Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::* Then there should be an understanding on all sides here that if there is muddled results, we might need a run-off RfC. But my preference would be to '''not''' have a run-off RfC, no matter how mixed the results. In case no one here has been keeping up on current affairs, the community is fatigued of this issue and many believed—given what they naively thought was amply clear RfC results—that the issue had been settled.<p>I would prefer that arbitrators here to 1) grow some spine and, ''regardless'' of how muddled the voting mix is, ''actually read all the vote comments'', then, 2) discern what the common ground is in the community, and 3) write a guideline that best embodies the community consensus, 4) post the thing to MOSNUM, and 5) shoot any bastard that complains. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">''']''' (])</span> 17:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::* Then there should be an understanding on all sides here that if there is muddled results, we might need a run-off RfC. But my preference would be to '''not''' have a run-off RfC, no matter how mixed the results. In case no one here has been keeping up on current affairs, the community is fatigued of this issue and many believed—given what they naively thought was amply clear RfC results—that the issue had been settled.<p>I would prefer that arbitrators here to 1) grow some spine and, ''regardless'' of how muddled the voting mix is, ''actually read all the vote comments'', then, 2) discern what the common ground is in the community, and 3) write a guideline that best embodies the community consensus, 4) post the thing to MOSNUM, and 5) shoot any bastard that complains. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">''']''' (])</span> 17:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
* '''P.S.''' I repeat my call that unless people here love the feeling of endlessly flogging ourselves on this issue, binary voting on each issue holds the greatest promise for this RfC to be definitive and final. I just can’t fathom how it can be so difficult for the pro-linking crowd to organize themselves and get their act together and advance something they think has a holy prayer of being accepted by the community. That very fact that you guys find this to be such a daunting task speaks to the issue that you guys must have known ''all along'' that the community doesn’t like date linking one iota. It’s like selling a refrigerator to an Eskimo: “Well, how about our side-by-side model?” <span style="white-space:nowrap;">''']''' (])</span> 17:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:38, 25 March 2009
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Can we resolve the para on data formats in "Background statement" here?
There's something of a war going on over this para. Can we work it through here, please?
What we did have was this:
What is a date format? Two main date formats are used by English-speakers: March 11, 2009 (“MDY”, mainly in North America) and 11 March 2009 (“DMY”, mainly elsewhere). Currently, one of these formats is chosen as the fixed-text date format to use in each Misplaced Pages article based on well-established guidelines at WP:MOSNUM concerning consistency within the article, long-term stability, and strong national ties to a particular country. In an American-related article, for instance, dates are simply written out—in fixed text—as March 11, 2009.
Many Wikipedians need to have the whole date format issue explained to them briefly at this basic level. I do not understand what the problem is. Some editors will, believe me, be unaware of the two standard formats. They may have a vague notion that people in RL and on WP use different orders, but no concrete idea of what these are and where they are used. Please explain your objection to such a simple, short explanation. If we are not allowed to expain such basic matters, I wonder why we are including a section on date formats at all in the background statement.
Cole, your suggestion to include ISO and the rarely used "2009 March 11" are puzzling. MOSNUM, or is it MoS main, has said for some time that there are two standard formats. Why are we complicating matters here, especially for non-experts?
"Dynamic dates"—can you point to examples of where this term has been used by WPians, apart from Starling's original use of the term? Why is yet another term introduced here for those who arrive to digest what is already quite long and complicated? The term is not used elsewhere in the RfC, and "date autoformatting", the widely used term, is likely to be more immediately recognisable. I suggest that we use as few technical terms as possible here. It does have a spin-like ring about it. A formal RfC is an odd place to introduce a single reference to it. Both sides need to be sensitive to the need to keep the language as neutral as possible.
Talking of neutrality, we need to come to a compromise over what you're insisting be referred to as "the current system". We are willing to compromise, but "current" is a bit hard to swallow. It misleadingly implies that DA is currently in standard usage. This does not appear to be the case: as just a few examples: DA is totally absent from FAs (look through the fifty or so FA Candidates now, if you would—and it's certainly not at my insistence—I'm hardly ever there). I note that ArbCom wrote out its new committee agenda without DA. I see that The Misplaced Pages Signpost no longer uses DA at the top of its articles (although a template-linked ISO date is still used in the summary template box. I think you want to convey that it's still available as a technical facility, don't you? We need to agree on a neutral wording.
The text starting with "Currently, one of these formats " is unnecessary and irrelevant to "What is a date format?". There's no need to risk confusing editors who are just trying to learn enough to make an informed decision on the questions before them, and certainly mentioning the lesser two formats is more useful to "What is a date format?" than going on about what may be written at WP:MOSNUM and how it might be written in fixed text.
Not puzzling at all, these are the other two formats offered by MediaWiki at Special:Preferences. The argument from the delinking crowd has always been "this is just about MDY vs. DMY", but the fact is that there are two other formats editors may have chosen to see dates in (YMD and the ISO-like format I personally use). So it's not a simple A/B choice, and those participating should be aware of the other date formats.
Dynamic Dates is the lesser used name of the feature, but I prefer to be accurate where possible and would strongly object to the omission of this from the RFC. In MediaWiki this is what the feature is called, and we should respect that.
When a question results in "no consensus" the default is the original status quo. See XFD discussions (where a "no consensus" results in a "keep", not a "delete"). The question of using auto formatting has, for all intents and purposes, resulted in a "no consensus", so our starting position should be that date auto formatting is in current use, and the goal is to either keep using it/fix it or stop using it. That it has fallen out of usage at FAC is not surprising considering the same people who frequent MOSNUM and push for delinking also seem to frequent FAC discussions. I'd try to compromise on this, but I've been bitten too many times whenever I compromise something away, so I'll leave it to others to suggest some way forward..
"That it has fallen out of usage at FAC is not surprising considering the same people who frequent MOSNUM and push for delinking also seem to frequent FAC discussions." This is simply not true. Of the involved parties in the arbitration case, as well as several others who have participated in date delinking, only Tony and I frequented FACs with any regularity. If you look at User:Tony1/Support for the removal of date autoformatting, you'll notice that many of the supporters of the date delinking activities were FA editors; here are a couple names: Karanacs, Finetooth, Dank55, TonyTheTiger. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
(1) I'm afraid we're going to have to have some mention of the broader situation of why date autoformatting was used at all. Some WPians will not understand. You seem to be insisting that the more obscure date formats be mentioned, but not the big picture; you seem to want to censor any mention of what the style guides have recommended, and what, basically, has been followed on WP (two standard formats). This is not an RfC on everything you choose to include that does not suit you in MOSNUM, MoS and LINKING.
