Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
m Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving obsolete tags for bots. |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 7:
The current wording is very confusing to me, and will be the more so for most editors. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 14:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:Well, what do you suggest regarding wording? It seems clear to me. I've no preference regarding full date linking - I suspect it will get overwhelmingly rejected in this poll so we might as well just take it out. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::I'd take it out. It would be profoundly irritating to all those who bothered to contribute to the first one to have to do it again. The results will be contaminated because many people would simply not contribute again. [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Three_proposals_for_change_to_MOSNUM#Proposal_2:_A_return_to_date_autoformatting|Here]] it is.
Line 17:
*Cole, your mantra that "a majority of Wikipedians seemed to support some form, as evidenced at [[WP:MOSNUM/RFC]] (see Question #2))" needs to be nipped in the bud, [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_118#RfC2|as I've already done at MOSNUM]]. There, I clearly pointed out the reasons that your RfC funnelled respondents into a "sometimes" category, giving skewed results compared with your No. 1 RfC and the simple one I put up, which asked whether people wanted to keep the current deprecation or go back to "normally" autoformatting dates. Here is the text I put up, again.
<div style="color:darkgreen;">
<blockquote>
'''Autoformatting:''' Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting|autoformatting]] (even though in the past this was considered desirable).</blockquote>
Line 25:
<blockquote>
'''Autoformatting:''' Dates (containing either day, month and year, or day and month) should normally be [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting|autoformatted]].</blockquote>
</ The result was overwhelmingly in favour of staying put. I've explained how yours funnelled people into a middle category: it's the old extreme book-end technique in questionnaires.
Line 40 ⟶ 41:
<font color=darkgreen><blockquote>
<nowiki>==Automated and semi-automated compliance==</nowiki><
The use of an automatic or semi-automatic process to bring article text into compliance with any particular guideline in the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) requires separate and prior consensus at <nowiki>[[WT:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|the talk page]]</nowiki>.</blockquote></font>
Line 74 ⟶ 75:
== Use of linking ==
Can anyone provide me with a list of specific examples of when to link that needs clarifying? I've got a couple so far on the main draft page, but I could do with help getting a full list. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:Not trying to toot my own horn, but [[User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs#When to link]] is pretty detailed in that regard. I will provide additional examples later. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 258 ⟶ 259:
== [[User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Draft_RfC#Statement_for]] ==
Is there any chance this can be worked on quite quickly? I'd like to advertise it to the community soon so the quicker it's finished the better. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:Sorry, I'll try to get to it ASAP now that the intro section is stabilizing. Any thoughts on how this will be advertised to the community? Watchlist notice? (It would be nice to get a wide-ranging input, rather than just the usuals.) --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<sup style="color:green;">chat</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<sub style="color:red;">spy</sub>]]</small>'' 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::There's no way we'll be able to get a watchlist notice prior to opening. I plan to advertise on the VP, CENT and a few other noticeboards so we can get a few neutral people to look over the RfC and make any suggestions prior to it going live. Obviously, when it goes live we'll pop it on the watchlist and just about anywhere else we can! '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:::It would be very hard to locate truly "neutral" people: how would you do so? Merely be asking whether they are neutral WRT all three questions? It remains to be seen what they say, but their status seems unclear: "look over" with respect to ''what''? [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 02:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
== [[User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Draft_RfC#Proposal_to_add_to_WP:MOSNUM_2]] ==
Is there any chance that this could provide a specific mention that years such as birth dates and death dates, or year of company establishments should not be linked to? This would allow the proposal to be specifically dissenting of proposal two below it. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:Don't know if it helps, but see [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_115#RfC:_Linking_of_dates_of_birth_and_death|here]] for background information concerning the linking of birth and death dates. [[User:HWV258|<b><font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2"> HWV258 </font></b>]] 23:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::Flogging this horse again? Ryan, you realise that we're going to have to produce statements for and against. Before, it was a simple binary yes/no (and/or comment) on a single proposal; now it is immensely more complicated, and will be long and messy. Why? OK all, getting ready to make those statements. 500-word limit? [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 302 ⟶ 303:
== Concern ==
I'm not sure I follow Tony and Greg's concerns up above. You both seem to want to be having it all your own way. Your proposals on wording, your sections and your format. If anyone else makes a suggestion, according to you it's completely wrong and biased. Well unfortunately for you two, that's not how this RfC is going to work. You've both had your say now and your points are in the RfC so please back off and we'll get an alternative position placed on the RfC so the community actually has a choice and everyones viewpoints are given an option. I've got no real interest in the previous RfC's, if they were as set in stone and unambiguous as you say then we wouldn't be here now. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:This is a totally unacceptable comment from someone who is supposed to be neutral, both at the related ArbCom hearing, and here. You have claimed that you are hosting this RfC as an independent party. You own neither this page nor this RfC process. Do ''not'' tell me or anyone else to "back off'. Your views on previous RfC results are noted, but are of no greater significance than anyone else's here. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 13:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
