norm for how that group works. The personalization began with the appearance of uninvolved editors here to try to affect consensus on an article they don't even edit. If someone wants to impose a house citation style, the place to do that is on guideline pages-- not by taking on an article they don't even watch, continuing the plague of Gimmetrow by Merridew. Until such time as house style or guidelines change, citation style is a matter for article by article consensus, and for uninvolved editors to pile on to change citation style on an article they don't even edit is suspect, considering their history with Merridew and Merridew's history with Gimmetrow. They should take it to the guideline page if they want to impose a house style.

  Now, as to It leaves me worried for your well-being, to be honest, weren't we down this very road years ago, when you made statements about Ceoil's mental health? I thought you'd seen the light and changed. If you're reverting to abusive adminly old ways, it's time to re-examine ... something ... that is related to your fitness for adminship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Aw, come on, Sandy. I was never involved in the FAC leadership debate that seems to be such a sore point for you. My contributions are public record and unless you can show how I was in any way involved, you really ought to strike my name from that peculiar accusation. My earlier interaction with Gimmetoo over the issue of date formats can be seen at Talk:Ursula Andress#Accessibility and dates so it's not unsurprising that when I noticed the debate on John's talk page, I followed the link to this page and saw the same problems that we had discussed previously (as I suspect the other editors who arrived here did). I promise you I did not sit down with Malleus at the Manchester Cabal Meetup in February and plan to ambush Gimmetoo three months later. And the only interaction I've had with John is when I argued for him to have the ARBDATE restrictions lifted from him as he was clearly caught up in a dispute that he had no part in. Sounds familiar. Finally, it's is extraordinarily ironic that you should be fabricating the sort of connections that you have: This isn't about personalities or cabals; the whole point of the debate is that many of us prefer months to be have names, not numbers, and want to reduce the usage of YYYY-MM-DD formats; while Jack is a big fan of YYYY-MM-DD dates and he'd be arguing against us if he were here! Don't you think that 'April' is a much more beautiful use of the English language than 'month 04'? --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  You might notice I never said anything about what brought Malleus or John to this issue (a discussion that brought me here as I attempted to mediate). The folks who subsequently showed up here is not at all ironic, and they should all be embarrassed to be so obviously partisan. (Doubt that they are, though.) So, why don't all of you stop fighting over trivia that makes not a wit of difference to anyone after you're done here, except the person who stays to maintain the article, let the folks who actually maintain this article decide what citation style to use, and take this little tiff to MOS if you want to gain consensus to enforce a specific style across the entire WIki? Doesn't matter who started this; does matter who grows up and stops it, before you chase off the editors who are doing the work of watching and building the article. My bottom line is the editors who are involved with an article should decide citation style within guidelines, if you want to change that guideline, go gang up elsewhere. This is unbecoming and disgusting what is going on in here. A continuation of the lamest arbcase ever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, I see. Malleus and John didn't take part in the "FAC wrecking crew", so they have your permission to express an opinion here. Whereas I, who also had no part in the "FAC wrecking crew" don't have your permission to have an opinion. No wait, that can't be it. Maybe it's because I'm a known supporter of Jack Merridew, who is in favour of ISO dates, so I can't express the contrary opinion, since that is cabalism ... no, that would be if we had the same opinion. Oh well. Does that mean that you don't prefer "April" to "month 04" after all? --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  It means either you're being deliberatively obtuse, or you don't want to take this discussion to the guideline page where it better belongs. Probably because the proposed change will gain little traction there, and it's sooooo much more fun to create drahmaz in here !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Sandy, your posts seem to imply (please correct me if I am misunderstanding you) that it is not okay to have a discussion about changing the format of the access date on this one particular article; that the overarching manual of style of guideline has to be changed. I am pretty sure you are incorrect about that; it is possible to have a discussion about changing just this one article. There does seem to be a parallel discussion about the guideline happening right now, and some people have participated in both discussions. -- Dianna (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Of course you can discuss an article, but then you should discuss the article, rather than repeat non-specific "arguments" already discussed at the guideline level, and not accepted. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Consensus on individual articles can and does change regardless of what is happening at the guideline level. That's what this discussion is about; a consensus change of citation style for this one particular article. This is permitted. -- Dianna (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Are you saying a group of editors, whose proposal was rejected by the larger community, can go to each article individually and "form a consensus" to do what was rejected the larger community, over the objections of the existing editors of the page? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  There are several acceptable citation styles; different styles appear in different articles; consensus changes; this article could be changed. That's what I'm saying. -- Dianna (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  I can see what you're getting at, Gimme, but surely the problem with that is how to define who the 'existing editors' are? Must an editor have a certain number of edits within a particular time period to qualify for participation in a discussion? And who would set those numbers? It holds far too much danger of creating ownership of articles for my taste. I willingly accept that you believe having accessdates in ISO-style is an improvement (to distinguish from publication date and for compactness). I think you can accept that I genuinely believe that dates containing a named month are an improvement anywhere where we are not constrained for space (easier to parse and more consistent than a mix). It seems to me that consensus has changed in the two-and-a-half years since the 2009 RfC, and more folks are moving towards favouring the latter rationales over the former ones. Let's actually have the debate on the issues, and not get distracted by the ad hominems that seem designed merely to disrupt the discussion on GFHandel's proposal. Lest I forget, though, I must remind Sandy that policy and guidelines on Misplaced