This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Locke Cole (talk | contribs) at 18:34, 9 November 2008 (→Developer help with dates: Tony, the door is over there). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:34, 9 November 2008 by Locke Cole (talk | contribs) (→Developer help with dates: Tony, the door is over there)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Manual of Style   | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
This talk page is for discussion of the page WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Please use it to make constructive suggestions as to the wording of that page.
|
|---|
RfC: Linking of dates of birth and death
Proposal: to add the words
- These dates should normally be linked.
to the section WP:MOSDAB#Dates of birth and death, and to link the example dates, so the section would read
At the start of an article on an individual, his or her dates of birth and death are provided. These dates should normally be linked. For example: "Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was a British ..."
- For an individual still living: "Serena Williams (born September 26, 1981) ...", not "... (September 26, 1981 –) ..."
- When only the years are known: "Socrates (470–399 BC) was..."
- When the year of birth is completely unknown, it should be extrapolated from earliest known period of activity: "Offa of Mercia (before 734 – 26 July 796) ..."
...
Rationale There are some - most vocally perhaps Tony - who believe that pretty much no dates should be linked; and this seems to be what Lightbot was trying to achieve, too. But I don't believe that is the view of the majority. On the contrary, I think the balance of opinion, even amongst those who don't want to see pages becoming a "sea of blue", is that it is useful to have at least some date links on a page, to let people establish a broader context for the times in which a person lived, by clicking their way through the date hierarchy especially via pages like List of state leaders in xxxx or xxxx in the United Kingdom, etc. The proposal that at least the date of birth and date of death in a biographical article should be linked has been made independently in at least four different threads: by Scolaire in the section above #Dates are not linked unless; by Carcharoth in the section above #Concrete examples (year links); by Eleassar, relaying a question raised to him in talk, at WT:CONTEXT#Birth dates?; and by myself at User talk:Lightmouse#Date linking request (birth and death years). It therefore seems appropriate to put up this proposal specifically as a formal well-advertised RfC. Jheald (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. The date page hierarchy, and pages rapidly linked from it, provides a useful link to historical context for biographical articles. The biographical articles are stronger for such context; and the birth date and death date are the most obvious choice of dates to link. Jheald (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. (1) You're linking an anniversary day and month that is useless to our readers (please demonstrate some that are useful, and not just a magic carpet for discretionary browsers); and many editors will confuse this with the old autoformatting function. (2) Did you mean to "nowiki" the laborious constructions above that are concealed behind the piped linking (
(] ] – ] ])? I'm sure this will go down very well with editors, who who will not only have to memorise how to do this, but will have to actually do it in every article. (3) You haven't demonstrated why it is worth forcing editors to make a link to a year page (birth/death): while it might be possible in a few rare instances to argue that the year of death page is vaguely useful (e.g., 1963 for the death of JF Kennedy, but even that example demonstrates how the fragmented facts about JFK in that year are better in the JFK article itself, or a daughter article on the assassination). (4) The "year in X" links are fine, except that concealing them behind what looks like a useless year-link is self-defeating, isn't it? Already, at least one WikiProject says not to use them. MOSLINK recommends the use of explicit wording to overcome the concealment. Tony (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)- No, this has nothing to do with autoformatting. I'm proposing that such dates - the year, and the day - in the opening words of a bio article should be linked, end of story; something a number of other editors have also raised. The principal value being for the context that these links, and onward links from such pages, allow readers to click through to and explore.
I'm not talking about "Year in X" articles, I'm talking about the bare year articles themselves. And I'm not intending to particularly mandate the characters - they were there already, so I just left them. My proposal is very simple: as a rule, the days and years in those opening words should be linked. I want to see where the balance of the community rests on that question. Jheald (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, this has nothing to do with autoformatting. I'm proposing that such dates - the year, and the day - in the opening words of a bio article should be linked, end of story; something a number of other editors have also raised. The principal value being for the context that these links, and onward links from such pages, allow readers to click through to and explore.
- Oppose, per many of Tony's comments, and just the fact that these year articles (much less day of the month ones!) don't provide useful historical context, they provide an often enormous list of trivial crap. If a large and well-organized WikiProject were capable of producing actually useful year articles that summarized the truly notable happenings in those years, I could maybe see the linking of years (only) for birth/death/establishment/disestablishment dates (only, for the most part). The problem with this though is that editors will see them linked in the lead sentence and then go around linking them all over the place, and we'd be pretty much back where we started. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. I opposed delinking dates in the first place and I still do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose, I've never seen much sense in date linking, and links to day-of-the-month articles result in triviality amost by definition. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
CommentSupport. I agree this is a good question to work out. My question is whether we should use what I think you are proposing, the well known and much disliked, "link to the day of year", "link to the year" (which is why people are asking about autoformatting), or if we should be suggesting {{Birth date|yyyy|mm|dd}} and {{Death date and age|yyyy|mm|dd|yyyy|mm|dd}} which provides protection against lightbot and allows for more flexibility in the future. As for those who oppose the "trivia dumping grounds", I suspect that if the links are to specific types of narrowly defined data (such as Births on January 15, 1900 or People who share a birthday on 15 January) most people would be fine with that. dm (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)- As an aside, I changed this to a support. The templates I mention are real templates, and dont need any development. dm (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- ;;partial Strong Support. In that case, the first example should be ""'''Charles Darwin''' {{DL|y=1809|m=February|d-12|mode=eng}} – {{DL|y=1882|m=April|d=19|mode=end}}) was a British ...", with the details of the template worked out later. (And yes, if the question is whether the dates be linked in the lead sentence, my answer is strong support.) Disagree with secret links to 1990 births or 15 January birthdays / January 15 birthdays (if, for no other reason, we'd need staff monitoring which of the latter is linked to.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Changed to neutral on the day of the year, even if the day of the year article is the one that links back to the person, and the year article does not, because of inadequate notability. It should, however, be pointed out, that ] ] would block autoformatting, and the only consensus we have is that autoformatting is bad, not the linking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support with comment There are many who do click and want to click on a date link to look at a reference in context, and whether that is trivial, banal or whatever is not my business, nor mine to judge. I can understand that someone may wish to click on a link to find out the context of a date of birth to the world around them at the time. Do I do it? No. Should it be allowable? Yes. For instance a child born during a battle in the local area, or being named Victoria, and that being the date of the coronation of Queen Victoria, or some other event that may have an effect on that person's environment. This information can be quite relevant. So the issue then becomes managing it, and making it useful. Is there 'overlinking' on dates, most definitely, and the information should be most specific, however, the request is specifically for Dates of Life. With regard to the comments about triviality ... for goodness sake, the difference between trivia and excellent knowledge is solely your own virtual framework and environment. If some people thrive on trivia, good luck to them, WP is here for all types. Not asking for extreme, let us find the median position. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Linking some, but not all full dates in the article will be confusing. I don't see birth and death date-linking to be valuable at all. Most biographies do have categories for year of birth and death that would get your average browser to the year page anyway. Karanacs (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Query to Billinghurst: Your assertion that many people click on and want to click on a date link seems unlikely—do you have sources for this? Tony (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Tony. wikt:many Anecdotally from reading, especially the commentary when it was on User_talk:Lightmouse; some (light) discussions with genealogists, who are a little date focused. I too would love to see evidentiary information about date links and whether they are followed or not. If someone has the right wand to produce that data, it would be lovely. To Karanacs the proposal is just Dates of Life, not all dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs)
- For tony to make such a statement that it is unlikely only proves that he is not paying attention to the comments being made against delinking of dates. I have stated on several occasions (as have others) that I do click on dates (sometime only to see if the article is associated to the date). As for evidence I recommend that someone does a query on the toolserver for all the date articles and see if the hits reduce over the next few months as more and more articles have the dates delinked. I believe we will find a marked reduction in the traffic to those date articles do to their delinking.--Kumioko (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Query to Billinghurst: Your assertion that many people click on and want to click on a date link seems unlikely—do you have sources for this? Tony (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. It adds complexity and I just don't see the value. Haukur (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I never agreed with Tony's 2 dimensional view that date linking is bad. Misplaced Pages is a 3 dimensional database of articles and is not bound by the 2 dimensional rules of a paper article. If we have an article in wikipedia that is linkable to an article then we should link to it (whether ir directly relates or not). That doesn't mean that it should be linked 4 or 5 times but it should be linked and the birth and death dates to me are reasonable. If we go along with this delinking of dates argument that tony presents then next we will be delinking the city and state of birth, military ranks, allegiances and any other link that is not directly related to an articles content. I think that this date argument sets a very ugly precedent. Additionally, given the volume of arguments for and against this venture it should be obvious to everyone (regardless of how they feel about whether dates should or should not be linked) that this does not meet consensus, regardless of how the vote previously came out.--Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Strong but partial support I believe linking the year to the bare year articles for births and deaths in bio provides useful context information. I'm actually in favour of linking years (decades etc.) where ever the historical context is significant to the subject of the article, even if the subject itself is not significant to the period of time linked. However, I am not as convinced of the value of linking the month and day, especially since those links would not seem to add much context without the year. PaleAqua (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Two simple points to PaleAqua: (1) Where was the consensus to link these items in the first place? (2) No one is suggesting a slippery slope to no wikilinking; rather, I sense that the motivation is the direct opposite: the encouragement of a stronger wikilinking system through the avoidance of extremely low-value dilutions. Tony (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- 1) Rhetorical statements are unhelpful. Where is so much of the information and documentation of templates, convention, etc. Wikis evolve, we are talking about a controlled evolution. 2) No, you are correct, no slippery slope suggested, it was Dates of Life only. Low value to you, statements to the contrary by others that dates of linking are not of low value seem to be ignored or derided as of low value. :-( billinghurst (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Two simple points to PaleAqua: (1) Where was the consensus to link these items in the first place? (2) No one is suggesting a slippery slope to no wikilinking; rather, I sense that the motivation is the direct opposite: the encouragement of a stronger wikilinking system through the avoidance of extremely low-value dilutions. Tony (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support. It certainly does no harm. Also usefull for lovers of trivia. Let readers decide what they want to read. G-Man 19:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. One of the dates in the example, 26 July 796, would be displayed to those who have selected the "2001-01-15T16:12:34" date format preference as 0796-07-26. The unique format in the preference menu clearly defines this date as an ISO 8601 date, even though that term does not appear on the menu. Also, the discussion leading to the implementation of date autoformatting makes it clear this format was intended to be ISO 8601. ISO 8601 requires dates to be in the Gregorian calendar, and requires mutual consent before information exchange partners exchange any date before the year 1583. Since the date 26 July 796 is in the Julian calendar, both requirements are violated. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: this discussion is not intended to be about autoformatting. This is about hard-linking of the dates, rendered as written, which is how 99% of readers will see them. If there are bugs in autoformatting, then there are bugs in autoformatting. User beware. But we shouldn't let the tail wag the dog. The question is, regardless of autoformatting, should these dates be linked? Jheald (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're wrong. Every date linking discussion is always about date autoformatting until the date autoformatting cancer is excised and incinerated. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: this discussion is not intended to be about autoformatting. This is about hard-linking of the dates, rendered as written, which is how 99% of readers will see them. If there are bugs in autoformatting, then there are bugs in autoformatting. User beware. But we shouldn't let the tail wag the dog. The question is, regardless of autoformatting, should these dates be linked? Jheald (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Just because an article exists on Misplaced Pages that can be linked to, doesn’t mean it should be linked to. Links should be topical and germane to the article and should properly anticipate what the readership will likely want to further explore. Linking of years (1982), isn’t germane most of the time and should be limited to intrinsically historical articles like French Revolution—in which case, the linked dates would be older, like 1794. What the bot is doing that I find really valuable is the de-linking of dates (October 21). If someone was born on that date in 1982, no one gives a damn if “On this date in] 1600 - Tokugawa Ieyasu defeats the leaders of rival Japanese clans in the Battle of Sekigahara, which marks the beginning of the Tokugawa shogunate, who in effect rule Japan until the mid-nineteenth century.” This isn’t not proper technical writing practices. Greg L (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I just want to clarify that just because you don't "give a damn" doesn't mean knowone does. If knowone cared then there would be no need to have a On this day section in the main page.--Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Maybe some people are interested in who else shared the same birthday, or that an English rugby union star was born on the feast-day of the patron saint of McDonalds. If WP has these pages, I think it's inappropriate to presume that because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT, nobody else should be allowed to find them. Jheald (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- To Jheald: So you cite WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. That’s sort of a “if it’s blue, it must be true” argument; if there was a WP:I REALLY REALLY LIKE IT AND IF AN ARTICLE EXITS ON WIKIPEDIA, IT SHOULD BE LINKED TO essay, I might “prove” my point. To Kumioko: I have no problem with the “On this day…” on the main page because all readers know what they will be taken to if they click on a link; they aren’t Easter eggs. And to both of you: This isn’t an issue of right or wrong; it’s a grey area centered around the issue of not desensitizing readers to our blue links through excessive linking. These are links to trivia. Too few readers, after they’ve stepped on these date land mines, want to bother with them any more. Greg L (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that date and year links can be land mines and unhelpful to readers. Let's make that clear first. However, I seriously doubt that links that are clearly birth and death years will mislead readers in your "land mine" sense. Take this example: "Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was a British ..." In my view, people may wonder what the links are, but when they click on them will realise "ah, an article on the year, that makes sense". They will then know this when they see it on future articles, and either click through as desired, or ignore them. What they won't do, in my opinion, is click on the link and think "oh, I was expecting an article on this person's birth" or "oh, I was expecting an article on this person's death". i.e. when clearly linked in a specified and limited context (birth and death years), year links are not Easter egg "land mines", and they are not excessive linking (two links per biographical article). Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have observed that articles tend to be more heavily linked in the lead section; birth and death dates also tend to be the first to appear after the subject's name. Linking to these date articles would strongly contribute to the strong sea of blue in the opening paragraphs. While death dates may be consequential in certain cases, the only possible exception birth dates being generally a non-event is Jesus Christ, and nobody knows JC's exact birth date or year anyway, so I think this is a red herring of a debate. 219.78.19.154 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Alfonso XIII's birth was probably an event... Anyway, your overlinking argument is a good one. If we are to link some dates in a biographical article, then it would make sense to link birth and death dates, but doing it in the lead is not very good. If we say "do it only in an infobox", plus get rid of the autoformatting, then I like it better. -- Jao (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Darwin's birth did involve a minor event; it was the same day as Abraham Lincoln's. I should prefer to have this trivium availabe behind a link to restarting the proverbially WP:LAME edit war about whether it should be in the lead...
More seriously, the year of birth does provide context, and would provice more if the year articles were better. On medieval articles, it is often of some interest on what saint's day a given person is born; and so on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Darwin's birth did involve a minor event; it was the same day as Abraham Lincoln's. I should prefer to have this trivium availabe behind a link to restarting the proverbially WP:LAME edit war about whether it should be in the lead...
- Well, Alfonso XIII's birth was probably an event... Anyway, your overlinking argument is a good one. If we are to link some dates in a biographical article, then it would make sense to link birth and death dates, but doing it in the lead is not very good. If we say "do it only in an infobox", plus get rid of the autoformatting, then I like it better. -- Jao (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have observed that articles tend to be more heavily linked in the lead section; birth and death dates also tend to be the first to appear after the subject's name. Linking to these date articles would strongly contribute to the strong sea of blue in the opening paragraphs. While death dates may be consequential in certain cases, the only possible exception birth dates being generally a non-event is Jesus Christ, and nobody knows JC's exact birth date or year anyway, so I think this is a red herring of a debate. 219.78.19.154 (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that date and year links can be land mines and unhelpful to readers. Let's make that clear first. However, I seriously doubt that links that are clearly birth and death years will mislead readers in your "land mine" sense. Take this example: "Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was a British ..." In my view, people may wonder what the links are, but when they click on them will realise "ah, an article on the year, that makes sense". They will then know this when they see it on future articles, and either click through as desired, or ignore them. What they won't do, in my opinion, is click on the link and think "oh, I was expecting an article on this person's birth" or "oh, I was expecting an article on this person's death". i.e. when clearly linked in a specified and limited context (birth and death years), year links are not Easter egg "land mines", and they are not excessive linking (two links per biographical article). Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- To Jheald: So you cite WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. That’s sort of a “if it’s blue, it must be true” argument; if there was a WP:I REALLY REALLY LIKE IT AND IF AN ARTICLE EXITS ON WIKIPEDIA, IT SHOULD BE LINKED TO essay, I might “prove” my point. To Kumioko: I have no problem with the “On this day…” on the main page because all readers know what they will be taken to if they click on a link; they aren’t Easter eggs. And to both of you: This isn’t an issue of right or wrong; it’s a grey area centered around the issue of not desensitizing readers to our blue links through excessive linking. These are links to trivia. Too few readers, after they’ve stepped on these date land mines, want to bother with them any more. Greg L (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Maybe some people are interested in who else shared the same birthday, or that an English rugby union star was born on the feast-day of the patron saint of McDonalds. If WP has these pages, I think it's inappropriate to presume that because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT, nobody else should be allowed to find them. Jheald (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I just want to clarify that just because you don't "give a damn" doesn't mean knowone does. If knowone cared then there would be no need to have a On this day section in the main page.--Kumioko (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - While I believe that most dates should not be linked, I believe that, in biographical articles, dates of birth and death would serve as helpful links. We link to the biographical articles of persons born on a particular date on that date's article, so why not link back to the date from the biography? – PeeJay 20:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't see the value of linking the dates of birth and death. The previous objections to all date linking still seem to apply. Day-of-the-month linking is still trivial even when the date is someone's birth date EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - extremely low value links. If someone is interested in the "context" of who else was born on September 12, they can type those few characters into the search box themselves. These are trivial connections that clutter articles needlessly. Ground Zero | t 21:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
*Oppose - I have yet to see any argument that comes close to convincing me that these date links provide any sort of relevant context. Yes, they provide context, but the context is so general that it seems useless to me. And yes, I have heard the argument that "just because it seems useless to you, doesn't mean it's useless to everyone." This is a valid argument, but only to a point. Linking every word in every sentence to Wiktionary would probably be more useful than this, in my view. And I don't think that one would get any massive rash of support, either.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 22:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (Changed !vote: see below)
- Oppose That would just makes everything more complex. Besides, I have yet to read a convincing argument on why date-of-birth and date-of-death links are necessary to aid the reader's understanding of the article's subject matter. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support linking of birth and death years once at the appropriate place in an article (with the second option being a formal written support in the manual of style for using the birth and death year categories). Oppose linking of dates as these are, in my opinion, trivial links. This was my position in an earlier thread quoted above, though I may not have made it clear enough. I obviously disagree with those who think birth and death year links are trivial in biographical articles - it is my opinion that birth and death years are integral metadata information for biographical articles. Currently, such information is found either as: (a) plain text in the lead sentence, with some articles still having the dates linked; (b) birth and death date categories; (c) entries in the infobox; (d) entries in the Misplaced Pages:Persondata metadata information. Until the Manual of Style specifically mandates that the information for birth and death years needs to be in a form that can be analysed by computers (ie. metadata - and yes, linking is a form of metadata when used correctly), then delinking birth and death years without checking for the existence of the other metadata is a destructive process. I support reduction of overlinking, and avoiding a sea of blue links, but also support the retention of some form of clickable links to take the reader from biographical articles to our chronology categories and articles. Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd only support this as a reversion to the policy of all date linking, in other words linking dates of birth and death are no more or less valuable than any other date links. Either the standard should be to link all or to link none. - fchd (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- How so? Can you provide an example? I think the article with wikilink dates, eg. "He was promoted to Captain on 1 March xxxx ..." shows that THE date has only has relevance within the article itself, not to the world events at the time.
