Talk:Persian cat

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nabidin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Disputed
I've tagged this page with for a variety of WP:Verifiability failures. In only a few minutes, I was able to find cases of: and other problems. Where I did not fix these outright (e.g. the false assertions that Ankara, Turkey is part of Greater Iran, that "Iranian Plateau" is synonymous with Greater Iran, and that the cats originate from Greater Iran generally, rather than from Iran and Turkey as the sources actually state), and where they were not already flagged (e.g. the various tags), I have flagged them with  or, with reason parameters with brief explanations of the issues. I'll give other editors here some time to clean the stuff up before I wade in with the editorial machete. Please note that all of this was from just skimming the text for typos and stuff; I would guess that I've identified less that 50% of the severe problems in the article. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 15:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blatant falsification of what the sources actually say, in two places
 * Badly incorrect summarization of facts from other articles
 * Unsourced statements all over the place
 * False geographical statements (fixed)
 * Contradictory and confusing "information" about breed standards
 * The Pallas cat claim is sourced to messybeast.
 * In the 1800s, Pallas suggested that Angora and Persian cats were descended not from Felis silvestris but from Pallas’s cat (Felis manul) which he discovered and named. This suggestion was quoted by Darwin in 1868 who wrote, "The large Angora or Persian cat is the most distinct in structure and habits of all the domestic breeds; and is believed by Pallas, but on no distinct evidence, to be descended from the Felis manul of middle Asia.". There is anecdotal evidence that Pallas cats can interbreed with domestic cats to produce offspring, but to introduce the gene, the hybrid offspring would have to be fertile and be bred back to domestic cats. In 1907, Pocock described the various English domestic cats for Royal Zoological Society and strongly refuted the Pallas cat theory since the skull of Pallas’s cat differed from that of the Angora or Persian of Pocock's time.
 * On Persians presented in first cat show, you state "The sources so far do NOT corroborate this, but clearly discuss and show illustrations of an Angora." The Iams guide clearly states this. It is dead now but you can see the archived version. I'm not sure what picture you are looking at and how you can tell that it is of an Angora and not a Persian when it is clear that many people don't even agree that they are two different types.
 * "Champion lamented the lack of distinction among various long-haired types by English fanciers" This is from the same book the quote is from. The following passage follows directly from the earlier quote
 * Wherever breeders notice the long, locky coat in Persians (especially where great length of coat is seen on the shoulders and legs), they should do all that is possible to encourage this desirable point in their strain. I have made a great point of this myself for years in breeding Persians, and would be very sorry to lose this beautiful type of coat.
 * The term "Long-haired Cats" has long been used in the cat clubs and stud books of England, and if they cannot keep the breeds separate there, surely we cannot, who breed from English stock.
 * Maybe "lament" is too strong a word, but she was obviously unhappy with the merging of the two breeds.
