Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Four questions

Four questions regarding this.

1. I have seen many articles about Russia, especially for places, using MDY date format, which is not used in Russia. They should use DMY format which is used in Russia. No one in Russia writes their dates in MDY format. I think that MOS:DATETIES should be expanded to cover non-English-speaking countries, since there might be disagreement of what constitutes an ”English-speaking country”; are former British colonies or protectorates where English is not an offficial language (such as Cyprus, Mauritius, Bangladesh and Malaysia) ”English-speaking countries”?
2. Article Navassa Island uses imperial units first, but it should use metric units first, since it is disputed between US and Haiti, which uses metric system.
3. I have seen articles about individual Western Pacific typhoon seasons using MDY date format, but I wildly remember that they were all using DMY dates before. Were they changed to use MDY dates?
4. Can fractions be used in places of decimals in precentages, such as 31⁄2% in place of 3.5%? --40bus (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Normally you would use the date format used by that country. I think the MDY format is used because it was written by someone from the USA. Select edit and infobox and see what it states for date format. I personally think it's better to use to use decimals outside the USA. Avi8tor (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The date format used in Russian is irrelevant for the choice of English-language date format. Such articles are written in English in English-language WP, not in Russian. Doremo (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that DMY format might be the format used even in English-language texts in Russia, and this is not like Japan where most English-language texts seem to use MDY and its date format used in Japanese (YMD) is not used in English. So, articles related to a non-English-speaking country should use the format that is used or might be used in English-language texts in that country (which may be the same as in the native language). --40bus (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The way that (some) Russians (or Japanese) may write in English remains irrelevant for the choice of English-language date format. Doremo (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Good arguments can be made for many changes, but for an encyclopedia which already has 7,249,895 articles, it's good to think through the process by which the rules might change. First understand what the rules are. The possible issues above are real, but they are not violations of Wikipedia's guidelines. Many of our rules are compromises and changing one thing would mess with other compromises. Search the archives of this page to see (1) how often these have been discussed in the past and (2) how few of those discussions have resulted in changes. Then, I suggest learning to be comfortable with current practice. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

YMD is indeed used in English, but admittedly only really (and necessarily here, by this style guide) only in all-numeric format, yyyy-mm-dd.

It's clearly ridiculous that an idiosyncratic US styling is mandatory on US topics, and optional on most others. The "stability" policy is also incredibly hard to maintain, as editors will just change it obliviously (or otherwise), and that might well become the "stable" version by default.

Behold! A Wikipedia. Probably unfixable at this point. ~2026-46260-28 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, see MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATERET: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that country. For all other articles, either DMY or MDY are fine. Once an article has been standardized on one of them or one clearly dominates, this should not be changed without prior discussion – so in practice the first contributor who cares enough decides which one it'll be.

So, for articles tied to Russia or Western Pacific countries where English isn't the national language, both styles are perfectly fine. Gawaon (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That’s the current position, but the OP is right that a general default to DMY with MDY used in articles with clear links to the US (excepting the US military, already DMY, and similarly for other organisations that use DMY like the IOC) would be just as appropriate and arguably more sensible. This would, after all, be the same as the MoS defaulting to “US” but permitting “U.S.” in articles related to America. MapReader (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

As for your last question: 31⁄2% looks odd and confusing. With percentages you should always use a decimal point (if the precision is needed), so write 3.5%. Gawaon (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

While I agree 3.5 % looks better than 3 1⁄2 %, I would argue that 33 1⁄3 % is better than 33.3 % if the intended meaning is one third. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, it sure is more precise! But if you just mean 1⁄3, why not write 1⁄3? Gawaon (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The question was about how (not whether) to express values as percentages. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

But if an exact rational is being expressed, the answer to that'd be "you can't". But outside of maths articles, where it'd be odd to use percentages at all, for most purposes a finite precision approximation is likely fine. Even if the original data is something like "exactly 337 out of 1011 people surveyed" or such like. ~2026-46260-28 (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I think 33⁠1/3⁠% looks better than 331⁄3%, if we're thinking about the aesthetics. Dingolover6969 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Really, the 33 should be inside the template: ⁠33+1/3⁠%; 33+1⁄3%. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

"c." guidance?