At the moment, the issue with much of the discussion is the value judgments rather than relevance or usefulness. Many say it is of low-value where it means it is of low value to them. Whereas many of those supporting, say they find it useful, and they find it is of relevance for their research. I understand my biases, I would like the nay sayers to consider that it this is about relevance and perspective, not their values. --billinghurst (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- How so? Can you provide an example? I think the article with wikilink dates, eg. "He was promoted to Captain on 1 March xxxx ..." shows that THE date has only has relevance within the article itself, not to the world events at the time.
- Oppose Firstly, we already have consensus that wikilinking of dates is deprecated, so having this as part of the guideline would be a seriously retrograde step, and make a mockery of it, IMHO. Secondly, I would would be somewhat horrified at extensive wikilinking of birth and death dates: the vast majority of biographies I have come across have had these dates linked, and I just feel that these links add nothing to any of the articles. What I am talking about includes EIIR, where the only date I would probably retain is the date of coronation; I might also consider linking the dates of death of Mao Zedong and John F. Kennedy and other leaders who died in office, or other world figures who died at the height of their influence - for example John Lennon. However, we already have articles on the Coronation of the British monarch, Assassination of John F. Kennedy, and Death of John Lennon, which renders the linking unnecessary in the examples given, also proving Tony's point. I would say that even Albert Einstein's birth and death dates are but biographical facts which add little significance to the world if linked to date and year articles. If somebody really wants to look up 18 April 1955 for a context surrounding Einstein's death, they can just as easily type it in the search box or the address bar. It seems to be rather bureaucratic to oblige editors to add wikilinks to these whilst removing all the other wikilinked dates, when there is so much to do here on WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus was only reached after being repeatedly opposed. Tony simply kept resumbitting it until it reached consensus. I have been editing for a couple years on WP and I have never seen any change that has been so hotly contested as this. Your right though in that consensus was reached, now it is up to all of us to refine the details of the decision so that it best supports the project overall. I can live with the decision that dates should not be linked (although I don't agree with it per se) but I do think that certain key dates such as birth and death should be allowed.--Kumioko (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support I use birth and death links all the time , as well as links in other key dates to get an historical context to what I am reading. Misplaced Pages year articles give a continuous timeline of what else was going on in the world at the time an event happend. They provide useful context and background and allow the reader to get immersed into a particular historic point in time. They are an invaluable resource unique to Misplaced Pages. Removal is a retrograde step. Lumos3 (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support. Clearly some readers do find these useful, and the wide support for doing it can be seen in the fact that it has been so widely done. (If it had been introduced by bot, of course, this would not follow, but I see no sign that it has been.) We encourage multiple ways of linking articles together; categories and nav templates and links; this is merely another. I would much more firmly support weaker wording; but it is already established that normally means most people do, but you don't have to even for FA and GA, which should be weak enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support, in the cases described by Carcharoth above. A less obvious way I have found links useful is to use them to see what is linked to a given article & the birth/death dates are one important way this works. Further, until this latest push to delink all dates, no one ever raised the issue that linking birth/death dates was unnecessary. I believe it deserves an exception -- & the spirit of ignore all rules more than justifies us to make an exception to any rule when the exception improves the encyclopedia. -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Qualified oppose. I don't have a strong opinion on the autoformatting question. Personally, I've always thought that our readers were smart enough to correctly read a date whether it was presented as 19 Jan 2008, Jan 19, 2008 or 2008 Jan 19. But I know that others disagree and I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue.
On the more important question of whether the links are useful as links, I think they should pretty much all be removed. Linking a birth or death day to a page about that day of the month is invariably trivia. While many books publish such trivia, I do not consider that to be a proper function for an encyclopedia. There is nothing encyclopedic about the subject of the biography that the reader can learn by following the link to a page of other trivia that happened on all the other 19 Jans in time.
The argument for linking years is better but still not strong enough in my opinion. The general argument for it (repeated by several people above) is that it provides historical context and can provide a path to the events which influenced the subject of the biography. I consider this a weak argument because the degree to which a newborn can be influenced by events outside his/her immediate family is trivially low. Child-development specialists will tell you that influences in the first 5-8 years are almost entirely domestic or, at best, highly local. The appropriate link for developmental context would be to the appropriate decate article covering the ages somewhere between 10 and 30. Likewise, a link to a death year tells almost nothing about the person's life except in the rare case where the death itself was a cause for notability.
My opinion is also influenced by the observation that the "year" pages are massively overlinked. The odds of finding anything useful either on the page itself or by following "what links here" is miniscule. I've never yet followed one of those links and learned anything useful. Rossami (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)- There are at least two uses for these links on birth/death dates. The first is an example of data management -- to maintain the Categories "X births" & "Y deaths". Not everyone who creates or improves an article remembers to include biography articles in these kinds of categories. The second is an example of user friendliness -- it helps end users to determine who was born or died on specific days. There are a lot of people out there who want to know who was born -- or died -- on a given day, & these links help them to research this information. While the Persondata information could offer the same information, so far Persondata is manually created & not yet present in all biographical articles. -- llywrch (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - It's clear that not everyone finds these links useful, but it's equally clear that some do find them useful to a degree, myself included. Jheald's proposal seems like a fair compromise. I'm confident that linking a date or two in the lead won't turn the rest of the article into an indecipherable sea of blue. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bongwarrior: OK, “some” find the links useful. Is that the test you think should be used here: (“some”)? Or do you think it is more than just some, and that the body of readers who would actually want to read through lists of trivia in “year” article are sufficiently numerous to merit yet more blue links in our articles? Greg L (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- My impression from the above is that those who find the year links useful are coming more from the metadata side of things, rather than the trivia side of things. It would also be nice to have some acknowledgement that birth and death years are less trivial (though some people do clearly see them as still trivial) than a random mention of a year in a random article. And also that linking birth and death years does not contribute to a "sea of blue (links)", but is actually limited to a specific place (at the start of the article) and to two specific links. To expand on the metadata side of things, I'd be happy if a sustained effort were made to bring biographical articles into compliance with some standard style, ensuring that all the articles had Misplaced Pages:Persondata (currently woefully limited in its application - to respond to Kaldari's point below), that all biographical articles had birth and death year categories (or the 'unknown' equivalents) and the "biography of living people" tag (where applicable) and that all biographical articles had {{DEFAULTSORT}} correctly applied (to aid the generation of a master-index, as well as categorisation). If half as much effort went into that as into whether to link birth of death dates or not, then some progress might be being made. As it is, biographical articles account for around 1 in 5 of Misplaced Pages's articles (and, I suspect, a significant fraction of newly created articles), but only a small fraction use Persondata, thousands and thousands of biographical articles are not sorted correctly in the index categories, and many lack birth and death year categories. Many biographical articles also lack the {{WPBiography}} tag on their talk pages. This is one reason why I feel as strongly as I do about not just removing birth and death year links until a proper audit of the biographical articles has been carried out (you can, if you like, think of it as the "date audit" clashing with plans for a similar "biographical audit" and the "date audit" removing metadata links that might have been parsed by the "biographical audit"). To take that one step further, I wonder if the contributions log of Lightbot can be analysed to reveal how many birth and death years were delinked on biographical articles where no birth and death year categories were present? I presume such an analysis would be possible? Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I asked Lightmouse here if he can help.
- I suspect that the actual readers click on links much less than we think they do. There's no evidence for their popularity. The concept of wikilinking is great, but needs to be rationed carefully. No studies have been conducted on readers' attitudes or behaviour in relation to them (for example whether readers tend to read through as much of an article as they're ever going to and then consider hitting a link, or whether they divert on the spot), but common sense tells me that the utility is fragile. Tony (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- You are probably right. I would say it would depend on a combination of factors: (1) Whether the reader understands the term or knows about the object/event/person linked {information/definition); (2) Whether the article contains sufficient context to explain things and avoid the need for a reader to click away to another article (insufficient article context); (3) Whether the reader is bored by the article they are reading and whether any particular link looks more interesting (diversionary browsing); (4) Whether the reader (after reading the whole article) wants to read up further on a particular topic (discretionary browsing). It depends on the reader to a large extent. What we, as editors, can do, is ensure articles have sufficient context to reduce the need to link, keep articles interesting, keep metadata separate from linking, and try to ensure high-quality linking (linking to good articles and to the correct articles) and to avoid overlinking. If there was ever a push for levels of linking, then one good metric would be "if a fact in article A is mentioned in article B and vice-versa, then that is a primary link", with other links being "background" or "definition" links. Trouble is, there is such a spectrum of reasons for linking, that levels of linking just allows for edit warring. If some software thing like "there is a reciprocal link" could be enabled to turn a link a different colour, that might work, but then too many different colours makes things silly as well. Maybe a preference to only have reciprocal links display? Carcharoth (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. Tony, are you saying we should unlink everytihng, not just dates or a few countries, but everything? Links aren't popular? We need to ration them? This certainly explains some of your underlying motivations. dm (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- It’s not too complex Dmadeo. Links should be judiciously used. They should be highly topical and germane to the subject matter. They should invite exploration and learning for the intended audience. Linking to electron is perfectly fine for the Atom article but would be boring and desensitizing to readers reading up on Planck units; the majority of the visitors reading that article already know what an electron is. The litmus test shouldn’t be whether or not some readers will find it interesting, but whether a good number of the target readership would find it interesting enough to click on. For too long, too many links have been added to Misplaced Pages’s articles because an article existed and could be linked to. But with 6,931,235 articles on en.Misplaced Pages, hundreds of them nothing but date-related trivia, plus even more on Wiktionary, the number of articles to link to is now astronomical and our articles have become excessively linked, effectively turning them into giant, boring, blue turds. Tony is right. We don’t need links to mind-numbing list of randomly-generated trivia nor to common countries. Nor to Manhole cover in the street out in front of Greg L’s house (it’s at a latitude of 47° 39′ 9.1″ for those who would actually be interested in that). It’s not that nobody is interested in clicking on all these links; it’s just that not enough readers are interested in clicking on them. IMO, the reaction to often strive for in readers when we provide links should be “Oh, WOW. I didn’t know they’d have an article on that too!”. Greg L (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely. As an aside, you should subst that 'number of articles' template, otherwise in a year's time it will show the number of articles at the time someone reads the archives, not when you wrote this - what do you mean, "no-one reads the archives"? :-) Though there could be a useful distinction, I think, between levels of information on an article and what to link to. Not everyone reading the Planck units article will know what an electron is - that is why you could link it once at the first appearance, and then not link it again (which is normal practice anyway). Consider the reader who wants to click "electron" but can't. They will either edit the article and add a link, or they will look "electron" up by searching for it. But they will be thinking as they do so "why didn't they give me a link to click on?!". But even relevant links are uninteresting to some. The first link on Planck units is units of measurement. I have no interest in clicking on that, but because it is relevant, it stays. So relevance is probably more important than whether a link is interesting. As for links to common countries, there are exceptions to every rule. If you have a list of countries, sometimes it makes sense to link all of them, rather than just some of them. Your "oh wow" point is one viewpoint (and something I agree with). The other is the semantic web - see WP:BUILD. Going too far one way or the other (overlinking and underlinking) could be very damaging. How would you propose to avoid underlinking? Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I get the overlink problem, and it seems like a theoretical problem, but not really one in practice. I think it's a lot better to deal with a particular problem article with a simple MOS guideline and involved editors actually editing the articles. Trying to prescribe exactly how to do this in the MOS devolves into lists of what's acceptable and what's not (ie: unlink the United States, but not Australia). I've seen others describe this as overinstruction or instruction creep and I'm starting to feel that there's a small number of vocal people who really like the idea. I find it offputting. dm (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Precisely. As an aside, you should subst that 'number of articles' template, otherwise in a year's time it will show the number of articles at the time someone reads the archives, not when you wrote this - what do you mean, "no-one reads the archives"? :-) Though there could be a useful distinction, I think, between levels of information on an article and what to link to. Not everyone reading the Planck units article will know what an electron is - that is why you could link it once at the first appearance, and then not link it again (which is normal practice anyway). Consider the reader who wants to click "electron" but can't. They will either edit the article and add a link, or they will look "electron" up by searching for it. But they will be thinking as they do so "why didn't they give me a link to click on?!". But even relevant links are uninteresting to some. The first link on Planck units is units of measurement. I have no interest in clicking on that, but because it is relevant, it stays. So relevance is probably more important than whether a link is interesting. As for links to common countries, there are exceptions to every rule. If you have a list of countries, sometimes it makes sense to link all of them, rather than just some of them. Your "oh wow" point is one viewpoint (and something I agree with). The other is the semantic web - see WP:BUILD. Going too far one way or the other (overlinking and underlinking) could be very damaging. How would you propose to avoid underlinking? Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- It’s not too complex Dmadeo. Links should be judiciously used. They should be highly topical and germane to the subject matter. They should invite exploration and learning for the intended audience. Linking to electron is perfectly fine for the Atom article but would be boring and desensitizing to readers reading up on Planck units; the majority of the visitors reading that article already know what an electron is. The litmus test shouldn’t be whether or not some readers will find it interesting, but whether a good number of the target readership would find it interesting enough to click on. For too long, too many links have been added to Misplaced Pages’s articles because an article existed and could be linked to. But with 6,931,235 articles on en.Misplaced Pages, hundreds of them nothing but date-related trivia, plus even more on Wiktionary, the number of articles to link to is now astronomical and our articles have become excessively linked, effectively turning them into giant, boring, blue turds. Tony is right. We don’t need links to mind-numbing list of randomly-generated trivia nor to common countries. Nor to Manhole cover in the street out in front of Greg L’s house (it’s at a latitude of 47° 39′ 9.1″ for those who would actually be interested in that). It’s not that nobody is interested in clicking on all these links; it’s just that not enough readers are interested in clicking on them. IMO, the reaction to often strive for in readers when we provide links should be “Oh, WOW. I didn’t know they’d have an article on that too!”. Greg L (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is exactly what I was afraid would happen, in Tony's opinion above wikipedia should be nothing more than a publically updated encyclopedia britanica with a few links sprinkled in the article for certain key events. Tony, THIS IS NOT A 2 DIMENSIONAL DATABASE, stop trying to force your narrow views on everyone else. I agree that many articles are overlinked and I understand what you are saying, but having the links is useful and they generate trafic to other articles perpetuating the cycle of publically updated information. If we start stripping off links then one of the primary selling points of wikipedia is lost and we might as well buy the paper set when the salesman comes to the door.--Kumioko (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. Tony, are you saying we should unlink everytihng, not just dates or a few countries, but everything? Links aren't popular? We need to ration them? This certainly explains some of your underlying motivations. dm (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- You are probably right. I would say it would depend on a combination of factors: (1) Whether the reader understands the term or knows about the object/event/person linked {information/definition); (2) Whether the article contains sufficient context to explain things and avoid the need for a reader to click away to another article (insufficient article context); (3) Whether the reader is bored by the article they are reading and whether any particular link looks more interesting (diversionary browsing); (4) Whether the reader (after reading the whole article) wants to read up further on a particular topic (discretionary browsing). It depends on the reader to a large extent. What we, as editors, can do, is ensure articles have sufficient context to reduce the need to link, keep articles interesting, keep metadata separate from linking, and try to ensure high-quality linking (linking to good articles and to the correct articles) and to avoid overlinking. If there was ever a push for levels of linking, then one good metric would be "if a fact in article A is mentioned in article B and vice-versa, then that is a primary link", with other links being "background" or "definition" links. Trouble is, there is such a spectrum of reasons for linking, that levels of linking just allows for edit warring. If some software thing like "there is a reciprocal link" could be enabled to turn a link a different colour, that might work, but then too many different colours makes things silly as well. Maybe a preference to only have reciprocal links display? Carcharoth (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that the actual readers click on links much less than we think they do. There's no evidence for their popularity. The concept of wikilinking is great, but needs to be rationed carefully. No studies have been conducted on readers' attitudes or behaviour in relation to them (for example whether readers tend to read through as much of an article as they're ever going to and then consider hitting a link, or whether they divert on the spot), but common sense tells me that the utility is fragile. Tony (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- My impression from the above is that those who find the year links useful are coming more from the metadata side of things, rather than the trivia side of things. It would also be nice to have some acknowledgement that birth and death years are less trivial (though some people do clearly see them as still trivial) than a random mention of a year in a random article. And also that linking birth and death years does not contribute to a "sea of blue (links)", but is actually limited to a specific place (at the start of the article) and to two specific links. To expand on the metadata side of things, I'd be happy if a sustained effort were made to bring biographical articles into compliance with some standard style, ensuring that all the articles had Misplaced Pages:Persondata (currently woefully limited in its application - to respond to Kaldari's point below), that all biographical articles had birth and death year categories (or the 'unknown' equivalents) and the "biography of living people" tag (where applicable) and that all biographical articles had {{DEFAULTSORT}} correctly applied (to aid the generation of a master-index, as well as categorisation). If half as much effort went into that as into whether to link birth of death dates or not, then some progress might be being made. As it is, biographical articles account for around 1 in 5 of Misplaced Pages's articles (and, I suspect, a significant fraction of newly created articles), but only a small fraction use Persondata, thousands and thousands of biographical articles are not sorted correctly in the index categories, and many lack birth and death year categories. Many biographical articles also lack the {{WPBiography}} tag on their talk pages. This is one reason why I feel as strongly as I do about not just removing birth and death year links until a proper audit of the biographical articles has been carried out (you can, if you like, think of it as the "date audit" clashing with plans for a similar "biographical audit" and the "date audit" removing metadata links that might have been parsed by the "biographical audit"). To take that one step further, I wonder if the contributions log of Lightbot can be analysed to reveal how many birth and death years were delinked on biographical articles where no birth and death year categories were present? I presume such an analysis would be possible? Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I asked Lightmouse here if he can help.