::There's nothing unacceptable about my comment. Whilst I am remaining neutral on the issues at hand (I don't honestly care which way it goes), it's hard to remain neutral with respect to individual behaviour. All I want is two view points on the RfC, not just yours and not just the pro linking sides. You and Greg are attempting to block every possible proposal being put to the community if it goes against what you want. I said from the start and I'll say it again - this isn't just about one sides views, I want a full representation from '''all''' sides so the community can have their say once and for all and I'm not going to let two users hinder that. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::* That’s fine, Ryan. It seemed like the venue was becoming a sandbox where any old proposal was being tossed into the ring. Arthur’s proposal makes the voting more complex because instead of a simple up/down vote, there is now a mix. I just wanted to make sure ''you'', Ryan, were happy with this additional complexity; you clearly are and that’s all I wanted to make sure of: that the addition was by your hand (or with your blessing). <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 312 ⟶ 313:
if autoformatting is not reintroduced, does the community support bot/script-assisted removal of the markup? is that question being left for yet another RfC or should it be included in this one? [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 07:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
:I think that would be best dealt with in a second RfC. This RfC is dealing with what the community wants/doesn't want. Implementation can be dealt with straight afterwards. For example, if the community want autoformatting we can look at the different options available after. If the community supports a very strict interpretation of what should be linked, we can look at automated removal afterwards. Posing too many questions in one RfC is going to lead to a lesser response from the community. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::You can't just ask the community "do you want autoformatting"" The answer probably depends on what features would be included and what the schedule would be. If you ask "do you want formatting for non-logged-in users according to a template placed on each page showing the format for that page (in a few months), perhaps followed by non-logged-in users being able to express individual preferences (in a few years)" you might get a different answer than if you just ask "do you want autoformatting"? --[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 14:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
:::You have a point. Perhaps the best way to go about this would be to break the autoformatting down into sections. The whole concept of autoformatting might be too much for one question. Although perhaps it would be good to get an overall view in this RfC and we can move onto more specifics (only if needed of course, autoformatting might be completely rejected in this RfC) in a second RfC. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::::Autoformatting must be well-defined. If not, and the bare question "do you support autoformatting" receives a narrow majority, certain gadget-happy developers will develop something, claim it is autoformatting, and claim it is supported by the RfC. --[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 358 ⟶ 359:
::::I'm sure the people who have spent a lot of time working on [[1345]] would be overjoyed to hear that charmingly-phrased opinion. After all this is over, I suggest you begin your activities by proceeding to remove [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=500&target=1345&namespace=0 all the links to that article], and explaining in each case how it's not worth linking to a "turd". — [[User:Hex|<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>]] [[User_talk:Hex|<span title="Hex's talk page"><span style="color:#000">(❝</span>'''<span style="color:#900">?!</span>'''<span style="color:#000">❞)</span></span>]] 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::* Not linking to articles like [[1925]] isn’t saying those articles have turd value, Hex; it’s entirely about overlinking and adhering to the principle that all links be germane and topical. Note the abundantly clear sentence in my post: {{xt|Because there is no way to improve a sea of irrelevant trivia so it somehow becomes germane and topical to articles that link to it.}}<p>I could, after all, have linked “[[turd]]” in my above post, which automatically redirects to “[[Feces]]’, which is not a turd of an article. But my linking to it in my above post would have been overlinking, which is a turd of a practice. If you don’t “get” this concept, please see [[User:Greg L/Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house]]. Just because something ''can'' be linked to, is not a good enough reason to do so.</p><p>The community already understands and agrees with this principle (as evidenced by past RfCs). I expect that point will be made abundantly clear with this upcoming RfC. And I can’t wait for that day as we seem to be going in circles with our arguments on this talk page (and others). We’ll just have to abide by the community consensus and get on with life. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::*'''P.S.''' When delinking [[1925]], I wouldn’t mind a bot-assisted edit summary that said ''“Undo [[turd]] link to non{{nbhyph}}turd article”'' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 21:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 403 ⟶ 404:
I think we need a third option; ''there should be no specific wording relating to date links, leaving the standard guidelines from [[WP:LINKING]] (or wherever it's moved to) intact.'' I don't really want to complicate the issue, but it was brought it up at the RfAr, and there seems no consensus that the "standard" wording is not appropriate. Unfortunately, both sides probably agree this is a change in the wording, so would need consensus. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 20:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:Hmmm, don't you think that would leave it contentious? If nothing is done, we'd be no better off. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::This page move has seemed to encourage a blow-out in the scope and complexity of the RfC. This is most regrettable. Hardly ''anyone'' is going to support an extreme "link always": this has been clearly decided at previous RfCs. I thought this RfC was to determine nuances that may not have been covered in previous RfCs? It was quite long enough already. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry, I was referring to a different third option. ''That'' third option was Ryan's idea. ''Mine'' is the one presently (more-or-less) installed at [[Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll#Initial question]]. Would you mind refactoring your comment to an appropriate section? — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 04:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 411 ⟶ 412:
I've somewhat deliberately stayed away from this page for a while, but wanted to make one point which I hope helps refine the proposed poll. In the autoformatting section, I'd like to suggest that we break out two proposals. Proposal one is whether we want to leave markup around dates relevant to the article, which does not modify the date in any way (except to remove the markup). This would allow the metadata to remain without offending anyone with links or formatting. Proposal two is that we want to leave autoformating on as described in the current section. [[User:Dmadeo|dm]] ([[User talk:Dmadeo|talk]]) 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:Could you elaborate on the proposal? If possible, would you be willing to work on making it firm and sort out the wording? '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:: Yes, if it would help. I believe UC Bill originally proposed this, essentially putting in a patch which turns off the date formatting and linking, so that the dates can continue to look like <nowiki>[[April 1]] [[1900]]</nowiki> when editing, but when reading (regardless of prefs or ip/registered), you would see April 1 1900. It would instantly end all of the conflict over link removal, but leave the metadata intact. My personal ideal is to put templates around all dates, much like the convert function, but this would be enough if people agree to it. [[User:Dmadeo|dm]] ([[User talk:Dmadeo|talk]]) 02:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
:::It's getting very large and complicated ... We have argued against the value of metadata in the ''Statement against'' the general notion of date autoformatting. People are going to be confused if more and more technical choices are piled on. This is beyond the ambit of the original idea of the RfC. If people say "yes" to the general notion of date autoformatting, I believe that is the time to ask such a question. (I'm unsure I understand it fully myself, as worded here.) Again, this new page seems to be inviting anyone to tag on their pet proposals. This needs to be discouraged, or at least talked through clearly on this talk page first. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 04:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 460 ⟶ 461:
==Summary question==
The fundamental question here is "do we need to have ''any'' special rule about linking dates, other than those which apply to any other link?". This will probably receive two different Yes answers, from the minority who link we should normally link dates, and the other minority who think we should link none, but the structure of this poll will permit this. Recasting this so that treating dates like anything else is the Yes answer may be worth the trouble. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 21:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:Or perhaps another proposal that states that dates should be treated like any other links and used almost wherever a date is stated? That would make sense in my opinion as it gives the community just about all the options. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:I've added a third proposal into both the year section and month-day section. Basically, it states that they should almost always be linked. This gives the community an extra option (although I personally doubt they'll choose it). '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::Fair enough. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 21:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Date_linking_poll_2009#Should_the_linking_of_dates_be_treated_like_any_other_potential_link|This]] needs discussion before it's added. I don't even understand it if I'm being honest :-S I'm not too sure it adds anything extra if I'm being honest. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::It's intended to be simple. We don't need more language on linking dates; we need less; I would oppose Ryan's third proposal on this ground, just as I oppose the others. All we need to say is one of two things:
::*We support date autoformatting and linking for that purpose (I doubt this is consensus, but it is possible.
::*We used to support date autoformatting and many dates are still linked for that purpose. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 21:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:::*I'm sorry PMAnderson, but I feel that this leaves things far too contentious. It may seem like a simple solution may fix this, but I think everyone needs exactly when to link dates spelling out. I'm going to remove it for now, but we can carry on discussing it and wait for more input. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::::*I'm afraid that, although it's new (within a week) to these discussions, the question of whether there should be ''any'' date-related language in [[WP:LINKING]] needs to be brought up. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is an option which rational editors would need to consider. (Whether there are any rational editors left is another open question.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::*I would hope the fact that we're all here answers that question - it obviously isn't clear enough at present so we need additional clarification. That said, if people really think it's need, perhaps we could start with the question "Do you believe date linking should be subjected to special guidelines compared to other types of general links which are all covered in [[Wikipedia:Linking]] as a whole?" '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::::::*The present problem on [[WP:Linking]] is that two editors have insisted on having a special rule for dates, and have revert-warred against a tag noting that this language is disputed. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 21:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::*Ryan is of course free to oppose this idea; but I should like to see if uninvolved editors can be persuaded to endorse ''silence'' or a note we do not agree. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 21:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::*PMAnderson, I've changed your initial part to a very simple question which I believe gets to the very root of what you were suggesting. I think it's important to be as simple as possible. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:::::::**Simplicity is a great good. If someone sees a way to invert the question so that yes means an absence of special rules, I would be grateful. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 22:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::***I did something along those lines, although I made a muddle of the question. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 22:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::****Yes you did some what :-) I'm going to revert it back for now because normally links are subject to general guidelines not any specific guidelines - the question now reads as if many different types of links have specific guidelines. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::::::::***Tried myself, but Ryan's wording may be better. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 22:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::****Nope, looks good (maybe the wording can be tweaked slightly to read better but you've got precisely the right idea with it). '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::::::::*****Yes, much better. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
