Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:37, 9 June 2022

Revision as of 18:48, 3 March 2023

Line 216:

== When can we expect results? ==

I have asked this above in another section and haven't heard back, so perhaps I should ask in a new section. I've never been involved in arbitration before. When can we expect a decision from ArbCom and go back to editing dates (i.e. when will the date editing injunction be lifted)? [[User:RainbowOfLight|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#D60047;">Rain</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#F0A000;">bow</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#00A300;">Of</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#0A47FF;">Light</fontspan>]] [[User_Talk:RainbowOfLight|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#5200A3;">^{<small>Talk</small>}</fontspan>]] 06:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

:I have the same question. I did not align with either side but don't see why a portion of the issues that are decided on should continue to block editing. For example it seems to me there is consensus on the common sense position that date links should have no special status- that although we could link every single word in an article we instead eliminate links that readers would most likely would see no reason to click on. It is baffling to me why after 4 months there is still a ban on removing date links that make no sense and there is consensus support for allowing their removal. It seems to me that the consensus position is pretty simple to understand, but surely we could have a single document that spells the rules out crisply and thoroughly, then the link ban could be lifted.

:Whether or not we can phase in certain aspects of what has been decided, I echo RainbowofLight's question. Is there any sort of guesstimate on when this arbcom ruling is going to finished with? I have family of date templates whose consideration at MOSNUM is crying out for an RFC but it's pointless to solicit wider input now since the results of the arbcom decision will undoubtedly have dramatic impact the opinions solicited. To remove doubt of the validity regarding any consensus positions reached, I would have to rerun the RFC. From where I stand, everything having to do with dates is in gridlock. I'm a patient guy, but I'd like to have a reading on how much time I should be expecting on resolution of this matter. -[[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Line 279:

--[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 23:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

:*I agree that bots should be used, and that an exclusion list might be a solution; but remember that an article could have a relevant date link as well as irrelevant date links. I'd have to be honest and say that I don't believe the link to 2000 is relevant in the MM article. Someone might be interested to find out that MM and 2000 can be synonymous, but why that means they would be interested in finding out what else happened in 2000 is beyond me. [[User:HWV258|<b><fontspan style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial"; font-size="2:small;">&nbsp;HWV258&nbsp;</fontspan></b>]] 00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

::*Well, MM is a disambig. page, whose function is supposed to point readers to different articles; if you think the reader wouldn't be interested in the contents of [[2000]] there shouldn't be any entry about it on the page; --<span style="font-family: monospace; font-weight: 600; color: #00F; background-color: #FFF;">[[User:A. di M.|A. di M.]]</span> (formerly Army1987)<small>&nbsp;—&nbsp;''[[Special:Contributions/A. di M.|Deeds]],&nbsp;not&nbsp;[[User talk:A. di M.|words]]''.</small> 01:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

:::*I understand the point you are making, however I still feel it is okay to associate MM with 2000, but without necessarily linking to 2000. For example, a reader might plug "MM" into WP and say "ah, so it means 2000 does it". Note that there are other entries on that page that have no link, e.g. "Missing Men, a Sky Sports game" (although that might be because no one has created the page yet). [[User:HWV258|<b><fontspan style="color:Navy;background:LightSteelBlue;font-family:Arial"; font-size="2:small;">&nbsp;HWV258&nbsp;</fontspan></b>]] 01:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

::::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)

Line 291:

==What does this solve?==

Does this result actually solve anything or make edit warring any less likely? surely we will now get into arguments over what 'germane to the subject' actually means in practice. It could be argued that year links are in some cases by definition germane to the subject if they add historical context to a subject of international politics say. [[User:G-Man|<fontspan colorstyle="color:blue;">G-Man</fontspan>]] ^{[[User talk:G-Man|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#00BFFF;">?</fontspan>]]} 23:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

:Well, it sorted out the autoformatting issue. The rest can percolate through at whatever speed. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 00:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)