(4) Status quo: Have a look around you, and observe that DA has been dropped in all the key parts of Misplaced Pages. Cole, you will object to any consensus that goes against what you want. The community very clearly said it does not want to go back to a norm of DA. See the RfC. I don't think your fellow pro-linkers would disagree with that consensus. If they did, why are they putting so much effort into trying to persuade us to accept a "Son of autoformatting" here? We do not accept this distortion ("the current system"): it clearly is not that. I suggest "the original system" as a compromise. Tony(talk)03:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
(2)
Date linking: 3O
I think we need a third option; there should be no specific wording relating to date links, leaving the standard guidelines from WP:LINKING (or wherever it's moved to) intact. I don't really want to complicate the issue, but it was brought it up at the RfAr, and there seems no consensus that the "standard" wording is not appropriate. Unfortunately, both sides probably agree this is a change in the wording, so would need consensus. — Arthur Rubin(talk)20:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This page move has seemed to encourage a blow-out in the scope and complexity of the RfC. This is most regrettable. Hardly anyone is going to support an extreme "link always": this has been clearly decided at previous RfCs. I thought this RfC was to determine nuances that may not have been covered in previous RfCs? It was quite long enough already. Tony(talk)04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but then the other comments here seem to need to go elsewhere too. Move mine if you think it's worth refactoring this whole section (otherwise, please give it a clearer title?). Tony(talk)08:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Question about markup vs a monolithic autoformating solution
I've somewhat deliberately stayed away from this page for a while, but wanted to make one point which I hope helps refine the proposed poll. In the autoformatting section, I'd like to suggest that we break out two proposals. Proposal one is whether we want to leave markup around dates relevant to the article, which does not modify the date in any way (except to remove the markup). This would allow the metadata to remain without offending anyone with links or formatting. Proposal two is that we want to leave autoformating on as described in the current section. dm (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if it would help. I believe UC Bill originally proposed this, essentially putting in a patch which turns off the date formatting and linking, so that the dates can continue to look like ] ] when editing, but when reading (regardless of prefs or ip/registered), you would see April 1 1900. It would instantly end all of the conflict over link removal, but leave the metadata intact. My personal ideal is to put templates around all dates, much like the convert function, but this would be enough if people agree to it. dm (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It's getting very large and complicated ... We have argued against the value of metadata in the Statement against the general notion of date autoformatting. People are going to be confused if more and more technical choices are piled on. This is beyond the ambit of the original idea of the RfC. If people say "yes" to the general notion of date autoformatting, I believe that is the time to ask such a question. (I'm unsure I understand it fully myself, as worded here.) Again, this new page seems to be inviting anyone to tag on their pet proposals. This needs to be discouraged, or at least talked through clearly on this talk page first. Tony(talk)04:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, it might be too complicated. Ryan, if the question about autoformatting is to determine if there is any interest in further exploring autoformatting later, in a second poll or to never talk about it again, then my question becomes even more pertinent. We could turn off date linking and autoformatting without any more effort on the part of the delinkers removing links, if that's the right thing to do. Personally, I disagree, but so be it. dm (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Anderson has added a pet issue of his that I don't fully understand. It was lobbed straight into the opening position at the RfC without prior warning or discussion. Its relationship to the rest of the RfC is quite unclear. The "general rules that apply to all other links" take quite a bit of explaining (see MOSNUM, MoS, and LINKING). I have relocated it to this section so that it can first be explained and discussed.
Initial question
Do you believe that date links should be subject only to the general rules that apply to all other links? (Some links are subject to special rules in Misplaced Pages:Linking and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, but most are not.)
I'm afraid I agree with Anderson on this issue. The question of what special rules should be applied for date fragment links should be preceded by resolving the question of whether any special rules should be applied for date fragment links. Ryan seems to agree that something of the kind should be there, although he may just be being agreeable.... — Arthur Rubin(talk)04:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
i wouldn't be able to respond to that question. what exactly is it driving at that isn't covered in the rest of the RfC questions? Sssoul (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Call me dumb, but I still can't quite see what it means. Arthur, if someone says "no", what does that mean they think? If they say "yes", what does that mean? What are these general rules that apply to "all other links"? Are they encapsulated somewhere? I'm genuinely confused.Tony(talk)08:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
← What about this:
Initial question. Do you believe that Misplaced Pages:Linking should specifically mention when to link and when not to link dates and years? Or is it sufficient that they be covered by the same rules which apply to all other links, namely:
Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link:
terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers;
items that would be familiar to most readers, such as , and dates.
In general, do create links to:
relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below).
Since we used to link all full dates for autoformatting, a footnote could be added for a limited time period (e.g. 12 months) after the sentence ending with "dates" quoted above, reading, for example, It used to be recommended to link all dates containing both a month name and a day number in order to enable date preferences; this was deprecated in late 2008.
It might be useful to also add a watchlist notice, but maybe we can first wait that the poll is actually opened. --A. di M. (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Need linked essays to clarify specific statements in the proposed poll
I find myself bewildered by two statements in the discussions of the purported advantages of month-date linking include two statements (apparently many others also find these bewildering, indicated by the fact that the first of these is flagged "clarification needed," and there are opposing statements indicating that the nature of the metadata mentioned in the second is not been specified):
1. Clearly indicates which strings are actual dates (as opposed to quotations of dates.)
2. Simplifies automated processing of article text (i.e. the gathering of metadata).
The poll process could degenerate into discussion of the meaning of these items (and perhaps others). To avert this, it would be helpful to add links to short essays that explain/discuss the arguments summarized in these statements. I don't know whether such essays exist -- if they don't, I would hope that the exponents of these positions can create essays before March 30. --Orlady (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, a few people, including me, have already asked for clarification of the meaning these two very statements, but it has not yet been forthcoming. I have no idea, in particular, what "actual dates" are, versus "quotations of dates". Better wording here, on the spot, would be preferable to linked essays. Tony(talk)04:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
i propose removing the point about "actual dates as opposed to quotations of dates", since no one has turned up who can clarify what it's supposed to mean. Sssoul (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Imperfectly worded, but the intent seems clear: the argument is that we should autoformat dates when they refer to the date directly, in Misplaced Pages's voice, but not when they appear in quotations. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
... but the statement in question is listed as an "advantage of mark-up", not of autoformatting or of linking. thanks for rewording it, but a] if it's actually about autoformatting or linking it's in the wrong place, and b] it's still not clear what's "advantageous" about it: who is it who relies on markup to see whether or not dates are being quoted - bots? if this point is simply an elaboration of the point about "gathering metadata", it should be merged with that one - for example:
Simplifies automated gathering of metadata by designating strings that refer directly to dates (as opposed to dates appearing in quotations, which would not be marked up, or coincidences like "In June 19 planes were shot down").
No, it's an advantage of mark-up: it's an (artificial) way of telling direct from indirect discourse. I don't think it's a real advantage, but it's not my argument. Please stop trying to edit claims you do not understand nor agree with; that's no way to present them fairly. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
smile: like you, i'm not convinced that my understanding/wording of it is flawed - but okay: since there's still disagreement, i hereby renew the request for someone who perceives this as an "advantage of month-day markup" to state clearly what it means and what's advantageous about it. (and by the way: quotations are direct discourse, so if "telling direct from indirect discourse" is the aim, contrasting "referred to directly" with "in quotations" is not very apt.) Sssoul (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Summary question
The fundamental question here is "do we need to have any special rule about linking dates, other than those which apply to any other link?". This will probably receive two different Yes answers, from the minority who link we should normally link dates, and the other minority who think we should link none, but the structure of this poll will permit this. Recasting this so that treating dates like anything else is the Yes answer may be worth the trouble. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Or perhaps another proposal that states that dates should be treated like any other links and used almost wherever a date is stated? That would make sense in my opinion as it gives the community just about all the options. Ryan Postlethwaite21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added a third proposal into both the year section and month-day section. Basically, it states that they should almost always be linked. This gives the community an extra option (although I personally doubt they'll choose it). Ryan Postlethwaite21:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This needs discussion before it's added. I don't even understand it if I'm being honest :-S I'm not too sure it adds anything extra if I'm being honest. Ryan Postlethwaite21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It's intended to be simple. We don't need more language on linking dates; we need less; I would oppose Ryan's third proposal on this ground, just as I oppose the others. All we need to say is one of two things:
We support date autoformatting and linking for that purpose (I doubt this is consensus, but it is possible.
