Talk:2018 CONCACAF Champions League

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

Date format?[edit]

I've mentioned this at Talk:CONCACAF Champions League and I think it applies to this article and more recent seasons, but I'll go ahead and post this here. Per MOS:DATETIES AND MOS:DATERET I don't see why we would use MDY instead of DMY. If you look at the pages for early tournaments, the vast majority of the articles use the latter rather than the former, with only a few exceptions, but more recent iterations use MDY. Shouldn't this be addressed? Jay eyem (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily American readers of the English article of recent year articles. No requirement to have consistency across various tournaments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really address your argument to MOS:DATERET when in fact the opposite is true: most of the tournaments do in fact use DMY rather than MDY. Plus with MOS:DATETIES, only Canada and the United States use MDY, while pretty much the rest of the confederation uses DMY. I don't see anywhere under MOS:TIES or MOS:DATETIES why the readership is what determines the date format. The tournament has as much strong national ties to Mexico and other CONCACAF countries like Costa Rica as it does to the US or Canada. Jay eyem (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of that MoS guide is that Mexico and Costa Rica are not English-speaking countries and thus are not the target audience for English Wikipedia. USA and Canada are the only English-speaking countries in this tournament and in both countries, MDY is the prefered date format. –BLAIXX 16:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ok I can see that actually, and I think that's the correct reading. I'm personally wondering when that determination starts i.e. when it becomes closely tied to the US and Canada. Surely not before the creation of MLS. There are a few earlier iterations that I bookmarked that I might argue are not closely tied (1971, 1972, and 1979) that I think should be changed. Jay eyem (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DATERET is arguing to stay with the date format originally used if no DATETIES exist, but that doesn't apply across different articles like the season articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]