*I'm sorry that I haven't see this section until now. Does it refer to the "Initial" question that I removed and boxed above for further discussion here? If so, as Sssoul and i have already said, it's quite unclear. I too, would not know how to answer it. Please see my questions above. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 08:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 497 ⟶ 498:
—[[user:EncMstr|EncMstr]] ([[user talk:EncMstr|talk]]) 21:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:I prefer the last option. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 21:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
::Yup, likewise to be honest. Dabomb87, if I move it will you change all the links? I'm about to pop out. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:::Yes I can. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
::::OK, I think I got them all. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 22:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Excellent, many thanks Dabomb87 for doing that. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::::::Thank you very much! —[[user:EncMstr|EncMstr]] ([[user talk:EncMstr|talk]]) 22:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::It ''is'' the best choice in the list, but should have been "Date ''auto''formatting and linking", surely. And probably the other way around, since that is the order of the questions. Date ''formatting'' is already covered in MOSNUM (national connection, stability, etc) and does not seem to be at issue here, although the concept needs to be explained in the background. It's no big deal, though. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 534 ⟶ 535:
It was not intent to start a debate on what methods were "dumber" than others. That tone is not productive. My point was that the date formatting demonstration is set up to autoformat dates as DMY for IP users, which is a change from the current "as-written" (no preference) behavior. If this is the intent of the proposal, the background section should explicitly state as much. For example, "'''For unregistered (IP) users, autoformatted dates will be displayed in DMY form, such as 15 January 2001.'''" It might even be better to separate out the question of the format preference for IP users, since some might favor preference based autoformatting, but not a default autoformatting for IP users. -- [[User:Tcncv|Tcncv]] ([[User talk:Tcncv|talk]]) 19:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
:This will be dealt with in a second implementation poll after this poll has concluded. At the moment, we simple want to know whether we should even bother with discussing autoformatting. If the community wants it, we'll look into ways it could work. If they don't, then we can drop it completely. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::So what if the result of the second phase is "we want autoformatting that honors the express preference of non-logged-in readers" but that is not technically feasible? The question in the first RfC should not ask people if they want something that can't be done. --[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 20:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, we're not giving any options at this stage with regards to formatting. With regards to the second phase, we'll contact the developers first and only include points which are feasible. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::::You mean "we ''would'' contact". There's a sense here (and now on the page) that a second poll ''will'' be necessary. This seems to predict a result. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 06:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::This is already an additional poll; if it results in ''no consensus'' as several of its predecessors have, why should a second poll be necessary? [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 558 ⟶ 559:
After reading the "Statement against" for the first time, I have to ask: are editors allowed to state simply wrong opinions as facts in these statements? I was half tempted to add "''Every time you auto format a date, God saves a kitten''" to the "Statement for" after reading the comments expressed in the "Statement against" (particularly the ones regarding "Date ranges"). The statement notes the work done by UC Bill (and even links to it), but three sentences later extols the harms of date ranges (despite this being fixed in UC Bill's test site). There's also a lot of misrepresentation: demands for "standards" or "specifications" from the opponents of the system, but all the effort is placed at the feet of those doing the actual work. UC Bill went to work addressing a number of the common criticisms from the MOSNUM regulars, and it seems his good faith efforts are being used as fodder to insist any new system would be impossible to implement or fundamentally flawed. Thoughts? —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 12:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:Clearly they can be stated if they're clearly wrong. Perhaps you could elaborate so we can discuss the individual points? One thing I have noticed in this whole area is that often one side believes that the other is outright wrong when actually from a neutral perspective I can see it's merely a difference of opinion. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::Well here's two points:
::#Under '''Development risks''' it is stated "''Date ranges—impossibly clunky under the old system—would be a significant challenge.''", and yet earlier in that same paragraph [http://dates.xoom.org/index.php/Main_Page UC Bill's test site] is linked to, which (from that main page) you can see there is a [http://dates.xoom.org/index.php/Date_ranges Date ranges] page which proves this "significant challenge" is false (or at least misleadingly stated as being a "challenge"; that work is complete AFAIK).