I'm sorry PMAnderson, but I feel that this leaves things far too contentious. It may seem like a simple solution may fix this, but I think everyone needs exactly when to link dates spelling out. I'm going to remove it for now, but we can carry on discussing it and wait for more input. Ryan Postlethwaite21:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that, although it's new (within a week) to these discussions, the question of whether there should be any date-related language in WP:LINKING needs to be brought up. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is an option which rational editors would need to consider. (Whether there are any rational editors left is another open question.) — Arthur Rubin(talk)21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I would hope the fact that we're all here answers that question - it obviously isn't clear enough at present so we need additional clarification. That said, if people really think it's need, perhaps we could start with the question "Do you believe date linking should be subjected to special guidelines compared to other types of general links which are all covered in Misplaced Pages:Linking as a whole?" Ryan Postlethwaite21:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Ryan is of course free to oppose this idea; but I should like to see if uninvolved editors can be persuaded to endorse silence or a note we do not agree. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
PMAnderson, I've changed your initial part to a very simple question which I believe gets to the very root of what you were suggesting. I think it's important to be as simple as possible. Ryan Postlethwaite21:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes you did some what :-) I'm going to revert it back for now because normally links are subject to general guidelines not any specific guidelines - the question now reads as if many different types of links have specific guidelines. Ryan Postlethwaite22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I haven't see this section until now. Does it refer to the "Initial" question that I removed and boxed above for further discussion here? If so, as Sssoul and i have already said, it's quite unclear. I too, would not know how to answer it. Please see my questions above. Tony(talk)08:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe this to be evidence of Tony's bad faith:
Tony does support a special rule on linking dates: that dates and date fragments should never be linked, so do some other editors.
Locke Cole and some other editors support a rule that dates should routinely be linked.
In Locke Cole's defense, I have never seen him defend routine date linking, but he is definitely a proponent of date autoformatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This question will provide an opportunity for him and others to explain which they support, which may clarify things. I don't think a position for routine linking needs defense; I merely happen to disagree with it. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
objection to poll title
The poll asks essentially two questions: date linking and auto formatting. As such, it is misleading to call the poll "date linking", particularly since a minority of editors regard date links to be useful. Mostly it was recommended and done previously for formatting reasons. Suggested alternatives:
It is the best choice in the list, but should have been "Date autoformatting and linking", surely. And probably the other way around, since that is the order of the questions. Date formatting is already covered in MOSNUM (national connection, stability, etc) and does not seem to be at issue here, although the concept needs to be explained in the background. It's no big deal, though. Tony(talk)08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Autoformatting
Once voting starts, I'd be inclined to choose the middle path. Link them when relevant as with everything else, provided everyone gets the chance to see dates formatted as they prefer. There's where the problem lies. The against proposal says it's too complicated to link all dates. It wasn't. Most dates were linked until someone stirred trouble with some discussion and caused dates to become unlinked. But that can be overcome.
What I don't understand is why autoformatting would require any special markup at all.
Dates can only be written in a limited number of formats, all of which the developers can encode for. No link brackets, no template coding. Just the date itself, and perhaps some optional coloring to show if the displayed format differs from the original on the page. Everyone happy and we can simply employ common guidelines:
Byron Vibber, one of our chief developers, has objected to this as dangerous coding. He is cautious, as I recall, about fiddling with the format of unmarked text as possibly abusable.
I have to agree with Anderson on this matter (BTW, it's Brion, and he's the Chief Technical Officer of WikiMedia). MacGyver, to respond to a few specific queries: what is "relevant" has been a major source of contention; the proposed texts do at least spell out a few examples to provide the gist. Using "spelling guidelines" was a major proposal at MOSNUM a while ago, which did not end in resolution. To start with, Canadians who use international format would be upset. I think MOSNUM sets out a reasonable tripartite guideline now—don't you agree?Tony(talk)04:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Also agree with Pmanderson on this, it's unlikely the devs would support something that scanned text for date formats because of the potential for it to misfire or (shudder) be exploited in some way. Any autoformatting solution is likely to require the dates be marked up somehow (be it with brackets as we do now, or some XML-style tag like <date>April 1 2009</date>, etc). I do agree that marking up dates is not complicated at all, and has been something Wikipedians have done for the past six years nearly without running in to problems. I also agree that being able to see dates as we prefer is not some huge insurmountable problem we can't resolve, in fact it's pretty easy and we should pursue it. —Locke Cole • t • c11:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
All anonymous user prefer DMY, right?
One of the objections to the prior date auto-formatting system was that anonymous users didn't benefit. They viewed dates in the format as written in the article. It appears that this has been addressed by changing the defaults (as shown here) so that anonymous users will see DMY formatted dates. This is a significant change from prior behavior, but is not covered in the background statement or elsewhere in the poll. I think the poll needs to be up-front about this proposed change. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This change would be so stupid that I think it's safe to assume this is just an experiment. I can't believe that anybody wants to offer DMY as the default format even for US related pages and to users in the US. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The solution that makes the most sense is to check for EN-US vs. EN-GB as the user's browser language for non-logged-in users, and base it off of user preferences for logged-in users.-Jeff14:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's a way to detect that via Javascript (I honestly haven't researched it enough), but the thinking right now is to make this a setting that can be changed and stored in a cookie (then used on all future visits until changed again). —Locke Cole • t • c14:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The only thing dumber than that would be hard coding dates as static text which can't be reformatted or parsed. Oh wait... Anyways, what you seem to have missed is that a new magic word would allow pages to default to one format or another, with some agreed upon default being in place for articles which don't state a preference. So for US articles, assuming DMY was the site wide default, one would override that and set it to MDY. Also, this is likely a stop-gap solution; the goal is to use client-side Javascript to dynamically reformat dates depending on a preference. —Locke Cole • t • c14:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, about as dumb as hardcoding dates in a printed book. And I know exactly what you are going to reply, I am so tired of this nonsense. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It was not intent to start a debate on what methods were "dumber" than others. That tone is not productive. My point was that the date formatting demonstration is set up to autoformat dates as DMY for IP users, which is a change from the current "as-written" (no preference) behavior. If this is the intent of the proposal, the background section should explicitly state as much. For example, "For unregistered (IP) users, autoformatted dates will be displayed in DMY form, such as 15 January 2001." It might even be better to separate out the question of the format preference for IP users, since some might favor preference based autoformatting, but not a default autoformatting for IP users. -- Tcncv (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This will be dealt with in a second implementation poll after this poll has concluded. At the moment, we simple want to know whether we should even bother with discussing autoformatting. If the community wants it, we'll look into ways it could work. If they don't, then we can drop it completely. Ryan Postlethwaite19:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
So what if the result of the second phase is "we want autoformatting that honors the express preference of non-logged-in readers" but that is not technically feasible? The question in the first RfC should not ask people if they want something that can't be done. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, we're not giving any options at this stage with regards to formatting. With regards to the second phase, we'll contact the developers first and only include points which are feasible. Ryan Postlethwaite22:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
You mean "we would contact". There's a sense here (and now on the page) that a second poll will be necessary. This seems to predict a result. Tony(talk)06:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've written three questions which, in my opinion, would directly address the "heart" of all this dispute. Anyway, I am neither sure of whether they would be within the scope of this poll, nor of their precise wording. The draft is currently located at User:A. di M./Questions; feel free to edit or discuss it. --A. di M. (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Order of questions
Hello all... been out of the loop for a few days, so I'll have to review what has been under discussion. However, one thought that occurred to me over the weekend: we should reorder the poll to put the "autoformatting" question first. For one, it is perhaps the most contentious question, but (more importantly) it is currently buried down at the bottom after a long and involved series of questions about linking. My thinking is that we want a good range of responses; people who hit the long list of linking questions (which will grow even more rapidly with responses) may well time out before they even get to the DA question, whereas the DA question section is not going to grow at the same rate. Thoughts? --Ckatzspy06:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
At least the question on whether some system of autoformatting is desirable. If there is no consensus for or against that, as is at least possible, the rest of the poll is largely irrelevant. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, since the proposed replacement systems also provide ways to turn on/off date/chronological item links via editor Preferences (while also providing a way to force links where a link is intended). I seriously wonder if we shouldn't just put the auto formatting question forward by itself first, and if that fails, then continue with the additional questions of when to link (which are less contentious, but would still need final resolution if auto formatting was rejected). —Locke Cole • t • c19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
After reading the "Statement against" for the first time, I have to ask: are editors allowed to state simply wrong opinions as facts in these statements? I was half tempted to add "Every time you auto format a date, God saves a kitten" to the "Statement for" after reading the comments expressed in the "Statement against" (particularly the ones regarding "Date ranges"). The statement notes the work done by UC Bill (and even links to it), but three sentences later extols the harms of date ranges (despite this being fixed in UC Bill's test site). There's also a lot of misrepresentation: demands for "standards" or "specifications" from the opponents of the system, but all the effort is placed at the feet of those doing the actual work. UC Bill went to work addressing a number of the common criticisms from the MOSNUM regulars, and it seems his good faith efforts are being used as fodder to insist any new system would be impossible to implement or fundamentally flawed. Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c12:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly they can be stated if they're clearly wrong. Perhaps you could elaborate so we can discuss the individual points? One thing I have noticed in this whole area is that often one side believes that the other is outright wrong when actually from a neutral perspective I can see it's merely a difference of opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite12:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well here's two points:
Under Development risks it is stated "Date ranges—impossibly clunky under the old system—would be a significant challenge.", and yet earlier in that same paragraph UC Bill's test site is linked to, which (from that main page) you can see there is a Date ranges page which proves this "significant challenge" is false (or at least misleadingly stated as being a "challenge"; that work is complete AFAIK).
