Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:02, 10 April 2009

Latest revision as of 14:29, 9 June 2022

(15 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Notice|The poll is now closed.}}

{{comment|The poll is currently open. Please submit your votes and comments in the appropriate section below. Threaded discussion and/or lengthy comments will be moved to the talk page.}}

{{shortcut|WP:DATEPOLL}}

{{archive top}}

This poll deals with issues regarding date linking/unlinking and the use of autoformatting (software that automatically changes the date format displayed to logged-on editors' set preference). The poll runs from 00:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC) and concludes 23:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC).

Line 17:

==Autoformatting==

====Background statement====

{{quotation|'''Does the Wikipedia community support the concept of date autoformatting?'''<pbr>

'''Scope''' Autoformatting is a way of marking up dates to allow registered users to choose their preferred display format. A variety of methods have been proposed by which this might be implemented. The question posed here is whether the community desires the basic, common elements of autoformatting.<pbr>

'''What is a date format?''' Two main date formats are used by English-speakers: March&nbsp;11, 2009 (MDY, mainly in North America) and 11&nbsp;March 2009 (DMY, mainly elsewhere). Other date formats are less commonly used in running text, but frequently used as input parameters to templates: 2009-03-11 (YMD an [[ISO 8601|ISO]]-style format).<pbr>

'''What is date autoformatting?''' It is a system that allows dates displayed in articles to automatically change to reflect a ''registered'' user's settings under "[[Special:Preferences|Special:Preferences/Date and time]]"; unregistered users (IPs) cannot access the preference settings. The existing autoformatting system (Dynamic Dates, outlined [[mw:Manual:Dynamic dates|here]]), introduced [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title{{=}}Wikipedia:Announcements&diff{{=}}prev&oldid{{=}}1210544 in 2003], requires use of the double-bracket link syntax to identify dates for autoformatting.<pbr>

A [http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title{{=}}Special%3ACode%2FMediaWiki%2Freleasenotes&startrev{{=}}47458&endrev{{=}}48811&path{{=}}%2Ftrunk%2Fphase3 recent] update to Wikipedia's software allows dates to be autoformatted through the use of [[mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions|a function]] (<nowiki>{{#formatdate}}</nowiki>) instead of with the link-based markup (<nowiki>[[30 March]] [[2009]]</nowiki>). This function displays autoformatted plain-text dates per a registered user's preferences, without links ("{{#formatdate:30 March 2009}}"). It adds the option of defining a default date format for unregistered users and anyone who has not set a preference. As with the original system, all dates in an article would require markup to guarantee consistency.<pbr>

'''What happens if autoformatting is accepted?''' Consensus will be sought on specifications, which will then be used by developers and editors to establish a system based either on a modified version of the existing software or on a new markup or template scheme; dates will be marked up accordingly.<pbr>

'''What happens if autoformatting is rejected?''' The markup used by the previous system will continue to be removed, and any dates that are inconsistent with the overall format for their article will be corrected, manually or using automatic means.}}

Line 34:

<!--500-word limit-->

<!-- 481 words (22:45 UTC 28 March 2009) -->

{{quotation|'''Date autoformatting is about [[m:Wiki is not paper#Style and functionality|giving users more options]]'''. It allows users to exercise personal control over the way in which dates are presented. This is not a new concept; Wikipedia's existing system has been in use since 2003, and personalized date formats have been an option in operating systems for decades. It is a natural extension of the trend toward increased user choice in how we interface with our computers, iPods, mobile phones, and every other type of personal technology.<pbr>

Beyond that goal, '''autoformatting enhances our ability to present a consistent date format'''. At present, the Manual of Style allows dates to be formatted in either DMY or MDY style, based on regional usage and editorial consensus. The absence of a standard format creates situations where pages are ''individually'' consistent, yet stylistically at odds when considered as a ''collection'' of articles. This differs from other encyclopedias, which employ a consistent format across the entire publication.<pbr>

Much has been made of the supposed complexity of autoformatting, but the reality is that '''Wikipedia's editors have been using date markup for almost six years now'''. Yes, dates do require special formatting to enable the feature – but this is no different from what is required of virtually every display option on Wikipedia. Markup enables us to enhance the presentation of articles, from the most basic options such as bold and italic text or section headers to more complex features such as templates and tables. Any large-scale changes can be automated through the use of existing editing tools. As for the impact on novice editors, Wikipedia has never expected them to master every aspect of the interface. In fact, new users have always been encouraged to contribute without worrying about spelling, grammar, or formatting options.<pbr>

Currently, ongoing discussions between editors and Wikipedia's developers are focusing on ways to resolve concerns expressed about the existing system, chief among them the links and what unregistered users see. These issues are being addressed through the active development of an improved system, elements of which have already been incorporated into the system software. Other options under consideration would add enhancements that improve control over site-wide standards while allowing individual articles to be tagged with page-specific default date formats where desired. Looking down the road, '''date markup has also been identified as central to the development of new features''' such as automated time lines, automated "this day in history" pages, and enabling improved efficiency with database dumps. Autoformatting would also replace the current need for "dateformat" parameters in templates.<pbr>

