Talk:Tomas van Houtryve

Speedy
I don't see the G12, but it is very close to A7. John from Idegon (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like a very lightly edited copy-paste job from that site. The paragrphing, the order of facts presented, specific words - it is quite clear to me.  And that is the only source cited. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't see copy paste either, because if it was, a bot would have notified me.--Mishae (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

An article that nobody should want deleted
On 11 March 2014, somebody claiming to represent Tomas van Houtryve wrote:


 * The person is still alive and doesn't want any wikipage. PLEASE delete this page. I'm his assistant.

This was the article at the time.

Whether or not this was what TvH then wanted, let's make sure that the article is factual and informative, and that it improves. -- Hoary (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

American? Danish? Belgian?
User:Mishae started the article, describing Van Houtryve as American.

User:Nordicpadawan made him Danish.

User:194.183.243.140 made him Belgian. But only half-heartedly so: one category left him as Danish.

Neither the man's own website nor his page at VII seems to say. But "Un Belge lauréat d'un des prix du World Press Photo 2015" calls him Belgian. (It also calls him "Tomas Van Houtryve" [capital "V"], whereas his own "about" page calls him "Tomas van Houtryve".)

I have no compelling reason not to think that he's Danish-Belgian, Belgian-American, or whatever, and have only tentatively reclassified him as Belgian. Informed edits are welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally began to believe that he is Danish or Belgian, but since he worked for Associated Press (an American news media), I thought that perhaps he is somewhere from US. Just as you said, the official site doesn't say from where he is from. Plus, majority of my articles on photographers were in fact on American ones, but I am sorry if I made a mistake with this one.--Mishae (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, "American" was an honest mistake. More evidence for Belgian-ness: Meanwhile, googling the man's name with any of "danish", "dansk(e)" and "danois" brings very little. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "World Press Photo : l'image d'un couple homosexuel primée": "Le photographe belge Tomas Van Houtryve...."
 * "Charleroi sujet récompensé d'un prix World Press Photo": "Le photographe belge Tomas van Houtryve...."
 * "Crowdfunding": "Photographe belge membre de l’agence VII Photo, Tomas van Houtryve...."
 * "10 – Tomas Van Houtryve": "Photo Tomas van Houtryve, Belgique, VII"
 * Thanks for your wonderful help. What would I have done without you?...--Mishae (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverts
As an initial creator of the article I made it mdy. Yes, I didn't put the template, but now I will. I hope there will be no objection and no further reverts. Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. You created the article. Here is the article as you created it. Your use of MDY was consistent: all 100% of . . . one. &para; Meanwhile, I have updated the dead link. -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your point? Just because I wrote an article with one link and you added a whole lot of stuff that means that you own it??? I though you knew better. We as Wikipedians don't own articles, but rather collaboratly working on them. As for DMY/MDY fiasco (if its appropriate to call that), I don't really care. If you want to I can restore it DMY because the article on Belgium uses it. My initial idea for MDY was based of one assumption that since Belgium is closely allied to France then they must have used MDY, because DMY is for Britain and it colonies, and just like French they were opposing British crown. Correct me if I am wrong though. Now, you may call this system goofy, stupid, whatever, but its not typically a US system. :) Let me elaborate here a bit: The whole Latin America and Asia (except for India) use MDY. Its maybe odd, but our guideline to dates doesn't say which country are required to use which date formats. It says in Manual of Style that Canada can use either, US MDY, and most others DMY. However that most from what I see excludes countries of Asia, Latin America, and West Africa (probably due to French influence in those parts of the world). So in turn, most do use MDY. But, as I said above, if you want to, I can restore it to DMY per Belgium article. Also, if I made any statements that are in violation of our civility policy, I would like to apologize in advance.--Mishae (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as I have seen many Belgian articles infact are DMY with only 5 that are MDY. So, should I change at least mine to it?