- Bongwarrior: OK, “some” find the links useful. Is that the test you think should be used here: (“some”)? Or do you think it is more than just some, and that the body of readers who would actually want to read through lists of trivia in “year” article are sufficiently numerous to merit yet more blue links in our articles? Greg L (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have to respond when my views are being misrepresented. I'm sure people aren't deliberately making things up, so I wish they'd check their facts first. (1) I see little value to the readers, and much unnecessary blue in prominent positions, in the linking of common country names, especially English-speaking countries. Just why every single popular culture article should have a link to "British", "UK", "American", "United States", "Australian", "Australia"—I've counted seven to one country in a single article—is quite beyond me. This includes such little-known entities as "India", "China", "Russia", and some European countries. If it's a world map our readers require, they should be made well aware of its existence on the main page, since these country articles swamp the linking reader with huge amounts of information, most of it unrelated to an article topic. (2) It's easy to accuse me, in an exaggerated and frankly quite unfair way, of wanting to strip away all or most links; but in reality, I'm pro-wikilink; I believe people who complain about the notion of a more selective approach to linking are, without their realising it, working against the wikilinking system by diluting the valuable links to such an extent that they are ignored by most readers. It's a great way to kill of a great system. I'm trying to make it more effective. Tony (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- …there! Another link to mindless trivia. Why? I link, therefore I am. Greg L (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I agree completely when Tony wrote “I believe people who complain about the notion of a more selective approach to linking are, without their realising it, working against the wikilinking system by diluting the valuable links to such an extent that they are ignored by most readers.” Well said. Greg L (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- It may surprise you, but I agree with what Tony said as well. We just draw the line at different points. People will always have different ideas about what to link and what not to link. If you want to successfully persuade more people to reduce overlinking, it might be worth expanding WP:CONTEXT to explain things in more detail. I also think part of the problem is that editors often think "do we have an article on this?", and then try a wikilink to find out (using preview). When it turns out to be blue, they check it (hopefully) and then leave the link there because they are pleased that we have an article on whatever. The pleasure at seeing a wikilink work is such that it can be very hard to consciously remove it. By the way, thanks for the essay (I'm sure I've seen a similar essay somewhere before). It makes some interesting points, even if I think putting vomit in the "see also" section is a bit over the top and faintly insulting, as is linking to insanity, but it's your essay. I would add some footnotes to the essay, giving examples of "fascinating" trivia from the October 16 article (I didn't read all of it, but I did skim it), but that might not be appreciated. Seriously, have you ever thought of putting articles like October 16 up for deletion? You sound like you would be happy if they were all deleted. Finally, thanks for the photo of a sewer manhole cover. I've placed this photo in the sanitary sewer article - might as well use the picture to improve an article as well (did you know some people actually collect pictures of manhole covers? See here. There is also some interesting history behind some manhole covers. But then if you are recoiling in horror at the thought of this, then I guess you wouldn't appreciate things like Station Jim either. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Carcharoth: When you write “Seriously, have you ever thought of putting articles like October 16 up for deletion? You sound like you would be happy if they were all deleted.”. Perhaps I might come across that way but, no, I wouldn’t want them deleted. Just de-link them.
There are just too few people who are reading up on, for instance, Hugh Beaumont (actor), who are really going to read more than the first two entries after they click on a date link. I’d bet that 99.9% of the time, the typical reaction is “Hmmm… that’s what these links do” and then they click their browser’s ‘back’ button. Even with my challenge in the essay, it will be interesting if anyone can ante up and actually read only two of those trivia articles.
By better anticipating what readers to a given article will be interested in further exploring, we increase the value of the remaining links. If someone is in a mood for long lists of historical trivia, it’s easy enough to type them into the search field.
And I agree 110% with you when you write about the litmus test many editors use in deciding whether to link or not: if it can be linked to, then link to it. Greg L (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I must admit that when I wikilink an article without wikilinks (sometimes a badly written one - the lesson there is that it is better to rewrite the article before wikilinking), I have tended to add links to find out if we have articles on certain things, and only then winnowed the links down to those that are most relevant (and sometimes not even that). I will, in future, be trying consciously to increase the quality and 'impact factor' of any wikilinking I do. I still think that wikilinking tries to do too much - acting as (among other things): a dictionary/glossary; a 'related topics' section; and a further reading section. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Carcharoth: When you write “Seriously, have you ever thought of putting articles like October 16 up for deletion? You sound like you would be happy if they were all deleted.”. Perhaps I might come across that way but, no, I wouldn’t want them deleted. Just de-link them.
- It may surprise you, but I agree with what Tony said as well. We just draw the line at different points. People will always have different ideas about what to link and what not to link. If you want to successfully persuade more people to reduce overlinking, it might be worth expanding WP:CONTEXT to explain things in more detail. I also think part of the problem is that editors often think "do we have an article on this?", and then try a wikilink to find out (using preview). When it turns out to be blue, they check it (hopefully) and then leave the link there because they are pleased that we have an article on whatever. The pleasure at seeing a wikilink work is such that it can be very hard to consciously remove it. By the way, thanks for the essay (I'm sure I've seen a similar essay somewhere before). It makes some interesting points, even if I think putting vomit in the "see also" section is a bit over the top and faintly insulting, as is linking to insanity, but it's your essay. I would add some footnotes to the essay, giving examples of "fascinating" trivia from the October 16 article (I didn't read all of it, but I did skim it), but that might not be appreciated. Seriously, have you ever thought of putting articles like October 16 up for deletion? You sound like you would be happy if they were all deleted. Finally, thanks for the photo of a sewer manhole cover. I've placed this photo in the sanitary sewer article - might as well use the picture to improve an article as well (did you know some people actually collect pictures of manhole covers? See here. There is also some interesting history behind some manhole covers. But then if you are recoiling in horror at the thought of this, then I guess you wouldn't appreciate things like Station Jim either. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I think the above comments provide a variety of compelling reasons why editors might want to link dates. What I would actually prefer is for editors to be given explicit discretion in whether to link these dates on any given article. Within the context of the rest of the MOS I think the proposed language is closer to that ideal than the existing text. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have five articles in mind already for an insertion of a link to Greg's essay on the sewer cover outside his house. Seriously. Link as much as you can, wherever there's a tiny opening to do so; after all, in today's world, everything can be related to everything else by one, two or three steps. it won't hurt the valuable links.Tony (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- The October 16 article has nigh on 12,000 incoming links. The same article has some 260 lines/events listed. The 364 links to other date articles created by {{months}} hardly dents the total. There is a serious imbalance here. 'October 16' is only one of 366 such articles with a very similar problematic. I am not saying that all articles should be back-linked from the date page, or that the majority are related to biographical d-o-b or d-o-d, but I would contend it is one valid perspective on the rather pandemic overlinking to date articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- If one looks only at links from article space and further exlude the 1199 lists, 1403 titles of the sort "2008 in medicine", 366 days, and 12 months, the count drops to 7425. Still high, but less outrageous. Looking closer at, say, XACML we see it is only linked by the date on a cited reference. I see no reason for linking citation data that is already well-structured, as in this date= field of a cite tag. On the wild assumption that only 2/3 of those are date= or accessdate= instances, that gets the number into a reasonable range.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect there may be some truth in that assertion, but unless and until all those citation templates are de-linked, we have no way of knowing. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- If one looks only at links from article space and further exlude the 1199 lists, 1403 titles of the sort "2008 in medicine", 366 days, and 12 months, the count drops to 7425. Still high, but less outrageous. Looking closer at, say, XACML we see it is only linked by the date on a cited reference. I see no reason for linking citation data that is already well-structured, as in this date= field of a cite tag. On the wild assumption that only 2/3 of those are date= or accessdate= instances, that gets the number into a reasonable range.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- The October 16 article has nigh on 12,000 incoming links. The same article has some 260 lines/events listed. The 364 links to other date articles created by {{months}} hardly dents the total. There is a serious imbalance here. 'October 16' is only one of 366 such articles with a very similar problematic. I am not saying that all articles should be back-linked from the date page, or that the majority are related to biographical d-o-b or d-o-d, but I would contend it is one valid perspective on the rather pandemic overlinking to date articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have five articles in mind already for an insertion of a link to Greg's essay on the sewer cover outside his house. Seriously. Link as much as you can, wherever there's a tiny opening to do so; after all, in today's world, everything can be related to everything else by one, two or three steps. it won't hurt the valuable links.Tony (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. For the same reasons as other opposition. Lightmouse (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Come on… At least a couple of you “Support” editors ought to be taking me up on my challenge. If you can actually read four whole date and year articles, you can be the first recipient of your very own Sewer Cover Barnstar. Are there no takers? Greg L (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at your four date articles. I'm sure it's not going to convince you, but they didnt seem that bad. Someone had gone through and organized them enough to make them interesting. They arent going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm not sure why you're so offended by them either. I suppose suggesting you just don't look at them won't help either. dm (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dmadeo, when we, as editors, are deciding on whether or not to link a word or topic in an article we are writing, I would suggest setting the bar a bit higher than, “that didn’t seem so bad.” I might even be so bold as to suggest that we set the bar a bit higher so that in many cases, the reader’s reaction to seeing a blue link would be “Way cool… I didn’t expect they’d have an article on that too!” Greg L (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, I'd suggest setting the bar at whatever level makes you feel like contributing to articles. That level will be different for me and for anyone else, but thats fine. I encourage you to link however many words you'd like, as long as you dont mind when I do as well. dm (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dmadeo, when we, as editors, are deciding on whether or not to link a word or topic in an article we are writing, I would suggest setting the bar a bit higher than, “that didn’t seem so bad.” I might even be so bold as to suggest that we set the bar a bit higher so that in many cases, the reader’s reaction to seeing a blue link would be “Way cool… I didn’t expect they’d have an article on that too!” Greg L (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at your four date articles. I'm sure it's not going to convince you, but they didnt seem that bad. Someone had gone through and organized them enough to make them interesting. They arent going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm not sure why you're so offended by them either. I suppose suggesting you just don't look at them won't help either. dm (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. As illogical, fussy and confusing as when we decided after prolonged discussion not to autoformat, just a short while ago. 86.44.28.60 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose as confusing, since the policy is now *not* to link dates without particularly compelling reasons. "saving some curious readers the trouble of typing a year/date into the 'seach' gizmo" just doesn't seem sufficiently compelling. Sssoul (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support linking years at least once. It is a powerful way to update and expand the year pages to use the 'what links here' button and see what pages refer to a particular year. Jcwf (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if this has been mentioned above, but there is a very relevant CFD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_30#Category:Deaths_by_age. Some people, who seem to be in the majority, want to create a series of categories, automatically generated, of Category:Deaths at age 28, Category:Deaths at age 29, and so on. Whether they need the links being discussed here I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not needed, per very many above. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support (changed from oppose): I've changed my stance here because, while I frankly still can't see how linking of dates is useful, it is clear to me that there is a significant minority of editors who do find it useful. If it's useful enough for even a few editors, then it is something which we should be linking.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment strange recursive reason for changing an opinion. You now support because you have seen a "significant minority" of other editors support? Do your previous convictions not amount to anything? Ohconfucius (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support the proposal. I find it useful. Deb (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I have been very pleased to see a plethora recently of edit summaries reading "date audit per MOS:NUM" and I strongly feel that no wikilinks should be used for ornamental purposes which is what these links are. The next step would be linking full stops. (<- wikilinked) People are used to these links but they should go. People will get used to not having them, and if in one instance out of approximately 163 times reading the number 2008 they actually wanted to check out that page, they will not be annoyed at having to type it into the search box. __meco (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I think it's a horrible idea and will encourage even more pointless wikilinking. I agree with Meco and most of the others who oppose this proposal (sorry, no new reason I can think of for opposing, it's more or less all been said.). Doug Weller (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose any naked linking of dates and years serves no purpose. So having it at the start of articles is a particular bad idea. --HJensen, talk 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose linking of birth and death dates is trivia and anyone interested can easily type in the dates. Dates are incredibley overlinked as it is. RainbowOfLight 09:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose-It's unproductive (hardly anyone actually uses these links) and they devalue other important blue links in the article lead--Shahab (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose- this has been debated to death -- linking these dates will confuse the issue for many editors, who will take the date links in the opening para as licence to link all dates. Let's keep it simple and clean: no dates linked unless htere is a compelling reason. Ground Zero | t 18:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support. Who are we to decide what the reader should or should not click on, just because some people believe it to be "trivial". Let freedom of choice reign I say. G-Man 19:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Infobox templates
- BTW: up to this point it's 14 support and 13 oppose (if I counted right and ignoring any weak/partial distinctions). Sounds to me like there's no consensus either for or against this particular point. But it does point out that there is a large contigent of people who do want limited date linking, especially for something such as birthdates. As far as I know, lightbot is not unlinking the {{Birth date|yyyy|mm|dd}} and {{Death date and age|yyyy|mm|dd|yyyy|mm|dd}} templates, so perhaps we can say "In biographical articles, limited use of {{Birth date|yyyy|mm|dd}} and {{Death date and age|yyyy|mm|dd|yyyy|mm|dd}} may be helpful" dm (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Strong comment: What this tells me most clearly of all is that we have lots of !votes from incoming parties totally unaware of the rest of debate (over three years worth) and thus largely-to-totally unaware of the negative aspects of date autoformatting. As just one example among many, I doubt that more than a handful of them have considered the fact that around 40% of surveyed articles had inconsistent date formats in them. This is largely because editors assume that the autoformatting just "handles it", and forget that 99.99% of Misplaced Pages's users are IP address readers, not editors, with no date preferences to set, who are all seeing "3 July 1982" in one sentence and "August 7, 1983" in the next – all because autoformatting ensures that most editors themselves simply don't notice the difference. This is happening in nearly half of our articles. That alone is enough to end this debate right now. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do these templates render the dates in bright blue and have all of the disadvantages of the date autformatting system? Tony (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you mean the *advantagees* of date autoformatting? - fchd (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Um, no, he meant disadvantages. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you mean the *advantagees* of date autoformatting? - fchd (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- One or other of the two "birth date" templates MUST be used in infoboxes, if the birth-date is to be included in the emitted hCard microformat. Whether or not they link those dates does not affect this; and can be set according to whatever is the final community consensus. One or other of the two "death date" templates will be needed, when the hCard spec is updated to include "death date".Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have the expertise to understand this. What I can tell you is that it's great that many of the infobox templates have recently been modified so they don't augoformat the dates. Tony (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- In short: the templates are needed for technical purposes (related to metadata). It doesn't matter (for those purposes) whether they link the dates, or not. But people shouldn't be discouraged from using them, because of formatting, as not doing so will break one of the functions of the infoboxes in which they're used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, these templates are currently not emitting links (since 1 September). Jheald (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The birth and death date template age calculation may be wrong for a person who was born under the Julian calendar and died under the Gregorian calendar. They also provide no way to indicate what calendar was used for the dates. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Those are valid concerns (and are being discussed elsewhere, I believe) but are unconnected to the issue of linking; also, such cases seem to be vastly in the minority. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not being a template programmer, I don't know if the concern can be fixed. I am reluctant to recommend a template that cannot fulfil its intended purpose, and might not be repairable. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Forgive me for jumping in here, but can you explain something in simple terms to me? What is the purpose of the metadata, and the parsing thereof? I have seen countless mentions on this talk page that if dates were linked, such as birth and death, the collection of metadata would be made easier (am I right here - even if this can be achieved through plain text). This maybe the case, and several editors above wish it to be so, but I don't understand why. Maybe this issue isn't relavent here, but could somebody humour me. Dates should/would/could/may (whatever) be linked to allow for the easy collection of metadata. But why? (I'm not criticising metadata, or those who use it - I just don't understand it's purpose.) In anycase, for birth/death dates, is that not what {{persondata}} is for?–MDCollins (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- It should be possible to generate a list of every biographical article on Misplaced Pages, along with the biographical data (where known). To do that, you generally need mature and comprehensive metadata coverage. Unfortunately, the maintenance of metadata on Misplaced Pages (en-Misplaced Pages at any rate) lags severely behind the rate of article creation (persondata, as you say, is one of the places where metadata should be placed, but as there are other places as well, such as the hcard format Andy mentioned above, and since persondata is used in only a small fraction of articles, there are problems). Wikilinks are sometimes analysed as a form of metadata, and certainly a mature and well-developed system of date markup would allow for applications. Geographical co-ordinates are given in a standard way - maybe dates should be as well. It is possible to go too far with this, though, since Misplaced Pages is primarily an encyclopedia, not a database (yes, I know the underlying software uses database tables, but I'm talking about the content here). It's a question of getting the balance right. I'm perfectly happy for dates and years to be mostly delinked (with a few exceptions), but the metadata concerns also need to be addressed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Forgive me for jumping in here, but can you explain something in simple terms to me? What is the purpose of the metadata, and the parsing thereof? I have seen countless mentions on this talk page that if dates were linked, such as birth and death, the collection of metadata would be made easier (am I right here - even if this can be achieved through plain text). This maybe the case, and several editors above wish it to be so, but I don't understand why. Maybe this issue isn't relavent here, but could somebody humour me. Dates should/would/could/may (whatever) be linked to allow for the easy collection of metadata. But why? (I'm not criticising metadata, or those who use it - I just don't understand it's purpose.) In anycase, for birth/death dates, is that not what {{persondata}} is for?–MDCollins (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not being a template programmer, I don't know if the concern can be fixed. I am reluctant to recommend a template that cannot fulfil its intended purpose, and might not be repairable. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Those are valid concerns (and are being discussed elsewhere, I believe) but are unconnected to the issue of linking; also, such cases seem to be vastly in the minority. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- The birth and death date template age calculation may be wrong for a person who was born under the Julian calendar and died under the Gregorian calendar. They also provide no way to indicate what calendar was used for the dates. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, these templates are currently not emitting links (since 1 September). Jheald (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- In short: the templates are needed for technical purposes (related to metadata). It doesn't matter (for those purposes) whether they link the dates, or not. But people shouldn't be discouraged from using them, because of formatting, as not doing so will break one of the functions of the infoboxes in which they're used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- No one was talking about removing those templates, anyway. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 05:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have the expertise to understand this. What I can tell you is that it's great that many of the infobox templates have recently been modified so they don't augoformat the dates. Tony (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
a compromise/interim proposal?