'''The benefits are obvious for readers and editors alike'''. Date autoformatting allows greater consistency in how our articles are presented to all readers, it assists editors in presenting a uniform, professional look, and it gives registered users the option of personalizing their interface. In short, this discussion is about offering increased choice to all of Wikipedia's users.}}

Line 47:

<!--''500-word limit''-->

<!-- 465 words now: paste "preview" of display onto Word, please. NOT edit-mode coding, naturally. -->

{{quotation|1='''There is no problem to solve.''' Whether day or month comes first (3 January; January 3) is trivial—all English-speakers recognize both; the US military uses DMY, as do many Canadians; by contrast, many publications outside North America, including newspapers, use MDY. Given this mixed environment, it is unlikely that readers even notice, let alone care, which format is used in an article. [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured articles]]—which represent our peak standards of professionalism—abandoned autoformatting last September and now exclusively use simple, fixed-text dates; this has barely rated a mention at [[WP:Featured article candidates|featured article candidates]]. More broadly, [[User:Colonies Chris|one user]] has unlinked and corrected dates in more than 7,000 articles, yet has received only a handful of objections.<pbr><!--

-->'''Fundamental principle that there should not be two classes of users.''' Because some registered editors would see different dates formats from everyone else (see [[Wikipedia:Why_dates_should_not_be_linked#Overview_and_objective|Wikipedia:DONOTLINKDATES]]), it would inevitably lead to an inconsistent mess of date formats.<pbr><!--

-->'''Complex and laborious.''' Tagging tens of millions of dates with a marker such as '''<code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>''#formatdate''<nowiki>|March 11, 2009}}</nowiki></code>''' (double the number of keystrokes—even more if '''<code><nowiki>|dmy/md</nowiki></code>''' is added), and specially tagging nearly three million articles to establish a default date format, would be an enormous price to pay for the very minor benefit of viewing dates in a specific format, and would complicate matters for new and casual editors. [[WP:MOSNUM#Date formats|MOSNUM]] already has simple, well-accepted rules for date formatting, which require no markup. In the context of attempting to achieve a simple solution, WikiMedia's Chief Technical Officer, Brion Vibber, [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582#c65 has stated:] "My personal recommendation would be to remove all date {{nowrap|autoformatting …".}}<pbr><!--

-->'''Metadata fallacy.''' Markup is unnecessary to produce metadata. We already have powerful search tools, including the much-underused Wikipedia-constrained google search (site:en.wikipedia.org), and category searches. For ''markup'' to be useful, an option would be needed to enable editors to see all marked-up dates as though linked—another layer of complexity; [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/March_14&limit=500 What links here] for a date or year page produces a list of thousands of articles whose only common factor is that some event, related in some way to the topic, happened on that date or year; such low-quality metadata is virtually worthless to editors of future time-based projects.<pbr><!--

-->'''Development risks.''' The failure of the original autoformatting was largely due to the ''ad hoc'' imposition of a design by programmers acting without agreed specifications (clear objectives) by the community. The so-called fixes suggested are of limited scope and functionality, and have not been agreed to by the community. We should not risk allowing solutions to be tacked on bit by bit over the next few years, requiring increasingly complicated syntax even further remote from the average editor. Among these issues would be non-breaking spaces, [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Longer_periods|AD/BC]], [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Slashes|slashed]], [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dates|ISO]] and [[Gregorian calendar|Gregorian]]/[[Julian_calendar|Julian]] dates. [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dates|Date ranges]]—avoiding the clunkiness and forced repetitions that the original system involved—would be a significant challenge.}}

Line 96:

====Month-day: Option #1 (link only relevant dates)====

{{quotation|Month-day articles ([[February 24|February&nbsp;24]] and [[July 10|10&nbsp;July]]) should not be linked unless their content is germane and topical to the subject. Such links should share an important connection with that subject other than that the events occurred on the same date. For example, editors should not link the date (or year) in a sentence such as (from [[Sydney Opera House]]): "The Sydney Opera House was made a UNESCO World Heritage Site on 28 June 2007", because little, if any, of the contents of either [[June 28|June&nbsp;28]] or [[2007]] are germane to either UNESCO, a World Heritage Site, or the Sydney Opera House.<pbr>References to commemorative days ([[Saint Patrick's Day]]) are treated as for any other link. Intrinsically chronological articles ([[1789]], [[January]], and [[1940s]]) may themselves contain linked chronological items.}}

====Month-day: Option #2 (commemorative links only)====

Line 158:

----

{{reflist}}

{{archive bottom}}

[[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee archives]]

[[Category:Wikipedia surveys and polls]]