Under Laborious and complex, well.. the entire thing comes off as trying to scare editors away from supporting any such system because of the syntax. Yet we've used the traditional wikilinking syntax for this since 2003 and so far as I'm aware no major complaints have surfaced to say this is a burden (at least until now). "New and casual editors" aren't usually concerned with formatting (sections, wikilinks, bolded and italicized text, etc), so this shouldn't be some exception to that tradition either.
I'll confess the second point is more opinion based, but the former point is a simple factual misrepresentation; Date ranges are not a "significant challenge". —Locke Cole • t • c12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
UC Bill's work has made autoformatting date ranges possible, but its syntax can still only be described as 'impossibly clunky'. It's even more convoluted and confusing than the present method. As if it weren't confusing enough already to have to link the year as a separate entity even though it's part of the whole autoformatted date, now the proposal is to link the day separately too. The average non-technical editor could not be expected to understand and use this syntax correctly. It's a recipe for an even worse disaster of overlinking and inappropriate linking than we have now. And it doesn't address the case of editors who prefer YMD format at all. This is not an acceptable solution or even close to one. It's an excellent example of why it's appropriate to describe date-range autoformatting as a 'significant challenge'. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
"Impossibly clunky"... Look. You can't say "such and such doesn't work" and then complain and attack proposed fixes because they don't meet some undefined criteria/specification that you're holding it to. If you want it to operate a certain way, say so, and we can move forward with reasonable discussion. But simply saying "it's impossibly clunky" without offering constructive criticism (that isn't of the "this fixes a problem nobody has" variety) is unhelpful and misleading in an RFC IMHO. Please stop moving the goalpost. —Locke Cole • t • c18:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The point in all of this of course is that no one has been able to define the location of the goalpost. HWV258 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. First, the "test page" referred to above (previously "demonstration" page), is neither of these two things—it provides no test and no demonstration: it is merely a vague and inaccurate wish-list. Since my complaint a few weeks ago about the dashes wish-list, for example, UC_Bill has had a go at trying to fix it up so that it might follow the most basic WP guidelines. But it's still wrong. "18 January–19 February 2008"? Nope: "18 January – 19 February 2008" is required. It's not rocket science, and is clearly spelt out in a number of places—see Dates at MoS, for example, and at the style guide for the WikiProject MilHist, where date-ranges are central (for battles, among other things).
I see no mention of the WP requirement to avoid redundant repetitions in dates (not even mentioned in the wish-list); for example, not "January 4 – January 8, 1980", or, as we used to see sometimes, "January 4, 1980 – January 8, 1980" (the only way it could be done with the original DA), rather than the short and simple "January 4–8, 1980". The old system was "clunky" because it could manage date ranges. As Chris points out, the new syntax is still clunky: nor is there any guarantee that what editors would eventually have to key in to make it work, or whether the system would in fact be able to generate date ranges properly.
This is a good demonstration of the myriad ways in which such programming can go wrong, and is highly likely to, without our knowing. It is further evidence of why WP's editors should not surrender their current control over simple, easy-to-write-and-read fixed-text dates in their articles. We have finally seen off the old lemon; editors do not want a new one. Hanging over it all is the inescapable fact that there is no problem in the first place. That is an argument that the proponents of a new-fangled system have totally failed to grapple with. A personal obsession with fiddling with simple date displays (no mention UK/US spelling, I note) risks causing a lot of disruption to our editors and readers. I also see no objection to the age-old plain, fixed-text display of dates after your signatures; there are scores and scores on this very page. Doesn't bother you? Tony(talk)02:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
"that work is complete AFAIK"—and yet I don't see a single comma on that page (properly formatted US dates). In addition, there is no example that demonstrates whether spaced en dashes are handled (in date ranges). HWV258 02:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Brion Vibber quote
On a related note, I realize that the "for" and "against" sections are meant to be more opinionated; that was the primary rationale behind my cleanup edits on the introductory statement. However, I am concerned that the final line in the "against" section - quoting Brion Vibber - is leaving out a significant part of what he said. His actual comment was:
As I read that, it seems fairly obvious that he was saying that he would remove autoformatting and then format all dates in one style. This differs significantly from the positions held by both the "for" and the "against" sides in this RfC. However, as currently quoted in the "against" section:
"My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting ... Of course that's too simple and obvious for Misplaced Pages."
it makes it appear as if Vibber only wants to remove autoformatting, without mentioning the single-style format at all. I think that if he is to be quoted, then the whole quote should be used so as to accurately reflect the context he intended. Thoughts?--Ckatzspy21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I might be missing something, but I would have thought that the full quote comes down heavily in favour of the "against" side. Why would any sort of date coding be necessary if only the "English form, eg '4 December 2008'" be used? The "against" side isn't of course saying that US formats couldn't be used, but surely the point being pushed by the original quote is that a non-technical solution is possible (dare one say, preferable). HWV258 01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ckatz's query over the Vibber quote. No, I though about that carefully, since I'm fussy about quotation marks. Vibber was expressing two different points in one sentence. There was no sense that his favouring the dispensing with DA was dependent on tampering with the MOSNUM rules for underlying date formats. In addition, as HWV258 says, it hardly helps your case to have the other bit included, does it. Tony(talk)02:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Tony, you say he is expressing two different points in one sentence, and that they are not dependent on each other. What proof do you have, then, that Brion's "Of course that's too simple and obvious for Misplaced Pages" refers specifically to the DA thought, and not instead to the "use only one format universally" thought? One could interpret the statement in a number of different ways - obviously, since we just did - but your selective quoting of his comment does appear to take some liberties. (Vibber could be saying removing DA is the "too simple" choice, he could be saying that using only one format is the "too simple" choice, or he could be saying that removing DA and using only one format is the "too simple" choice. (For all we know, he might be strongly opposed to the idea of removing DA without changing the mixed-format MOSNUM tradition.) Which is it, and how do we know short of asking him? --Ckatzspy05:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
i propose leaving out the "too simple" part of the statement. the sarcasm of it will to many readers seem inappropriate to this context, and it doesn't add anything of substance. Vibber's statement "My personal recommendation would be to remove all date autoformatting" is strong, clear and (along with a link to the original context) sufficient. Sssoul (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Losing the sarcasm is appropriate, per Sssoul's comment - but it still doesn't address whether or not Brion is being misquoted. As explained above, he could support each option individually or only as a joint move; you simply don't know if he would support removing DA if it means keeping the existing DMY-MDY mix. --Ckatzspy16:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ckatz; the quote seems like it has been manipulated to support something he may or may not be supporting. —Locke Cole • t • c15:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, per WP:Why dates should not be linked, there is a distinct advantage to having all registered editors see the exact same date format everyone else sees.
