Wikipedia talk:Date formatting and linking poll: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
chrono order |
|||
Line 246:
::::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|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 04:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Completely agree.-[[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 04:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
==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|<font color="blue">G-Man</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:G-Man|<font color="#00BFFF">?</font>]]</sup> 23:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)▼
== "Dates" case and temporary injunction: likely timing? ==
Line 291 ⟶ 287:
*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|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 12:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
: 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)
▲==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|<font color="blue">G-Man</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:G-Man|<font color="#00BFFF">?</font>]]</sup> 23:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||