Pages are descriptive, not prescriptive, and document what we do in articles. The MOS is not an abstract set of rules, derived in isolation from actual editing, rather it reflects actual practice in articles such as this. If it transpires that there is a clear preference here for 'April' over 'month 04', then that is the time to take a case to the MOS. Considering the actual issues, rather than the crimson clupeids, may I take it that you'll be !voting with Malleus and me, rather than Gimme and Jack, if that happens? --RexxS (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If it's working fine, leave it the way it is - for one thing. For another, it makes sense to have access and archivedates in yyyy-mm-dd format (pls don't say ISO, there's some problem with the Russian Revolution that makes them not ISO-xxxx compliant) because they take up less space that way and those dates are not important - honestly, do you want a line wrapped around so that you the reader can see that I the writer/reviewer clicked on a link or opened a book on "February 27, 2012" rather than 2012-02-27? RExxS is incorrect on the history too, some of us specifically never set a date preference, because we cared about what the actual readers saw. The removal of autoformatting meant nothing at all to me, I already had the anonymous view that always included yyyy-mm-dd. It's a great and succinct format for a most incosequential yet necessary datum. Moreover, our guidelines say quite clearly that if that is the established format, it should be left as is. What a crazy little tempest! Franamax (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  I have no problems with possible line wraps (which is never a reason to not present information in the most obvious and customary way to our readers—which is what the supports here wish to do). GFHandel ♬  08:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  So you like it because it is shorter? That actually seems like quite a good argument. I've always wondered why this metadata even needs to be displayed to the ordinary reader; I wonder if it would be possible to make it invisible and you have to enter edit mode to check it? Just a thought. I still value consistency with other dates in the article and readability (as long as we display this data at all we may as well do so in a format people can understand!) over brevity but thanks at least for making a coherent argument for your preferred style. --John (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry I wasn't clearer, Fran, but you're missing the point I was making. I also never set a date preference (because I wanted to see what the viewers did), but every time I used the 'cite' button on the toolbar and filled in the fields to create a citation, the script rendered the accessdate in YYYY-MM-DD format (and linked it), regardless of what format I used to enter it. That is why we were used to seeing so many articles using that format for accessdate - and the likely reason many people just copied that when hand-crafting references. I believe the proliferation of YYYY-MM-DD for accessdate is merely a historical accident of the choice made by the programmer of the script for the cite button, and that is why I refute the arguments about "original author" choice in these cases. Interestingly, this article had no references at all for more than three years after its creation! Our guidelines - for what they are worth in this instance - also say that date formats should be consistent. The early versions of this article contained a mixture of DMY and MDY formats (example), and nobody would argue that regularising those contravened the "established format" guideline. There's nothing special about YYYY-MM-DD dates that elevates them to sacrosanct status and should exempt them from the same consideration. By the way, "ISO" is ok most of the time - it's simply YYYY-MM-DD but only defined for use on dates in the Gregorian calendar. --RexxS (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  If an article were inconsistent it could be regularized. This article has a consistent style explicitly authorized by the MOSNUM guideline, and per the same guideline, that style should be retained. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly, it is metadata, and if there were a way to hide it altogether I would be all for that. It's no different than the type of camera used to acquire an image really - absolutely essential info, but only for those of us who nurture that particular interior geekiness. :) I've been concerned for at least 3 years now about the explosion of inline cites (perfectly justifiable in terms of ensuring article quality) and the impact of the resultant massive "References"/"Footnotes" sections. I would !vote for even the primary date used in footnotes to have a 3-character alpha month for purposes of brevity, it is a footnote after all. I've never quite understood those who argue we should have fully narrative dates in such a minor location, when the works themselves are so heavily abbreviated. A paper published in j. Res. Mol. Bioch. on 27 February 2007, the date takes as much space as the name of the journal? OK, maybe that's not the best example until Sean Combs gets his chem doctorate, but still, we're not reading "Twas The Night Before Christmas" to the audience here, it is the footnotes by now and IMO we should be presenting only the minimally necessary information. A locally consistent but above all terse format to me ideally satisfies the goals of simplicity and comprehensibility. Franamax (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, just so it's clear. This article currently has references using the format with publication dates in Month dd, YYYY, and accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD. The article developed with this format accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD from the beginning. A format that distinguishes publication dates from accessdates is beneficial, because
  • Distinguishing types of dates by format aids readers to easily identify one type of date vs. another
  • YYYY-MM-DD for the accessdates in particular de-emphasizes the accessdate as less important, largely technical information; it's also more compact
• The main arguments for changing this long-established format are essentially 1) YYYY-MM-DD dates are harder to parse, and 2) cite templates do not show examples using YYYY-MM-DD. Neither of these arguments are specific to this article. I argue against these reasons as follows:
  • Changing an accessdate like "2012-04-04" to "April 4, 2012" may arguably make it "easier to read" in isolation, but in a reference, the change makes it more likely for a reader to confuse an accessdate and a publication date. This is especially so in citations where only one date is present.
  • If the documentation for a template does not the range of MOSNUM-allowable options, and that is being taken to argue those options do not exist, then that's evidence the template documentation is misleading, and that the template documentation should be revised.
• Gimmetoo (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  "The article developed with this format from the beginning"—except that it didn't. When the article was in this state it did not have a single reference using "YYYY-MM-DD" format (with all month references spelt in full). Note that that state of the article was reached by 1,418 edits made by over 100 editors in almost four years.

