Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:15, 10 January 2009

/Archive 01, 02

Date linking

Hi, according a style guide change that was made about 2 and a half months ago, dates are no longer supposed to be linked. See these guidelines:

• WP:CONTEXT#dates
• WP:OVERLINK
• MOS:UNLINKDATES

Dabomb87 (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

All these guidelines don't claim that dates should not be linked at all, but only overlinked. Please, don't delink useful links. It's against spirit of collaboration. —Guy Peters 15:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• • "Chronological items such as days, years, centuries and so on should generally not be linked"—CONTEXT and OVERLINK
  • "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked"—MOSNUM(which then refers to CONTEXT)

These links say nothing about overlinking dates, they say that they should not be linked. It is not just about the visual appeal or the dates' contextual uselessness. Date autoformatting (from linked dates) only works with the minority of editors who have turned their date preferences on, which hides the potential date format inconsistencies in articles. The editors with no preferences and the IP readers, the vast majority of WP users, see these inconsistencies. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Plese, quote properly. MOS:UNLINKYEARS states: "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so." (boldness mine) CONTEXT#Dates claims: "Chronological items such as days, years, centuries and so on should generally not be linked." (boldness mine) Clearly, there's no reason to unlink every date, but only carefully selected.

Date autoformatting is very important unless you wish endless war about American (November 9) or English (9 November) style. —Guy Peters 15:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"In particular, dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though in the past this was considered desirable)."—from MOSNUM. Clearly, we have different beliefs on linking dates. I encourage you to go to the talk pages of the above MOS pages, where there are many discussions about linking dates. We need all the participation in the linking debates as we can get. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found all the debate not providing an easy survey. I encourage you to respect other people's work and not to delete their links. —Guy Peters 16:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking RfC comments

I provided a more detailed to your comment on the date linking RfC on that page itself; however, I wanted to respond to your comment (here) that you "consider delinking as vandalism (deliberate spoiling of other people work". Misplaced Pages:Vandalism defines vandalism as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages" and that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Keep that in mind and please assume good faith.

• Responses to other comments you made:

• "Prevention to endless edit wars between US and UK style" (italics mine) First of all, MOSNUM says not to change date formats (among other numerical items) "without a style-independent reason". Second of all, IP readers don't see any style because of the widespread inconsistencies in articles w/ autoformatted dates.
• "This prevents vandalism of removing allegedly overlinked dates, when no human mind is used" (italics mine) Please answer the whole question about automated and semi-automated link removal—not just about bot edits script-assisted edits are just that; they assist a human in making edits. My comment about "vandalism" applies here also. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that some dates are overlinked: in cases of repeated links. I also acknowledge that autoformating has no longer public support (unfortunately). But, if you wish delink dates (IMHO, very unnecessary work, but it is your choice), you have to consider every link, and give reason for every date delinked, otherwise it is vandalism comparable to blanking. Removing of all links is plain and clear vandalism.

I have assumed good faith, but since you repeatedly delinked dates linked again, this assumption is no longer possible. —Guy Peters 11:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I do consider every link, and I don't consider any of the links I have delinked to be of high value. I see that you still misunderstand the meaning of "vandalism". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't think so. Several examples of your vandalism: = no linked date left, all delinked, = no linked date left, all delinked, = no linked date left, all delinked etc. Maybe it's time to RFC you. —Guy Peters 19:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how my edits are considered "vandalism". I have said multiple times that I delinked the dates and other links because they not high-value links.

• As for your threat to "RFC" me, I have three links:
  • WP:AGF
  • Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tony1
  • Wikipedia_talk:MOSNUM#ANI_result_on_date-delinking_complaint A link that contains the result of an ANI report on date linking and the precedent that followed. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have already written to you, MOS:UNLINKYEARS states: "Dates (years, months, day and month, full dates) should not be linked, unless there is a reason to do so." (boldness mine) CONTEXT#Dates claims: "Chronological items such as days, years, centuries and so on should generally not be linked." (boldness mine) Clearly, there's no reason to unlink every date, but only carefully selected and this is a reason to RFC you. This is no threat, but the only method to bring you in respecting these rules. —Guy Peters 21:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the RfC for Tony1, which I have already linked above, you would see that others have already tried your method and failed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice that almost all Featured Articles (the model articles) do not link any dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Some do, for example Hurricane Edith (1971), that's why there's no reason to destroy all the links robotically. —Guy Peters 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see these date links that you are talking about, as of this revision. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, it led to nowhere. Probably it is time for the ArbCom. —Guy Peters 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you saw, but I see this statement by the (uninvolved) closing admin: "the consensus is quite clear that User:Tony1's edits and conduct are accepted as correct." Also, if they don't accept date-delinking complaints at ANI, what makes you think Arbcom will? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You haven't commented on the Featured Articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

...And once again, you revert my edits with the summary "vandalism", while you still haven't shown how this is vandalism as defined by WP:VAND. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Need I remind you about the Featured Articles? Also, the Date Linking RfC is now over, and you can see the results for yourself. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, refrain of wikistalking me. Otherwise I have to WP:ANI you. —Guy Peters 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A mistaken assumption, and the threat to "ANI" me would prove fruitless as this response by an admin shows. You say I am wikistalking you. Let us see what that link says: "The term "wiki-hounding" has been coined to describe singling out one or more specific editor(s), and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit (often unrelated), or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I am not trying to do any of those things. I am trying to bring articles into compliance with the style guides. Keep this quote in mind also: "Many users track other users edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." Dabomb87 (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Date delinking arbitration

I've started a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Date delinking which you may wish to comment on. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)