- this whole date-link thing is like a Passover situation: since the linking of dates for autoformatting is now discouraged, it's pretty clear that bots and scripts that can assist with the huge task of unlinking that kind of date-link are really needed (otherwise it'll take years, and meanwhile editors who imitate what they see will keep adding them). the question is how to designate certain linked dates as *intentional* so that the bots, scripts and/or editors unlinking dates manually will leave those alone. one proposal (discussed here) was to designate such "intentional" date-links by putting them in the "see also" section with nondate words in them to let the bots and scripts know they shouldn't unlink them, for example:
- ]
- ]
- ]
- ]
- some editors feel that solution is "too much trouble", but it's nowhere near as much trouble as leaving the massive job of unlinking now-deprecated links to be done by hand just because a bot might undo a link someone cherishes - and even if people are doing the unlinking job manually, they still won't know just by looking at them that this link here is cherished by someone, but that link there is free to go.
- the editors who want birth/death dates linked at the start of biographies are proposing that that positioning should designate those dates as "cherished/untouchable". the trouble is that bots can't be taught to recognize position in an article; for a bot to understand that it should leave a link untouched, the link needs to include a non-date word. it's not easy to think of a non-date word to insert in birth/death-date links without making the sentences awkward - especially considering that the formatting breaks whole dates up into two parts: ] ].
- but: would the people who want to keep birth/death dates linked in the first lines of biographies be satisfied if the years remained linked - at least until we think up a better solution - and the calendar dates were unlinked? i understand that some editors feel the birth/death year links are potentially of interest for the context they might provide, but the calendar-date links don't provide context - they provide what amounts to historical trivia, which (i posit) *is* very adequately relegated to the "see also" section where the few readers who want to know what mishmash of events went on on that date throughout history can easily find it, marked explicity as "].
- if that would satisfy the people who cherish these birth/death-date links in bios, then the gallant bots that are waiting to assist with the necessary task of unlinking meaningless/now-deprecated date links could at least proceed with the unlinking of calendar dates. in good Passover fashion they would leave alone any calendar date link that includes a non-date word, like "]. so if some calendar dates that someone cherishes do get unlinked, that can be repaired by adding a non-date word or phrase to the link to shield it from the next "pass" of the bot and moving it to the "see also" section so that sentence flow is not encumbered.
- and meanwhile we could think some more about how to designate linked years for "Passover purposes".
- i hope someone sees what tree i'm trying to bark up here. Sssoul (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- The major problem with this idea is that users should never have to alter their behavior to accommodate the bots; in fact the situation is always the reverse, in that bot behavior should be modified to accommodate the editors. If a bot cannot be written in a way that does not require human editors to modify the way they are editing to make the bot's task possible then the bot should not operate. This also raises the issue of existing articles - requiring users to go back and "mark" existing dates in order to prevent the bot from removing links is placing far too large a burden on the editors. In short : bots are created to make editors' tasks easier, not to force them to do more work. As such I find this proposed compromise - while a valiant attempt at finding a middle grounds - to be unacceptable. The central question that must be answered (and has not yet been significantly explored) is whether or not a retroactive removal of now deprecated links is acceptable to the community. Shereth 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- thanks first off for recognizing that i'm trying to be constructive. maybe i haven't made idea clear enough, though: i don't mean that any editors would *have* to mark any dates in any special way; everyone would be free just to leave the calendar-date links as they are and let them be unlinked. perhaps that wouldn't be a problem for anyone, since the argument that some date links provide historical context doesn't apply to calendar-date links. it seems plain that the vast majority of calendar-date links were created purely for autoformatting, and since linking for autoformatting is now discouraged/depracated, i don't understand (at all) what the resistance to removing those links is based on.
- but meanwhile in case someone really feels it's valuable, encyclopedic, etc, to offer readers a link to ], they *could* create something like that if they wanted to, knowing it wouldn't get unlinked by a bot. (maybe by another human, but that's a different question!)
- also, policy/guideline changes very often *do* entail people changing the ways we edit. in this case the policy deprecating links for autoformatting is the source of the changes. the bot is just meant to assist with making them. Sssoul (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- If I might just co-opt something you said, which I believe to be the very root of the problem : "The policy deprecating links for autoformatting is the source of the change." This whole mess gets fixed when one very simple question is answered, that question being, "Does the deprecation of certain types of year/date links necessitate the subsequent (and retroactive) removal thereof?" If the answer is yes, then Lightbot should resume, and the above idea can be implemented to allow editors to retain some links with some changes. If the answer is no, then the bot should not be resumed and the fate of now deprecated links left to the editors of the articles in which they are found. That question has yet to receive any community-consensus based answer, and I believe answering it would fundamentally solve the problem. Shereth 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- ... i'm really struggling to fathom how the policy deprecating linking for autoformatting could possibly be interpreted as implying "but let's keep all the existing date links that have no purpose except for autoformatting" - but if that indeed needs clarification, how do you suggest seeking clarification - another RfC? mediation? or ...? Sssoul (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- ps: having slept on this ... Shereth, when you wrote "the major problem with this idea is ...", it seems to me that what you actually meant is "my main objection to this idea is ..." your view is as important as anyone else's, of course, but it seems to me that it would be fair to hear some other people's reactions to the idea before labelling one aspect of it a "major problem". Sssoul (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is a fundamental flaw with Shereth's argument and objection. Humans are endowed with intelligence, while bots are not. In order for things to be automated/automatable, things have to be done according to a certain logic. Economists realised that long time ago, and Taylor invented the concept of the production line; the vacuum cleaner was invented so we no longer clean floors the same way as before, the same applies to almost every labour-saving device you can think of. To say that humans should go about and be humans in exactly the same way as before is, with all due respects, bollocks. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Re Ohconfucius: You have completely missed my point. See the response by Lightmouse below which catches my sentiment exactly. Software should simplify the tasks undertaken by humans and not complicate it. I do not mean to imply that we shouldn't adapt the way we do things to accommodate new technological advances. If that's what you got out of my statement then you completely misunderstood what I was saying.
- Re Sssoul: Fundamentally I'm not opposed to removing date links. Fundamentally I really don't give a crap one way or the other. What's got me so animated here is that as an administrator I see (and deal with) complaints from sundry editors who have got their knickers in a bunch because of Lightbot removing some links and they do not see any consensus to remove links. I'm somewhat tired of having to deal with/respond to the situation. The reason I am so adamant about getting consensus is so that next time I see someone pitch a fit on a noticeboard about Lightbot removing date links, I can just point to the consensus and be done with it, rather than having this debate re-ignited for the umpteenth time. Shereth 13:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- thank you Shereth - so how do you propose seeking the consensus you consider necessary to clarify whether the deprecation of date-linking for autoformatting includes the premise that existing date-links that serve no purpose anymore should be undone? Sssoul (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- An RFC, coupled with a clear and unambiguous statement (such as "Does the deprecation of bare year links mean they should be systematically removed via bot") would establish a sufficiently strong consensus on the matter. Shereth 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- well ... why just "bare year links"? the now-depracated autoformatting also involved calendar-date links. maybe both questions had better be asked at once, to avoid someone saying yet *another* RfC is needed. Sssoul (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- The wording was just an example suggestion, naturally it would make sense to cover all of the bases. It might also make sense to keep the individual points as discrete questions to keep folks from getting confused about what they are or are not supporting, but it definitely would make sense to cover all of the issues in a single RFC and get it done with. Shereth 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- thanks for clarifying. would it be worth making the "by bot" question a distinct point from the other two? as in (and i hasten to add that i don't mean this is exactly how they should be worded):
- 1] does the depracation of autoformatting mean existing calendar-date links that served no purpose but autoformatting need to be systematically undone?
- 2] does the depracation of bare-year links mean the ones that exist need to be systematically undone?
- 3] if yes to either: is it desirable to enable a bot to do the systematic unlinking, or should it be done only manually? (i feel like it would be fair to point out right away that there are ways to "earmark" both kinds of date-link so that a bot would not undo them, but that that part *would* need to be done manually - a link to a brief description of the suggested ways to "earmark" the links could be included.) Sssoul (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I like this approach. Shereth 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- well ... why just "bare year links"? the now-depracated autoformatting also involved calendar-date links. maybe both questions had better be asked at once, to avoid someone saying yet *another* RfC is needed. Sssoul (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- An RFC, coupled with a clear and unambiguous statement (such as "Does the deprecation of bare year links mean they should be systematically removed via bot") would establish a sufficiently strong consensus on the matter. Shereth 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- If I might just co-opt something you said, which I believe to be the very root of the problem : "The policy deprecating links for autoformatting is the source of the change." This whole mess gets fixed when one very simple question is answered, that question being, "Does the deprecation of certain types of year/date links necessitate the subsequent (and retroactive) removal thereof?" If the answer is yes, then Lightbot should resume, and the above idea can be implemented to allow editors to retain some links with some changes. If the answer is no, then the bot should not be resumed and the fate of now deprecated links left to the editors of the articles in which they are found. That question has yet to receive any community-consensus based answer, and I believe answering it would fundamentally solve the problem. Shereth 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- The major problem with this idea is that users should never have to alter their behavior to accommodate the bots; in fact the situation is always the reverse, in that bot behavior should be modified to accommodate the editors. If a bot cannot be written in a way that does not require human editors to modify the way they are editing to make the bot's task possible then the bot should not operate. This also raises the issue of existing articles - requiring users to go back and "mark" existing dates in order to prevent the bot from removing links is placing far too large a burden on the editors. In short : bots are created to make editors' tasks easier, not to force them to do more work. As such I find this proposed compromise - while a valiant attempt at finding a middle grounds - to be unacceptable. The central question that must be answered (and has not yet been significantly explored) is whether or not a retroactive removal of now deprecated links is acceptable to the community. Shereth 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
You make a fair point, Shereth. Software should eliminate, reduce or simplify human tasks. If only such reasoning had prevailed when auto date formatting was proposed ("its easy, all you have to do is link some but not all dates and in this exact way"). Now we have to find a way of clearing up mess attributed to autoformatting. We can do it with or without software assistance. Lightmouse (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I won't disagree with you. I just have to repeat my insistence that community-wide consensus regarding the fate of said deprecated links be cemented prior to taking any sitewide actions. Shereth 18:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Sssoul proposed bot delinking of calendar dates such as ] and described some other features of his proposal. You are making yourself very clear that you think it requires the expressed opinion of many people. That is clear. You are one of the many people and your opinion is valid. Would you personally accept Sssoul's proposal? Lightmouse (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I do not oppose the de-linking of calendar dates, no. This does not mean I personally accept Sssoul's proposal in its entirety Personally I do not see the need for such a compromise if only a demonstrable consensus could be reached one way or another. For all I care you can turn Lightbot loose on calendar dates, as I believe the primary objection that keeps coming up is regarding years, not the calendar dates. Shereth 14:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I do object. Linking calendar dates should be even rarer than linking years, but there are occasions where it adds value. The link from Pope Sylvester I to December 31, St. Sylvester's Day, should stay. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pmanderson, do i understand that you see no possibility of designating that particular calendar date as valuable/meaningful in that article by inserting a nondate word in the link - for example ]? Sssoul (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I do object. Linking calendar dates should be even rarer than linking years, but there are occasions where it adds value. The link from Pope Sylvester I to December 31, St. Sylvester's Day, should stay. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That's clear, as usual. I agree that the ideal solution would not be a compromise. I also agree that the heat of the debate is about years. I hope we can both agree that it has been about 'solitary years' (blah blah ] blah blah) rather than the year that was linked to enable autoformatted of a full date (blah blah ] ] blah blah). Thus I would summarise Sssoul's proposal to turn into a bot specification such as:
- leave solitary years alone and delink all other date components/compounds unless they contain a non-date term.
Many articles must be exempted as a whole e.g. date related articles themselves. Lightmouse (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- for the record, i personally would also prefer a non-compromise solution - i'm just seeking to help editors who are saying they want to keep particular dates linked as exceptions to the current policy deprecating date-linking. what i'm trying to do is point out how they can "protect" the links they want to keep, if they want to. and i focussed this latest suggestion on calendar-date links because i think there's less distress about/resistance to unlinking those. and i still hope a satisfactory resolution can be found for dealing with year links. Sssoul (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's already "marked as valuable/meaningful"; it appears three times in the infobox: once as his death, once as the end of his papacy, and once as his feast; also in the sentence: In the West, the liturgical feast of Saint Sylvester is on 31 December, the day of his burial in the Catacomb of Priscilla. At least the last two should be linked; they should not be convoluted to satisfy some piece of MOScruft. Both mean, and should say and link to, 31 December. When MOS ordains bad writing, as it does all too often, it is malfunctioning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- thanks Pmanderson - i understand what you're saying. i just want to note in passing that no one is suggesting eliminating calendar dates from any articles - only asking
whether allhow many of them need to be linked to lists of miscellaneous events that happened on the same date throughout history. i understand that you feel this one *does* need to remain linked to such a list for the article to be understood, but that stating explicity in the link what it's a link to wouldnot be okay with youin your opinion be detrimental to the article. Sssoul (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)- I don't support linking all of them - and have said so at least twice; the effect of this proposal, however, is to link none of them, and substitute (for some of them) see also links which many readers will not know exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- okay, i've amended my statement above. i don't understand why "many readers will not know" that there are links in the "see also" section, but please note that the bot will leave intact any date-link that has a non-date word in it, wherever it appears; such links could appear in the body of the text, for example:
- For fuller understanding, see the list of miscellaneous events on 31 December throughout history.
