| Revision as of 10:35, 4 April 2009 editA. di M. (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,922 editsm reflist← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:34, 6 April 2009 edit undoSapphic (talk | contribs)6,851 editsm ←Blanked the pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{comment|The poll is currently open. Please submit your votes and comments in the appropriate section below. Threaded discussion and/or lengthy comments will be moved to the talk page.}} | |||
| {{shortcut|WP:DATEPOLL}} | |||
| This poll deals with issues regarding date linking/unlinking and the use of autoformatting (software that automatically changes the date format displayed to logged-on editors' set preference). The poll runs from 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC) and concludes 23:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC). | |||
| ===The history of the dispute=== | |||
| After a long debate at ] and elsewhere, ] in August 2008 led to the deprecation (that is, the discontinuance) of date linking for autoformatting purposes. Several editors then moved forward with a large-scale manual, automated and semi-automated unlinking of dates. However, several editors indicated their opposition to this change, at ] and the talk pages of the editors who were unlinking dates. Discussion continued at ] on whether enough editors had previously provided input on the issue to accurately represent community consensus. Toward the end of November, two parallel RFCs regarding date linking/unlinking and autoformatting were launched, receiving input from hundreds of editors: | |||
| <!-- NOTE: I would be strongly opposed to linking to the summaries of the RFC as all of them seem to have some form of bias; better to let editors read and decide on their own I think. -Locke Cole; Dabomb87: As a writer of one of these summaries, I concur, to preserve the neutrality of the poll --> | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Although these RFCs offered guidance on several points, there is disagreement as to whether that guidance has resolved all aspects of the debate. There have also been claims of an inherent bias in the wording and structure of the questions. This RfC seeks to clarify (i) whether a form of date autoformatting is desired, and (ii) whether the linking of date fragments should be used, and if so under which conditions. | |||
| =Poll= | |||
| The poll will commence on 30 March 2009 and will run for two weeks. Users are encouraged to review the proposals and vote in '''all three''' sections: ], ], and ]. After the poll has closed, there will be a two-week period for discussion. A second poll in late April will then be considered—if necessary—to look at how the results of the first poll will be implemented. '''Whilst comments from individual parties are extremely welcome, any threaded discussion will be moved to the talk page.''' | |||
| ==Autoformatting== | |||
| ====Background statement==== | |||
| {{quotation|'''Does the Misplaced Pages community support the concept of date autoformatting?'''<p> | |||
| '''Scope''' Autoformatting is a way of marking up dates to allow registered users to choose their preferred display format. A variety of methods have been proposed by which this might be implemented. The question posed here is whether the community desires the basic, common elements of autoformatting.<p> | |||
| '''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). Other date formats are less commonly used in running text, but frequently used as input parameters to templates: 2009-03-11 (YMD an ]-style format).<p> | |||
| '''What is date autoformatting?''' It is a system that allows dates displayed in articles to automatically change to reflect a ''registered'' user's settings under "]"; unregistered users (IPs) cannot access the preference settings. The existing autoformatting system (Dynamic Dates, outlined ]), introduced , requires use of the double-bracket link syntax to identify dates for autoformatting.<p> | |||
| A update to Misplaced Pages's software allows dates to be autoformatted through the use of ] (<nowiki>{{#formatdate}}</nowiki>) instead of with the link-based markup (<nowiki>] ]</nowiki>). This function displays autoformatted plain-text dates per a registered user's preferences, without links ("{{#formatdate:30 March 2009}}"). It adds the option of defining a default date format for unregistered users and anyone who has not set a preference. As with the original system, all dates in an article would require markup to guarantee consistency.<p> | |||
| '''What happens if autoformatting is accepted?''' Consensus will be sought on specifications, which will then be used by developers and editors to establish a system based either on a modified version of the existing software or on a new markup or template scheme; dates will be marked up accordingly.<p> | |||
| '''What happens if autoformatting is rejected?''' The markup used by the previous system will continue to be removed, and any dates that are inconsistent with the overall format for their article will be corrected, manually or using automatic means.}} | |||
| ====Statement for==== | |||
| <!--500-word limit--> | |||
| <!-- 481 words (22:45 UTC 28 March 2009) --> | |||
