I can only find manuals of style that have the dates as 'January 1, 2000'. I'm still against the changing of them, as I don't see the issue when the month is spelled out.

The only official examples I could see were things like 'The shop closed down in January 2000'. In that case, there is no comma, and so it stands to reason that if there is a date, there is no comma, either.

That being said, even in the Oxford Style Guide—a British referencing guide—has the date after the month. For example, "The Modern Superstitions conference is on Friday 13 April". Whoops, didn't read that example properly. Oh well. If nothing else, it tells us that we shouldn't use 'th' after the date. You can download the source here.

I know that in America that is how we generally style our dates, but I know that the British usually style their's differently.

If the dates are styled that way, then yes, they should include the comma between the day and year. I've always heard that the use of a comma is an Americanism.

IIRC awhile back there was a vote on the style of date format to use and d/m/y was chosen, I might just be thinking of something else, though.

Well, from having a quick look at that style guide at least we have a reference for having the day before the month and for not using 'th' and 'st' etc.

As to the comma I think it used to be taught that you should have one after the month but now it's getting more common not to have one - so I think it's up to us to choose.

I like the comma. No matter the format we have, I think there should be a comma before the year.

I don't mind either way.

With a comma works for me. But I don't mind.

Sounds good to me.