Talk:George Wylde II

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Lady Day and death date

Why change the date? Well for a start the date wrongly implies uncertainty over whether Wylde died in 1649 or 1650. In this period the new year was in March, see Lady Day and Old Style and New Style dates#Start of the year in the historical records of Britain and its colonies and possessions. So a death in between January and March 1650 was recorded as being in 1649. Some later sources after 1752, which set 1 January as the start of the year, acknowledged the change by writing 15 January 1649/1650. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers however states "In writing about historical events, however, years should be assumed to have begun on 1 January." Of the sources used in this article Williams simply uses "15 Jan. 1650" and the Wylde's History of Parliament entry likewise has " d. 15 Jan. 1650." It's long-standing wikipedia practice as stated to use January as the start of the year, hence Samuel Pepys was born on 23 February 1633, not 23 February 1632/1633, Charles I of England was beheaded on 30 January 1649, not on 30 January 1648/1649 and the First Battle of Middlewich took place on 13 March 1643 and not 13 March 1642/1643. 77.96.115.80 (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, know all that. That's why the date is recorded as it is. Please Leave it or add New Style. Eddaido (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address wikipedia's manual of style and the other precedents, including those that appear in a featured article? Especially since I added the note about date styles and you reverted it, falsely claiming it's the standard, and once again introducing errors to the spelling of a source and losing a relevant category. 77.96.115.80 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please just leave the article alone. Eddaido (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid us all some trouble and save me from filing a report on this, please made some effort to engage. WP:OWN is beginning to apply. 77.96.115.80 (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fightin' words? Eddaido (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the formatting of the date of death

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SNOW close in favor of 15 January 1650 with a footnote explaining why some sources may give 1649. There is no "arbitrary dumbing down" or "condescension" in such an approach, which is standard operating procedure and covered at MOS:OSNS. Just follow the guidelines; it's why we developed them in the first place, to prevent rehashed debates over the same questions again and again. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

{{rfc|bio|hist}}
Should the date of death be formatted with the double year - 15 January 1649/1650, or as 15 January 1650? 77.96.115.80 (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This began out of the discussion above, and see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Eddaido and WP:OWNership. Links to the reason why 15 January 1649/1650 seems to appear in a source are above, Old Style and New Style dates#Start of the year in the historical records of Britain and its colonies and possessions has an explanation. To make a few brief points: 77.96.115.80 (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, specifically MOS:OSNS, states "Dates before 15 October 1582 (when the Gregorian calendar was first adopted in some places) are normally given in the Julian calendar. The Julian day and month should not be converted to the Gregorian calendar, but the start of the Julian year should be assumed to be 1 January" and "At some places and times, the new year began on a date other than 1 January. For example, in England and its colonies until 1752, the year began on Annunciation Day, 25 March ... In writing about historical events, however, years should be assumed to have begun on 1 January".
This archaic way of writing the date introduces confusion for many readers unfamiliar with the style, which implies uncertainty over the year of death (was it in 1649 or 1650?)
There is a discrepancy in the article over dates - 18 March 1608 and 24 January 1611 are written in accordance with MoS, and not as 18 March 1607/1608 and 24 January 1610/1611 as the death date is.
Sources used in the article (e.g Williams) and another here cite Wylde's death as being on 15 Jan. 1650.

Survey

15 January 1650, for the reasons I expressed above. 77.96.115.80 (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
15 January 1650 per MOS:OSNS. I think a note could be added explaining the date is a Julian calendar date, state the Gregorian date, and to see MOS:OSNS and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Old_Style_and_New_Style_dates#Start_of_the_year_in_the_historical_records_of_Britain_and_its_colonies_and_possessions CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
15 January 1650 seems the simplest solution. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
15 January 1650 ~~Wylde was born after the calendar was changed and died sixty odd years after the calendar change so it would be unlikely that anybody would be still using the Julian dates.~~ Sorry as pointed out the new year didnt change until 1752 I was out a by a few years(!) just need to mention it is new style if 1650 is used. MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If not 15 January 1649/1650 then 15 January 1650 NS. The previous editor (MilborneOne) seems to be under a misapprehension about dates. Eddaido (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
15 January 1650 - Summoned by bot. Support 15 January 1650 per nominator. Pretty clear on this one. Meatsgains (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
15 January 1650 - I agree with 77.96.115.80's initial analysis in the above section; Eddaido, I do not think the "NS" is necessary, as MOS:OSNS only requires noting the start-of-year date if it is other than January 1.
15 January 1650, per above, with a note if necessary. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
15 January 1650 bot responder. clear by MOS. L3X1 (distant write) 13:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

I don't understand Eddaido's objections. Certainly, a note is going to be required either way. So long as we identify that the date is new style with the appropriate link I think all concerns are addressed. If we used old style there would still have to be a note saying as much and that the new style date is in 1650. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK my problem is just the confusion caused by this apparently arbitrary dumbing down?? or condescending (only fools will use this as a "fact") MoS decision. Readers are unlikely to be aware of the opinions expressed and decision in MoS. A note (as Requested by me above!) that the date is New Style would be acceptable. Hmmm the élite of course know about this decision. Rest of the world? Nope. All the above has passed over my head until now. Further explication happily provided. Sorry if I should have been here. Eddaido (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tosh

An IP has added this note to the article

"All dates in this article are in the Old Style Julian calendar used in Britain throughout Wylde's lifetime; however, years are assumed to start on 1 January rather than 25 March, which was the English New Year."

The trouble with that note is it simply contradicts itself! Which shows that the decision above was decided by those with a continuing ignorance of the subject. Eddaido (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned at WP:ANI, you were warned on your talkpage, both times by an administrator not directly involved the above discussion, and there was an RFC with a WP:SNOW closure. The closure incidentally made very short-shrift of your arguments in the discussion. The wording used in the note is taken from the Featured Article Charles I of England, which also follows the guidelines you are so keen to dismiss as continuing ignorance. If you really think it's tosh it would be better to take it up there. But on this article, it seems ever more evidence of WP:OWN and now WP:TENDITIOUS, specifically WP:NOTGETTINGIT. The endpoint for that is right back at WP:ANI. 77.96.115.80 (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should take the trouble to understand something before writing about it in Wikipedia. Please revise and correct your note. Warning? None! You should not fabricate. Just fix the note so you show that you understand what you are trying to say and make sure it is accurate. Eddaido (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]