  Simple clarification - "this format" refers to the accessdates. At the point you are looking the article did not have a single accessdate. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  In fact it was Gimmettoo himself (using his alternate account of Gimmetrow) who unilaterally introduced the yyyy-mm-dd format into the article with this edit of 29 October 2006, almost four years after the article was created, so as you say, hardly "from the beginning". But until then the article wasn't using accessdates at all, so maybe that's what he means. Malleus Fatuorum 12:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  I don't believe it is necessary to distinguish date formats between references and article text; instead, I'll give our readers credit to realize that there is a very long horizontal line under the distinct section heading "References" to assist them in distinguishing which section of the article they are viewing.

  The use of "YYYY-MM-DD" is not supported by the {{Cite web}} example template—which is what is used to copy-and-paste to obtain a set of blank fields. That is because the use of things like "April" (instead of "04") is no longer considered to be in the best interests of our readers. There is now a great deal of reasoned support on this page for that view.

  GFHandel ♬  10:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• • The first accessdates added to this article were in YYYY-MM-DD format, and that is how the article has developed. YYYY-MM-DD is explicitly allowed by the guideline even now. But if you think what {{cite web}} does is relevant, then it certainly does support YYYY-MM-DD: "Example". Retrieved 2012-05-08.. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I find the "all number" way too difficult to read. Agree with whoever said "April" is better than "04". Besides, all the other dates in the citations have the month name, so why should accessdate be in a different format? Don't get it. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you not notice the section immediately above you? Or any prior discussion of the reasons? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • yes, I read through the whole thing. It just happens that I find the citations in this article difficult to read because of the accessdate format. I have used {{Cite web}} and used accessdates such as April 27, 2012. I don't understand who decided this or why: "That is because the use of things like "April" (instead of "04") is no longer considered to be in the best interests of our readers." Just my view. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
      • The article developed with this format. Can you me where it was supposedly decided to remove YYYY-MM-DD dates from all articles because they are allegedly "no longer considered to be in the best interests of our readers"? As for readability, I find the following difficult to read.
        • "Example". May 8, 2012.
      • Your mileage may vary, but I find that date difficult to read. Is it a publication date? An accessdate? Something else? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
        • "Example". Retrieved May 8, 2012. I can tell the difference, and I doubt that anybody who knew what an accessdate was would confuse the two even in such an abbreviated example, but I agree that YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
          • The repeated claim is that 2012-05-08 is "difficult to parse". Well, putting the dates in the same format makes them more difficult to functionally interpret, another form of parsing. I have observed editors (in the process of changing date formats in long lists of references) claim the accessdates are inconsistent, when as far as I could tell they were all consistent. The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that they are reading some publication dates as accessdates. When both are present,
            • • "Example". May 1, 2012. Retrieved 2012-05-08.
          • clearly distinguishes types of dates so it is very easy to read, even at a glance. But when it is written as
            • • "Example". May 1, 2012. Retrieved May 8, 2012.
          • Of course, someone *can* figure out which is which, but it takes me and presumably others more attention to determine which is which quickly than the prior form. Accessdates are about our relation to the source rather than the source itself. They serve a largely technical purpose, and using ISO-style dates for them helps readers understand them as technical, less important pieces of information. Indeed, if people are arguing that they are "difficult to read", perhaps that's a good thing; as this is information that is generally not useful to readers, that's an argument for putting all accessdates in YYYY-MM-DD, on principle. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
            • I gave up long ago trying to figure out what was going on in some peoples' minds, but I sympathise with your observations. We both know, I guess, that we have a different kind of consistency in mind. You say that the pattern A-B, A-B, etc. is consistent, while I'm saying that A-A, A-A, etc. is more consistent. Perhaps I should use the word "uniform" to describe what I would like to see with date formats. I'd think your example above is a rarity on Misplaced Pages (but that's just my hunch, not a survey result). If this sort of example:
              • Too, Gimme; Schneider, Rexx (May 1, 2012). "Example". Misplaced Pages. Retrieved May 8, 2012.