--Mishae (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, nobody owns the article. &para; My initial idea for MDY was based of one assumption that since Belgium is closely allied to France then they must have used MDY, because DMY is for Britain and it colonies, and just like French they were opposing British crown. I have read this several times, but my mixture of bafflement and incredulity is undiminished. What the French do is probably irrelevant to the likely preferences of a Belgian with a Flemish name, let alone to a Wikipedia article; but if you're interested, we see here and here that the French-speaking world uses the order day-month-year. &para; The whole Latin America and Asia (except for India) use MDY. This says that it's used as one option in the Philippines, but nowhere else. It's certainly not used in my own part of Asia (other than by, and writing for, Americans): we very sensibly use year-month-day. -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally find YMD format to be as backwards as you find MDY. I also don't trust the map because its quite outdated (was last updated in 2008). I seen a plethora of articles from the Americas and Pakistan using MDY format, which obviously means that this map is outdated. My other reason behind MDYs is that it is easier to read. It is easier to read March 9, 2015 then 9 March 2015. Why? Because you don't need to put in of mentally. It gets even more interesting: I'm not blind, but I assume there are some blind Wikipedians, so when their machine says 10 March 2015 it says without th, st, nd, or rd. Which indicates that DMY is even more goofier while MDY is not. A machine can read MDY date without a hiccup. Yes, it too will pronounce them without abbreviations but in MDY you don't need them. Either way, that's just my opinion. But the map is really outdated, and that, I wont trust, unless you will provide another source. As an example, when someone asks my birthday I reply that its on October 25, not October 25th. Sounds convincing? So, from what part of Asia are you from?
 * How odd, Mexico article despite saying on the map that it uses DMY (it is marked blue on the map), uses MDY. So yeah, clearly, the map is outdated, and its not the only article from the Americas that uses MDY.--Mishae (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am in Japan. &para; The editors of es:Wikipedia put Mexico in dd/mm/yyyy. -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know . But when I look at Barack Obama article in the same Spanish Wikipedia it shows him in DMY format, even though that he is an American President. I do began to believe that other language Wikipedias are just lazy because its easier to put a default DMY setting rather then fiddling with it. In Russia (from where I am from) we use DMY only. However, Russian Wikipedia doesn't allow different formats because of its default setting which is due to the country's language specifications. For example, we can say March 10 (март 10), but, that will sound odd so we write as (10 марта). As you also see, we use lowercase for months.--Mishae (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't know Russian. But I'm not at all surprised to learn that in Russian, dates can be specified in either of two orders. After all, a lot of most talk of language-related "standards" is exaggerated or simplistic or both. I also don't know Spanish and have never been to Mexico, but since the US exerts considerable influence on Mexico (and vice versa), I'd be surprised if MDY didn't appear in some Mexican contexts. Still, DMY seems to be the commonest order in Mexico and in the Spanish-speaking world; and if this is the order that es:WP wants, I don't see why it should be adjusted when discussing US people or phenomena. I also wouldn't be surprised if this map were defective or out of date; if you can suggest improvements to it, I suppose that its talk page would be the best place. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I knew that you wont know it that's why I put in . You know, you would be surprised but a lot a African sources such as Nyasa Times, The EastAfrican, and even the website of President of Tanzania uses MDY dates. On the other hand, sites like AllAfrica.com uses DMY. Countries like Pakistan and Morocco use MDY too. Also that's not the whole proof. Check this and this out about Pakistan. And yet the article Pakistan Today is in DMY. The question arises here if its time to change the map and establish Pakistan in MDY sphere, since most of their newspapers use that format. Same thing goes with Africa. Unfortunately I assume that the consensus will vote against it, per British Empire rule, because Pakistan due to being part of India (and India was part of a British Empire), is believed to be a DMY format user because of India. But since British Empire collapsed a lot of African and Asian nations began to use MDY, as I can see in sources. I can understand why Asian countries will use either date format: For an English speaker its not easy to decipher where in Japanese/Korean/Chinese language is date and where is a month or year, because in those countries people read from top to bottom. In Middle East (including Israel) people read left to right.--Mishae (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the question does not arise here. The question arises in the talk page of Date.png. Japanese people (and others) consistently use Y-M-D in Japanese; identifying year, month and date within a written date is extraordinarily easy for anyone who has even the slightest ability in reading Japanese (or Chinese) and has nothing to do with the direction of the writing (which may be from top to bottom, from left to right, or [in older sources] from right to left); I believe that Chinese is similar. As an example of a Japanese date, look at the left of, and near the top of, the top page of the Asahi Shinbun website; a few seconds ago I read there 2015年3月12日9時02分 更新 (from left to right), meaning "[last] revised at 2 minutes past 9 [a.m.] on 12 March 2015". -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)