| {{quotation|'''Date autoformatting is about ]'''. It allows users to exercise personal control over the way in which dates are presented. This is not a new concept; Misplaced Pages's existing system has been in use since 2003, and personalized date formats have been an option in operating systems for decades. It is a natural extension of the trend toward increased user choice in how we interface with our computers, iPods, mobile phones, and every other type of personal technology.<p> | |||
| Beyond that goal, '''autoformatting enhances our ability to present a consistent date format'''. At present, the Manual of Style allows dates to be formatted in either DMY or MDY style, based on regional usage and editorial consensus. The absence of a standard format creates situations where pages are ''individually'' consistent, yet stylistically at odds when considered as a ''collection'' of articles. This differs from other encyclopedias, which employ a consistent format across the entire publication.<p> | |||
| Much has been made of the supposed complexity of autoformatting, but the reality is that '''Misplaced Pages's editors have been using date markup for almost six years now'''. Yes, dates do require special formatting to enable the feature – but this is no different from what is required of virtually every display option on Misplaced Pages. Markup enables us to enhance the presentation of articles, from the most basic options such as bold and italic text or section headers to more complex features such as templates and tables. Any large-scale changes can be automated through the use of existing editing tools. As for the impact on novice editors, Misplaced Pages has never expected them to master every aspect of the interface. In fact, new users have always been encouraged to contribute without worrying about spelling, grammar, or formatting options.<p> | |||
| Currently, ongoing discussions between editors and Misplaced Pages's developers are focusing on ways to resolve concerns expressed about the existing system, chief among them the links and what unregistered users see. These issues are being addressed through the active development of an improved system, elements of which have already been incorporated into the system software. Other options under consideration would add enhancements that improve control over site-wide standards while allowing individual articles to be tagged with page-specific default date formats where desired. Looking down the road, '''date markup has also been identified as central to the development of new features''' such as automated time lines, automated "this day in history" pages, and enabling improved efficiency with database dumps. Autoformatting would also replace the current need for "dateformat" parameters in templates.<p> | |||
| '''The benefits are obvious for readers and editors alike'''. Date autoformatting allows greater consistency in how our articles are presented to all readers, it assists editors in presenting a uniform, professional look, and it gives registered users the option of personalizing their interface. In short, this discussion is about offering increased choice to all of Misplaced Pages's users.}} | |||
| ====Statement against==== | |||
| <!--''500-word limit''--> | |||
| <!-- 465 words now: paste "preview" of display onto Word, please. NOT edit-mode coding, naturally. --> | |||
| {{quotation|1='''There is no problem to solve.''' Whether day or month comes first (3 January; January 3) is trivial—all English-speakers recognize both; the US military uses DMY, as do many Canadians; by contrast, many publications outside North America, including newspapers, use MDY. Given this mixed environment, it is unlikely that readers even notice, let alone care, which format is used in an article. ]—which represent our peak standards of professionalism—abandoned autoformatting last September and now exclusively use simple, fixed-text dates; this has barely rated a mention at ]. More broadly, ] has unlinked and corrected dates in more than 7,000 articles, yet has received only a handful of objections.<p><!-- | |||
| -->'''Fundamental principle that there should not be two classes of users.''' Because some registered editors would see different dates formats from everyone else (see ]), it would inevitably lead to an inconsistent mess of date formats.<p><!-- | |||
| -->'''Complex and laborious.''' Tagging tens of millions of dates with a marker such as '''<code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>''#formatdate''<nowiki>|March 11, 2009}}</nowiki></code>''' (double the number of keystrokes—even more if '''<code><nowiki>|dmy/md</nowiki></code>''' is added), and specially tagging nearly three million articles to establish a default date format, would be an enormous price to pay for the very minor benefit of viewing dates in a specific format, and would complicate matters for new and casual editors. ] already has simple, well-accepted rules for date formatting, which require no markup. In the context of attempting to achieve a simple solution, WikiMedia's Chief Technical Officer, Brion Vibber, "My personal recommendation would be to remove all date {{nowrap|autoformatting …".}}<p><!-- | |||
