Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:30, 5 June 2022

Revision as of 05:57, 19 February 2025

Line 40:

<font color=darkgreen><blockquote>

<nowiki>==Automated and semi-automated compliance==</nowiki></br/>

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 358:

::::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 666:

== Background statement ==

*What's this supposed to mean? : "''Logged in editors would also be able to override when dates are linked (never, <fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">sometimes</fontspan> and always).''" I mean, will the date links flash in that case, or something? [[User:Ohconfucius|Ohconfucius]] ([[User talk:Ohconfucius|talk]]) 13:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

:* "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|<span style="color:green;">Ryan</span> <span style="color:purple;">Postlethwaite</span>]]^{See [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Postlethwaite|the mess I've created]] or [[User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite|let's have banter]]}''' 14:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Line 740:

:::*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 812:

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 992:

:::: 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:navy;">nix</fontspan>]][[User talk:Nixeagle|<fontspan colorstyle="color:red;">eagle]]</fontspan>]]^{<small>[[Special:EmailUser/Nixeagle|<fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">email me</fontspan>]]</small>}''' 18:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

*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 &ndash; 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)