"Per" is pseudo-legalistic language implying that whatever follows it is official. Unfortunately, WP:Why dates should not be linked is an essay, not policy (despite its imperative title), so this sentence needs to be rephrased to clearly show that it only represents an opinion.
Leave your hands off it Earle. Who do you think you are?? Neato misrepresentation you have for this section heading: “Essays are not policy”. We never said or implied any essay was a policy. The essay, if users click on it, has the standard “this is an essay” hat tag. If you got a problem with our Statement against, take it up with Ryan. But stop weighing in and editing our Statement against as if you have the wisdom of an uninvolved admin necessary to decide what we can and can’t say and how we will say it. Because you are, in fact, and involved admin, your judgement as of late has serious shortcomings, and your edits are flat-out cheating. Greg L (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Your use of the word "per" implies strongly that the essay is policy, which in fact I wrote immediately above here in this section.
Funny how Hans Adler agreed with me, then; the changed wording you reverted was his. My edits to your text consisted of removing your ranty, frothing-at-the-mouth-style formatting, which I'm going to remove again. I'll leave it to others (Hans maybe?) to explain to you what you are evidently incapable of comprehending. -- Earle Martin16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I note how Ohconfucius' first edit to this page since his two-week block expired was to edit war, rather than either engage in discussion here or attempt a compromise, as Hans did. Well done. I look forward to your further contributions being of similar quality. -- Earle Martin16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, I userfied Greg L's essay to his userspace, but he now appears bent on edit warring to keep it in Misplaced Pages: space. I don't believe the Misplaced Pages namespace should be polluted with the essays of (largely) one contributor. —Locke Cole • t • c16:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, you will note, Locke, that the admin, Xeno, who first moved that essay into WP-space has stepped in to put a stop to your vandalism. Your assertion that the views of the essay “largely represents the view of one editor” is a lie. I see your new vandalism to Misplaced Pages. Your disruption has to stop. Greg L (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I did not move it into WP-space, I simply moved it from a subpage of WP:MOS onto its own page in WP space (i.e., it was already in WP space, I just relocated it). This was/is not an endorsement of its habitation (to which I have no prejudice), and I see an MFD has been initiated on the page, which is probably an appropriate way to decide where it should live. –xeno (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I hope the MFD is able to proceed regardless of Greg L raving about "disruption" and "vandalism" both there and here. -- Earle Martin18:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, pardon me all over the place for seeing a “speedy miscellany for deletion tag” (“This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy.”) and jumping to the *rash* conclusion that Locke was asking that it be deleted. Greg L (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not a speedy deletion tag. That's a notification about a miscellany for deletion discussion. And had you read the linked-to discussion you would see I was not requesting outright deletion but instead that it be userfied. —Locke Cole • t • c18:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Greg L wishes you peace and harmony with our future edits.
My gosh, the edit wars are getting more stupid by the day. Why don't we just reword? "Furthermore, as it is explained in WP:Why dates should not be linked, there is a distinct advantage to having all registered editors see the exact same date format everyone else sees." or something along those lines. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Ain’t it the truth? As to your suggestion, that’s the way I originally had it but Earle took it upon himself to eliminate the “shouting”. So I moved the bold to the lead, where it takes the form of a rubric, in order that I please him and make our statement, better comply with his wishes (that’s the last of that B.S., Earle). Besides, now that I think about it, I prefer that the bolding be in the rubric. Greg L (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop
Please stop this stupid edit war. The changes that are being made are so insignificant they matter not one bit. I've reverted Greg's editing of the for statement back to where he reverted Earle. The edits are getting extremely pointy now. Ryan Postlethwaite18:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it’s nice to be treated with the same courtesy we’ve been affording you all this time. Until I made my two edits to make a point (the exact same sort of edits you did to ours) did you see me assuming I was somehow qualified to decide what was appropriate for you to write in your statement? You should have known better. Reciprocity please. Greg L (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand Earle's frustration, see above where I outline some of the mis-statements of the "Statement against". I'd really like to see these addressed (otherwise I'm convinced I should just add "Every time you auto format a date... God saves a kitten" to the "Statement for" since we're apparently in the business of making things up as we go along...). —Locke Cole • t • c18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
"I'm convinced I should just add 'Every time you auto format a date... God saves a kitten' to the "Statement for"". Yes, why don't you do just that – sounds like a mighty fine idea. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I see no need to add extra complexity at this juncture. I expect the principle that all links be germane and topical to the subject matter, and the community consensus on that principle (as evidenced by the upcoming RfC results) will allow a “common sense” (*sound of distant thunderclap*) application of the principle to the items you are discussing. If the same few editors don’t go with the flow, there are formal procedures to avail ourselves if required. Greg L (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Anderson's question back again without discussion here
Again, it's been shoved in without discussion here. The intended meaning, the relationship to the rest of the RfC, and the wording are all unclear.
Do you believe that date links should be subject only to the general rules that apply to all other links? (Some links are subject to special rules in Misplaced Pages:Linking and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, but most are not.)
This asks whether there should be any special rule for linking dates, whether or not we autoformat. Those who want to autoformat, but don't care whether the autoformating provides links, may wish to consider answering Yes. Conversely, those who want a special rule making date links more common than other links, and those who want a special rule making them less common or prohibiting them, should both answer No.
Although there is explanatory text, I find it very hard to make sense of. The issue is: what would this question determine beyond what people are declaring in the subsequent SIX questions (three on day-month, three on year links)? For yet another question, it had better be providing useful information. Can someone tell us what?