            • and its ilk are actually much more common, then your 'distinguishing' line of argument is that much weaker, I think. Perhaps Franamax's explosion of highly detailed inline cites demonstrates how much more common it is nowadays to have most of the information supplied for every cite. Naturally, that is a strong recommendation for using WP:List-defined references and/or {{shortened footnote}}s to get the "snot" out of the edit window, so that you can actually read the text that you're editing. But that, of course, is a debate for another time. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
          • I disagree. If cite details increase, then the citations become longer with more line wraps (exacerbated by multiple columns). So it's more difficult to distinguish one date from another at a quick glance, because a reader loses location information. Writers use patterns, like A-B, A-B as you say, to help organize and identify structures. Wedonotwritesentencesthiswayinsteadweputspacesbetweenwords. We do not write the letters together with "uniform" spacing (documents used to be like that). Wiki doesn't "uniformly" put all content under level2 headers, but we use level3, and even level4, to provide structure. It's consistent in a way, but it's not "uniform". I think a "uniformity" which degrades the structure is largely a "foolish consistency". Gimmetoo (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• The bottom line is that there are only two real opposes here. Isn't it time to end this apparently endless discussion and just make the change that consensus is evidently in favour of? Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I guess you told me! And then what ... the wrecking crew moves on to the next target, an article they've never edited, and changes citation style there, since they can't accomplish this change at MOS? Rhetorical: what is it this crew has gained or hopes to gain? Alienating editors who watch and maintain articles? The power of winning a useless argument? A de facto change in MOS since it can't be accomplished directly? I really don't understand what motivates people to do something like this. I repeat; my oppose is that the citation guidelines allow this format, and those who actually work on the article (not those who showed up only and exclusively for this discussion) should determine the citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  My position very simply is that until Gimmetoo's intervention almost four years after the article was created it did not contain dates in the yyyy-mm-dd format, and I see no valid reason why it should do so now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that meme was already dealt with somewhere on this page, but just in case, I reviewed the older versions and found the article had no accessdates or full citations until about 2006 ... like this just before Gimme edited and what's this, after citations were added a few months later? Maybe I'm missing something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  It's not a meme, it's a fact. When introducing accessdates there was no good reason to choose a date format other than the one already used in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  There was no good reason not to do it that way, either. And nobody objected in 2006. Or 2007. Or 2008. You get the picture. Are you really saying that now, 6 years later, when the article is consistent, you can change it because you don't like an edit from 2006, that was not contrary to any guideline in 2006 and is not contrary to any guideline now? Are you going to apply that principle everywhere? If not, why not? It seems like a glorious principle for disruptive editors to use down the road. But you're semi-retired, what do you care? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with MF's view. I disagree with the pejorative implication of "wrecking crew" because the desire to improve the article for all readers by using things like "April" instead of "04" cannot reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to "wreck" the article. GFHandel ♬  01:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  If this is such an issue, surely you will prevail then at the appropriate MOS and guideline pages, and avoid demoralizing editors by an article-by-article campaign to install something that has not been endorsed or accepted wikiwide. I hope you enjoy whatever it is you're winning if editors who have watched and developed articles for years are chased off over something on this level-- as if MOS warriors didn't get a bad enough name from the date delinking arb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  The truth is that it's only Gimmetoo's intransigence that has made this a big issue. Why is he so resistant to the clear consensus? Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus on the broader issue, Malleus. And I'm sure you can appreciate that it's offensive when folks charge in to an article they've never edited to make an example that is not endorsed by any Wiki-wide guideline. Perhaps similar to how you feel when someone who can't write barges in and starts altering prose you've labored over for years? For the record (since the old FAC discussions are what got me drug in here so John could insult me), here are only some of the old discussions I referenced almost a week ago (perhaps, Malleus you've forgotten or weren't around when we were forced to deal with the ISO date issue because the cite templates only accepted them in many cases):

• Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive30#Date autoformatting change
• Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive25#New guidelines for date formatting where not autoformatted
• Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates/archive48#Reference style

Now, perhaps the templates are now fixed (I'll never hold my breath on that, though) so that editors have more choices, but that wasn't always the case (ISOs were at one point forced upon us), it's unfair to call Gimme intransigent when he respects guidelines, and this raises the bigger concern that I share with Gimme, which is that because of the vagaries of the citation methods on Misplaced Pages, in the absence of broader consensus, we leave citation style to consensus within guideline, article by article. For folks to barge in and try to change one article when the broader proposal has been rejected boggles my mind. Like we have nothing better to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What's clear to me is that the yyyy-mm-dd format is simply a hangover from the days of date autoformatting, a half-baked idea that should never have seen the light of day. Today it has no place except in situations where dates need to be sorted, as in tables. As for John insulting you, well, I agree that any concern he expressed for your well being was ill judged. Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I do my best to avoid the MOS pages like the obsessive plague that they are, although as FAC delegate, I was obligated to stay abreast of changes there ... so ... you may well be right that they are now a hangover, but I really don't know if ISO dates are a relic or not or if they have some other use still. What I do know is that the damn MOS changes so often that it's silly to spend so much time on this, and it's rude to insult an editor and attack an article that was and is following guidelines, and if the ISO dates are indeed a relic, the collaborative, indeed kind and wise thing to do is to address the issue at the core, MOS, not by going after one editor and one article. Particularly when we've seen that pattern before, and it is destructive to editors, to articles, and to a collaborative environment.

I hope John finds himself able to regroup and come back to the admin we had come to enjoy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• We have people arguing that accessdates must be "May 9, 2012" because they absolutely must be in whatever format these users think is the most readable format in isolation (without providing any evidence, of course), and others saying accessdates shouldn't even be displayed at all. Clearly a group of editors want iso dates gone, but consensus is a matter of reasoned, solid arguments. If you want iso dates changed, you need to engage discussion on the matter and respond to objections (RexxS has been doing this). At this point, all the above lacks any solid, convincing, evidence-based arguments for changing the existing format. If anyone has one, please provide it. If not, then I think we can be done here. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  No, consensus is about consensus, not about perceived "rights" or "wrongs", or "reasoned solid arguments" – which you have yet to provide yourself – and the consensus here is clearly against you. Malleus Fatuorum 05:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  It is the job of those proposing a change to provide strong reasons for the change. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  No, consensus is clear in this case (as substantive arguments have been provided—which have been supported by the majority of editors here). After a little more time for comment (preferably from editors with input other than IDONTLIKEIT), I intend to rework the references in this article to be based on the standard {{Cite web}} template (as is the convention), and therefore to use the suggested accessdate format of "Month Day, Year" (as is the convention now used by all editors who copy-and-paste the template fields from {{Cite web}}). I will do this, not as part of some "cabal" or "wrecking crew", but with the same intent on which I base all my editing activities: the desire to improve the article for our readers.

