Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 371:
:I think that it would be better to take the structure of 1345, apply it to [[1340s]], and merge the year articles of the 1340s into the decade article; this way, we wouldn't face so much redundancy. [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 14:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
::Exactly the point I raised at WikiProject years, for years before a certain time. There is a problem that while we have a wealth of information (and events) to list in single year articles in modern times, this is much less so for single years in much earlier centuries, including the 14th century and before (and ''especially'' in antiquity). Merging years articles into decades would allow a much more engaging article. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
== Can we resolve the para on data formats in "Background statement" here? ==
There's something of a war going on over this para. Can we work it through here, please?
What we did have was this:
:'''What is a date format?''' Two main date formats are used by English-speakers: March 11, 2009 (“MDY”, mainly in North America) and 11 March 2009 (“DMY”, mainly elsewhere). Currently, one of these formats is chosen as the fixed-text date format to use in each Wikipedia article based on well-established guidelines at [[WP:MOSNUM]] concerning consistency within the article, long-term stability, and strong national ties to a particular country. In an American-related article, for instance, dates are simply written out—in fixed text—as March 11, 2009.
#Many Wikipedians need to have the whole date format issue explained to them briefly at this basic level. I do not understand what the problem is. Some editors will, believe me, be unaware of the two standard formats. They may have a vague notion that people in RL and on WP use different orders, but no concrete idea of what these are and where they are used. Please explain your objection to such a simple, short explanation. If we are not allowed to expain such basic matters, I wonder why we are including a section on date formats at all in the background statement.
#Cole, your suggestion to include ISO and the rarely used "2009 March 11" are puzzling. MOSNUM, or is it MoS main, has said for some time that there are two standard formats. Why are we complicating matters here, especially for non-experts?
#"Dynamic dates"—can you point to examples of where this term has been used by WPians, apart from Starling's original use of the term? Why is yet another term introduced here for those who arrive to digest what is already quite long and complicated? The term is not used elsewhere in the RfC, and "date autoformatting", the widely used term, is likely to be more immediately recognisable. I suggest that we use as few technical terms as possible here. It does have a spin-like ring about it. A formal RfC is an odd place to introduce a single reference to it. Both sides need to be sensitive to the need to keep the language as neutral as possible.
#Talking of neutrality, we need to come to a compromise over what you're insisting be referred to as "the current [autoformatting] system". We ''are'' willing to compromise, but "current" is a bit hard to swallow. It misleadingly implies that DA is currently in standard ''usage''. This does not appear to be the case: as just a few examples: DA is totally absent from FAs (look through the fifty or so FA Candidates now, if you would—and it's certainly not at ''my'' insistence—I'm hardly ever there). I note that [[Wikipedia_talk:ARBCOM#Committee_agenda_as_of_January_20|ArbCom wrote out its new committee agenda without DA]]. I see that ''The Wikipedia Signpost'' no longer uses DA at the top of its articles (although a template-linked ISO date is still used in the summary template box. I think you want to convey that it's still available as a technical facility, don't you? We need to agree on a neutral wording.
I look forward to goodwill on both sides in sorting this out. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 15:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
| |||