 * You are confused about the registries. CFA is an US organization, the main US registry, they are the one with the extreme standard, the main UK registry is the Governing Council of Cat Fancy and they have the more moderate standard although from the wording it seems to only apply to the kitten category and not all Persians. --Dodo bird (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a lot to discuss. The pictures I'm going on, the earliest published from cat shows, in the late 1800s, specifically identify the long-haired cats as "Angora" or sometimes misspelled "Angola" (!). I mean, I have the actual original hand-colored woodcut prints (you can pick them up on eBay for around $20 or so).  They show a normal-faced cat, with the semi-long hair and kind of lion-ish profile of the Angora, not the flattened face and all-over fluffy long hair of the Persian, and do not use the term Persian.  That the breeds have been merging and messed with by breeders for 100 years, I have no doubt of.  I'm not sure I have an opinion on the "were these breeds  distinct?" question yet. Anyway, I'm not an Angora or Persian breeder, and have no viewpoint to push here. I was just doing some source checking and found severe sourcing problems within minutes of even casual checking. About the orgs: I'll take your word for it, but hopefully the text can be clarified and actual breed standards cited where the breed standard points are discussed, especially where they differ.  Sorry if I came on strong; my goal isn't to criticize the article for kicks, but to improve it. Many cat articles are in serious need of overhauls. Iams guide: I'd cite that then, using . I'm not sure it will necessarily be reliable – I have actual period sources, like illustrated articles from the original Crystal Palace cat shows and such – but citing it so it can be read means readers and editors can evaluate it.  In the course of doing research to improve the Manx (cat) article (I've literally spent over US$300 gathering sources), which badly, badly needs an overhaul, it's become clear that a very large number of mainstream cat books, Cat Fancy magazine articles, and other secondary and especially tertiary sources are full of complete b.s. that they simply cannibalize from one another. One book or article misinterprets something in an older one and phrases it summary of the misunderstood old source poorly, and then a third repeats that with further corruption away from the meaning the original, like a game of Chinese whispers. A large number of them are not reliable sources but it takes a lot of research to determine on which breeds they have unreliable information and where the error crept in, and what the actual facts are. I'm sure you've noticed at least some of this problem yourself. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 20:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If your claim is that there were no flat-faced Persians at the 1871 cat show, of course you would be right. But is that what we are arguing about? From the Iams article.
 * When Weir held his 1871 cat show, distinct differences between Persians and Angoras were noted. Persians were stockier and had smaller, rounded ears, and Angoras were slender and tall-eared, just as they are today.
 * Weir makes a distinction between Angora and Persians in his 1889 book. That is a long time from the first show, but together with the Iams source, which is pretty specific, I'm not sure that the lack of images of longhaired cats labeled Persians in your collection is enough for a claim that Persians were not at the show. That is unless there is evidence that all breeds in the show were in a catalog/book about the show and they did not include the Persian.--Dodo bird (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good enough reasoning for me to self-revert the disputed tag, esp. since the talk page is active and people can look into the matters. Where I've found specific issues with sourcing I already indicated. I have multiple sources on the Crystal Palace 1871 cat shows (there were two actually, and most people even writing cat books don't know that; a second one was held late in the year), and Persians are never mentioned.  I concede that the distinctions between the breeds (which at that time were really landraces, not breeds in the programmatic breeding sense yet) was less clear back then.  My main concern about what we're talking about right now: Where is the Iams source getting the idea that there were both Angoras and Persians at Crystal Palace in 1871, with distinctions already drawn between the varieties?  I cannot find any primary source material to support this, and as a result I suspect strongly that it's an error. A tertiary cat book like any of the cat breed "encyclopedias" isn't going to be useful in clearing it up, either, because they cannibalize each other's "facts" with impunity and poorly at that. It would need to be a primary source from the era, or a secondary source that specifically cites such a primary source. (PS: I'm not making the claim that peke-face existed back then, only that I believe a somewhat shortened muzzle was one of the distinguishing characteristics of the landrace in the late 1800s. If Weir never mentions it, maybe I have my timeline wrong on that and it didn't appear until later?  I've spent more time researching the Turkish Van/Angora/Van cat material because of the multi-article dispute going on about those breeds/that breed.) — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From Messybeast
 * The cat show was advertised in The Times of 10th July 1871, "The Cat Show is to be held on Thursday next", but no-one was certain of what to expect... The official show advertisements stated 25 classes comprising nearly all the known species of Eastern (i.e. Angora and Persian) and other foreign (Russian, Siamese) cats, as well as the British varieties (Shorthairs, Manx).
 * The legend on the 1871 illustration of prize-winning exhibits reads:- Top left-to-right: Persian rare colour Violet; Hybrid Wildcats; Silver Tabby. Middle left-to-right: Best Litters of Kittens; Mouse Colour English. Bottom left-to-right: Tortoiseshell Tom; Persian; Abyssinian.