The explanatory text, in any case, is not well worded. I would copy-edit it if I knew what its intended meaning was. I don't. Tony(talk)06:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Tony, as all too often, lies. The discussion of this question began in #summary question above, where we reached a mutually agreeable wording. Tony then objected and began revert-warring. It is not beyond the reach of conjecture why Tony should not want this question asked; the answers to it may reveal that he and his half-dozen fellows are indeed alone on one extreme. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
likewise: i don't understand the question, or see what purpose it's trying to serve. the "explanatory text" seems to be saying "anyone who supports or opposes X should answer NO", which means the answers will clarify nothing. and apparently a YES answer is supposed to mean someone wants autoformatting - but that question is already covered in the poll. so what is this question for?? Sssoul (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this going to be yet another blowout RfC, the RfC to end all RfCs?? I see the question comes from WP:Linking, but is a bit nonsensical. Once upon a time, dates were just dates, linked like other links. That all changed when the community saw fit to let a group of techies loose, and use the link mechanism to autoformat dates for several years, the argument to extract "metadata" from same makes them even less like 'other links'. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
If I'm being honest, I believe this has the potential to leave even greater confusion. If the response was that date links should be treated like any other link, we'll be further back than we are at this stage. I'd leave it out. Ryan Postlethwaite14:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
If there is consensus that we don't need special rules on linking dates, then the existing, and uniformly disputed, special rules about linking them would be removed from MoS (unless the present system of autoformatting also has consensus, which I doubt). At this point, there would be no justification for mass delinking or mass linking, and we could all go do something useful instead, leaving the question of what links there should be in a given article to those who write it. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Pmanderson, aside from auto formatting, the answer to this question would nullify the other questions entirely. I've seen it said again and again during this dispute that the community, by and large, doesn't care about date formats. If that's the case, then we shouldn't have a guideline (MOS or otherwise) dictating such a standard (guidelines are supposed to reflect community norms, not the other way around). This question gets at that central issue. —Locke Cole • t • c01:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
For once, most of us are in agreement. Anderson is welcome to construct a separate RfC with proposals concerning the status and role of the style guides (preferably after all of this). It is inappropriate and unhelpful to pile on a largely separate major issue to an RfC that is already groaning under its own weight. Tony(talk)08:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to pile on, I had to read this section multiple times and I'm still not sure I fully understand what it is asking. Do we need this if we've got the more detailed questions just below? Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Background statement
What's this supposed to mean? : "Logged in editors would also be able to override when dates are linked (never, sometimes and always)." I mean, will the date links flash in that case, or something? Ohconfucius (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
"Sometimes" would be to link dates that are intentionally linked and leave unlinked dates which aren't explicitly linked. "Always" would link all dates regardless of whether the editor forced a link or not, and "Never" would never display a date link, even if an editor set an explicit link. —Locke Cole • t • c14:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to keep it simple and not burden readers with learning every in and out of the replacement system (but still providing enough info to let them know that it's about more than just date format; there are tangible benefits for those opposed/supportive of linking as well). —Locke Cole • t • c22:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It might be better to move the three statements back down to the end of the poll, with links. We are unlikely to reach consensus on what the cases are in less than six days. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding “Logged in editors would also be able to override when dates are linked (never, sometimes, and always)” : that statement doesn’t seem to be supportable. How would such a thing be possible? And if you guys can answer such a detailed question, we’d be talking about a very specific technology. Yet you guys insisted on only “generalities” at this point, did you not? You want to have it both ways here(?); where we are talking “generalities” if it’s something you know the community will utterly reject. Yet, whenever it seems to suit your needs, you seem to be able to get awfully specific, and promise that the future offers artificial intelligence, hot coffee in the morning, and free gold from the programmer gods raining from the sky. You can’t have it both ways. Greg L (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've actually already removed it, as part of an effort to keep the focus on the date formatting. If a mention is needed, it is better suited to the linking questions that follow (rather than in "Autoformatting"). --Ckatzspy19:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposed wording change
Do you believe that date links should be subject only to the general rules that apply to all other links? (Some links are subject to special rules in Misplaced Pages:Linking and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, but most are not.)
I propose that this question is turned around, so that you answer "yes" if you want a special rule and "no" if you don't. At the moment you seem to have to answer "yes" if you don't want something, and "no" if you do, which, even taking into account the explanatory note that follows, I believe is counter-intuitive and apt to lead to confusion. In fact, the first part of the explanatory note itself seems to be confused about the question. If I'm asked "whether there should be any special rule for linking dates" then I answer "yes" if I want such a rule, not "no". Matt 86.146.46.62 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC).
At the moment you say yes if you want the simpler system of no special rules. The last wording proposed in the other direction seems to be Do you believe that date linking should be subjected to special linking guidelines, unlike other links covered in Misplaced Pages:Linking as a whole? which is somewhat more complicated. If it is to be turned around, the wording should improve also. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson22:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but to me your proposed wording, or something close to it, is clearer. I'm voting "yes" for a positive thing, and "no" if I don't want it, and not tying myself in mental knots about double-negatives. How about Do you believe that date linking should be subject to special linking guidelines (rather than just being covered by the general guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Linking)? Matt 86.137.136.254 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC).
Proposed deletion
I propose that the text "although that seems to be disputed in the article" under "Month-day linking: Proposal #2" be deleted and/or a different example chosen. I don't think this comment adds any value, and it's likely to just raise unnecessary doubts in the reader's mind. Matt 86.146.46.62 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC).
The proposed wordings for year linking seem to everywhere presuppose that year links aren't relevant in most cases. If I happen to believe that they are "relevant", or "useful", in most cases, even in the examples given, then my only option seems to be to support #3, but the wording there is not right. I'm not supporting linking "regardless of the relevance", I'm supporting relevant linking, but it's just that I disagree about what is "relevant".
In fact, I don't personally subscribe to this view, but I do think that the wording of #3 is biased. It more-or-less seems to be saying "Year articles should be linked almost always when they appear, even if there's no point."
I've just added a fourth proposal that may address Matt's concerns. (It is more or less identical with a proposal I made somewhere in this vast debate about two months ago.) -- Earle Martin22:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Separation of month-day linking and year linking
The text of "Month-day linking: Proposal #1" includes several references to year linking, which seems odd since the poll is otherwise structured to keep the two separate. Matt 86.146.46.62 (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC).
What sort of Cluster-leviathan do we have now?
Four ‘years’ proposals? What is this(?): an effort to A) make every voter’s eyes glaze over with sheer boredom, or B) to make it so the vote results are so spread out that no clear results can be discerned without yet another RfC, or C) this is the product of a simple failure of the ‘other’ side to get their act together to even the slightest degree?
Our group managed to put forth one proposal that we expect to receive broad support. The ‘other’ side can just get their act together and cobble a single counter-proposal together on years and months to throw into the ring. This RfC has grown to absurd proportions of complexity. Greg L (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2009 (U
Let's start thinking more of what the community might want, rather than being concerned of what different "sides" are doing. As far as I'm concerned, all four proposals are ones which the community may well consider. They're all different and give different options. I'd also suggest that four isn't that many. As it happens Greg, you (and some of your fellow editors) have a very narrow view of what you want (there's nothing wrong with that at all, it just gives little leeway for more than one proposal) - little or no linking. The other group of editors opinions differ so it's only natural that there will be different proposals coming from them. Ryan Postlethwaite00:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, it's not up to you to label anyone's view as "narrow". You have very little idea of neutrality, don't you. Tony(talk)08:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop twisting my words Tony. I meant narrow in the respect that you have very specific ideas and because of this there's very little leeway to move - I also clearly said that there was nothing wrong with that. Ryan Postlethwaite08:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
(ignoring below melt-down / rant): Very well. Can we keep the limit at four? We—the involved parties and you, Ryan—are all quite familiar with all these nuances and terminology. What we’ve grown here is tending to be quite unwieldily. Greg L (talk)
Yup, I'd suggest four being the absolute maximum. I'm thinking that perhaps #3 and #4 can possibly be merged, but please leave it for me to look at in the morning. Ryan Postlethwaite00:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
My fear is we are running the risk of having to repeat the process again with a run-off RfC. To avoid this, you ArbCom arbitrators should be prepared for the possibility of having to be WP:BOLD and interpret the vote comments if the results are anything less than the landslide/slaughter required to silence (nearly) all objection.
Really, there has been ample past RfCs to get a good measure of the views of the community on all of this. It shouldn’t take an Einstein to come along to reduce each issue to a binary choice. Greg L (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
But Ryan, this issue is similar to getting a little bit pregnant. You either do, or you don't. For dates, either you don't link and format (e.g. simply entering dates in plain text is a perfectly workable solution), or you start down the path of linking. Unfortunately, and as we've pointed out, you can't go down that path just a little bit. As soon as one little date gets coded, then (for complete consistency) there is no alternative but to agree to: coding all dates; discovering all possible ways dates can be entered at WP; updating rendering scripts to recognise all date formats; implementing page preferences; implementing user preferences; explaining/retraining WP editors to use the new coding syntax, etc.
To match the above Boolean point of view, I'm leaning towards a single proposal: "Dates will be entered as plain text".
I hope that goes some way towards explaining why a realistic approach can be seen as "narrow". Thanks, and cheers. HWV258 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Of course it's "ridiculous" when someone comes up with an alternative proposal to the biased wording (pointed out above by someone that isn't one of the regular edit-warriors on this topic) that you yourselves inserted to distort the existing pro-linking proposals in your favor. After writing paragraphs and paragraphs of tortured prose on the subject of autoformatting, you start wailing and gnashing your teeth when someone adds a proposal of two sentences and all of 47 words to the page.