A case where we see a lot of {{circa}}s is bios where the a deceased isn't discovered immediately. For non-suspicious deaths there may not be an inordinate effort made to try to establish and officialise a DoD forensically, and the date most cited is when the discovery and 'pronouncement' were made. In others, reporting may be patchy due to a criminal case being sub judice.

But do we have any clarity and consistency about how much certainty, or lack of, should determine the necessity of a "c." in the first place? And about which date to put after it if we do? The most likely? The most commonly cited? The middle of any range of possibilities? The most "official" date available?

And given these different possibilities, having raised in the reader's mind, often right at the start of the lede that the DoD isn't known, do we then do anything to answer it? Is it sufficient that it's addressed somewhere in the article body, without us indicating where? Should it be internally linked? Footnoted? Cited even in the lede? ~2026-39276-06 (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. If you have doubts about the outcome on a specific page, I suggest you raise them on the relevant talk page. Gawaon (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Absent any answers to these points here, nor indeed any apparent interest in obtaining any, I'm inclined to take them, or a couple of the most central ones at least, to an RfC. Better I think to have some attempt at general guidance, otherwise we'll have very similar discussions case-by-case. Or worse, people inferring their own 'rule' for this one an WP: OTHERSTUFF basis. ~2026-48728-16 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think about crime and unnatural death if I can avoid it, but I do think about approximate dates. Use circa or its abbreviation (c.) when a date is not know exactly and that lack of knowledge cannot be expressed or explained in words. That might mean to use "c." in an infobox, but in the text say that the date of death is not known, but the death certificate was dated September 28, 2026, and explain the circumstances. I hope that helps. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:22, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I think the nuance is that 'c.' can always be expressed in (other) words, and in principle with more precision at that. The issue is, when a wordier alternative (inline or in footnotes, etc) would be WP:UNDUE or excessively intrusive. Without getting in gruesome specifics of the particular cases I have in mind, I'm thinking of where the sources do not themselves necessarily describe it in such terms, and it's having to do the work of "on or before", "sometime around", "most likely on", "sources conflict", or even simply "most sources don't boil it down to one date in so many words". ~2026-48728-16 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Format for opposing percentages, in a table

For election percentage comparisons in a table, should MOS:VOTE apply ("52–48 percent")?

I've made edits to election result tables in U.S. congressional district articles, changing, for example, "52% - 48%" to "52–48%". I've cited MOS:ENTO which I think is incorrect, since they're not ranges. "Percent" seems cumbersome in a table, versus the percent sign. Or would "52%–48%" be preferred? Really consequential stuff, sorry. Duoliteral (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

The last format ("52%–48%") potentially has the least confusion. TheAmazingCoffeeMan (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Unknown dates for BLPs

If we have no birth date for a living person, is it appropriate to use {{fl.}}?

In a name dab page or surname page, it could be very useful to distinguish the living person from the 16th-century poet or 19th-century historian who the reader is looking for: "fl. 2026" indicates that it's definitely a different person.

I tend to add (fl. 2026) in lists like that, but it seems uncommon. And, if we do use it, do we use the current year? Or the earliest year for which we have evidence (eg their BSc, or first known recording, etc)? Or add a range from earliest known date to current year, despite the fact that this might look to the casual reader like a birth and death range?

If {{fl.}} is thought to be appropriate for BLPs, it should perhaps get a mention in this MOS.

Thoughts? PamD 11:52, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Just leave it blank. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I've mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Should we use "fl." for unknown birthdate BLPs? PamD 12:00, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Claiming that someone only flourished in 2026 looks harsh now, and if the article's not edited again (or that bit's not edited again), will look even more harsh in 2029. Indeed, I can't remember ever seeing fl. used of a living person, on or off Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

But in distinguishing between several different Jane Smiths in a list, it's frustrating not to be able to distinguish someone contemporary from someone from the 18th century. Perhaps that's it: should we use "(21st century)" or "(20th century)", according to the century of the majority of their notable activity? PamD 20:00, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I think "active" gets used in some cases, rather than "fl.". PamD 20:08, 8 October 2026 (UTC)