 * --Dodo bird (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A Persian cat in a movie
In the movie Over the hedge there is a cat named Tiger in it who is a Persian. I added this to the popular culture section.68.54.8.249 (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's unencyclopedic trivia. There have probably been 1000 Persian cats in movies.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Elderly Persian
I have contributed a photo of a 19+ year old female, in the final days of her life. This is really rare for this breed, to live so long so I hope that it is valuable enough to remain here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)
 * We cannot include every single picture of a persian cat that is out there. However sad it is (and my condolences for you that your cat died), we don't need to include it when there's already 20 pictures. 67.220.154.178 (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The value of this contribution is clear. The story mentions that the normal age for this breed is 12, yet this is a member of that breed that lived to 19 years of age. That is more then noteworthy. The photo stays.. Contribute using your real user name, rather then simply follow all my edits, as you have for the last week or so, please. Thank you talk→   WPPilot   14:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "The photo stays" – According to you. Let's see if others agree. 67.220.154.178 (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have several comments on this article and discussion:
 * There are not too many photos on this page. Compare and contrast with other domestic animal pages.
 * According to a statistical study of nearly 50,000 cats, Persian (0.067) and Siamese (0.627) groups have higher mortality than average (0.0462), thus older individuals are less likely in these two groups of cats. The study showed the median average death age was approximately 12.5 years for these groups.  Thus a 19-year-old individual is an outlier and notable.  This study has been cited in multiple Wikipedia cat pages and is considered the most reliable available recent paper on the topic.
 * @WPPilot, I suggest adding the citation (use the edit function to see how to grab it) to the article where applicable, and add a citation to the photograph, format here suggested... "Author WPPilot, link to the Wikimedia Commons image page, and ___date of photo___". I've seen and used photographic documentation references in other parts of the project - after they were suggested to me by an expert Commons admin, |JameslWoodward "call me Jim" Woodward.  I think it would be useful to add the discussion of average ages as documented in that study and then the outlier of this particular cat to the text as well as having the image.
 * @User:67.220.154.178: In future, please sign in to facilitate discussion and provide reliable secondary sources for your comments. Personally I put a lot more weight on the arguments of logged in users than I do to anonymous users.  Yes everyone can edit; but to edit-war requires an account.  Otherwise CU's may reveal something better left under a rock.  Just sayin' .... Your friendly Wikimedia Commons deletion editor... Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. The caption accompanying the image should be changed, by the way. 67.220.154.178 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a statistical outlier does not make something or someone "notable". That term has a special meaning on Wikipedia: deserving of its own stand-alone article. Even if you meant something like "interesting" or "noteworthy", it still doesn't qualify. I knew a Siamese cat that made it to age 28, but that doesn't mean a photo of it is needed at Siamese cat. We use images on a basis of how well they illustrate an article, not whether they are giving some subjective sense of "due credit and honour" to someone or something that qualifies as within the scope of the article but is somehow unusual within that scope. If anything, we avoid images of unusual things within an article scope for the very reason that they are unusual, i.e. not representative, therefore poorly illustrative of the general subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The caption is odd because "Purr Lexus A Calico Persian Purebred @ 18 years of age" is mechanically incorrect, lacking proper punctuation and capitalization--not to mention the use of "@" in prose. Moreover, the citation suggests that the source has something to say about the particular cat, which is of course not the case. Also,, it does not take an account to edit-war--in fact, the IP successfully edit-warred over this picture, as did WPPilot. CU has nothing to do with this since such a check does not link an IP address to an account. Finally, I also think this article has too many pictures, and comparison with other pet articles isn't very helpful: one should compare with good articles, such as Good Articles or Featured Articles. IP, I'm glad you're participating here: let's keep it legitimate, with talk page discussion instead of back-and-forthing in the history. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WPPilot has reverted my edit, though. As I don't want to revert him again, in the interest of things, I will ask if "A calico Persian purebred. At 18 years old, she is considered exceptionally rare in this breed." is bad enough for him to revert. Most readers won't care what the cat's name is, so I don't know why it cannot be removed. 67.220.154.178 (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the caption is not very encyclopedic. Ellin, surely you agree with that. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the caption needs work. I was waiting for WPPilot to go through the section as I suggested before making any changes; in fact I have made none to the article space since the usual method for changing articles is to discuss then change.  Cheers!  Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did the caption and will put some time into adding the data in the link in the AM. Thanks Ellin. you really need to find something to do and please, log in or create an account as clearly your enthusiasm, experience with syntax and policy was not obtained with the few edit's you have made, under this Anon I.P. . . .  talk→   WPPilot   04:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Purr Lexus" was the registered name from the breeder. Breeders will be able to trace her linage via the Persian registry using it. Any cattery that has her lines would I think be desirable. talk→   WPPilot   20:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to "log in or create an account". Even a passing reader would have seen that the syntax and caption, as you added it, were wrong. 67.220.154.178 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Those interested will be able to get the cat's actual name from the Commons upload. I edited the caption also just now.   Cheers!  Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ellin, that looks great. Cheers! talk→   WPPilot   03:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
At least two sources being depended on for various alleged facts in this article fail WP:RS: — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Messybeast.com – This is Sarah Hartwell's personal cat blog, "not affiliated to any registry, breed society, veterinary association or welfare society", and not professionally edited ("My day-job means I can't answer all emails.") It's a hobby site. While she's "contributed to" some cat-related books (mostly non-reliable, e.g. children's books, collections of trivia, and Cat Protection League pamphlets, but also an ostensibly reputable cat encyclopedia and a breeding book) this doesn't make her a reliable felinology authority in her self-publishing endeavors.  She rarely if ever cites her own sources, despite making very particular historical and genetic claims, and she's subject to no editorial control or peer review, which puts her site, for WP purposes, at the low end of the primary sources, as well as a verboten self-published one.  I actually like her work, as a starting point for details to seek WP-appropriate sources for, but we can't cite her directly.  All claims about breed origins in absence of modern and very well-documented histories, and about genetics, are essentially controversial/extraordinary, and trigger the requirement that "extraordinatory claims require extraordinary sources".
 * Iams.com – This is a cat-food manufacturer, not any kind of authority on cat breed history or traits. Like breeders themselves, Iams has a vested interest in repeating uncritically anything that increases cat owners' sense of "wonder" and pride in their pets; it translates to higher prices for breeders, and more pet owners willing to buy expensive but not necessarily better pet food (in Iams's case, see ~26mil recalled products, in multiple years). In both cases, they are not truly independent of the subject. Breeders are generally primary sources, while Iams in this case is a low-quality tertiary one.  This article, like all WP articles, should be based on high-quality secondary sources.

Additional source fail: — SpeedQweef  13:53, 21 March 2018
 * Indianapublicmedia.org – Although on it's surface this may appear to be a valid source, upon closer inspection it is in no way reputable material. A quick look at the staffing of the site reveals that there are no employees with a background to make such a claim, and since it is not attributed to any reputable individual (i.e. professor in related field) and lacks any source citation itself, it is simply not pertinent to this article. I therefore removed the source and corresponding sentence, which I have listed below.  Post scritum: I spent around 30 mins attempting to find a valid source for this 'genetic buffer' and came up short, both in academic papers as well as general enthusiast websites.
 * Original Content – "These terms are considered controversial or marketing ploys as cats do not have the genetic mutations that dogs possess to produce miniature versions of themselves as cats have a strong genetic buffering mechanism that keeps the genes from mutating."