| -->'''Metadata fallacy.''' Markup is unnecessary to produce metadata. We already have powerful search tools, including the much-underused Misplaced Pages-constrained google search (site:en.wikipedia.org), and category searches. For ''markup'' to be useful, an option would be needed to enable editors to see all marked-up dates as though linked—another layer of complexity; for a date or year page produces a list of thousands of articles whose only common factor is that some event, related in some way to the topic, happened on that date or year; such low-quality metadata is virtually worthless to editors of future time-based projects.<p><!-- | |||
| -->'''Development risks.''' The failure of the original autoformatting was largely due to the ''ad hoc'' imposition of a design by programmers acting without agreed specifications (clear objectives) by the community. The so-called fixes suggested are of limited scope and functionality, and have not been agreed to by the community. We should not risk allowing solutions to be tacked on bit by bit over the next few years, requiring increasingly complicated syntax even further remote from the average editor. Among these issues would be non-breaking spaces, ], ], ] and ]/] dates. ]—avoiding the clunkiness and forced repetitions that the original system involved—would be a significant challenge.}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Date formatting and linking poll/Autoformatting responses}} | |||
| ==Month-day linking== | |||
| {{quotation| | |||
| ====Background statement==== | |||
| Month-day linking is the use of linking markup (double square brackets) on a day and month combination (e.g. <nowiki>]</nowiki>), which creates a link to a specific date article (]). Month-day linking has been used by editors to create links to such articles, and (from 2003 to 2008) to autoformat dates (see above). | |||
| ;''Advantages'' of month-day linking | |||
| # Provides easy access to date articles. | |||
| # Populates "what links here" pages with possibly relevant data. | |||
| # Offers editors direct links to destination compared to the less precise "search" function. | |||
| # Uses a syntax that is logical, easily understood, and has been in widespread use since 2003 by the editing community. | |||
| # Provides links on occasions in which readers may reasonably wish to see the article on the date, including birth and death dates, dates of celebration (] from ]; ] from ]) or conventional names (e.g. 10 August 1792 links to ]). | |||
| ;''Disadvantages'' of month-day linking | |||
| # Provides little or no relevance to an article's topic. These include, in almost all instances, links to: | |||
| #*birth and death dates; | |||
| #*dates of celebration (e.g. the list in ] is irrelevant to ]/]; the list in ] is irrelevant to ]). | |||
| # Dilutes high-value links (]). When a link to a month-day page might be of potential interest to readers, it is better displayed in the ''See also'' section rather than in the main body of the article. | |||
| # Month-day linking does not provide an explanation as to why a reader should follow a link. The use of the ''See also'' section for such links can provide explanatory text. | |||
| # "What links here" for dates typically generates many results of questionable utility or relevance. There are already powerful tools for searching these items, including the precise "search" function and by adding "site:wikipedia.en" to a Google search for dates. | |||
| ;''Advantages'' of month-day markup (whether or not it entails linking) | |||
| # Clearly marks out date strings for recognition by bots/scripts, which simplifies the automated processing of article text and the gathering of metadata. | |||
| ;''Disadvantages'' of month-day markup | |||
| # Complicates the editing process with confusing syntax and additional keystrokes. | |||
| # Possible "metadata" add no value to those from existing tools, so it is unclear whether/why they warrant the use of special markup. | |||
| ;''Advantages'' of removing guidance on month-day links | |||
| #Any specific guidelines on month-day links that do not apply to all links ''are'' instruction creep. | |||
| ;''Disadvantages'' of removing guidance on month-day links | |||
| #The linking of date articles needs special guidance in our style guide because they are not like ‘normal’ articles—almost all date articles are lists of events, related only by the coincidence of occurring on the same date. Such lists almost never provide a context that helps in the understanding of an article that links to them, and therefore should not be linked to. If date articles are ever improved to the point where they do indeed provide historical context, this guidance may need to be reviewed. | |||
| If supported through consensus, one of the following four proposed guidelines (Options 1, 2, 3 or 4) would be added to ] and ]. Please respond below to the four options. | |||
| ====Month-day: Option #1 (link only relevant dates)==== | |||
| {{quotation|Month-day articles (] and ]) should not be linked unless their content is germane and topical to the subject. Such links should share an important connection with that subject other than that the events occurred on the same date. For example, editors should not link the date (or year) in a sentence such as (from ]): "The Sydney Opera House was made a UNESCO World Heritage Site on 28 June 2007", because little, if any, of the contents of either ] or ] are germane to either UNESCO, a World Heritage Site, or the Sydney Opera House.<p>References to commemorative days (]) are treated as for any other link. Intrinsically chronological articles (], ], and ]) may themselves contain linked chronological items.}} | |||