Line 607 ⟶ 608:
:* As an aside, you will note, Locke, that the admin, Xeno, who first moved that essay into WP-space has stepped in to put a stop to your vandalism. Your assertion that the views of the essay ''“largely represents the view of one editor”'' is a lie. I see your new [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Why_dates_should_not_be_linked&oldid=279182021 vandalism] to Wikipedia. Your disruption has to stop. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
::*Just to clarify, I did not move it into WP-space, I simply moved it from a subpage of WP:MOS onto its own page in WP space (i.e., it was already in WP space, I just relocated it). This was/is not an endorsement of its habitation (to which I have no prejudice), and I see an MFD has been initiated on the page, which is probably an appropriate way to decide where it should live. –<
:::Thank you for the clarification. I hope the MFD is able to proceed regardless of Greg L raving about "disruption" and "vandalism" both there and here. — [[User:Hex|<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>]] [[User_talk:Hex|<span title="Hex's talk page"><span style="color:#000">(❝</span>'''<span style="color:#900">?!</span>'''<span style="color:#000">❞)</span></span>]] 18:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
:::* Well, pardon me all over the place for seeing a “<s>speedy</s> miscellany for deletion tag” (“'''This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.'''”) and jumping to the *rash* conclusion that Locke was asking that it be deleted. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 624 ⟶ 625:
== Please stop ==
Please stop this stupid edit war. The changes that are being made are so insignificant they matter not one bit. I've reverted Greg's editing of the for statement back to where he reverted Hex. The edits are getting extremely pointy now. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:I'm not making any further changes to that section, since I have no desire to further interact with Greg L's evident [[WP:OWN|ownership]] issues. — [[User:Hex|<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>]] [[User_talk:Hex|<span title="Hex's talk page"><span style="color:#000">(❝</span>'''<span style="color:#900">?!</span>'''<span style="color:#000">❞)</span></span>]] 18:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 654 ⟶ 655:
::* Is this going to be yet another blowout RfC, the RfC to end all RfCs?? I see the question comes from WP:Linking, but is a bit nonsensical. Once upon a time, dates were just dates, linked like other links. That all changed when the community saw fit to let a group of techies loose, and use the link mechanism to autoformat dates for several years, the argument to extract "metadata" from same makes them even less like 'other links'. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:If I'm being honest, I believe this has the potential to leave even greater confusion. If the response was that date links should be treated like any other link, we'll be further back than we are at this stage. I'd leave it out. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::If there is consensus that we don't need special rules on linking dates, then the existing, and uniformly disputed, special rules about linking them would be removed from MoS (unless the present system of autoformatting also has consensus, which I doubt). At this point, there would be no justification for mass delinking ''or'' mass linking, and we could all go do something useful instead, leaving the question of what links there should be in a given article to those who write it. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I agree with Pmanderson, aside from auto formatting, the answer to this question would nullify the other questions entirely. I've seen it said again and again during this dispute that the community, by and large, doesn't care about date formats. If that's the case, then we shouldn't have a guideline (MOS or otherwise) dictating such a standard (guidelines are supposed to reflect community norms, not the other way around). This question gets at that central issue. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 01:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 666 ⟶ 667:
== Background statement ==
*What's this supposed to mean? : "''Logged in editors would also be able to override when dates are linked (never, <
:* "Sometimes" would be to link dates that are intentionally linked and leave unlinked dates which aren't explicitly linked. "Always" would link all dates regardless of whether the editor forced a link or not, and "Never" would never display a date link, even if an editor set an explicit link. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 14:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::*Perhaps that could be explained in the statement then? '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:::*I was trying to keep it simple and not burden readers with learning every in and out of the replacement system (but still providing enough info to let them know that it's about more than just date format; there are tangible benefits for those opposed/supportive of linking as well). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 22:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 716 ⟶ 717:
Our group managed to put forth <u>one</u> proposal that we expect to receive broad support. The ‘other’ side can just get their act together and cobble a '''single''' counter-proposal together on years and months to throw into the ring. This RfC has grown to absurd proportions of complexity. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 23:46, 24 March 2009 (U
:Agreed. This is getting ridiculous. [[User:HWV258|<b><font style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial" size="2"> HWV258 </font></b>]] 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
:Let's start thinking more of what the community might want, rather than being concerned of what different "sides" are doing. As far as I'm concerned, all four proposals are ones which the community may well consider. They're all different and give different options. I'd also suggest that four isn't that many. As it happens Greg, you (and some of your fellow editors) have a very narrow view of what you want (there's nothing wrong with that at all, it just gives little leeway for more than one proposal) - little or no linking. The other group of editors opinions differ so it's only natural that there will be different proposals coming from them. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
Excuse me, it's not up to you to label anyone's view as "narrow". You have very little idea of neutrality, don't you. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 08:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:Stop twisting my words Tony. I meant narrow in the respect that you have very specific ideas and because of this there's very little leeway to move - I also clearly said that there was nothing wrong with that. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::* (ignoring below melt-down / rant): Very well. Can we keep the limit at ''four''? We—the involved parties and you, Ryan—are all quite familiar with all these nuances and terminology. What we’ve grown here is tending to be quite unwieldily. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span>
:::*Yup, I'd suggest four being the absolute maximum. I'm thinking that perhaps #3 and #4 can possibly be merged, but please leave it for me to look at in the morning. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::::* My fear is we are running the risk of having to repeat the process again with a run-off RfC. To avoid this, you ArbCom arbitrators should be prepared for the possibility of having to be [[WP:BOLD]] and interpret the vote comments if the results are anything less than the landslide/slaughter required to silence (nearly) all objection.<p>Really, there has been ample past RfCs to get a good measure of the views of the community on all of this. It shouldn’t take an Einstein to come along to reduce each issue to a binary choice. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 00:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::But Ryan, this issue is similar to getting a little bit pregnant. You either do, or you don't. For dates, either you don't link and format (e.g. simply entering dates in plain text is a perfectly workable solution), or you start down the path of linking. Unfortunately, and as we've pointed out, you can't go down that path just a little bit. As soon as one little date gets coded, then (for complete consistency) there is no alternative but to agree to: coding all dates; discovering all possible ways dates can be entered at WP; updating rendering scripts to recognise all date formats; implementing page preferences; implementing user preferences; explaining/retraining WP editors to use the new coding syntax, etc.