As usual, it's Greg L howling and foaming at the head of the pack with his sycophants trailing behind. This is absolutely intolerable. -- Earle Martin00:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
(well… maybe not completely ignoring you, Earle): You people are fucking pathetic. Since this jewel of prose comes from you, I’m going to add that to my barnstar section on my talk page. Thanks. Greg L (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC) (a.k.a. Lobo, the “foaming howler”)
I must admit, I wondered slightly about user fatigue/confusion and vote fragmentation even with the three-proposal (actually six-proposal) version. I haven't been involved in this debate before -- presumably framing a single pro-date-delinking form of wording and asking people if they support or oppose it has already been suggested and rejected? Matt 86.137.136.254 (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC).
It would be rejected as duplicative. Tony did it with a negative phrasing and Greg did it with a positive phrasing which begged the question, but actually had no content. Perhaps a single question would work, but the status quo needs to be carefully stated. — Arthur Rubin(talk)01:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Fine, Arthur. Tony’s RfC is horribly flawed. My RfC is horribly flawed. Bad ‘cess be upon them. But you guys have Locke’s own RfC and it has more options than you can shake a stick at (‘should day/months sorta be linked most of the time?’ / ‘should day/months kinda-sorta be linked sorta most of the time?’). Are you going to dump all over that RfC now? There is more than enough RfC results on the community’s views for you guys to be able to pull together a single counter-proposal on each question. There is absolutely no need in the world for us to go back to Heisenberg uncertainty-levels of possibilities at this juncture. Greg L (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The detailed RfC clearly fails to oppose Year linking proposal 2. I would say it shows clear support for Year linking proposal 2, but there's some dispute as to "seminal". So you should be the one producing the counter-proposal, noting that it is not the status quo. The problem is we don't agree on the what the status quo is — perhaps Anderson's proposal that year links should be treated as any other link — as before the change that commonly recognized items should be linked. I don't think proposals 3 should be here, as the number of people supporting them are somewhere near 0, but that was Ryan's idea. I don't really see the need for proposal 4, except as a slight modification of Anderson's proposal. But someone did.
Quoting you: I would say shows clear support for Year linking proposal 2, but there's some dispute as to "seminal". I’m not buying that there is precious little information to go on here. This horse has been flogged to death now. You guys are smart enough to reduce it all down to a single proposal that embodies what you think the community wants.
As for your second bullet point, I suggest you not obsess about our proposals; you have plenty on your own plate to worry about.
And I’ll caution you, Arthur, to not get so bold about accusing me of lying please; I seriously doubt you have cornered the market on the virtue of ‘truth’. Greg L (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Quite. It's possible that you believe that your claim that my proposal was for years with some relevance to the article was correct. However, my proposal (made, more-or-less, at Ryan's request) did not have that statement. I suppose my attempts to clarify your proposal may have been misinterpreting your proposal, but they were attempts to clarify it. — Arthur Rubin(talk)02:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, stop referring to it as mine Greg. You know this to be patent nonsense, and you must stop repeating it. —Locke Cole • t • c15:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
STOP REFERRING TO THAT RFC AS MINE, GREG L. You are well aware that a dozen editors contributed to its development, and my only action there was to start the RFC when Tony1 blindsided the MOSNUM participants with his totally biased and completely invalid RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c15:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, how about retaining only the question "Do you believe that date links should be subject only to the general rules...?" and discarding the other questions? People who want special rules for date linking are already asked to "indicate what sort of rule on date linking would prefer", which arguably makes it redundant to then ask them to support or oppose specific pre-written suggestions for those rules. And for people who don't want special rules, the wording proposals are all irrelevant or "oppose". If an acceptable majority votes "no special rules" then that's job done. If not, then a "consensus" wording would have to be somehow distilled out of the suggestions, but that would be the case anyway with the existing poll format -- and even more so since these user-written suggestions would also have to be reconciled with the voting on the specific wording proposals. Matt 03:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.136.254 (talk)
Hey, I've got two more proposals I'd like to add to each: that will be four more. Since it's open season, I see no reaon that I shouldn't be able to add them. Tony(talk)08:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Not a patch on this...
"I've already deleted all the source code for the patch I'd been developing for the project"—UC_Bill (here). Not our patch, surely? HWV258 04:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reworking your previous post. The event that precipitated this is unrelated to the RfC, and many folks are very concerned as to what is up with Bill. However, there's nothing we can or should do about this (nor would it be appropriate) until there is a clearer idea of what is actually happening. --Ckatzspy04:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to ask people to scroll down what will become a HUMUNGOUSLY long page to vote eight times. There is now no reason not to reduce it to three questions, since it is illogical to support the addition of more than one of the options in each question:
Question 1: The autoformatting (write A or B for the option you prefer, plus a brief comment if you wish)
Question 2: Day-month linking (write A, B or C for the option you prefer, plus a brief comment if you wish)
Question 3: Year linking (write A, B, C or D for the option you prefer, plus a brief comment if you wish).
Otherwise, you have to slavishly write opposes for each option you don't support, like this:
One response: "Support" or "Oppose"
One "Support" and two "Opposes" (e.g., "Support", "Oppose","Oppose")
One "Support" and three "Opposes" (e.g., "Oppose", "Support", "Oppose","Oppose")
I think editors will be extremely irritated at such a poorly constructed RfC. If the hidden agenda is to skew the result by turning away people who will smirk at such a silly arrangement, the results will be discredited before the start of the exercise. You have to make it as easy as possible for editors.
I think, also, that each proposal for date-fragment links should be headed with an easy-to-understand key that distinguishes it from the others, but that is a secondary consideration. Tony(talk)08:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. Locke’s RfC had more than enough of these nuanced questions. We run a big risk of obtaining ambiguous RfC results if we repeat that again at this late date. Moreover, it is wholly unnecessary to be so complex at this juncture. Greg L (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, this is getting silly. Some users on this page are turning it into a battleground left, right and centre. I'm going to give everyone who's involved in this dispute (the parties to the case, and a few other editors) till 0:00 (UTC) tonight to edit the pages, then I'm going to request that they no longer edit the talk page or the main page. I want to have neutral opinions from now on, not more of the same sly remarks and name calling. I'll pop a note on everyone's page that I class as involved. Ryan Postlethwaite08:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is unacceptable, Ryan. You don't own this page, or this process—even though your initiative in setting it up seems now to be essential to moving forward. Sudden deadlines are completely unfair. I am in the middle of preparing an easier ABCD format; I do not want to be told at a moment's notice that there is a new deadline only hours away.
I will take the matter to ANI and further if you try this one. You informed us, and we all accepted in good faith, a 30 March start-date (with no assumption that preparation would stop five days before). NO WAY, José. Tony(talk) 08:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC) PS I'd be willing to negotiate, with other parties here, a slightly earlier deadline than 30 March—a settling period. That would seem fair management on your part. Would 00:00UTC start of 29 March be reasonable? Tony(talk)09:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what has triggered this reaction from you, Ryan. It should be no surprise to you that there would be sniping and edit-warring here, given that it came part and parcel with the MOSNUM saga. In case you haven't noticed, all this here is already extremely civil and cooperative. So what precisely does this mean- that we have until midnight GMT to edit-war all we like, and you will drop the gates the very next second, and freeze on that version? Please tell me I'm wrong. No, second thoughts, tell me the rationale and your current expectations, as I'm pretty sure what you've dictated will not achieve that end. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to allow editing up until 0:00 (UTC) on 28 March from all parties, then restrict editing to users that aren't involved. That then gives me 2 days to solicit more outside opinions and discuss minor changes with these people. Ryan Postlethwaite11:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
As an uninvolved user who just stumbled upon this issue at WP:AN/I, I must say that I find your approach unacceptable, Ryan. As noted above, you don't own this poll. You lack the authority to "allow editing" by certain users and not others, and your threat to block users who defy your will is especially troubling.