Peke-Faced Persian

 * The information in this section is incorrect. It was not the result of a mutation in the 1950s -- it occurred much earlier than that. It is associated with Rajah Mack -- there is a reference and picture of him from 1919. In addition, in there is an article from 1924 that discusses the health issues associated with the type. The Peke-Faced Persian had a separate standard and class from the regular Persian calling for very different type. It eventually disappeared but it did not look anything like today's modern day Persian and you should not be confusing today's type with the Peke-Faced Persian. My source is a copy of the original documents from 1919 and 1924. --TaliskerCats (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)--TaliskerCats (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be the case that a different and somehow distinct peke-faced Persian type was once developed, before the one that dominates now. We'd need more documentation about this. However, that would do nothing at all to change the fact that the presently common brachycelphalic type are also very commonly called "peke-face". That is, we cannot use the apparent fact that the term once had a somewhat different meaning, several [human] generations ago, to declare the current overwhelmingly common usage to be "wrong". This is not WeirdlySubjectiveLanguagePolicingPedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"Most popular breed in the United States"???
I live in the United States, and I can definitely say that in my (somewhat limited) experience, at least in my area, Persian cats aren't terribly common, with short-haired cats or even the "Maine Coon" being more common. Also, as the citation needed tag already attests to, there is no citation for this. Are there any objections to just removing it? 2600:1015:B104:A4C8:D63D:7EFF:FEE4:39A6 (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed the sentence and added accurate information with a citation. SpinningBanner (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Broken Breed standards for TICA
Hi Guys,

Can somebody please change the old broken link with new PDF link under Breed standards for TICA?

Thank you very much.

Nirajrm (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Brachycephalic Persians
Persian cats are well known for their distinct facial structure; large owl eyes, a flat face, and a smaller mouth cavity compared to average domestic cats. With selective breeding being on the rise in recent years, this facial structure has grown on people's hearts. Brachycephalic Persians can come in four types of severity; mild, moderate, profound, and severe. This facial abnormality can lead the Persian to experience daily hardships and results in the Persian being more susceptible to diseases and infections.Nabidin (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabidin (talk • contribs) 01:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Consistent date format
On January 10, 2024, the editor SMcCandlish updated the existing MDY script for the article previously updated in November 2021. I can't see any documentation that YYYY-MM-DD has to be used for references in this article. If this documentation about YYYY-MM-DD exists for this article on Persian cat where is it situated?

Incidentally, for the Cat article, the DMY format has been in place for many years for all the references in a consistent DMY format. A hidden note for the Cat article states: "Per MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:DATEVAR, articles should conform to one overall spelling of English and date format, typically the ones with which it was created when the topic has no strong national ties. This article was created with American English, using international date format (DD Month YYYY), and should continue to be written that way. If there is a compelling reason to change it propose a change on the talk page."

As I can't see documentation for this Persian cat article stating that references have to be in the YYYY-MM-DD format, I have therefore again updated the script tonight for the existing MDY format, which had been in place in this article for several years. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is essentially no reason ever to use YYYY-MM-DD on Wikipedia, except in a small number of highly technical contexts (one use for it is table columns sortable by date, but there are even templated ways around that). It creeps into articles inappropriately because various citation scripts default to it, but it should be re-normalized back to MDY or DMY, whichever an article calls for. That's usually DMY, the most common format worldwide by a large margin, unless there is a strong tie to the US. I don't know of a strong US tie for this subject, but I did not open a discussion about switching from the MDY declared at the top of the araticle to DMY, because neither format really makes much difference, as long as it's consistent. Humans, however, have much more difficulty "translating" YYYY-MM-DD to natural lanuage of either sort, so that format isn't good for our readers. Re-normalizing back to DMY or MDY is common, everyday WP:GNOME cleanup and really doesn't need a talk page thread about it. Its one of the most common cleanup edit types that I make, en masse, and to date no one has ever complained about it. PS: If you're using Ohconfucius's date script, you might prefer my slimmed-down version which junks up the left menu a lot less.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We're talking about in references - which automatically generate with YYYY-MM-DD and the documentation says to use that format for the parameter. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It says in Template:Cite book and the other relevant ones 'The |date= format is YYYY-MM-DD.' this is for references only and doesn't apply to written/visible article content. You've conflated the dates for content in the article with what goes in templates. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kind Tennis Fan please stop with these edits, they change absolutely nothing for the reader whilst going against what the template says to do. Nothing in the MOS applies to template data and WP:DONTFIXIT Traumnovelle (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the point SMcCandlish made earlier when he said that the YYYY-MM-DD format creeps into articles inappropriately because various citation scripts default to it. SMcCandlish has also said that to date no one has ever complained to him about re-normalizing back to the DMY or MDY format. For many "good articles" (GA), such as Cat, all the references are in one format (in the case of Cat in the DMY format.) References for Cat and many other good articles are not in the YYYY-MM-DD format due to a template. One consistent date format is used for content in the article and indeed the references. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I recall one occasion, a discussion at WT:MOSNUM I think, in which someone supported an idea that all dates should be consistent, that archive-date and access-date should be in YYYY-MM-DD format instead, to distinguish them. I've never seen any support for this idea, since it's confusingly inconsistent, and there is no reader or reasearcher/editor actual need to visually separate those dates from other dates (publication-related or otherwise), and such a date-format split isn't found in any published citation styles (Chicago, AMA, MHRA, etc.). On WP, there are always at least a few outlying contrarians on every single style/formatting question that has ever been posed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Traumnovelle's claims are incorrect. The YYYY-MM-DD (ISO) format is sometimes in citations (not generally otherwise), but is neither recommended nor required in them. The controling guidelines are MOS:NUM in interoperation with WP:CITE. We use a consistent date format across all of an article, unless there is an established, defined citation style at a particular article that requires ISO dates in citations, and it is and has been consistently used in that article, in which case that format is permitted in the citations. But even in such a case, consensus can change to move to a consistent date format. There is no principle by which a fan of ISO dating gets to dictate it forever at any article. Furthermore, the Template:Cite book template documentation doesn't say what Traumnovelle says it says. It actually says  [emphasis in original, and the material linked to is a summary of the pertinent material at MOS:NUM plus some technical notes]. The documentation continues: Date format compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style: CS1 uses (MOS:DATEFORMAT) as the reference for all date format checking performed by Module:Citation/CS1. Where the template documentation mentions YYYY-MM-DD at all (in that specific template's documention or at the generalized Help:Citation Style 1) it is illustrative of what happens or doesn't happen when that particular format is used. Even if someone were to get the wild idea to go change the template documentation to mandate ISO format in citations, this would be immediately reverted, and template documentation cannot magically trump site-wide guidelines anyway. In actual practice, there are very close to zero articles in which YYYY-MM-DD has been consciously, consistently established for these citation dates, much less affirmatively supported by a consensus discussion. Rather, various editors at the page inconsistently use MDY or DMY (hopefully but not always in compliance with the rest of the article), while other editors use ISO form because their citation tools just default to it. Virtually no actively edited article retains consistent dates for long. MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:CITESTYLE both implore us to normalize such chaos to a single consistent form within the article, and there is never a reason to consistentize in the direction of YYYY-MM-DD because it is not a human-friendly format, and is confusingly inconsistent with all other dates in the article, including other dates in citations.  PS: As with other style matters, one has to separate "How I prefer to write for particular specialized purposes off-site" and "How WP prefers that we write". In my own work, I often make use of ISO date format, but only for material in which that format is helpful (e.g. in Linux and other software documentation where this format is more or less a standard, and in a genealogy project where people with different date format preferences are readers but their GEDCOM database softare generally works on an ISO-dates basis to avoid the "what does '2/8/1805' mean?" problem and the problem of it being too hard to support every input variation along the lines "8th February 1805", "FEB-8-1805", "8 Feb. 1805", etc., etc., etc.). It is a perennial proposal to have WP switch to a univeral ISO standard and use templates or the parser to reformat them on-the-fly to suite particular articles or user preferences, but the implementation of someone along those lines in the 2000s to early 2010s cause so much strife there is a lot of resistance to the idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)