Line 740 ⟶ 741:
:::*The detailed RfC clearly fails to oppose Year linking proposal 2. I would say it shows clear support for Year linking proposal 2, but there's some dispute as to "seminal". So '''you''' should be the one producing the counter-proposal, noting that it is '''not''' the status quo. The problem is we don't agree on the what the status quo is — perhaps Anderson's proposal that year links should be treated as any other link — as before the change that commonly recognized items should be linked. I don't think proposals 3 should be here, as the number of people supporting them are somewhere near 0, but that was Ryan's idea. I don't really see the need for proposal 4, except as a slight modification of Anderson's proposal. But ''someone'' did.
:::*For what it's worth, I don't see the need for you to lie about proposal 2 or that [[Wikipedia:Why dates should not be linked]] should be ''allowed'' in your statement in opposition to autoformatting. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 02:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::* Quoting you: {{xt|I would say [Locke’s RfC] shows clear support for Year linking proposal 2, but there's some dispute as to "seminal".}} I’m not buying that there is precious little information to go on here. This horse has been flogged to death now. You guys are smart enough to reduce it all down to a single proposal that embodies what you think the community wants.<p>As for your second bullet point, I suggest you not obsess about our proposals; you have plenty on your own plate to worry about.</p><p>And I’ll caution you, Arthur, to not get so bold about accusing me of lying please; I seriously doubt you have cornered the market on the virtue of ‘truth’. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 02:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::*Quite. It's possible that you believe that your claim that my proposal was for years with ''some'' relevance to the article was correct. However, my proposal (made, more-or-less, at Ryan's request) did not have that statement. I suppose my attempts to clarify your proposal may have been misinterpreting your proposal, but they ''were'' attempts to clarify it. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 02:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::*Again, stop referring to it as mine Greg. You know this to be patent nonsense, and you must stop repeating it. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 15:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 784 ⟶ 785:
== What's going to happen ==
Ok, this is getting silly. Some users on this page are turning it into a battleground left, right and centre. I'm going to give everyone who's involved in this dispute (the parties to the case, and a few other editors) till 0:00 (UTC) tonight to edit the pages, then I'm going to request that they no longer edit the talk page or the main page. I want to have neutral opinions from now on, not more of the same sly remarks and name calling. I'll pop a note on everyone's page that I class as involved. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:This is unacceptable, Ryan. You don't own this page, or this process—even though your initiative in setting it up seems now to be essential to moving forward. Sudden deadlines are completely unfair. I am in the middle of preparing an easier ABCD format; I do not want to be told at a moment's notice that there is a new deadline only hours away.
Line 792 ⟶ 793:
:*I don't understand what has triggered this reaction from you, Ryan. It should be no surprise to you that there would be sniping and edit-warring here, given that it came part and parcel with the MOSNUM saga. In case you haven't noticed, all this here is already '''extremely''' civil and cooperative. So what precisely does this mean- that we have until midnight GMT to edit-war all we like, and you will drop the gates the very next second, and freeze on that version? Please tell me I'm wrong. No, second thoughts, tell me the rationale and your current expectations, as I'm pretty sure what you've dictated will not achieve that end. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 09:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:I am willing to allow editing up until 0:00 (UTC) on 28 March from all parties, then restrict editing to users that aren't involved. That then gives me 2 days to solicit more outside opinions and discuss minor changes with these people. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::As an uninvolved user who just stumbled upon this issue at [[WP:AN/I]], I must say that I find your approach unacceptable, Ryan. As noted above, you don't own this poll. You lack the authority to "allow editing" by certain users and not others, and <span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=279546207 your threat]</span> to block users who defy your will is especially troubling.