- i feel that making date-links that you consider important explicit that way (and eliminating the masses of meaningless date-links) will have the advantage of clarifying for readers that your link really *is* worth following. Sssoul (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would still tend to believe that, even in the case of Sylvester, '31 December' is a low value link. It is infinitely more informative to link to the appropriate Name day article, because that's where the true meaning is. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- i agree, Ohconfucius, but unless i'm misunderstanding Pmanderson, he/she takes a different view. i'm just pointing out that the proposal *does* accommodate date links that an editor truly feels are essential to understanding an article. Sssoul (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pmanderson's just pointing out the exceptions which should prove the rule. There will always be exceptions, and we just need to agree on a way of treating them. His opposition to delinking by bot appears to be a bit Luddite to me. Is there an agenda? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Then I suggest Ohconfucious look up Luddism: opposition to machinery on other grounds than whether it will work better. (Sometimes those grounds are also valid; harmony between editors is a good, and one which bot reversions tend to corrode.) But in this case, the bot will work worse: bots should not be used where there are exceptions, because they will not notice them, and (if reversed) they will come back and edit war for them. (He might also look up exception proves the rule; that saying has two senses: the legal one is irrelevant here, and the other is destructive testing. Enough exceptions blow up the rule.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Incorrect. The original legal definition is the exact relevant one. If the rule is to remove all square brackets which surround 'mmdd', 'ddmm' or yy, then it is evident that all others are deliberate and are to be kept per the intention of one or more editor. It is a rule which humans and bots alike would have few problems in policing. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Then I suggest Ohconfucious look up Luddism: opposition to machinery on other grounds than whether it will work better. (Sometimes those grounds are also valid; harmony between editors is a good, and one which bot reversions tend to corrode.) But in this case, the bot will work worse: bots should not be used where there are exceptions, because they will not notice them, and (if reversed) they will come back and edit war for them. (He might also look up exception proves the rule; that saying has two senses: the legal one is irrelevant here, and the other is destructive testing. Enough exceptions blow up the rule.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- "bots should not be used where there are exceptions, because they will not notice them" - again, the point of the proposal is that bots and human editors will notice exceptional date-links that are "earmarked" as exceptional. without earmarking them somehow, neither bots nor human editors have any way to recognize that the links ] or ] should remain linked in one particular article. the proposal is pointing out a way to earmark the links that some editor values highly and wants to keep. if a link isn't worth the trouble of earmarking it, one might well ask whether it's really a high-value link. Sssoul (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pmanderson's just pointing out the exceptions which should prove the rule. There will always be exceptions, and we just need to agree on a way of treating them. His opposition to delinking by bot appears to be a bit Luddite to me. Is there an agenda? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- thanks Pmanderson - i understand what you're saying. i just want to note in passing that no one is suggesting eliminating calendar dates from any articles - only asking
- It's already "marked as valuable/meaningful"; it appears three times in the infobox: once as his death, once as the end of his papacy, and once as his feast; also in the sentence: In the West, the liturgical feast of Saint Sylvester is on 31 December, the day of his burial in the Catacomb of Priscilla. At least the last two should be linked; they should not be convoluted to satisfy some piece of MOScruft. Both mean, and should say and link to, 31 December. When MOS ordains bad writing, as it does all too often, it is malfunctioning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- for the record, i personally would also prefer a non-compromise solution - i'm just seeking to help editors who are saying they want to keep particular dates linked as exceptions to the current policy deprecating date-linking. what i'm trying to do is point out how they can "protect" the links they want to keep, if they want to. and i focussed this latest suggestion on calendar-date links because i think there's less distress about/resistance to unlinking those. and i still hope a satisfactory resolution can be found for dealing with year links. Sssoul (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Quite correct. (2 messages up). The bot should not be run until a convention for "earmarking" dates is established and published, preferably for at least one month. You're claiming your argument is to the contrary? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you accept that deliberately linked dates must be formulated differently to just placing square brackets around calendar dates and calendar years (and you do, don't you?), then it is the very next logical extension that we can resumed delinking all those which are ], ], ], ] or ], delinking by bot or by script regardless of where they are placed. I just fail to understand what further objection there could possibly be to restarting the delinking by bot? Ohconfucius (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Quite correct. (2 messages up). The bot should not be run until a convention for "earmarking" dates is established and published, preferably for at least one month. You're claiming your argument is to the contrary? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- (outdent) The root question one should be asking is whether or not the benefit of having superfluous/deprecated links removed is worth the cost of having editors manage the exceptions to the rule, a question I sincerely hope to see answered by a broader audience. Shereth 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think most of us (but probably not all) would be perfectly okay with mass catch-too-much delinkings if we were somehow certain that the relinkings we made to the article after this bot-edit would not be reverted again by bots. Sssoul's suggestion is one way of ensuring that, but I'm sure there are others. -- Jao (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the questions/statements by both the above. I see no real issue to un-doing (whether by bot or by script) the date links which currently exist. Those date links which are 'deliberate' need to be re-made in another way which is obvious to bots other editors alike. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Anderson and others, if it means so much to you to link a certain anniversary day or year (and I haven't yet seen one that is useful, frankly), then simply make an explicit piped link in the "See also" section. It is as simple as that, and everyone is happy. Tony (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- The 'why should we put in extra effort to put "special" date links in? argument' is exactly as Tony says. If it's worth putting in, it should be worth the effort. And if it's worth the effort, there should be no complaints about needing to put the work in ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- putting "highly-valued date links" in the "see also" section should perhaps be regarded as a "strongly encouraged option", since some people have expressed anxieties that a reader might somehow miss that section. the main point (as i understand it) is that making "highly-valued date links" explicit by including a non-date word in them is what will designate them (for both human editors and bots) as "this link is highly valued by some editor, not merely a remnant of autoformatting or overlinking". and that "earmarking" will serve its purpose no matter where in the article the link appears. if some editors really strongly prefer to add For more historical context see the list of ] or For whatever reason, see the list of ] to a paragraph instead of to the "see also" section, it's no skin off my nose. bots will leave those links linked thanks to the non-date words they include; human editors might debate whether or not the links are really useful and/or what the best position for them is, but they'll know someone feels they are valuable links. Sssoul (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- The (weak) majority that the year of birth and death in biographical articles should be linked seems as strong as the expressed argument (not consensus) that all years should be unlinked. Any bot needs to take into account appropriate exceptions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- the bot - like human editors - will recognize exceptions that are designated as exceptions. the proposal is to designate "exceptional date links" by adding a non-date word to them. most people in the RfC above were talking about keeping the birth/death-years linked; all they need to do is add something like For more historical context see the list of ]. calendar-date links don't appear to be very high-value to most of the people in the RfC above, but if they are of value to someone, they too can be designated as exceptional. it's not that hard. Sssoul (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- That is clearly unreasonable. I would consider "(born July 4, ])" the maximal acceptable tagging to be required of editors if the RfC fails to reach a consensus for exclusion. (The status quo is inclusion.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose another alternative I would consider acceptable would to be to include:
- {{for|other events occuring in the year of birth|1943}}
- {{for|other events occuring in the year of death|2008}}
- before the lead. You might consider that less acceptable than the status quo, as would I, but I would consider that an acceptable alternative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- the bot - like human editors - will recognize exceptions that are designated as exceptions. the proposal is to designate "exceptional date links" by adding a non-date word to them. most people in the RfC above were talking about keeping the birth/death-years linked; all they need to do is add something like For more historical context see the list of ]. calendar-date links don't appear to be very high-value to most of the people in the RfC above, but if they are of value to someone, they too can be designated as exceptional. it's not that hard. Sssoul (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- The (weak) majority that the year of birth and death in biographical articles should be linked seems as strong as the expressed argument (not consensus) that all years should be unlinked. Any bot needs to take into account appropriate exceptions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- putting "highly-valued date links" in the "see also" section should perhaps be regarded as a "strongly encouraged option", since some people have expressed anxieties that a reader might somehow miss that section. the main point (as i understand it) is that making "highly-valued date links" explicit by including a non-date word in them is what will designate them (for both human editors and bots) as "this link is highly valued by some editor, not merely a remnant of autoformatting or overlinking". and that "earmarking" will serve its purpose no matter where in the article the link appears. if some editors really strongly prefer to add For more historical context see the list of ] or For whatever reason, see the list of ] to a paragraph instead of to the "see also" section, it's no skin off my nose. bots will leave those links linked thanks to the non-date words they include; human editors might debate whether or not the links are really useful and/or what the best position for them is, but they'll know someone feels they are valuable links. Sssoul (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think most of us (but probably not all) would be perfectly okay with mass catch-too-much delinkings if we were somehow certain that the relinkings we made to the article after this bot-edit would not be reverted again by bots. Sssoul's suggestion is one way of ensuring that, but I'm sure there are others. -- Jao (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- There are two problems: (1) these examples are piped in a way that conceals from the readers their destination. (2) Positioning this type of link before the lead is far, far too prominent for what is almost certainly a pathway to a sea of irrelevant material. I strongly disagree with this suggestion on both grounds. "See also", when spelt out, is both unintrusive and more likely to be clicked on by readers than a concealed solitary year link in the running prose. I have no idea why you find objection in this solution. Tony (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- The ] approach violates the guideline for the #See also section (so it needs to be discussed in the talk page of that guideline), and conceals the name of the article. {{for}} in the #See also section seems appropriate for some cases, but the status quo that birth and death years are linked requires a consensus to overturn, as no consensus has been established that year links are always inappropriate. {{for}} in the lead seems an appropriate option, if you insist that the bot should be allowed to run
amuckwithout consensus. {{for}} at the start of any section would be allowed by my proposed modification to the proposal here, and I see no reason why the link to the birth year should be moved out of the lead. I'd accept , as an alternative, the infobox templates emitting the year link, although you seem opposed to that, possibly because you think the year link is misleading, even though it's the actual name of article. If that is your reasoning, I can't understand why you think it's misleading, unless you want to propose moving all the year articles (and handling the templates which link to them). (I've got some idea how many templates are in question, considering the 1900s to 1900–1909 moves.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- The ] approach violates the guideline for the #See also section (so it needs to be discussed in the talk page of that guideline), and conceals the name of the article. {{for}} in the #See also section seems appropriate for some cases, but the status quo that birth and death years are linked requires a consensus to overturn, as no consensus has been established that year links are always inappropriate. {{for}} in the lead seems an appropriate option, if you insist that the bot should be allowed to run
- seeking common ground again: it seems that Arthur Rubin's concerns are with year links, not calendar-date links. it appears that so far only two people in this discussion object to unlinking calendar-date links that no one has "earmarked" as exceptional/high-value links. common ground is good.
- as for year links (which were not meant to be the focus of this "compromise/interim proposal" - but so be it), they are currently misleading: autoformatting plus overlinking mean year links currently appear to be meaningless. a major part of the point is that when a year link *does* have meaning/value, "earmarking" it will make it explicit what the meaning/value is, which will increase the likelihood that readers might actually make use of the link.
- if the main question is where exactly in an article the explicit/earmarked year links should appear, maybe suggesting recommended options would be sufficient: the "see also" section is one possibility - the info-box is another - adding a footnote would be another - a sentence added to the paragraph where the date appears would be another. Sssoul (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Question for Shereth: You say "What's got me so animated here is that as an administrator I see (and deal with) complaints from sundry editors who have got their knickers in a bunch because of Lightbot removing some links and they do not see any consensus to remove links. I'm somewhat tired of having to deal with/respond to the situation." You later talk of editors who "pitch a fit" about the issue at a noticeboard. I have not yet asked, but need to now, whether this is still the case. How many editors have "pitched a fit" in your experience (it's strong language, so we're not talking of just queries and requests for where the practice is mandated, such as I've seen at Lighmouse's talk page). I'd be pleased if you placed evidence before us so we can judge the extent of the problem in numbers, intensity and timeframe. I note that new practices and policies, especially those that change long-established practices, are indeed the subject of emotional reactions by editors who may have spent considerable time and energy in inserting square brackets. But that is not what should concern us here, since editors have now been spared that manual labour in their creation of new text, and are greatly assisted by automated and semi-automated means WRT existing text. Lightmouse and others, including myself, have had considerable success in engaging with editors who query, or even complain of, the removal of the links in question.
Please be more explicit in laying out the evidence so that we can discuss it in informed terms. Tony (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose the linking of days of the year and years. All the proponents of these links should first earn their Sewer Cover Barnstar by honestly and truly accepting the challenge before coming here to run variations of this theme up the flagpole to test the winds. Absolutely no one actually *enjoys* reading these lists of trivia; the nearest I’ve seen an editor get to earning their barnstar was half the full challenge. And the opinion of that editor after that exercise was this: “That wasn’t so bad.” Well… that reaction comes up quite short of a ringing endorsement for linking to these God-awful articles. Step right up, you advocates of date linking; be the first to actually be able to stomach reading four entire trivia articles that the links take readers to. Then come back here and report to the others if your experience was…
- Worse than having a stick poked into your eye.
- Worse than getting on a bus and having to sit for five minutes next to a bum who smells like butt crack
- A thoroughly boring experience and you don’t really expect any reader to actually read more than 2% of what’s there before hitting the “back” arrow on their browser.
After one of you has actually earned the barnstar, then we can talk about why you really think linking to these articles is such a thoroughly marvy idea. Greg L (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong support Dates of births and deaths are highly important and linking them will help people find things that are relevent --Hamster2.0 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Slam-dunk oppose. Articles are overburdened with blue and red links already.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Developer help with dates
I got a response from a dev with SVN access to MediaWiki to answer a couple of questions here. As this appeared to be the primary reason for unlinking dates and removing auto formatting, can we please stop the mass unlinking that's going on? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- The current date preferences choice is unacceptable. By offering the format choice "2001-01-15T16:12:34" it creates an overwhelming implication that date autoformatting obeys ISO 8601, because that very specific format is strongly associated with that standard. However, data autoformatting does not actually conform to the standard. Since the means to invoke date autoformatting is unacceptable, date autoformatting is also unacceptable. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- An implication is not a contract. The preferences do not say it is ISO 8601, it only outputs something resembling that. Similarly, AFAIK there was no contract saying ISO 8601 was valid as input for wikitext, just that it would convert linked dates to whichever format the user had chosen. I read your essay (linked from your user page) and I agree that it could be improved. So instead of dismissing auto formatting out of hand as you have done, why not propose some changes or outline how you believe it should work? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why is there this dogged insistence from one person that there should be DA? While there may be dispute to de-linking dates, there is an undisputed consensus that it is deprecated, so its not an issue any more. It's dead. So what, even if it were browser-configured, automatic and totally transparent to the user. Why should we be bothered to put in the effort to discuss it, let alone have to get developers involved? It's not as if we have a policy to use ISO dates which is not prose. We have date formats perfectly comprehensible to all, so lets 'fuhgeddit'! Ohconfucius (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Er... it is disputed, in fact. Or did you miss the various people who have turned up on this page (and in the archives)? And I fail to see the problem with date autoformatting: it allows editors to use any date format they feel comfortable with without making articles inconsistent in date display. That's a good thing, last time I checked, and is something worth working for. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Let’s not count our chickens before they hatch. All the developer (Werdna) said is that accomplishing what is desired wouldn’t “be too difficult.” That comes up quite a bit short of anyone committing to do something about it (or finding someone who gives a damn) and is a light-year short of actually receiving a finished product. Now that we actually have specific knowledge of a developer (someone who has been programming since he was 14 years old), I suggest we try to further develop this relationship. It would sure be nice now, to be able to present a unified front as far as our requests go. A big turn off for any programmer would be bickering and changing our minds. Greg L (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are absolutely correct. He hasn't committed to doing it, nor is it done. But we also haven't come up with a specific plan or design (which I've noted further up on this page) in order to proceed. Once we have that we can go back with specifics and ask (or as I've offered, I can work on developing it). FWIW, I've been programming since I was 16 or so (circa 1991), but I'm also older than Werdna. :P At any rate I think any dev would be reluctant to work on something without a clear decision on what should be done and how it should work. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Locke Cole, how would the ISP mechanism deal with Canada, which uses both formats? Or India, which uses both? That is just one issue that will stuff it all up. And someone will need to make a choice about an awful lot of countries; it's by no means a hard-and-fast rule as to which use which: have you had a look at this article? Enough to send shivers down the spine of any programmer. Tony (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Locke Cole asked "why not propose some changes or outline how you believe it should work?" My preference is to read dates that follow the same variety of English as the rest of the article, so I would not use date autoformatting if it were offered. So I'm not going to help design date autoformatting, but I will point out problems that may result in date corruption, or false claims that we conform to a standard. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, I don't see anything in the questions to Werdna asking for IP geolocation. Trying to implement that would be a Bad Idea, but I think Locke Cole simply wants a single default (at least, a single default for each article) for all preference-less readers. While I don't see this kind of autoformatting as particularly necessary, I also don't see it as particularly harmful, if it can be safely done without requiring editors to mark up all dates in some way, especially not as links. ("Safely" here refers to problems like detecting if dates are within quotes or detecting whether extra commas are needed, etc. It still doesn't sound like a perfectly simple task to me.) -- Jao (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Regrettably some type of markup would be necessary I suspect because there's bound to be false positives in any function that tries to detect and format dates automatically on the server side. But is that really such a bad thing? We already have all kinds of markup in the form of templates and parser functions, a simple XML-style tag to surround dates doesn't seem like that big of a deal, really. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- On second thought, your arguments are starting to get to me here. Not as to its usefulness, I still think it's unnecessary, but that's just me (well, and a lot of others). But I think I could find this type of DA acceptable. Say we accidentally have "<date>January 20, 1961</date> – November 22, 1963" in John F. Kennedy. To almost everyone, this inconsistency will be hidden, so they will not know it should be fixed. But some will come there logged in with non-US date preference, and they will see "20 January 1961 – November 22, 1963"; eventually, in all probability, one of them will fix it. I still don't really see how it's better than no DA, but it sure beats the old DA. Even if this will be implemented in the (near or far) future though, I don't see a case for not unlinking dates. I understand that a bot could convert old link-markup to new tag-markup, but it would still not catch all dates, because all dates are not linked as it is. -- Jao (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Although the comma issue (also see Tony's comment in the section below for that) would still have to be solved, of course. -- Jao (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- It’s not complex. Why is so much effort being devoted to this? A simple guideline for fixed-text dates for editors to use in writing new articles is all we need:
- For articles on, or strongly associated with, the U.S. or its territories (or countries listed in this guideline that use U.S.-style dates: Micronesia and Palau), editors should use the U.S.-style date format (“February 2, 2008”), otherwise, editors should use the international date format (“2 February 2008”) in articles.
