Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Magioladitis (talk | contribs) m clean up using AWB (10252) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 229:
::::The formatdate parser function? People argued that the existing systems syntax was "too complicated" by virtue of it using square brackets (as with normal links). I can only imagine the kind of complaints we'd receive if we forced people to mark dates up using <nowiki><code>{{#formatdate:November 11, 2001}}</code></nowiki>... There's been a proposal to simply remove the linking in the software, but for whatever reason this continues to be resisted. It's simpler, doesn't involve the use of bots, and keeps dates auto formatted. (And of course the other issues can be fixed with time, assuming opponents don't try for RFC5 and a half...). —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 11:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Off topic... What's formaldehyde got to do with anything? [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 15:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
*Ohconfucius, yeah, it's an attempt at humour, but please be sensitive to the feelings of people on both sides of this former argument. It is in everyone's interest that the temperature be cooled down. We all need to live with each other productively. [[User:Tony1|<
* This dispute has raged an absurd length of time due to intransigent wikilawyering. It should receive [http://www.libertybellmuseum.com/images/product_images/23053.jpg all the dignity] it deserves. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">'''[[User:Greg L|Greg L]]''' ([[User_talk:Greg_L|talk]])</span> 15:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 236:
Google has recently (last few days?) put up a new method of data aggregation, [http://newstimeline.googlelabs.com/ Google Timeline]. It combined metadata from several sources to create a at-a-glance timeline for the information and probably will be expanded in the future. Presently it is pulling three streams of data from WP: "Wikipedia events", "births" and "deaths".
Unfortunately, I can't find out how they are pulling date data, but the last thing we want to do is limit what they are doing. I realize it is entirely possible they are pulling from unlinked data, but it would be helpful to know if they are in any way taking advantage of date autoformatting or if they're using other means. --[[User:Masem|M<
* Google's success isn't an accident. I don't think the sages there would built an entire timeline system relying on something which they couldn't control, and which could change at any minute. [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 02:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 243:
::: As for the specifics of the Google timeline as of the time of this post: They really have not done much work on the data extraction. If you take a look at Year 1865 by Month, you will see that all the graphics for all the battles are the same, and they all link to the same article: American Civil War. Really, they don't need to do much more than code filters for a half dozen infoboxes, and they basically have all they need regardless what we do.
:::An obvious improvement is to link the time coordinates to ___location coordinates using google earth. Google Earth now allows the encoding of timespans inside markers, and [[KML]] supports them so basically all the other virtual earths will be able to follow suit. Some geewhiz and technical observations [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Wikipedia_articles_filtered_by_date_in_Virtual_earth_applications|here]]. Some elaboration of time, metadata, and strategic implications for Wikipedia as a global knowlegbase for these sorts of applications [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_(miscellaneous)&diff=277428901&oldid=277379257 here] ([[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_19#Announcing Free text time templates|link to entire thread]]). -[[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 04:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
::::And just to reinterate, it is inconceivable that Google would use the old square-bracket system to locate dates. It is blindingly easy to automatically locate dates in WP's text without them. [[User:Tony1|<
:::::Completely agree.-[[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 04:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
== "Dates" case and temporary injunction: likely timing? ==
I have made [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#.22Dates.22_case_and_temporary_injunction:_likely_timing.3F|a formal request]] for information about when we are likely to see movement on these matters. [[User:Tony1|<
== Turning date linking off in one fell swoop ==
Line 284:
::::The purpose of a dab page is to direct readers to articles. From [[WP:DAB]]: "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link". Anyone searching for "MM" (for example, if they saw it at the end of a film) ought to be able to reach [[2000]] from that dab page. Annoyingly, they ought to be able to reach [[2000 in film]] as well, but can't! Frankly, I'd either remove "Missing Men, a Sky Sports game" or red-link it, then remove it if nobody creates it after a short time (and that's being generous). --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 13:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC) On second thoughts, I've red-linked it myself. Please feel free to delete the entry if I forget. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 13:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
*Can we all be very careful to specify whether we mean full (three-part) dates or date ''fragments'' (month-day items and years)? I can see confusion creeping in here. First, the proposal ''was'' that a Lightbot remove the square brackets around only ''full'' dates (February 5, 1972). These full items are what we normally think of as date autformatting. Although it's true that month-day links (July 19) are by default autoformatted because of the unfortunate piggybacking of DA on top of wikilinking, these two-component dates were never part of the proposal for mass treatment by Lightmouse (see his talk page). The reason is that Option #1 in the month-day question (Q2) of the RFC left open the rare possibility that a month-day item might indeed meet the relevance test for linking to its month-day article. Solitary year links, the subject of Q3, were excluded from the Lightbot proposal for the same reason. The proposal deliberately avoided the administrative and political issue of mass bot removal of these items because the community has endorsed a relevance test, albeit a very tight one. On the contrary, three-item full dates are not subject to a relevance test, and this was never at issue in Q1 of the RFC. [[User:Tony1|<
: I take your point, Tony, but please consider this: a full (three-part) date not only autoformats, but produces links, because of the crazy system we have at present. Any of the date-delinking objectors could claim that the original editor intended not only to autoformat, but also to produce one or two links. They then have a perfect excuse to object to using a bot to remove the markup around full dates, "since the bot cannot determine the original intention and may be removing a relevant link". It is far better to sideline these objections before a bot run. I am sure that a bot will eventually have be used to remove the massive amount of useless date links, both of the full- and fragment- variety. For that reason, I feel we need a solution that is applicable to both varieties, although I can see sense in proceeding carefully. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 13:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
:: Why are we still acting as if autoformatting has support for remaining? The poll went clearly against it. The best action is probably to remove the misguided javascript that does autoformatting. [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday|talk]]) 23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||