Line 812 ⟶ 813:
Your thoughts? [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 10:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
* Your proposal looks like a ''<u>much</u>'' better way to address a multi-option approach. Much, much better. But I think we can all see that ''any'' multi-option approach is just begging for our having to do ''yet another'' runoff RfC if we can’t reduce each key question to a binary option. I’d bet twenty bucks that the arbitrators will either need to put on their fortune-telling head wraps and divine a ruling, or we’ll be at this yet again. I see no reason for the other side to suddenly introduce so many new options to this RfC.<p>As I alluded to in above threads, [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC|Locke’s '''own''' RfC]] has ''plenty'' of nuanced questions to draw from. There is absolutely no reason in the world to repeat that exercise at this late juncture unless we’re suffering from an industrial-strength inability to learn from the past.</p><p>I think there is no better evidence that there has been enough RfC feedback on this issue than some reactions over on [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll|the ANI]]. There, we see reactions along the lines of “'''another''' RfC?!?” We need to be done with this once and for all. To accomplish that, we just need to give them a bit more time to consolidate their counterproposals so we can offer the community a non-confusing, simple RfC that should yield unambiguous results.</p><p>I call on you, Ryan, to find a way to promote this as our objective. You’ve been good at finding people to step up to the plate and do some heavy lifting. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 15:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::Yep, that's increasingly my concern: all of this angst, and we end up with the same inconclusive result. I was also struck by the "wasn't it resolved ''last'' time" comments. I urge people here to simplify, simplify, simplify, in the words of a great American poet. What was wrong with the binary choices we had until a few days ago? [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 15:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Greg you ''seriously'' need to stop referring to that RFC as "mine". I launched it only after Tony launched his disruptive RFC, but the one you constantly refer to as "mine" was contributed to by over a dozen editors, some from your own camp (and largely written by {{user|Masem}}, who didn't seem to have a bias one way or the other). Please strike your comment or justify your assertion. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 938 ⟶ 939:
I'm pretty happy with Greg's condensed options. (Mainly because #2 is more or less the only thing I've been concerned about from the start of all of this.) Thanks. — [[User:Hex|<span style="color:#000">Hex</span>]] [[User_talk:Hex|<span title="Hex's talk page"><span style="color:#000">(❝</span>'''<span style="color:#900">?!</span>'''<span style="color:#000">❞)</span></span>]] 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
A little too bold I'd say Greg. I've added back a third proposal for year linking to give all likely options that the community would want. I certainly prefer the voting style you've changed it to - it'll give us better results. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
* Ryan, with the ''entire contents'' of #3 folded into #2, there is no need whatsoever for #3. Hex and Ckatz seem to be at peace with it. I think your edit exceeds what you should be doing here as a clerk. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 18:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 968 ⟶ 969:
:Ah, just saw the edit war over the other section (links). If anyone objects to the two changes I made, please let me know and I'll revert them. One was to put quotation marks around soe date examples, the other was to change "for example" to "e.g.". --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<sup style="color:green;">chat</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<sub style="color:red;">spy</sub>]]</small>'' 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::Nope, that's fine - I just wanted to stop the edit war. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
== Lock down is not need (shortly) ==
Ryan. Once Locke Cole is blocked for edit warring (soon), there is no need for a lock-down on the page. Ckatz, Tony, Ohconfucius, I, and the others were getting along fine. Locke should have been blocked after his fourth revert, let alone his sixth (on the exact same edit over the course of 35 minutes). <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 17:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:Locke isn't the only one heading for an edit warring block - this way nobody needs to get blocked and we can get back with the task at hand. I'm only going to lock the page for a couple of hours to let things calm down. Don't worry, I promise it'll be open again soon. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:* As soon as someone takes Locke to an ANI for editwarring (to the point the damned page got locked down), we can get back to civil and productive editing. Note my post above that there may be no conflict ''at all'' between the parties regarding months. I think we might be able to jettison an entire section because it might be possible to settle it here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 17:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::*No one else has breached 3RR; Cole has reverted exactly the same text SIX times in 35 minutes; it's in a different league. We have done our utmost to move forward on the crazy conflicts and fuzzy meanings in the recently inserted question (see above), but Cole has ignored the invitation to discuss it. He has removed a warning on his talk page about 3RR. I don't know what else we can do. This still suddenly announced deadline of ?tomorrow night at midnight is becoming a real problem. Is that the correct time? It will mean a lot of activity here tomorrow. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, Locke got blocked. I'm currently seeking an unblock so he can participate solely on the talk page. That said, I think he got set up good and proper here. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::::Set up good and proper? What does ''that'' mean? [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 17:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, let's just say I don't think he was the only person in the wrong here - looking at the article it looks like the people reverting Locke were trying to send him over 3RR. All sides were antagonizing each other. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:::* Damnit. He got completely unblocked. What are you going to do to keep him off the RfC page itself. That sort of disruption can’t be allowed to go on. And it’s not good enough that he be warned to play nice. What he did was bullshit. Six reverts in 35 minutes. I try to play by the rules. He does what he damn well pleases. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::::*He can contribute to the talk page, but he'll also be restricted to the talk from when the protection lifts for 24 hours as well. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