I don't know why you're treating the 30 March date as sacrosanct. If the poll isn't ready by then, the start should be postponed (assuming that there is consensus to). There's absolutely no need to rush forward in this brute-force manner. —David Levy13:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is one of the worst cases of admin bullying I have ever seen ("I would plan to enforce this by blocks if need be."—I wonder on the basis of what aspect of WP:BLOCKING or WP:ADMIN?). Ryan, you are supposed to be the head of WP's Mediation process; I presume that you have expertise in the kind of facilitation that persuades editors in highly problematic disputes to resolve their issues in as peaceable a way as possible. There has been little evidence of this; instead, suddenly we are faced with apparently arbitrary dictating of "What's going to happen", and threats to block editors for participating on a page in which they have found themselves involved for weeks. I grant you that it is a difficult page to manage, but you did initiate it of your own volition. That you did so after several parties at the related ArbCom hearing expressed a lack of confidence in your clerking and called for you to step down from that position, has brought a particularly strong need for you to bring to bear all of your talents and attention to the page. I am surprised that you are now playing the role not of a mediator, but an aggressor; I am sure that this is not your practice as head of Mediation (is it?).
I note your statement that "I am willing to allow editing up until 0:00 UTC on 28 March", but I'm afraid it's not your place to dictate. You do not own the space, and it is not an ArbCom matter (you yourself have stated this). Rather, you might have said to all parties "I wonder whether we might agree on a closing time to let things settle: how about 0:00 UTC on 28 March?". People would probably have agreed and been on-board with you, respecting your good management. I'm afraid your aggressive actions have not created that situation. Tony(talk)14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Patience, Ryan. I don’t see what provoked your reaction. The number of voting options suddenly (and unnecessarily) grew to unwieldily proportions and it’s been less than 24 hours since we’ve begun trying to self-correct. Perhaps you can helpfully give guidance here to promote this self-correction rather than say “the floggings will continue until morale improves.” Greg L (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I would post it here, except that the formatting would mess up the talk page structure. This simplified design of the two date-fragment questions will save users from scrolling down and down to write five redundant "Oppose" responses and a total of eight signatures. Thus, users will need to enter and sign only the three of those responses that are functional (including the single first response to the DA question, as now). Can you imagine the continual edit-conflicts from eight responses?
The other advantage is that users will see the proposals for each question one after the other, synoptically.
Here is is a sandbox attempt at a simplified structure. I have not altered one character of the substantive text (Advantages/disadantages/boxed text), although I believe some tweaking still needs to be done. If people think that a separate section for comments is required underneath each question, please say so; it seems a needless complexity when people will write comments immediately after they express their preference, as they always do in RfCs. But I don't care personally if a comments section is included for each.
I put in a mock response for each of the two questions for sandbox purposes only. I think these mock responses should be removed if transferred to the real page.
Your proposal looks like a much better way to address a multi-option approach. Much, much better. But I think we can all see that any multi-option approach is just begging for our having to do yet another runoff RfC if we can’t reduce each key question to a binary option. I’d bet twenty bucks that the arbitrators will either need to put on their fortune-telling head wraps and divine a ruling, or we’ll be at this yet again. I see no reason for the other side to suddenly introduce so many new options to this RfC.
As I alluded to in above threads, Locke’s own RfC has plenty of nuanced questions to draw from. There is absolutely no reason in the world to repeat that exercise at this late juncture unless we’re suffering from an industrial-strength inability to learn from the past.
I think there is no better evidence that there has been enough RfC feedback on this issue than some reactions over on the ANI. There, we see reactions along the lines of “another RfC?!?” We need to be done with this once and for all. To accomplish that, we just need to give them a bit more time to consolidate their counterproposals so we can offer the community a non-confusing, simple RfC that should yield unambiguous results.
I call on you, Ryan, to find a way to promote this as our objective. You’ve been good at finding people to step up to the plate and do some heavy lifting. Greg L (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's increasingly my concern: all of this angst, and we end up with the same inconclusive result. I was also struck by the "wasn't it resolved last time" comments. I urge people here to simplify, simplify, simplify, in the words of a great American poet. What was wrong with the binary choices we had until a few days ago? Tony(talk)15:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Greg you seriously need to stop referring to that RFC as "mine". I launched it only after Tony launched his disruptive RFC, but the one you constantly refer to as "mine" was contributed to by over a dozen editors, some from your own camp (and largely written by Masem (talk·contribs), who didn't seem to have a bias one way or the other). Please strike your comment or justify your assertion. —Locke Cole • t • c15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Point noted. You’ve told me what I shouldn’t call it, but not what I should call it. How about “The RfC that Locke jumped up and down and ranted about how it was the best thing since steam power and antibiotics (certainly much better than Tony’s poopy-head effort) and which was actually contributed to by a dozen editors”??
And I’m glad that you’ve pointed out how that RfC was the product of the collective wisdom of a dozen of you guys. With that many neuron buckets contributing to the design of the thing, there should be gobs of scientific data there from which to mine as you guys advance a single proposal for the community to consider (again). Now get busy. Less “talky”… more “writey”. Greg L (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) How about "the detailed RfC"?
Actually, I agree with Tony (at the start of this section, not necessarily his later comments), except that, to the exent that this is a "vote", a preferential voting system of some sort should be used. If anyone actually wants proposal 3, they should have an option to express a preference between proposals 1 and 2.
The date delinkers (which I still think is a good name for a rock band) have been working on pushing their proposal through for at least a year, with some evidence of work on it at least as far back as 2-1/2 years. I've only been looking at this for less than a year, and co-ordinating with others for even less time then that, so I don't think it's fair to demand a specific counter-proposal, other than the status quo ante. Since we, even the date linkers, can't agree on what the status quo ante was, that doesn't seem a reasonable option, either. If Ryan (not the date linkers or the date delinkers) were to make two specific proposals, with input from the respective sides, that would be fair. Requiring the date linkers to agree to a single specific proposal, while the date delinkers may have had one ready for over a year, is unfair. Having Ryan prepare a single date-linkers proposal while the date-delinkers provide their proposal is unfair.
And, for what it's worth, Ryan asked me to prepare a Month-Day linking proposal #2, after I provided Year linking proposal #2. I'm still not happy with, so I'd even consider suggested modifications from the date delinkers.
Then there should be an understanding on all sides here that if there is muddled results, we might need a run-off RfC. But my preference would be to not have a run-off RfC, no matter how mixed the results. In case no one here has been keeping up on current affairs, the community is fatigued of this issue and many believed—given what they naively thought was amply clear RfC results—that the issue had been settled.
I would prefer that arbitrators here to 1) grow some spine and, regardless of how muddled the voting mix is, actually read all the vote comments, then, 2) discern what the common ground is in the community, and 3) write a guideline that best embodies the community consensus, 4) post the thing to MOSNUM, and 5) shoot any bastard that complains. Greg L (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I repeat my call that unless people here love the feeling of endlessly flogging ourselves on this issue, binary voting on each issue holds the greatest promise for this RfC to be definitive and final. I just can’t fathom how it can be so difficult for the pro-linking crowd to organize themselves and get their act together and advance something they think has a holy prayer of being accepted by the community. That very fact that you guys find this to be such a daunting task speaks to the issue that you guys must have known all along that the community doesn’t like date linking one iota. It’s like selling a refrigerator to an Eskimo: “Well, how about our side-by-side model?” Greg L (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