- New articles on or strongly associated with Canada should use the international format but, for existing articles related to Canada, whichever format was used by the first major contributor shall be retained.
- Nothing more complex that this is needed. We don’t need to shelter our readership from the occasional *shock* of seeing dates in a less-than-customary format. Whereas such dates may be unused by certain readers, dates in either format confuses absolutely no one. Greg L (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- So much effort is being devoted to it because this isn't a print encyclopedia, there are opportunities here for better presentation than simple unchanging static text. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree Locke. I truly look forward to country-sensitive parser functions. Templates that use these parser functions will be extremely useful tools. They would allow us to create templates that group countries into classifications. Then, text that truly interrupts the flow of thought (and is sometimes truly confusing) can be addressed. For instance, we could code
{{dialect|Commonwealth|US|The solicitor put the suspect’s colour-coded files it the boot.|The attorney put the suspect’s color-coded files in the trunk.}}.My concern is that just because someone left a message on the talk page of a developer and received a response (*collective audience gasp*) mustn’t be construed as a reason for delaying the deprecation of formatted dates. Bugzilla requests have historically taken a l-o-n-g time to get any action. Many Bugzillas never get any action whatsoever—not even a response. So, while it might be *pretty* to think this will be acted on soon, it just isn’t realistic to assume as much. Nor is it wise, IMO, to postpone meaningful action in the mean time. This autoformatting is really junking things up for regular I.P. readers. And… (I might catch flack for thinking this and having the chutzpa to actually express it here) I also think the trivia articles these links take readers to are simply appreciated far too rarely by the typical reader. I think the best thing to do is keep on bot-delinking so long as the bot makes the articles read better for I.P. readers than what is currently there. Greg L (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it could take time for this to happen, while the issue of overlinking and inconsistent dates should be one solved now, but this going to the point that the auto-correcting change that people have done on dates should leave some computer-understandable bits around that do nothing to the markup to the reader so that when this happens (now that there's progressive talk on the devlist), reverting dates to the new approach will be trivial. Otherwise, editors, with the dates completely stripped of such codes, will have to manually process articles. There's a number of ways to do this, all that are still compatible with scripting tools, so its not like the breadcrumbs can't be left. --MASEM 12:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree Locke. I truly look forward to country-sensitive parser functions. Templates that use these parser functions will be extremely useful tools. They would allow us to create templates that group countries into classifications. Then, text that truly interrupts the flow of thought (and is sometimes truly confusing) can be addressed. For instance, we could code
- I really, really don't like that Canada wording. Suppose User:JoeCanuck, a WP newbie, writes an impressive article on Waterfowl in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, using the U.S.-style format. Someone changes all the dates to international. JoeCanuck asks about this on the talk page, getting the answer "for articles on Canada, you should use the international format". "Ah," he answers, goes to Gulf of Saint Lawrence and spots a U.S.-style date there, using his newfound knowledge about WP to "fix" it. Someone reverts him; new talk page answer: "That rule doesn't apply here, because this article was created before November 2008." I wouldn't be surprised if we never heard from JoeCanuck again after this. All right, so maybe I'm exaggerating, but I think that a policy that distinguishes between old and new articles is never a good idea. Apart from that, I still think this proposal (as well as the one which does not favour a specific format by default, only taking a stance for articles connected to certain English-speaking countries) is very clear and simple to follow. -- Jao (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just my two cents. I would propose something more-or-less like:
- Every article should consistently use one date format, except within direct quotations (and in tables etc. using YYYY-MM-DD);
- If a significant majority of the full dates in the article refer to events happening in places where the month-day-year format is commonly used in English, use that format; likewise for the day-month-year format.
- If all dates refer to events happening in places with no significant English-speaking population, or in places where both formats are in common usage in English (e.g. Canada), or if roughly the same number of dates refer to events in places using each format in English, just choose either format. The format choosen should preferably be consistent with the variety of English used in the article, i.e., use 2 November 2008 for articles written in British English, and November 2, 2008, for articles written in American English.
- Maybe the wording should be tweaked, but I think nothing more complex or arbitrary than that is needed. -- Army1987 (t — c) 02:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just my two cents. I would propose something more-or-less like:
- Army1987's formulation does not fit well for articles that are not about people or places at all (for example, Standard deviation). Such an article could use either format, even if some of the people connected to the topic are from an English speaking country (for example, Francis Galton). Also, articles about creative works that are not set in any particular real location should use the format associated with the author, if the author spoke English or lived in an English-speaking country. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, in Standard deviation there will usually little reason to write a full date (with the day of year), anyway; the one about fiction is a good point. I just fail to see the reason why an article written in American English should not use the November 2, 2008, just because it is not specifically about the US, even if maybe the only two or three dates in it refer to events which took place in the United States. -- Army1987 (t — c) 09:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Splendid Jao, a one-rule guideline for dates. I like simplicity:
- Army1987's formulation does not fit well for articles that are not about people or places at all (for example, Standard deviation). Such an article could use either format, even if some of the people connected to the topic are from an English speaking country (for example, Francis Galton). Also, articles about creative works that are not set in any particular real location should use the format associated with the author, if the author spoke English or lived in an English-speaking country. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- For articles on, or strongly associated with, the U.S. or its territories (or countries listed in this guideline that use U.S.-style dates: Micronesia and Palau), editors should use the U.S.-style date format (“February 2, 2008”), otherwise, editors should use the international date format (“2 February 2008”) in articles.
- Does that work for you? Greg L (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- For me personally, yes. I don't know if forcing the day-month format on Canadian topics is a wise decision, but speaking only for myself, I would have no problems with it. I also, of course, enjoy the simplicity. -- Jao (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- There would be a lot of complaints. Tony (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Even simpler: "Each article should generally use the date format commonly used in the variety of English in which the article is written: for example, use 2 November 2008 for articles written in British English, and November 2, 2008, for articles written in American English. (For varieties of English in which several different formats are in widespread use, such as Canadian English, just choose any one of them and use it consistently; in case of doubt, use the format used by the first major contributor to the article.)" Together with WP:ENGVAR, it automatically requires British format for British topics and American format for American topics, and doesn't impose absurd restrictions such as that Gasoline (which is written in US English) should use day-month-year. -- Army1987 (t — c) 17:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- For me personally, yes. I don't know if forcing the day-month format on Canadian topics is a wise decision, but speaking only for myself, I would have no problems with it. I also, of course, enjoy the simplicity. -- Jao (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Yep, this issue (like the linking one) was also discussed ad nauseam and with wide community participation, consensus was pretty clearly reached in the end. I don't see much point continually raising these same issues. We should be glad they're settled, even if the consensus isn't exactly what each of us personally would prefer. It's not as if they're a big deal or anything. I suggest people find some new and more significant things to discuss - there's still plenty out there.--Kotniski (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't quite finished reading all the new discussion, but there is a thing I'll say right now: Will people please stop pretending that Locke is alone in this? You have read the discussions, you were there, so you know he isn't, and pretending he is is very dishonest. Shinobu (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- (Okay I think I've mostly caught up.) Firstly, there is no consensus for turning dates into plain text, regardless of what some editors here say. I've waded through all the discussion a while back, and now again through the new discussion, and it's quite clear there is no consensus for that. Now, the time I can devote to dredging through MOSNUM talk is limited, so when I post a comment, it usually sinks in the archive and I'm forgotten as it were, while some other people apparently can post daily and leave much more of a vocal impression. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to do that, au contraire. But when these people then start to pretend that we slowpokes don't exist and start to derive from that a kind of pretend consensus, or rather start implementing their loved solution by fiat without consensus, they're in the wrong. Good, now that we've got that over with, on to the proposed solution, namely a kind of date markup that doesn't link.
- According to a developer it wouldn't be hard to implement. This aligns well with my own programming experience: these kind of things tend to be rather trivial to implement, especially since most of the work has essentially already been done (tag detection, date formatting). (Note further that we could achieve the same effect with template markup and JavaScript for people who want another format than the default. So if a wikimarkup solution isn't viable for whatever reason, that shouldn't stop us. But it looks like it's simple to implement.) However, the developers need a clear guide on what to implement, because otherwise you end up implementing it in ten different ways, getting whistled back to the drawing board after people say ‘no we really had a slightly different thing in mind’. So what exactly do we want?
- Syntax: <date>12 March 456</date> looks like a reasonable proposal. This would then also determine the default display format. Alternatives in the same vain: <date value="12 March 456" /> or template inspired: {{date|12 March 456}} or perhaps as a parser function: {{#date:12 March 456}} Perhaps we should ask a developer what is easiest.
- Functionality: Now we're adding this, we might as well think if there's anything else we need or want. Should a page be able to have a default format or is it enough to specify formats in the tags themselves? Should registered users be able to specify a ‘short’ format, for use in tables, etcetera? If so, how do we want this implemented? Automatic detection from text entered, possibly with override? Should users be able to turn all dates into links, or to turn all date links off?
- I have done enough programming to know that this should all be relatively simple to implement and I think it would pave the way to a solution acceptable to all of us. And this is of course a benefit of such a technical solution: instead of forcing what one group of editors wants down all our throats, a specialized markup based solution can potentially make everyone happy which makes it clearly the best road forward. Shinobu (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Explain how "everybody" is going to be made happy by being told that whenever they want to write a date in an article they're editing, they can't just write it, but they have to use some special syntax that apparently serves no useful purpose except to solve a problem that never was a problem.--Kotniski (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- A date autoformatting that works without overloading linking is desirable as long as it has all the features we've asked for default settings and the like. The currently implementation sucks and needs to be dropped, that is a given. The devs say that a fixable version is possible. Thus, instead of dropping all easily-discovered computer-readable dates, we should try to find a format that in the current is simply a passthru to the data within but can be easily modified (whether a single template or bot activity) to make it work for the new DA. This will require additional markup, yes. Just like learning how to reference material properly, provide interwiki links, create tables, and so forth. It is no more difficult than other basic wikiediting tasks. DA was never a problem, it was always a feature and its a feature that we want to have as long as it degrades gracefully for unregistered/no preference users. The devs say it can be done , it's just not going to be today, so it seems silly to rush to make reinstalling the new DA more difficult by wiping the metadata of dates (the link brackets) with another piece of metadata that at the present time does nothing but help prepare for that. It's thinking forwards compatibility, not backwards. --MASEM 14:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- You really would have to be cross-eyed to find difficulty in reading month–day or day–month, whereever you come from. No one has yet answered why our readers and our editors are SO uneducated or blinkered that this would be an issue spending more than 2 seconds thinking about. Why are people wasting time here, hmmmmm?? Tony (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course everyone can probably figure out day-month vs month-day. Having to do that once or twice in an article isn't going to kill anyone. But when you get to history-based articles with a lot of dates, someone reading in the date format that they aren't use to will be spending more time trying to figure out and scan visually for dates that are in the format they aren't use to seeing. DA (when done right with proper defaults and no linkages) is a usability feature we should want to strive for. Otherwise, why do we even argue over the date format of US+select other country-oriented pages over that from the rest of the world? Why not just go all international day-month-year style and never worry about date formatting again? If we are going to admit that US-centric topics should use US-style dates, then it also makes complete sense to want and desire for a DA system that works properly. --MASEM 15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- If the dates are in a consistent format on a page, I don't believe that any reader will have any significant difficulty in figuring them out. If you've learnt to read English and use the Internet, you're almost certainly used to seeing both types of date (and even if you haven't, it's a no-brainer to figure them out). Spelling probably has a far greater effect on individuals' comprehension - why is no-one interested in making editors write {{altspell|colour|color}} or the like? The only answer seems to be that we've seen so much discussion and effort put into the specific question of dates (generated originally, I guess, by a few people who got over-emotional about what date format they preferred to see), that people have been misled into thinking there must be a real problem here. THERE ISN'T. Or anyway, not one that's worth developers, editors (and even readers) wasting any significant amounts of time on. This effort should be spent doing some of the countless things that really would make Misplaced Pages better.--Kotniski (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Trebor (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- If the dates are in a consistent format on a page, I don't believe that any reader will have any significant difficulty in figuring them out. If you've learnt to read English and use the Internet, you're almost certainly used to seeing both types of date (and even if you haven't, it's a no-brainer to figure them out). Spelling probably has a far greater effect on individuals' comprehension - why is no-one interested in making editors write {{altspell|colour|color}} or the like? The only answer seems to be that we've seen so much discussion and effort put into the specific question of dates (generated originally, I guess, by a few people who got over-emotional about what date format they preferred to see), that people have been misled into thinking there must be a real problem here. THERE ISN'T. Or anyway, not one that's worth developers, editors (and even readers) wasting any significant amounts of time on. This effort should be spent doing some of the countless things that really would make Misplaced Pages better.--Kotniski (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, as you seem to think we're all "wasting our time" here, perhaps you should move along and find something else to work on as this really seems to be bothering you. I'm sorry for that, I really am, but your view is (IMO) the minority view and you need to stop minimizing these things simply because you don't appreciate them. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fake apologies don't really solve anything, to be honest. Can we agree that linking dates to day or year pages is generally pretty dumb? And that having the vast majority of our readers (the ones who aren't logged-in) seeing a mish-mash of date formats is pretty dumb? And that with regards to a new method of date autoformatting, it will take a long time to get consensus here and an unknown (but, based on past experience, probably long) time for the developers to implement it? If so, it's still correct at the moment to be unlinking and standardising dates in articles. If not, which bit do you take issue with? Trebor (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't a "fake apology", he seems to believe this is a "waste of time" and wonders why we're all "wasting time" on something he's apparently sorted out already for all of us. And I'm sorry, but that's just no the case at all. To your questions: I'm on the fence about year and date links, I don't see the harm in linking to these articles. But yes, having our regular readers seeing inconsistent dates within the same article (and often within the same paragraph or even the same sentence, I'm sure) is dumb. So let's fix that: by making auto formatting of dates work for regular readers. I don't know how long it would take to get consensus on date autoformatting (as far as how to implement it, I don't think there's any real opposition to it in principle). I do know that once we have something we can go to a dev with (something they can act upon) it shouldn't take long at all so long as it isn't unnecessarily complex. No, it's not correct to unlink dates: somehow Misplaced Pages has survived with them for all these years, I fail to see the immediate urgency in removing them now. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Allow me to explicitly register my "real opposition to it in principle", then, since you seem to have overlooked my previous pleadings. Whatever solution (if any) is adopted, it's going to lead to more trouble for developers, editors and possibly even readers, for NO purpose whatever. We do NOT NEED A SOLUTION because there is NO PROBLEM TO SOLVE. And we do NOT WANT A SOLUTION because it will inevitably cause NEW PROBLEMS (look at the discussion below about whether US dates are followed by commas, for example - often such commas will be incompatible with the other style of dates).--Kotniski (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would forgive Lock for appearing to be confusing 'cause' and 'effect'. The current movement to delink dates rests on a script which is capable of harmonising date formats within an article in one fell swoop (except for ISO dates). This, I believe is the correct approach to fixing the problem to which Lock was referring. To use some sort of theoretical DA for the purpose is akin to sweeping dust under the carpet than to sweeping it up. I hope I will have un-confused you enough to get you off that fence, and to hoover under that carpet. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Locke: please stop apologising before diagreeing; it's totally meaningless and makes you seem patronising more than anything else. Wikilinks should be there just because they're harmless - they should be linked because they are helpful to the understanding of the article. If they weren't a relic of a bad date autoformatting method, this wouldn't even be an issue. From the state of this talk page, I imagine getting consensus on new date autoformatting could take a very long time (I'm with Kotniski: I don't think we need it at all). As raised earlier, if it was implemented, would you then start trying to get word autoformatting for colour/color etc? Because I'm sure most people find that far more annoying than the dates. Misplaced Pages has survived with dates this long, because most editors are logged in and haven't seen the mess some pages are in. But if we want to improve pages for the vast vast majority of readers without accounts, unlinking is the way to go. Trebor (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- It wasn't a "fake apology", he seems to believe this is a "waste of time" and wonders why we're all "wasting time" on something he's apparently sorted out already for all of us. And I'm sorry, but that's just no the case at all. To your questions: I'm on the fence about year and date links, I don't see the harm in linking to these articles. But yes, having our regular readers seeing inconsistent dates within the same article (and often within the same paragraph or even the same sentence, I'm sure) is dumb. So let's fix that: by making auto formatting of dates work for regular readers. I don't know how long it would take to get consensus on date autoformatting (as far as how to implement it, I don't think there's any real opposition to it in principle). I do know that once we have something we can go to a dev with (something they can act upon) it shouldn't take long at all so long as it isn't unnecessarily complex. No, it's not correct to unlink dates: somehow Misplaced Pages has survived with them for all these years, I fail to see the immediate urgency in removing them now. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fake apologies don't really solve anything, to be honest. Can we agree that linking dates to day or year pages is generally pretty dumb? And that having the vast majority of our readers (the ones who aren't logged-in) seeing a mish-mash of date formats is pretty dumb? And that with regards to a new method of date autoformatting, it will take a long time to get consensus here and an unknown (but, based on past experience, probably long) time for the developers to implement it? If so, it's still correct at the moment to be unlinking and standardising dates in articles. If not, which bit do you take issue with? Trebor (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Of course everyone can probably figure out day-month vs month-day. Having to do that once or twice in an article isn't going to kill anyone. But when you get to history-based articles with a lot of dates, someone reading in the date format that they aren't use to will be spending more time trying to figure out and scan visually for dates that are in the format they aren't use to seeing. DA (when done right with proper defaults and no linkages) is a usability feature we should want to strive for. Otherwise, why do we even argue over the date format of US+select other country-oriented pages over that from the rest of the world? Why not just go all international day-month-year style and never worry about date formatting again? If we are going to admit that US-centric topics should use US-style dates, then it also makes complete sense to want and desire for a DA system that works properly. --MASEM 15:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- You really would have to be cross-eyed to find difficulty in reading month–day or day–month, whereever you come from. No one has yet answered why our readers and our editors are SO uneducated or blinkered that this would be an issue spending more than 2 seconds thinking about. Why are people wasting time here, hmmmmm?? Tony (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- A date autoformatting that works without overloading linking is desirable as long as it has all the features we've asked for default settings and the like. The currently implementation sucks and needs to be dropped, that is a given. The devs say that a fixable version is possible. Thus, instead of dropping all easily-discovered computer-readable dates, we should try to find a format that in the current is simply a passthru to the data within but can be easily modified (whether a single template or bot activity) to make it work for the new DA. This will require additional markup, yes. Just like learning how to reference material properly, provide interwiki links, create tables, and so forth. It is no more difficult than other basic wikiediting tasks. DA was never a problem, it was always a feature and its a feature that we want to have as long as it degrades gracefully for unregistered/no preference users. The devs say it can be done , it's just not going to be today, so it seems silly to rush to make reinstalling the new DA more difficult by wiping the metadata of dates (the link brackets) with another piece of metadata that at the present time does nothing but help prepare for that. It's thinking forwards compatibility, not backwards. --MASEM 14:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Explain how "everybody" is going to be made happy by being told that whenever they want to write a date in an article they're editing, they can't just write it, but they have to use some special syntax that apparently serves no useful purpose except to solve a problem that never was a problem.--Kotniski (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I havent been part of this conversation for a month or so as things have been pretty busy in real life and I found myself getting annoyed by some of the same tones that Locke is responding to. The civility of the group has improved somewhat from two months ago, with dismissiveness the major remaining sticking point. To give credit where credit is due, Tony, Greg and others have been extremely persistent and focused on their goals. What concerns me is that it's an all or nothing goal which goes beyond guidelines to impose and execute their vision. I'd be much more impressed if participants in this discussion were actually editing more articles and not just running bots (though I do recognize that we all contribute in different ways).
