Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:58, 11 March 2006

Archives

• length, area, volume, power, mass, energy, speed, force, pressure, percent, electromagnetic radiation, limiting the use of metric units, love, request for Bobblewik input, style, United Kingdom, Misplaced Pages administration, dates, miscellany, unsorted archive

No, I blocked you because you continued your edits despite saying you were not going to continue them, and have failed to provide adequate reasoning for these mass changes despite having two failed bot requests, and a clear lack of consensus for the changes you wish to be made in both of them. Because you have shown no regard for requests, pleas and warnings to stop and discuss, you are leaving me with no choice but to block you so you may discuss it. Your insistence on continuing to make the edits when you are fully aware there is significant disagreement with implementing these changes is entirely unhelpful. You've promised in the past to stop and discuss. Admins, myself included, have taken you at your word. You've abused mine, and others' faith. How can we trust you if you promise to not continue these edits and discuss, when you've broken your word so often in the past? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked you for now. You may want to consider getting a broader mandate for your date linking changes before doing such a large number of edits. Kaldari 18:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Guidance on the what of date link edits

• Misplaced Pages:Only make links that are relevant to the context
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links)

Role in conflict reduction

• If an editor disagrees with somebody else's edits, the Manual of style is an excellent resource. Changes that move an article towards the Manual of style are probably better than those that move it away. This applies to edits and to reverts.
• If an editor thinks the Manual of style guidance is wrong, incomplete or has insufficient support then that editor can propose a change.

Guidance on the how of editing

There are few constraints on how. Fast manual editing can exceed 6 edits per minute with browser tabs and broadband.

The role of constraints in conflict reduction

• Some editors think that editing without a bot flag should be subject to a speed limit. They may use the term bot-speed. A self-imposed limit of 120 edits per hour has been stated as acceptable for a non-bot. This applies to edits and to reverts.

Want to reduce overlinking of date elements but can't get my monobook working?

I don't fully understand how it all works. However, if all else fails try:

• 1. Replace your entire monobook with mine.
• 2. Make sure you clear the cache as recommended: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5.
• 3. Go to an article. Press the edit tab.
• 4. When it opens in edit mode, you should see a tab labelled '1Jan2001' and one labelled 'µ'. Press the first one if you want it to delink dates and the second if you want it to deal with units. You can try both. You have to check the edits before pressing the usual save button.
• 5. After you get it working, put your old stuff back in.

Working for the good of Misplaced Pages

There are thousands (count them) of links to month articles like July. There are thousands of links to day articles like Saturday. Some articles have multiple repeat links to years (I saw one example with 14 solitary links to 2004, some adjacent). The overlinking of date elements is largely due to a misunderstanding about the role of square brackets in the 'date preferences' mechanism. The understandable ignorance that leads to overlinking and 'me-too' overlinking should be countered in some way.

If anybody would like to address the issues of the what and how of editing (see above), please raise the issue in the talk page of the Manual of style. I would like to see a solution.

My record of supporting editors

This is not a poll. This is my own personal record of editors that support reducing excessive date links to meet MoS guidance.

A Y Arktos, Ali@gwc.org.uk, ALoan, Antonio Perrito Martin, Armindo, Cyde Weys, dave souza, David D, DES, Donald Albury, DS1953, Duk, EWS23, Fritz Saalfeld, Gflores, Gheorghe Zamfir, gracefool, GraemeMcRae, HappyDog, Haukur, Hmains, Jclerman, Joke, JWSchmidt, Kafziel, Kaldari, KillerChihuahua?!?, Kirill Lokshin, Marshman, Matt Crypto, Michael David, Neonumbers, older ≠ wiser, Omegatron, Pablo D. Flores, Quadell, Quiddity, R. S. Shaw, Randwicked, Rich Farmbrough, Sam Korn, Scottkeir, SlimVirgin, Smyth, Srleffler, Stephen Turner, Stroika, Susvolans, Tempshill, Thincat, Tony, VirtualSteve, Vsmith, Wackymacs, Wetman

A poll for a bot to delink got support in the range 70 to 80%. A poll for non-bot implemention of the MoS would presumably get greater support.

A matter of degree

I have also expressed concern about the fact that these isolated years and isolated months, and other things such as decades, are overlinked. But I don't necessarily think that a mass throwing out of existing links is the answer, especially without more specific guidelines about what is an acceptable link and what is an unacceptable link (and I imagine there would be a signficant gray area in between).

The other think I think we really need is some way to get date preferences to work that is totally independent of the linking process, and that doesn't change the way the information is colored and or underlined (I usually have underlining turned off in Misplaced Pages) when I view it, and that allows linking for the normal linking purposes. Something that would allow also links such as ] or ] to work without screwing up the presence or absence of commas in the displayed date with preferences set. That would help alleviate this overlinking problem. Gene Nygaard 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Re your first paragraph. I happen to think that the problem is so great that a mass clear out is justified. However, if the guidelines were made more active and specifically recommended that editors cleared out links as they were editing, I think that might help. The current text is passive. It takes the point of view of somebody coming across a date that is *not* linked: Generally do not link. It could be active and recommend removal of unnecessary link. Of course, one is implied by the other. But there is so much ignorance and confusion that some editors think: if it is there, it must be needed. A change to active phrasing would not be a change to existing principles, so hopefully it would be easy to agree. If the clean up task were widespread and routine, then people could do it as they go along. The status quo will remain if no change is made to the MoS, or to the articles, or both. If more editors did it, then it would no longer be my thing.

Re your second pargraph. Yes. Separating date preference mechanism from the hyperlink mechanism would be a fundamental improvement. It might even cure the disease. I think some of the developers have said they would look into it.

I really think that some change to the MoS is warranted, or a poll, or both. bobblewik 16:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)