| ====Month-day: Option #2 (commemorative links only)==== | |||
| {{quotation|Month-day articles (] and ]) should not be linked unless the article is about (or includes, as primary article) a commemoration which usually occurs on that date. For example, ] might link to ], or ] (but not ]) might link to ] (even though it is occasionally celebrated on a different day due to Lent).}} | |||
| ====Month-day: Option #3 (link all on first occurrence)==== | |||
| {{quotation|Month-day articles may be linked on their first occurrence in an article, regardless of how relevant the two articles are to each other.}} | |||
| ====Month-day: Option #4 (removal of guidance)==== | |||
| {{quotation|All specific language dealing with month-day links will be removed from the Manual of Style and related pages. This will have the effect of treating month-day links like any other potential link. (This need not include mentions of linking in the context of autoformatting; whether these are current guidance or a historic note depends on the question on autoformatting above.) }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Date formatting and linking poll/Month-day responses}} | |||
| ==Year linking== | |||
| {{quotation| | |||
| ====Background statement==== | |||
| Year linking is when a specific year is linked to in an article (]), or a pipe link to a year article on a specific topic (<nowiki>]</nowiki>). | |||
| ;Advantages of year linking | |||
| # Provides easy access to year articles. | |||
| # Populates "what links here" pages with possibly relevant data. | |||
| # Allows readers to browse freely through global historical context via year. | |||
| ;Disadvantages of year linking | |||
| # Rarely relevant or useful to achieving a greater understanding of an article's topic. | |||
| # "What links here" often generates many false positives and sources of questionable utility or relevance; the search box can easily be used instead. | |||
| # If added indiscriminately, articles may become ] and high-value links would be diluted. | |||
| ;Advantages of year markup (whether or not it entails linking) | |||
| # Simplifies automated processing of article text (i.e. gathering metadata). | |||
| ;Disadvantages of year markup | |||
| # Complicates the editing process and contributes to ]. | |||
| # There are already powerful tools for gathering "metadata", including the search box and by adding "site:wikipedia.en" to a google search for years. | |||
| ;''Advantages'' of removing guidance on year links | |||
| #Year links do not differ significantly from other links; year articles should be treated like any other articles for this purpose. Any specific guidelines on year links that do not apply to all links ''are'' instruction creep. | |||
| ;''Disadvantages'' of removing guidance on year links | |||
| #The linking of year articles needs special guidance because they are not like ‘normal’ articles—almost all year articles are lists of events, related only by the coincidence of occurring in the same year. Such lists almost never provide a context that helps in the understanding of an article that links to them, and therefore should not be linked to. If year articles are ever improved to the point where they do indeed provide historical context, this guidance may then need to be reviewed. | |||
| If supported through consensus, one of the following four proposed guidelines (Options 1, 2, 3 or 4) would be added to ] and ]. Please respond below the four options. | |||
| ====Years: Option #1 (link only relevant years)==== | |||
| {{quotation|Year articles (], ], ]) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year. For instance, ] may be linked to from another article about WWII, and so too may ] when writing about a particular development on the metric system in that year. However, the years of birth and death of architect ] should ''not'' be linked, because little, if any, of the contents of ] and ] are germane to either Johnson or to architecture.}} | |||
| ====Years: Option #2 (Option #1 plus birth/death years, etc)==== | |||
| {{quotation|Year articles (], ], ]) should not be linked unless the year is particularly relevant to the topic; that is, a seminal event relevant to the subject of the article occurred in that year. Examples may include the birth and death of a person, and the establishment and disestablishment of an organization.}} | |||
| ====Years: Option #3 (link all on first occurrence)==== | |||
| {{quotation|Year articles may be linked on their first occurrence in an article, regardless of how relevant the two articles are to each other.}} | |||
| ====Years: Option #4 (removal of guidance)==== | |||
| {{quotation|All specific language dealing with year links will be removed from the Manual of Style and related pages. This will have the effect of treating year links like any other potential link. (This need not include mentions of linking in the context of auto-formatting; whether these are current guidance or a historic note depends on the question on auto-formatting above.) }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Date formatting and linking poll/Year-linking responses}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| <references /> | |||