::::*[[WP:IAR]]. I don't believe bullies should be allowed to push their point of view over the objections of another simply because of 3RR. We ''were'' discussing the question above when you decided to "be bold" (more like "be a bully"). It's this same behavior that caused the issue at MOSNUM, BTW. So this should not be surprising in the LEAST. Regardless, as I've said at my talk page I'm seriously considering leaving this all behind, it's not worth it anymore. So now you can safely change the question to something you'll be sure to win, something like "Do you like cake?". And there's your consensus to do.. anything! —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 17:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 992 ⟶ 993:
:::: I fully apologize for incorrect accusation. My main point was that of the ''logic'' in the edit summary. —[[User:Ost316|Ost]] ([[User talk:Ost316|talk]]) 18:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually there is something wrong with pushing to 3 reverts. You don't "get" 3 reverts [[WP:3RR|The 3 revert rule]] is simply an upper bound on the amount of acceptable disruption. Had I not been politely asked to unblock by another admin, and that admin did the protection before I did my block I was pretty well on my way to doing a few more blocks of [[WP:DISRUPT|disruptive]] parties. I likely would not have triggered the block had I seen that Ryan Postlethwaite protected the page on the basis that no further disruption would have occurred, and assuming that he was looking into things. At this point in time until the protection expires I am simply letting ryan deal with the issues. However when this page gets unprotected, if I see further [[WP:EDITWAR|editwarring]] I am liable to block the parties doing it for [[WP:DISRUPT|disruption]]. Again please note that [[WP:3RR]] is an upper bound. If you feel like you have to do a revert more then *once* I would seriously think it through before doing it. —— '''[[User:Nixeagle|<
*Actually, I know that the 3RR is not an 'entitlement', and did not mean to do the third revert. I had thought that the second plus the engagement here on this talk page would have got him talking. Unfortunately it did not. When I saw it had been reverted with a simple edit summary again with something totally dismissive within seconds, I got carried away for a second. It appeared Locke was the only objector – there had been plenty of discussion, Locke just said he disagreed without any substantive reasoning. You didn't see Katz or Hex any time yesterday jumping in to revert Greg or me. Yes, I managed to stop myself at the third. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 03:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
== Initial question about linking ==
Now, back to the important issues..... I'm not a fan of the initial question that was being removed in the edit war (I see it's now removed and I think it should stay like that). The wrong answer to the initial question would leave the door to a lot of ambiguity. Can we leave it out? '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:The initial question would make the other questions unnecessary. Does the community even think we need some sort of special rule to link (or not link) dates? If the community doesn't believe we do, then we can simply not have sections on the topic at MOSNUM and rather let editors use the normal rules for when to link other items with dates (basically revert to [[WP:CONTEXT]] with no special wording ''just for dates or years''). If there's no consensus for this, then we can look at the finer grained questions of when to link month/day and years, ''but if there '''is''' consensus for this'', then we've avoided the other questions entirely and can set aside trying to create rules just for month/day and year links. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,012 ⟶ 1,013:
== Unprotected ==
I've unprotected the page as Locke assures me he isn't going to edit the page (the blocking admin has stated he's not allowed to anyway fro 48 hours). Please guys - let's discuss rather than edit war. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
== Time to negotiate on month-day options ==
Line 1,019 ⟶ 1,020:
Looking at the two month-day options, (unless there is some sort of hidden agenda, which I don’t think is the case), I don’t see why we can’t just combine them. And if we combine them, then I don’t think there is a need for a vote; we can just say “we arrived at a solution and it’s time for beer now.” I think it’s time for talk on month-days. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 18:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:How would you suggest combining them? '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:* All #2 says is that you can, for instance, link [[December 25|December 25]] within the [[Christmas]] article. I don’t have a problem adding that as permitted practice to #1. If that satisfies everyone, then there is really no conflict on month-day and I’m wondering if this wouldn’t be like the Vietnam-era slogan of “What if they called a war and no one came?” If the two camps can agree to consolidate month-day #1 and #2, then why put it up to a vote(?); it is uncontroversial enough that we should just take it off the table and set it aside until the RfC can resolve years. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 18:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 1,027 ⟶ 1,028:
::a side issue, but: if there are going to be only two proposals in each section, the references to "the following three proposals" and "the following four proposals" need changing. there are a couple of each. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 18:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:#2 needs altering. It needs to have similar wording as #3 for the year linking proposal. Basically, it needs to say that month and days can be linked the first time it appears in the article. Actually, this one does need a a third proposal. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
== Third proposal for each ==
I've readded a third proposal for each. The reason is that it's too conflicting to put all views into one proposal. Year proposal 2 read "Year articles (e.g. 1795, 1955, and 2007) should not be linked unless the year is particularly relevant to the topic; that is, a seminal event relevant to the subject of the article occured in that year. Examples may include the birth and death of a person and the establishment and disestablishment of an organization." and then went on to say "Year articles may also be linked upon their first occurrence in an article. Determination of whether a year link is appropriate, as with other article links, may be made on a case-by-case basis." - These are too different views - the first says that the majority of years are not linked, then it goes on to say that they can be linked if it's the first time in an article. They also represent two different views that could be possible in the community so they need to be separate. '''[[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|<
:is there some reason to have the statement "Determination of whether a year link is appropriate, as with other article links, may be made on a case-by-case basis" in one of the proposals? its presence there wrongly implies that any of the other proposals somehow forbid or prevent making the decision on a case-by-case basis. the statement should be in all the proposals, or in none of them. [[User:Sssoul|Sssoul]] ([[User talk:Sssoul|talk]]) 19:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
| |||