- I'd also like to suggest people do their best to avoid dropping back to their old circular logic when responding. WP:CHILL comes to mind. Someone new comes to the group and says "why"? Depending on who responds first, the thread quickly winds up touching DA, ISO dates, trivia, IP vs registered editors, overlinking, context, wording, what does specific mean, markup vs links, etc. It winds up with annoyed editors who feel there's a cabal here because the only people responding are those who have the passion, anger or persistence to keep following this talk page. It's not fair to say that only a few people have an opposing point of view. It is fair to say that many of them run away from here quickly. I just wish there was some middle ground we could find without having to stake out far end of the spectrum positions. dm (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Autoformatting will always have unwanted side-effects such as creative linking that breaks the function:
- ]
- ] ]
Some of the errors have persisted for years due to widespread confusion amongst ordinary editors. If autoformatting were intended to be a function of Misplaced Pages, somebody should have noticed that these errors are appearing faster than humans can fix them. There should have been a permanent bot to seek out such errors and fix them. The absence of complaints about errors is like Sherlock Holmes' dog that didn't bark i.e. if people care about autoformatted dates, they would complain loudly when it is broken. Similarly, if people care enough to discuss the benefits of autoformatting, they would care enough to create bots to fix it when it is broken by confused editors. I am making a serious suggestion here without trying to score a point:
- if you want autoformatting to work, propose a bot to fix errors that break it.
Such a bot will not affect the debate itself. Lightmouse (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
And as usual, it's the complainers who are sitting in their armchairs dreaming up these so-called solutions while others work hard to fix WP's scrappy dates. I urge all to do one of two things that would be a significant contribution to the project, instead of this sideline gazing:
- Join the WikiYear project and help us to make the year and decade pages better.
- Help to redress the damage caused by DA by delinking and cleaning up dates. Tony (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Such an amazingly disrespectful person you are Tony. So because I disagree with (and thus do not engage in) these activities you think are so "important" you feel the need to deride me (and others) by saying we're "sitting in armchairs dreaming up these so-called solutions"? Stating matter of factly that we don't "work hard"? What is WRONG with you? Why do you feel the need to personally attack people? It's totally unacceptable per WP:NPA, and it MUST stop if you wish to continue contributing to this discussion. The reason I'm "on the sideline gazing" is because my offer of help (further up) hasn't spawned anything I can actually ACT UPON. As I am naturally AGAINST DELINKING DATES it's silly and almost insulting to suggest I should go engage in that act (when in fact I'm seriously considering going through Lightmouse (talk · contribs)s contribs and reverting his edits which consist of only unlinking dates).
- Please stop with the personal attacks. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- (e.c.) Please calm down. I'm one of the few people doing all of the work, and I have a perfect right to point out that complainers here do nothing, zilch, niente, null, zero, to improve certain aspects of the project connected with their complaints. Instead of launching your own, explicit, frenzied attack on me, why don't you take my call seriously and join the WikiProject Years? Tony (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Calling people who disagree with you "complainers" and contrasting them as people who dont work hard doesnt make them wrong or you right. Personally the only thing I cared about was the metadata around dates, which the work you and others are doing is removing without concern. I agree that only some dates are relevant for linking, though perhaps more than you'd prefer. I agree the current version of DA is broken, but I'm not opposed to having a better version. In short, I feel there is middle ground here, where you appear to see little and dismiss anyone who does. I reread this arbitration and think it has great relevance to this group, especially the fait accompli section. I'd be curious what you think about it. dm (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just because there's disagreement doesn't mean the correct solution is to find the middle ground. I'm yet to see a compelling argument why we shouldn't delink dates at the moment considering we have no idea if and when a new DA system might be introduced or if we even need one. You agree that the current version is broken so, since we are still a long way from a new version, let's get rid of it. Trebor (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Somewhere in the history here, I said I was ok with turning off DA in the underlying code without delinking. A followup task would be to take the linked dates and turn them into something else that could leverage the metadata around the dates without creating the links that some people dislike and while cleaning up the inconsistencies that no one wants. To be clear, there is no correct solution here. dm (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just because there's disagreement doesn't mean the correct solution is to find the middle ground. I'm yet to see a compelling argument why we shouldn't delink dates at the moment considering we have no idea if and when a new DA system might be introduced or if we even need one. You agree that the current version is broken so, since we are still a long way from a new version, let's get rid of it. Trebor (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a good point Trebor brings up. Let us presume that the devs provided us with a perfectly working DA system that was easy to use, gracefully defaults to the appropriate style for a page depending on its nation date preference, addressed issues with BC/AC and the Julian/Gregorian calendar, didn't link automatically, and all that. (add any other feature you think is necessary). How many would want that feature available? That's a question that there's no clear consensus because I don't think that's been asked. There is the issue of the current DA and providing date links and all that, but strictly on the aspect of a fully-functional and proper DA system, I do see anything to infer one way or the other. I see DA as a useful feature to have when it is done properly for all readers and for editors, but that's just me. I think a smart conversation to have right now is to determine if there consensus that we want a DA feature that doesn't have the burden of the current one, because that will lead to two results:
- If DA is a consensus-desired feature, we should avoid losing the metadata on the dates right now and find a way to keep them in place (passthru templates) until the new DA system is up, or admit that we're ready to dedicate a lot of bot CPU cycles and manual edits, strip the current linking off dates right now, and be prepared to reenter the new DA format when it is on
- If DA is decidely not needed, then we simple strip the date links, and tell the devteam their efforts aren't needed. --MASEM 15:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- The cow will jump over the moon before WikiMedia delivers any useful improvement. And if I were WikiMedia, I'd hide behind a tree: who wants to mess with month–day order? Soon we'll have people pushing for every instance of "colour/color" to be format-linked so our precious minds aren't corroded by the "wrong" spelling. Let's all get a life and move on, please. Tony (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's this kind of attitude that probably keeps the MediaWiki devs at length. Tony the sooner you recognize that you're a hindrance to date formatting and not a help the better off the Wiki will be. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- The cow will jump over the moon before WikiMedia delivers any useful improvement. And if I were WikiMedia, I'd hide behind a tree: who wants to mess with month–day order? Soon we'll have people pushing for every instance of "colour/color" to be format-linked so our precious minds aren't corroded by the "wrong" spelling. Let's all get a life and move on, please. Tony (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
'Forced' date format
I hate to wade into this, as I am only a hack editor. I tried reading most of the above, and hope this doesn't conflict. Most of my editing has dealt with TV show episode lists and such. I somewhat agree that the dates listed in the tables don't need to be linked to anything, but do think that some robot or other script would still want an easy way to tell a date from the rest of the text. Does or could there be a template that would forcibly format a date, somewhat like {{forcedateformat|USFull|2008-11-01}} would output an unlinked November 1, 2008, no matter what the user settings are. Andyross (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not a template as such, but the software does indeed contain such a feature. To use it, you type the following characters: November 1, 2008. Miraculously, this produces precisely your desired output. And this looks so much like a date that it can be recognized as one by bots and humans alike.--Kotniski (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's not quite fair. As I noted in another one of these interminable threads (with different specifics), on January 23, 1900 people were killed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe it happened in Albany, New York's capital. But I don't see any calls for putting templates round all phrases containing commas just because they might be misinterpreted by some hypothetical bot.--Kotniski (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's not quite fair. As I noted in another one of these interminable threads (with different specifics), on January 23, 1900 people were killed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Above, we have an editor who wants a sort of return to date autoformatting so that all users see the same date format displayed according to what they prefer. Here we have an editor who would like to be able to force all editors to see a date in the 'same' format, no matter what his preferences are. Funny, takes all sorts to make a world! Ohconfucius (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the American date format the year is a parenthetical phrase and should be followed by a comma, so, on January 23, 1900, people would have been killed, if they weren't one thousand and nine hundred people killed on January 23 of current year. -- Army1987 (t — c) 02:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Many many US writers will disagree that a comma is required, except on rare occasions for disambiguation. This is one of the reasons that dates should be left for editors to control (according to our guidelines), and not handed over to another programmer's toy. Why is the order of month and day so important, anyway? Tony (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a native speaker, and I'm skeptical many many US writers will disagree that a comma is required. Please cite some. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to why this issue was not raised when autoformatting was first introduced. If we accept the argument that a comma is required (or even that many editors consider it to be so), then surely this breaks autoformatting right from the start?--Kotniski (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a native speaker, and I'm skeptical many many US writers will disagree that a comma is required. Please cite some. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Many many US writers will disagree that a comma is required, except on rare occasions for disambiguation. This is one of the reasons that dates should be left for editors to control (according to our guidelines), and not handed over to another programmer's toy. Why is the order of month and day so important, anyway? Tony (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the American date format the year is a parenthetical phrase and should be followed by a comma, so, on January 23, 1900, people would have been killed, if they weren't one thousand and nine hundred people killed on January 23 of current year. -- Army1987 (t — c) 02:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Above, we have an editor who wants a sort of return to date autoformatting so that all users see the same date format displayed according to what they prefer. Here we have an editor who would like to be able to force all editors to see a date in the 'same' format, no matter what his preferences are. Funny, takes all sorts to make a world! Ohconfucius (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Part of my idea was to make it EASIER to adjust date formats as Wiki standards change, or if an article just needs to be updated. By wrapping dates, something as simple as a find/replace could change the date formats. Maybe even putting in a {{fdf|USLong}} would default everything after it to a particular format. And, one of the 'formats' could be AUTO, so it could cover all options. Andyross (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- And another nice reason for wrapping dates: By setting a format at the beginning of the article, you can keep the format consistent throughout the article. I know one of the issues discussed were articles with mixed date formats. That's so much of an issue when you have multiple editors and countries. By wrapping dates in a template, other editors will hopefully also wrap theirs, giving a consistent look to the end user. Andyross (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- By not wrapping dates in a template, other editors will hopefully not wrap theirs, and everything will be very VERY easy - you write what you want the reader to see, as most editors do already and will always continue to do. Honestly, I've never seen so much discussion of potential solutions to a total non-problem as I have over this dates issue. --Kotniski (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Unnecessary vagueness - suggested correction to the text
{{editprotected}}
One of the examples in MoS is not quite right. It compares:
- A beautiful little house in Malibu
- In 1974, a $400,000 property in the Malibu Area
I think that the second one should read: In 1974, a $400,000 residential property in the Malibu Area--Toddy1 (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Should it also be "area", lowercase? --Elonka 22:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Done, with lowercase "area". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Protected
I've seen too many reverts on this page popping up on my watchlist in the last day. Edit warring does not achieve anything, only discussion achieves progress. So I've protected the page for a week so people can discuss before editing. MBisanz 13:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- This may have been overkill. There are a number of different disputes about autoformatting, and they came up on the same day; there is no established war that I can see. I would suggest unprotection; I'm not sure this even amounts, at the moment, to a {{disputedtag}}, although the addition of this new issue on "specific" may boot it to that level. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- The sequence that hit me was , , , , , , , , , , . Does that not look like an edit war over a tag? MBisanz 16:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that does; thank you for isolating it. (All except the first, which was the substantive edit that provoked the tag.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- The sequence that hit me was , , , , , , , , , , . Does that not look like an edit war over a tag? MBisanz 16:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
My opinions on the merits are
- there plainly is a dispute; going to the brink of 3RR to remove a tag is evidence of underlying dispute.
- I don't see the functional difference between reason and specific reason in this context, and I wish someone on either side of this nonsense would tell me. Some other wording should be possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I tried addressing this issue in this section, above, but frustratingly the discussion left the point I raised and moved on to a whole new area (piped links). To answer your request, the nuance is that with a word like "specific", it demonstrates that there is no blanket "reason" for all uses of date linking, but that in specific circumstances, an individual date may be linked with unusual justification. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- If that's all, then it's redundant. Dates should not be linked, unless... already denies the existence of a general reason to link all dates, and the only one ever suggested (to serve autoformatting) is expressly denied at the end of the paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- 72 hours is standard. A week is an abuse of admin. tools. Tony (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- No and no, Tony. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- 72 hours is standard. A week is an abuse of admin. tools. Tony (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- If that's all, then it's redundant. Dates should not be linked, unless... already denies the existence of a general reason to link all dates, and the only one ever suggested (to serve autoformatting) is expressly denied at the end of the paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Please allow ordinal dates
I have recently been told that Misplaced Pages has decided that ordinal dates are not allowed. For reference, ordinal dates are in the format 4th November and Cardinal dates are 4 November. Ordinal dates are regarded as correct in English used in the UK and numberous other countries, as '4th November' or the '4th of November' are contractions of the full dare 'the fouth day of November'. Ordinal dates are considered to be the most correct date format in the UK. I would like Wikipedias guide lines to allow this format, particularly on pages that refer to the UK, its citizens and institutions. Smart51 Smart51 10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you think they are needed? If you understand ordinal dates, you'll have no trouble understanding "4 November", and it stops there being so many different date formats across articles. Trebor (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- The trend to drop "th", "nd" and "st" has been widespread throughout anglophonia since puss was a kitten. So is the dropping of the grammatical words in the writing out of dates ("the 2nd of November"). I think everyone except the writers of consitutions and arcane legal documents has decided that things are a lot neater that way. Tony (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- The request is understandable in that its use remains widespread in speech even in the USA, most likely because it feels weird to say 'four November two thousand and eight'. Don't Americans always say 'fourth of July' and not 'July four'? However, not using it in written form, as is now common practice here on WP, is never likely to confuse. Assuming I am correct about Americans' usage, perhaps the best and most universal form of date formatting should be ordinal. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you're not correct as to American usage. In American speech, "July four" is more common than "July fourth", and the British "4 July" would probably be read as "the fourth of July" or "July four" (for those who have dyslexia). "4th July" just looks wrong to me, although I admit to seeing it in fiction set 18th century England. (In deference to the other dispute here, I'm not going to link "18th century".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Where? I have never heard "July four". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "The fourth of July" is a special case, very few would say "the fourth of November" for election day here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is obsolete; it was common usage in the mid-nineteenth century, as Seventh of March speech shows. In my regional dialect, "September eleventh" is standard educated usage; "Nine eleven" is slangy except for the terrorist attack, where it is supported by the pun on 9-1-1. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is obsolete in the USA and other places. Here in the UK it is still common practice even today. No-one says July 4 here, the 4th of July is how it is always said and how it is mostly written, with purely numerical dates also being common in informal writing e.g. 04/07/2008. I can understand your views that it is not neccesary in your part of the world. What I ask is that it be allowed for pages about the UK, where ordinal dates are very much in use and are considered correct.Smart51 (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's certainly standard practice in the UK to say "the twenty-seventh of September", for example, but it's generally (though not universally) written as "27 September" - it's understood that the speaker will add the missing pieces. So I see no reason to change current WP practice. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you're not correct as to American usage. In American speech, "July four" is more common than "July fourth", and the British "4 July" would probably be read as "the fourth of July" or "July four" (for those who have dyslexia). "4th July" just looks wrong to me, although I admit to seeing it in fiction set 18th century England. (In deference to the other dispute here, I'm not going to link "18th century".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- The trend to drop "th", "nd" and "st" has been widespread throughout anglophonia since puss was a kitten. So is the dropping of the grammatical words in the writing out of dates ("the 2nd of November"). I think everyone except the writers of consitutions and arcane legal documents has decided that things are a lot neater that way. Tony (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Can the MOS be changed because an RFC to change it failed?