  I will add that I am very surprised that less than 10% of the references in this article use the {{Cite web}} template—which has resulted in much too wide a result in reference syntax. Converting all the web references to using the standard {{Cite web}} template will be a large job in this case, and I could use all the help I can get (and perhaps the work could be divided up by sections?). Anyhow, when this is all over I'll make a start and do the best that I can.

  GFHandel ♬  08:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  Actually yes, consensus among the regular editors of this article is indeed quite clear. Gimmetoo, SandyGeorgia and myself agree that the existing format is adequate, and no substantive arguments have been put forth to change this particular article. It does seem that your proposal has rallied some inchoate sense of a need for change of something or other. Please address this at the relevant guideline and policy pages and return when you have developed the enyclopedia-wide consensus you seem to be prematurely declaring here. Franamax (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  In what sense is SandyG, who has made only two edits to this article almost four years ago a "regular editor"? You yourself have only made 28 edits, the last well over a year ago, so what's your definition of "regular editor"? Malleus Fatuorum 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  Correct, I am not a "regular editor" of this article. As far as I know, the only "regular editor" here is Gimme (that is, an editor who followed this article before and independently from this style dispute). I am here because I was asked to opine in a disagreement between friends on what our guideines say (I thought I had done that impartially, and was surprised to see John claiming some issue because I didn't look at the actual edits, which was eggggzactly the point-- I was only commenting on the guideline). I re-engaged when I saw an influx of editors unrelated to the topic attempting to affect consensus on an article they don't even edit (WP:POINT), and I continue to say that it is demoralizing and demotivating to editors when one article is targeted because a group wants to effect a wider change to a guideline. It's just not nice-- take it to the guideline, leave the individual article alone until you gain consensus. It's the editors who work here who have to deal with whatever method is used, as well as the ever-changing citation methods. IF there are serious problems with ISO that need to be addressed, reason will prevail in a broader discussion. Again, what have all of you gained by all of this illwill? When you "win", what have you won ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

  Conversely, what would Gimmetoo lose by recognising that consensus is against him, as it so obviously is? Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• How many edits does one need then to be entitled to contribute to the discussion? Franamax, you're on shaky ground with only 28. Actually, Gimmetoo would get to make the sole decision if our opinions were weighted according to the number of edits; between his two accounts he has made 452. Wouldn't this be somewhat opposed to the spririt of WP:OWN though? --John (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• For my purposes, there's a distinction between anyone who was editing this article before and independent of the style dispute. I don't think your analogy of weighting above would apply, at least IMO. The question is, who works on the article and what has been gained by all of this ill will, and why isn't this effort expended on the guidelines rather than one article and one editor, who not incoincidentally was targeted in the past ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

7,968 words in this section arguing over the access date that nobody will read anyway. You people crack me up! Tex (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If that was all we had done you would indeed by entitled to your crack. Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Tex is right, I'm unwatching now, but this sort of thing is really sad and doesn't speak well for Misplaced Pages. When so many good editors are arguing over a silly accessdate, instead of letting Gimme go about his business of maintaining an article no one else ever cared about, we've got issues. Did we learn nothing from the lamest ever Arbcom case? Bye, I'm sorry I wasn't able to be of more help; I thought I could affect some reason among people I think of as friends, and I've surely failed. Work to do elsewhere. IF there is a reasonable RFC somewhere about the guidelines, I'd appreciate it if someone would ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Chicago articles
• High-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Mid-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Hip-hop articles
• Top-importance Hip-hop articles
• WikiProject Hip-hop articles
• C-Class Miami articles
• High-importance Miami articles
• WikiProject Miami articles