Moved from Lightmouse talk page:begin
Since the RFC at WT:MOSNUM shows no consensus on this, please stop using automatic tools to impose a change of status. Jheald (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- The rfc was a request to obtain special treatment for dates of birth and death. It failed to establish consensus. If you think it succeeded then we are so far apart in our interpretations that we won't make much progress on my talk page. Let's see what other people at wt:mosnum say. Lightmouse (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The RFC asked people what should be done. It was split almost equally down the middle. Plainly, that means no consensus. Jheald (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Moved from Lightmouse talk page:end
I can't parse this. If what Jheald says it true, then the failure of an RFC can be treated exactly the same as its success. Have we entered a world of doublethink? Lightmouse (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- It seems plain to me. There was an RfC to ask what people thought about linking dates of birth and death. If it had gone one way, we would have clear consensus to "link always". If it went the other, we would have clear consensus to not link. But the truth is, it split right down the middle. So, plainly, that means there is no consensus.
- It is long established that bots shouldn't be used to make mass changes for which there is no consensus. Jheald (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- That RfC could have had three outcomes:
- A positive consensus would mean that links should remain in birth/date fields even if there was a clear consensus to delete them here.
- A negative consensus would mean that the links should be deleted from birth/death fields even if there was a clear consensus that autoformatted links should not be deleted.
- What we have, is no consensus, which means that, in the clear absence of a consensus to delete datelinks, they should remain in place. In the case of new person-articles, the existing (arguable) consensus is that the date links should not be added, but the RfC provides a specific reason for linking, so for delinking to be done, there would have to be a specific reason for delinking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- That RfC could have had three outcomes:
- Your interpretation is "interesting". As with all previous instances of consensus, not achieving it means a revert to the status quo - the RfC was to add "These dates should normally be linked" to the guideline. The action on achieving consensus would be to start linking. It failed, so it must mean it is not added, and no birth and death dates should be linked (if not already explicit enough, is strongly implied by the absence of the phrase). AFAIK, there are no bots going around doing anything against any established consensus, so what exactly are you referring to? If you are referring to the script-assisted date-delinking, it is done consciously by humans with the aid of a machine. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Arthur, stop churning the same old mantras. No one out there cares about this confabulated WP:IDONTLIKEIT retro-screeching by a tiny minority about what was a bad solution for a non-problem. The decision was made in August, and it enjoys wide support. Now, why don't you help with the year articles? That would be welcome. Tony (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- The status quo is "all such (birth and death) dates are linked, except those which have recently been removed."
- There is no consensus to remove the links, so the link removal bots such as Lightbot were operating against consensus. If Lightmouse and Tony were looking at each link they removed and determined there was no specific reason why each of them should be there, they were following consensus. Otherwise, not. I'd like to WP:AGF, but considering the edit rate, I would have to assume they have Chloe Sullivan's (current) power. I could assume that for one person, but not two.
- The consensus for deprecation of autoformatted links is real, (among MOS wonks), but weak, as it was not advertised on the VP.
- Specific reasons why they should be linked were given in the arguments in favor of linking, so that removing the year links is not supported or opposed by the MOS.
- No, I think my interpretation is credible; certainly more so than yours that there is a consensus to remove the links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- It sounds like that 'I was playing with that toy first' sort of argument. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Jheald and Arthur: How about you two go earn yourselves a Sewer cover barnstar here, and then we’d better accept that you are making an informed decision and are willing to practice what you preach. Greg L (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Test at 11:00 Thursday. No crib sheets. Greg L (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The RFC was a request to add a piece of text to the MOS. The text would have provided special treatment for dates of birth and death. The RFC failed. The failure of the RFC does not create an invisible clause in the MOS that provides special treatment for dates of birth and death. The MOS contains no invisible clauses and users of the MOS do not have to check with the proponents of failed RFCs if pro-MOS edits are ok with them. Lightmouse (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- It demonstrates that there is no consensus either way on this matter. The text of MOS should not state rules which are not consensus; therefore this warrants toning down the language which one moiety of the participants would have liked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is wide consensus—far beyond the bounds of any styleguide talk page. Tony (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- {{fact}} — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Tony your imaginary consensus doesn't count. Various comments taken from talk pages don't count. You need a community discussion for this type of change not some disjointed discussion that anyone concerned with couldn't have found if they wanted to. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're not simply constructing "consensus" in a way that suits your feelings on the matter, are you? Tony (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Amusingly enough, this appears to be exactly what you are doing. Most consensus seeking is done in one centralized location, not in various article pages (which nobody but those interested will be watching) over a long period of time. What you've presented is not consensus, it's a random sampling (which may not, and I posit, is not, representative of the communities view). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're not simply constructing "consensus" in a way that suits your feelings on the matter, are you? Tony (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is wide consensus—far beyond the bounds of any styleguide talk page. Tony (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- With regard to my 04:56, 5 November post and my challenge to Jheald and Arthur, they may not have risen to the challenge, but Army1987 did and I just awarded him the Sewer Cover Barnstar. To do so, he read four entire articles of pure trivia (Oct. 1, Oct. 16, 1925, and 2008). Congratulations. He really toughed it out. Greg L (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The RFC was a request to add a piece of text to the MOS. The text would have provided special treatment for birth/dates. The RFC failed. Arthur proposes that the MOS should contain a clause for 'old links good, new links bad'. I think it is silly but have no objection to people making proposals for MOS modification. In the meantime, many editors will continue to operate on the basis of the existing MOS. As an example, I have fully delinked the dates in Princess Eléonore of Belgium. I think it is an improvement to the article and is in accordance with the MOS. Many editors are continuing to make similar edits in line with the MOS. Either accept the MOS wording or change it. Lightmouse (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but however you slice it there is demonstrably no consensus either to link or to delink dates of birth and dates of death. The WP way is to put questions like this to an RfC. We did, and the result was split right down the middle.
- The argument that these dates had to be delinked for consistency was made in the RfC, but it did not achieve consensus. Jheald (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- If the MoS page wasn't locked, I would happily add to the MoS that "currently there is no consensus either to link or to delink dates of birth and dates of death" -- since that is what the RfC has demonstrated. Jheald (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The RFC was a request to add a piece of text to the MOS. It was not a vote about existing text. You can't change the terms of the RFC after people have voted. Lightmouse (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- PS, I have fully delinked the dates in Shakir Stewart. I think it is an improvement to the article and is in accordance with the MOS. If you think the birth/death dates in that article need linking, please let us know why. Lightmouse (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's fascinating that you think it's an improvement (FWIW, you also fail to note "why" you think it's an improvement). I don't. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- You may not like it, but that does not justify you stalking him: it's harrassment! Ohconfucius (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Amusing. So because he runs around removing dates from articles he's never edited before, I'm not allowed to undo that because I disagree with it? No, I don't think so. And I'm not the only one going around undoing edits. The MoS does not reflect consensus, and until it does, these types of edits should not be getting made on a massive scale. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's fascinating that you think it's an improvement (FWIW, you also fail to note "why" you think it's an improvement). I don't. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Edit proposal
I'd like to clarify the section Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Quantities_of_bytes_and_bits a little, without significantly changing its content.
Old verion
- Disambiguation should be shown in bytes or bits, clearly showing the intended base (binary or decimal). There is no preference in the way to indicate the number of bytes and bits, but there should be consistency within a given article with the notation style used (e.g., write A 64 MB (64 × 1024 bytes) video card and a 100 GB (100 × 1000 bytes) hard drive, A 64 MB (64 × 2 bytes) video card and a 100 GB (100×10 bytes) hard drive or A 64 MB (67,108,864 bytes) video card and a 100 GB (100,000,000,000 bytes) hard drive are all acceptable; but not A 64 MB (67,108,864 bytes) video card and a 100 GB (100 × 1000 bytes) hard drive). Footnotes, such as those seen in Power Macintosh 5500, may be used for disambiguation.
New version
- Disambiguation should be shown in bytes or bits, with clear indication of whether in binary or decimal base. There is no preference in the way to indicate the number of bytes and bits, but the notation style should be consistent within an article. Acceptable examples include:
- A 64 MB (64 × 1024 bytes) video card and a 100 GB (100 × 1000 bytes) hard drive
- A 64 MB (64 × 2 bytes) video card and a 100 GB (100×10 bytes) hard drive
- A 64 MB (67,108,864 bytes) video card and a 100 GB (100,000,000,000 bytes) hard drive
- Avoid inconsistent combinations such as A 64 MB (67,108,864 bytes) video card and a 100 GB (100 × 1000 bytes) hard drive. Footnotes, such as those seen in Power Macintosh 5500 may be used for disambiguation.
Needless to say, I think these changes are non-controversial, but since the page is protected I thought I should do this "by the book" rather than just editing away. Comments? SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think your new wording is clearer and better written. I agree, the edit should be considered as a non-controversial improvement. Good suggestion. Greg L (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, go for it. (But lose the hyphen after the colon at the start of the list.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I've tweaked the wording a little, hoping not to have changed the substantive meaning; revert if you don't like it. Tony (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like an improvement to me.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Heh. I never get tired of trying to sneak the :- symbol into articles. It is allegedly known in English typesetting as "the dog's bollocks". I'll go ahead and make the change... without that :) SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I did it...
Copied from User talk:Army1987:
|
The Sewer Cover Barnstar | |
| You have been awarded the Sewer Cover Barnstar because you can read through anything. You don’t know the meaning of attention deficit disorder, laugh in the face of boredom, and are wasting your talents if you don’t become a patent examiner. |
- I award this to you with humbleness and awe. You’ve done what I truly can not. Greg L (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations, would you care to share your experience? Ohconfucius (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yesterday, the morning lessons had finished, and a classmate of mine suggested to wait until 2:20 pm before we went to the canteen, so that the queue would be much shorter, and we accepted his suggestion. That is what I did to pass my time, meanwhile. My ideas:
- An article like 1925 or 2008 as they are structured now is not terribly useful. Personally, I'd split it into List of 1925 events, List of people born in 1925 and List of people died in 1925. It could be useful to create a prose article about the year, à la 1345, which would ideally provide general historic context for events having happened/books written/etc. in that year. (I acknowledge that this would be very hard to do for some years; also, I have no good idea of what to do to 1925 between the time the current list of lists is split and the time when a decent article is written.)
- As for October 1 or October 16, I simply cannot understand what those lists are supposed to be useful for – I don't just claim that they are not useful for someone clicking October 1 from, e.g. Alberta; I claim that they are not useful at all, so the solution is not to delink them – it is to remove them. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information; why would anyone need a list of completely unrelated events which just happened to happen on the same day of different years? As for what I would do with those articles, I would include stuff such as:
- A summary style introduction to the major holidays and celebrations hold worldwide on that day, with maybe some historical perspective; ideally, there would still be a reason why Christmas should link December 25 (but Belize or Compaq shouldn't);
- Stuff like the average sun declination and equation of time of that day, and maybe even the high and low temperatures and precipitations on that day for some of the main cities worldwide (averaged over the last ten years or so); (but for the latter, I don't think it'd be easy to obtain that information).
- In other words, IMO, things related to the day October 1 of all years should belong to that article, things related to October 1 of any particular year shouldn't, unless they have been celebrated on October 1 of later years.
- BTW, thank you for the barnstar, Greg. -- Army1987 (t — c) 16:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yesterday, the morning lessons had finished, and a classmate of mine suggested to wait until 2:20 pm before we went to the canteen, so that the queue would be much shorter, and we accepted his suggestion. That is what I did to pass my time, meanwhile. My ideas:
- My pleasure. You should consider copying this thread over to WT:MOSNUM. Greg L (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done, even though I'm beginning to feel sick of this page. -- Army1987 (t — c) 20:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no sewer cover barnstar yet, but I mostly agree with Army1987's views. I guess the date articles are used for Misplaced Pages:Selected anniversaries on the main page though? -- Jao (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- So this suggests that we have some idea of when dates should be linked, depending on their context:
- For the linking years:
- Key events (national/global impact) to a "list of events in YEAR"
- Births to a "list of births in YEAR", and same for deaths
- For linking Month/day:
- Dates associated with annual/biannual/etc. activities (holidays, etc.), possibly including those holidays based on a day of the week instead of the actual date (maybe for 5 years back to 5 years forward, eg "Mother's Day will be celebrated on May 12, 2010 in (country list)".
- Dates should not be linked for one-time events
- If we can narrow these down, then we start a rationale discussion on date linking. --MASEM 21:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Even though you didn’t flog yourself with four of these articles Jao, thanks for expressing your views on the matter (21:00, 7 November post). Arthur Rubin became the second person ever to earn his Sewer Cover Barnstar the hard way; he read four of these trivia articles. Greg L (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Responding to Masem: I would suggest that if we were to link to “List of births in year”, that we still do so with fully aliased links that fully disclose what the reader will be taken to. Many readers would be reluctant to click on 1925 unless it was in the form of “(other 1925 births)”. Whether it is 1952 in film, or 1795 in science, these links, IMO, should fully explain what the linked article is about without having to dwell one’s cursor over it. Maybe such links can be added to our See also sections. Greg L (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- And to Army1987: Your link to Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information seems a very compelling argument to not ever link to these day-of-the-year articles. It certainly seems that policy (not a guideline and not an essay) would have prohibited the creation of these “October 1”-type articles in the first place. But, now that we have them, it would be unrealistic to douche them. But I would think we can certainly agree to not clutter up our articles with links to them though. Greg L (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you want a list of of births in 1925, there is an extensive list at: 'Category:1925 births'. Lightmouse (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
(←unidented)
That is an interesting point ('Category:1925 births') Lightmouse. If we have categories like that, then why in the world have editors been linking to the trivia-type year articles? I didn’t know these things existed. With 6,931,235 articles, Misplaced Pages is apparently so damn big, it’s hard for editors to know what in the world is available here to link to. Were it me, I would be finding a way to let readers know about this in a non-intrusive way that best adheres with the Principle of Least Astonishment. Perhaps something like this:
Angela Brigid Lansbury, CBE (born October 16, 1925) (other 1925 births) is an English actress and singer whose career has spanned six decades. She made her first film appearance in Gaslight (1944), for which she received an Academy Award nomination, and expanded her repertoire to Broadway and television in the 1950s. Highly respected for her versatility, Lansbury has won four Tony Awards and six Golden Globes, and has been nominated for eighteen Emmys and three Academy Awards.
…or via this method:
See also
By the way, our Angela Lansbury article currently does not even have a See also section and the article currently does not provide a link to ] (perma-link to what I was referring to). I think these See also sections are a perfectly splendid way to let readers know of the availability of “germane” information (something we’re apparently not doing a very good job of right now).
Further, the current practice (now being deprecated) has been failing to properly employ aliasing to clue readers as to the nature of what they will be going to if they click on a link. Someone shouldn’t have to click on links in text like this:
The United States’ energy independence briefly looked possible with the 1989 “discovery” of cold fusion.
…to find out what these year links really are all about. It makes them less inclined to click on other links. …Which is unfortunate, because some editors have been aliasing good links like this: ]. Many readers avoid year links after stumbling upon them a few times and would never click a rose that has been so camouflaged as something to avoid.
IMO, links to relevant information should always be fully disclosed as to what it is about (via aliasing if necessary), and should either be in the form of a parenthetical in body text (first example above), or should be a bullet in the See also sections (lower example).
Greg L (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. And now the Angela Lansbury article has a See also section.
Greg L (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, for what it's worth, I consider 1989 in music to be even less likely to be relevant, even to a music article, than our current 1989, but that may be a matter of taste. (Speaking of which, what's that redlink doing in 1989 in music#Births?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Both are as useless as each other. Greg, that's a good example. Is she still as stuck-up as ever? Tony (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)